BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Same-Sex Equality

First of all, the same logic could be applied to pedophilia, I could say that an underaged marriage is equal to a real marriage because age doesn't matter, and when all of these "right wing bigots" don't like it, I could claim that they are discriminating against pedophiles. Ob course pedophilia is much worse than homosexuality, but the same logic applies; if this argument cannot justify pedophilia, how then can it justify homosexuality?Second of all, marriage is a religious institution, thus the authority to define or redefine marriage belongs to the church, and not the state. Fact is marriage has always been defined as 1 man and 1 woman, only recently has this changed, to demonstrate, I get a pile of horse sh*t and call it an ice cream Sunday, it isn't an *actual* ice cream Sunday, since that has always been defined as something very specific. Third of all, not acknowledging gay marriages is not at all "discrimination," a straight man would be just as much prohibited to marry a man as a gay man and a gay man would be just as permitted to marry a woman as a straight man; the only difference is that the gay man "wants" to do something he is not permitted and "doesn't want" to do something permissible. For example, a person permits you to go into one part of his house and not the other, your friend likes that part of the house you are permitted to go into but you don't and would prefer the place you are not allowed; are you being discriminated against? Ob course not! You and your friend get to go into the same room and are prohibited from going into the same room; it isn't the homeowners responsibility to appease both of you.
Same-Sex Equality

No one is required to read the Torah. It is not required, and it is definitely not something you have to do when you don't believe in it. Even if it stated laws, it's stating laws for their followers, not me. No one has ever complained about two heteros getting married, so yes, it is a right to marry, regardless of gender. It doesn't have to be written on paper for it to be a right. It's called common sense. The church doesn't have to be involved. It is not a necessity to have a priest read your vows, or for the ceremony to be held at a religious center, such as a church. Even without having a wedding, couples can get married legally, not through a church. If you're going to make the argument that homosexuals can be married without actually being married, you have to turn that back around on yourself and to heteros. If it's such a problem that homos aren't allowed to actually get married, then heteros shouldn't be allowed to either. So yes, I care.
Same-Sex Equality

"There is a giant difference between ending someone's life, and making your own better. The bible is NOT a guideline for moral behavior. I understand you may believe in Christian ways, but the bible is just a book filled with stories for those who believe in it, not a handbook for society."Really? Because last I checked the Torah was given to the Nation of Israel as- you guessed it- the handbook for an entire society! Also, read the Torah, it is a guideline for moral behavior, hence all of the laws regarding your behavior in personal life, I bet you money. "It is a basic human right to get married, so why make a fuss over it?"No, Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Property are human rights, nothing else. Besides, the idea of Universal Human Rights was invented by Enlightenment period Deists as something you are endowed by your creator with, it was developed by people life John Locke, Thomas Paine, or Thomas Jefferson, all of which were deists. So you cannot believe in human rights but not G-d since the idea of human rights is derived from a belief in G-d. "The church should not be allowed to make the rules for people, especially those who don't follow their beliefs. Marriage has always been legal, so it should be just the same for same-sex couples. Gender is irrelevant."You misunderstand my argument, I am advocating for a Lassie's Fire System where marriage documents are given by religious institutions. If you don't want to deal with them you don't have to, but if you want them to acknowledge your marriage then yes you do. Look, even if the conservatives get their way- it won't matter, if you're gay you can just live with whoever, we aren't going to send out the swat team and arrest you for practicing marriage without a license (though if the liberals get their Way this might become true, you can't do anything without a license these days), you just won't have the government acknowledge it. Who cares?
Same-Sex Equality

There is a giant difference between ending someone's life, and making your own better. The bible is NOT a guideline for moral behavior. I understand you may believe in Christian ways, but the bible is just a book filled with stories for those who believe in it, not a handbook for society. The government shouldn't even have to acknowledge it. It shouldn't even be a problem in the public eye. It is a basic human right to get married, so why make a fuss over it? The church should not be allowed to make the rules for people, especially those who don't follow their beliefs. Marriage has always been legal, so it should be just the same for same-sex couples. Gender is irrelevant. God can't make my rules when there's no proof he exists.
Same-Sex Equality

"Many protesters of gay couples say that 'God states in the bible that only man and woman should be together'. There's no proof God is real. And even if he was, there is NOTHING wrong with two people of the same gender being together. So, forget about your religion for a second and look at the real facts."So if the state decided that murder was acceptable and people protested it because the bible prohibits murder you would say for them to drop their religion? The bible is a guideline for moral behavior, what it says doesn't "mean" that something is moral or immoral- that is true regardless of what it says, it merely records what is moral and immoral. This means that homosexuality would still be just as immoral whether or not the bible says it or not. But this is irrelevant in this debate since we are discussing what the government should do about it, so I will argue that the government should not acknowledge gay marriage. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Tenth AmendmentNowhere in the constitution is the Federal Government given the power to define or redefine marriage, thus this should be given to the states respectively or to the people. But since marriage is undoubtedly a religious institution (whether you want to admit it or not) this power should go to the church insead (or religious institutions in general actually), and since the church is very clear on homosexuality (read the bible/tanakh/qur'an), then the institution which has the only real authority to define marriage says that gay marriage should not be acknowledged. Therefor, it shouldn't.
Same-Sex Equality

Marriage isn't a privilege, it is a human right. Many protesters of gay couples say that 'God states in the bible that only man and woman should be together'. There's no proof God is real. And even if he was, there is NOTHING wrong with two people of the same gender being together. So, forget about your religion for a second and look at the real facts. Same-Sex couples are no different than hetero couples other than the fact they cannot reproduce with each other. Gay couples deserve the same treatment and same rights as straight people. They have done nothing wrong. Straight people fall in love just as easily as gay people. Gender shouldn't matter. Finding your significant other is about loving them as a person, not for their gender.
When Concerning Adults, State Legislatures Should Repeal Mandatory Seatbelt Laws

Cigarettes are still legal for many reasons. Firstly, they are addictive. To demand that app. 23 percent of an entire state be forced to give up an addiction as strong as cigarettes would be foolish. The government is aware, however, that it is capable of imposing "sin tax" on such a product and therefore offer more reason not to smoke while simultaneously creating revenue. Seat-belts on the other hand have no addictive aftereffect whether you wear them or not. They simply decrease the risk of getting injured and thus decrease the risk that the vast majority of the people will have to pay for your stupidity. Secondly, the people responsible for forging such a law are legislatures. What drives legislatures more than any other force is votes. Votes come from the people. If app. 23 percent of the voters are smokers-thats an easy 23 percent of the vote they can go expect to go without in the next election if they support a ban on cigarettes. Not to mention the people who will refuse to vote for a representative who believes they ought to be telling people whether they can smoke or not. So legislatures really have little motivation to ban smoking altogether. Seat-belts however will not cause a huge uproar. Very few people avoid wearing a seat-belt and probably would if they remembered it and so very few people are going to be upset by a law requiring seat-belts. Finally, if we look in the past at prohibition, we find that banning an extremely popular vice only results in a huge rise in crime and corruption. And alcohol isn't even as addictive as cigarettes. So you can see why cigarettes and seat-belts are two very different entities.
When Concerning Adults, State Legislatures Should Repeal Mandatory Seatbelt Laws

I certainly see the flaws in the logic of my last argument, but I do want to draw a line between the state regulating something and outlawing it entirely. Let's just compare the freedom to smoke cigarettes to the freedom to not wear a seatbelt: Government does implement taxes on cigarettes, perhaps to discourage citizens from smoking, perhaps to generate revenue on an extremely popular product. The government also regulates the ways in which tobacco companies can advertise. However, it stops (and has always stopped) well before instituting a moratorium on their use, despite what has to now be considered a consensus on the health risks of smoking. I don't deny that Maine has come up with data suggesting that drivers who don't wear seatbelts impose a burden to taxpayers in the event that they do not have insurance. I do, however, deny that if such a study were conducted examining unpaid medical bills of patients suffering from smoking-related illnesses, they would not find comparable or even more significant costs to taxpayers. In 2000, 23.8% of Maine residents self-reported as smokers (http://encarta.msn.com....) I was not able to find similar statistics on drivers who choose not to wear a seatbelt in Maine, but I personally doubt it would be higher than (or even equal to) 23.8% Assuming both circumstances (smoking and not wearing a seatbelt) can lead to serious medical problems that rack up substantial bills (which I think is a safe assumption,) and that non-seatbelt-wearers aren't disproportionately more likely to be uninsured than smokers (also a reasonable assumption I think,) why is it that lawmakers in Maine - the same lawmakers supporting seatbelt legislation - have come out for a smoking ban? I can certainly see the logic in regulating seat belts to look out for taxpayers - I just don't think it's the real motivation behind seat belt laws. I believe the real motivation for the majority of politicians (and citizens) is "it saves lives!"
When Concerning Adults, State Legislatures Should Repeal Mandatory Seatbelt Laws

All of your listed "risky behaviors" besides maybe the tin-hat in the storm is regulated by the state. Not to mention, you may not be necessarily convincing anyone that seat-belt laws should be taken away, but smoking, drinking and driving in bad weather should all be illegal. The reason why these are not outlawed is simply because they have not proven to be a substantial tax burden on separate individuals. The state of Maine found that car accidents that involved non-seat-belt wearers created a substantially higher tax burden and was easily prevented by enforcing a seat-belt requirement.
When Concerning Adults, State Legislatures Should Repeal Mandatory Seatbelt Laws

I can see the merits of the argument that seatbelt laws save taxpayers money, but I believe that principle is being selectively applied in this case. Let's compare driving without a seatbelt to other risky behaviors. Smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol have both been linked to long-term health risks, which will result in hospital stays and medical bills. Assuming that a smoker or a drinker is just as likely to not have health insurance as a non-seatbelted driver, why shouldn't the state of Maine (or the United States) make a move to ban cigarettes and alcohol? Using an example involving vehicles, accidents are certainly more likely to happens when drivers are driving in adverse weather conditions - yet it's still legal to drive (and with the same speed limits as a sunny day) in a blizzard. Surely accidents involving very bad weather accumulate hospital bills for the uninsured. There is a very long list of risky behaviors that society tolerates that would likely include the same prevalence of uninsured individuals. If the state of Maine, or any other state, is truly concerned with lessening the burden on taxpayers, it should outlaw cigarettes, alcohol, driving in bad weather, having promiscuous unprotected sex, wearing metal in a thunderstorm, and many other activities. Society seems to consider wearing a seatbelt to be different from any of those things, and I've never been able to pin down why - I think it's a double standard.
When Concerning Adults, State Legislatures Should Repeal Mandatory Seatbelt Laws

I live in Maine. In Maine, seat-belts are required for all individuals in a moving vehicle and the driver is responsible for those individuals. I agree that no individuals rights should be impeded upon without proper cause, usually that cause being the stability of society. In this case, however, I will simply iterate why our state has adopted the law. Within our state, statistics have shown that car accidents that take place without seat-belts being worn result in far larger medical bills than those that involve individuals wearing their seat-belts. These medical bills, due to lack of insurance or otherwise, are paid for with taxpayer money. Therefore, by requiring seat-belts for all individuals, we are saving tax-payer money and keeping individuals from paying out of pocket so someone else can be "stupid."
When Concerning Adults, State Legislatures Should Repeal Mandatory Seatbelt Laws

Currently, 49 states have some sort of mandatory seatbelt law on the books affecting adults (the one exception being New Hampshire.) I propose that the state legislature of each of these 49 states should repeal their mandatory seatbelt laws as they apply to adults. Children, I believe, are in a separate category, because they are not legally held responsible for their own actions the way adults are. I believe that laws in the United States regarding what a citizen can and cannot do should be grounded in the concepts of individual freedom, and abide by the harm principle. Individual freedom includes the freedom to be stupid. If someone wishes to drive without a seatbelt on, gets into a car crash and dies, it was that person's right to make that decision. I have not seen any evidence that suggests not wearing a seatbelt would harm anyone but the individual choosing not to wear it, so repealing mandatory seatbelt laws would not violate the harm principle. It seems to be generally accepted in society that one is entitled to engage in risky behavior in many arenas - why not while driving?
Adoption is not the solution to abortion

Thank you NewSoul95 for accepting the challenge. Now, I shall present my case. I dispute the idea that adoption "accomplishes the same result." That is false. Adoption requires a woman to carry her pregnancy to term and give birth. This can have detrimental effects on a woman's life, health and sanity as well as other negative repercussions (eg. financial). Statistic shows that 40% of ALL pregnant women experience health problems, and 15% of women endure complications that are considered life threatening (http://www.thelizlibrary.org...) . Adoption is indeed a possible alternative. But it is not realistic to propose that all unwanted babies can be put up for adoption. Even if a family can put the child up for adoption, this may not make the child's life any better, nor the mother's life. Once a mother has given birth to the child, there is an immediate emotional attachment. This makes it so much harder for the mother to put the child up for adoption. Also, just because a child is adopted into a more capable family, does not mean he will live a good life. Many foster homes are corrupt, and many adopted children are unhappy with their life. There are not enough parents willing to adopt children, meaning "unwanted" babies will be placed in orphanages at the expense of tax payers. Our government quite literally cannot afford this expense, and the mental and emotional toll on these orphans can be irreparably harmful.
Adoption is not the solution to abortion

I am new to this site. This is going to be my first debate. Note:This is not a pro-life or anti-abortion vs pro-choice argument. Being Pro, I shall argue for the resolution. I shall defend the position that adoption is not the solution to abortion. Con will argue against the resolution. Con must present reasons for why adoption is the solution to abortion. Definitions: Ordinary dictionary definitions are used for this debate, with context determining the appropriate choice from multiple definitions. Adoption-To take into one's family through legal mean and raise as one's own child. Abortion-The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy. Solution-an action or process of solving a problem Acceptance This round is for acceptance, clarification of the resolution, and definitions. If Con does not agree with my basic interpretation of the resolution, he is to negotiate changes in the comments before accepting. Arguments begin in Round 2.
Police are paid with stolen money and should be privatized

Tax is not stealing it is the payment to the government for services they provide such as healthcare, housing, roads, public transport and domestic and international security etc. So police are in fact not being paid with stolen money. Also the privatisation of the police force would more likely lead to mass corruption, rather than serving the community they would serve the highest bidder this would obviously mean the owner would have a private army at his/her disposal, not good. Also if it where privatised it would need to operate like any other privately owned business and instead of the focus being on protecting and serving the people it would focus like any business on capitol, where they can make profit, and how would they make money, the only way I can think is either charging for call outs or take money from those they bust which both options would also again lead to corruption. The privatisation of the police force fails in both theory and practice.
Resolved: Public schools ought be required to teach LGBT history and issues

Conduct vote: It's clear to see that I'm the one currently winning the conduct vote considering the fact that I have been punctual to every single debate round as of yet in contrast to my opponent. In addition, all arguments are extended across the flow because of my opponent's lack of rebuttal against them. Liquidation of public schools: The resolution inherently assumes a scenario where public school systems are the status quo not being taken over by anything else, meaning that the entirety of my opponent's case is straying away from the point of the debate at hand and the resolution. The point of the resolution under my opponent's case could be cross-applied to ask why private schools also should or should not include LGBT issues and history in the curriculum (under the assumption that the government, while the public school system is abolished, will however intall a required curriculum), but this is not the point of the debate. It's clear that I'm winning the argumentation point as well considering the fact that I stay on topic. In order to provide an argument against my opponent's case, however, I clearly explained the disparity in samples of statistics showing that private schools are better in their education, and I explained the market scenario of increased demand for private schools increasing their cost and the costs of public schools just spilling over toward the private schools in the perspective of my opponent's irrelevant scenario, meaning that even if this were a valid argument for this debate, it is not argumentally sound. Sources: In the matter of sources, I do provide them, as I clearly explained. The quotations that I pulled were cited within the arguments themselves in their sources, and many of the things that my opponent jabbed at me about not having sources were really things that were at least axiomatic. I explained how the purpose of education was to provide understanding of the natural world and society, and my opponent explains that I needed evidence for that, which really doesn't make sense. I claimed that all of the discrimination against LGBT groups resulted from misunderstandings of the minority, and I provided examples as to why this was true in my previous rebuttal. If anything, my opponent is contradicting himself on providing sources when he himself said things like Western education emphasizing on core classes, which implies that the curriculums of the Western world do not emphasize on history in addition to the fact that considering this resolution isn't specifically talking about the Western world, the scope of his rebuttal is too focused to be valid in its reasoning.Contention 2: I almost forgot to say: my opponent is totally mute on this point. He has made no argument against this whatsoever, meaning that inclusion of LGBT issues in the curriculum is justified, and my opponent agrees.
Aid Money Directed at HIV/AIDS Should be more Directed at Prevention than Treatment (ARVs)

Education about the causes and effects of HIV/AIDS has helped curb the problem significantly, but there are still major barriers we need to overcome. Its amazing how many misconceptions there are about the virus, given how impactful it has been on the African continent. Here are just a few of the things I have heard: Having sex with a virgin cures HIV. (very common belief) If a woman's on her period, she can't get the disease. White people created HIV to kill Africans. Condoms give a person cancer. People can only get HIV from sex. Combating ignorance can go a long way in the battle against this virus. In addition, providing protection methods against HIV/AIDS is a better use of our money then very expensive ARVs.