BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Government should get out of the marriage business

You say that government should stay out of marriage but then seem to take it back when you allude to the legal chaos it would cause. The problem with giving marriage over to private institutions like churches is that some marriage-granting institutions would likely become regarded as more prestigious than others. People may technically all become more equal in the eyes of the law, but the institution of marriage would become vastly more unequal. One marriage-granting institution may come to be regarded as a prestigious one and it may happen to be an institution that forbids gay marriage or that considers all marriages outside of that particular faith as invalid. If people were free to marry in their own institution, say the Catholic Church, then they may consider themselves more married than their counterparts. When someone introduced their wife or their husband, anyone of a strict evangelical faith would no doubt be thinking "they're not really as married as I am because I was married in a good Catholic Church while they were married by the Church of England." This gets even worse when we talk about same sex marriage. If same sex marriage were legalised and formalised in the law, it would eventually gain the sort of unquestioned acceptance that women being given the vote now has. However take the state out of the equation and give this over to private institutions and gay marriage will NEVER be accepted, as all of its opponents will simply regard any marriage conducted by an institution they don't recognise as invalid. Taking the government out of marriage would lead to marriage snobbery and generate more conflict than we already have.
Government should get out of the marriage business

Government should get out of the marriage business. If the government had nothing to do with marriage, we could drop all the divisive issues about gay marriage, and just let people marry in whichever churches or other institutions will marry them. Taxing all individuals the same is fairer too. On the other hand, marriage is a long-standing institution, and it would be chaotic to remove the legal element of it. Insurance policies, property title and other legal contracts would all need to be re-written.
Government should get out of the marriage business

But why must me redefine the institution of marriage in order for it to 'remain' a sacred religious sacrament? The institution of marriage predates recorded human history. It predates the Bible, the Koran, and all of the world's major religions. As long as there have been societies, there has been marriage. It was not invented by religion, it was not created as a religious sacrament, it certainly wasn't invented in the Bible. Both in its modern practice and its historical origins, marriage is not a solely religious thing. This is what the wikipedia entry describes as reasons people have to get married: "People marry for many reasons, most often including one or more of the following: legal, social, emotional, economical, spiritual, and religious." Religious reasons are in there, granted, but so are legal, social, emotional, economic and spiritual. Some people regard marriage with religious significance, many do not. Many atheists and non-religious agnostics get married. In fact many non-religious people even get married in church. I've never heard the religious lobby complaining in the past that 'their' institution of marriage was being devalued by atheists getting married, not so long as they were heterosexual. A secular country is not supposed to show favouritism towards the religious. How then can you justify elevating the status of religious partnerships to 'marriage', while demoting the non-religious unions to 'civil partnership'? That is not a secular thing to do. Social status is one major reason for which people marry. It is clear that the social status of a 'marriage' will be more highly regarded than that of a 'civil partnership'. Religion does not own marriage. Marriage is many things to many people, and the religious have no right to define what it is.
Government should get out of the marriage business

Religious couples could then go to the church, synagogue, mosque or other sacred institution of their choice in order to be married. These religious institutions would have total decision-making authority over which marriages to recognize. Catholic churches would not recognize gay marriages. Orthodox Jewish synagogues would not recognize a marriage between a Jew and a non-Jew who did not wish to convert to Judaism. And those religious institutions that chose to recognize gay marriages could do so. It would be entirely a religious decision beyond the scope of the state. Under this new arrangement, marriage would remain a sacrament, as ordained by the Bible and as interpreted by each individual church. No secular consequences would flow from marriage, only from civil union. In this way, gay couples would win exactly the same rights as heterosexual couples in relationship to the state. They would still have to persuade individual churches of their point of view, but that is not the concern of the secular state. Not only would this solution be good for gays and for those who oppose gay marriage on religious grounds, it would also strengthen the wall of separation between church and state by placing a sacred institution entirely in the hands of the church while placing a secular institution under state control.
Government should get out of the marriage business

Those that claim marriage as a religious institution are simply wrong. Marriage was around long before Christianity and is not a religious monopoly. Furthermore, you have to examine what marriage actually IS rather than how it is perceived by SOME people. The idea of marriage did not come from the Bible and a democracy caters to more religions than Christian ones. You say that unlinking marriage from the state would be the secular thing to do since we are supposed to have a separation of church and state, but in fact it would be the exact opposite. Since marriage is not a purely Biblical idea and is not a Christian monopoly, to unlink it from the state would be to kowtow to religious demands and to enact legislation on the basis of religious pressure in a supposedly secular country. Furthermore if you took marriage away from the state it would entirely lose any definition that it has. Every different religious denomination and secular institution would define it differently. The Muslim marriage and the Mormon marriage and the gay marriage would all become defined as entirely different things. The Church of Scientology might end up being granted a licence to marry its members and who knows what twisted and perverse definition they might conjure up. If you kept civil partnership as a state practice and people could go off and then essentially upgrade their partnership in a church, we would have the exact same problem we have now. Gay people would get their civil partnership from the state and would likely be unable to upgrade it to a full marriage since the major religions wouldn't grant them the 'marriage' upgrade. Then straight married couples would still be in a position to look down on same-sex unions as something less valid than their own union which has been 'ordained by God' in an anti-gay church. That is essentially a way of allowing the religious to keep the concept of marriage to themselves when it has never been a purely religious concept anyway. Your idea would still bestow different levels of prestige onto different marriage-granting organisations, and thus different levels of validity onto different marriages. The notion that heterosexuality is superior to homosexuality would survive and flourish instead of dying off naturally with the emergence of subsequent generations.
America's education system would be more effective if completely privatized.

As my opponent has failed to offer any key definitions for this argument, I would like to provide my own. I propose they be accepted on the basis that they are commonly-held meanings of the words. Education- the act or process of imparting or acquiring general knowledge, developing the powers of reasoning and judgment, and generally of preparing oneself or others intellectually for mature life. (1) Effective- adequate to accomplish a purpose; producing the intended or expected result: effective teaching methods; effective steps toward peace. (2) Profit Motive- Chance of generating a surplus of revenue over all costs the reason most people start and stay in a business. (3) Consumer- 1. A purchaser of a good or service in retail. 2. An end user, and not necessarily a purchaser, in the distribution chain of a good or service. See also customer. (4) Opening Statement: The education system of the U. S. -or any country for that matter-might be improved by privatization, but only accidentally. There is nothing to suggest that privatization would necessarily render an education system more effective as the motivations and purposes of a free market are categorically different from that of an education system. Privatizing anything effectively should render it cheaper and more profitable; this is not what is being debated. Making education cheaper and more profitable does not make it more effective as neither of these qualities has anything to do with the purpose of education. Making education subject to other purposes (i. e. profit, consumer satisfaction) subverts the education system as it forces those involved to work not towards the goals of education, but towards the goals of a business. In this way, it becomes less effective and fundamentally corrupted. Conclusion: the statement "America's education system could possibly be made more effective if completely privatized" is true, however the statement "America's education system would be more effective if completely privatized" is an impossible epistemic commitment and categorically false. On the topic of consumers, which of the above definitions does my opponent propose be used? If the first, than the volatile minds of children are prey to the impersonal interests of the tax payer with their own beliefs and agendas, often purely economic as their only connection to the child is mostly through their pocket book. If the second, than the purpose of a privatized education system would be to satisfy the children, thus reducing all educational policies to a selection of desired cartoons and ice cream flavours. Either way, an education system whose primary goal is to satisfy the "consumer" is a dangerous thing and ineffective thing given the purpose of education. (1) . http://dictionary.reference.com... (2) . http://dictionary.reference.com... (3) . http://www.businessdictionary.com... (4) . http://www.businessdictionary.com...
America's education system would be more effective if completely privatized.

My general opening statement: America's education system would be more effective if completely privatized. Competition is a key ingredient when considering the results of any sector of our economy. Public/subsidized schools effectively prevent competition; therefore, the price of education is higher than it needs to be (considering educational spending from taxes/debt), and the quality of education is sub-par. The ultimate remedy for this would be to allow privatization and competition to exist by letting the free market, profit motive and the invisible hand encourage fufilling the demand of the consumers.
KthulhuHimself's Argument is valid

Well; seeing that CaptainBallarms had forfeited his last round (and last chance at refuting my argument); I would like to finish this debate with some closing remarks. This argument is one of the strongest that can be given, as it is a mathematical proof; meaning that it cannot be refuted using data or evidence once it is established as well-ordered. The implications that follow it; are that even if there is a creator, it must be a limited one (even though it could be powerful, it must always have its own limits).
KthulhuHimself's Argument is valid

Before presenting my argument as a whole, I'd like to clarify a few things about my proof, to prevent misinterpretations. The simplified version goes as follows: 1) For something to actually exist, it has to be objective. 2) By definition, objectivity requires the objective concept to be well-defined (which cannot be paradoxical or internally contradictory). 3) Well-ordered definitions require well-ordered formal languages, and in order for the definition to be non-paradoxical, and hence well-ordered, the defined concept must be completely limited by the defining language (to prevent Russell's paradox), i. e. cannot be the "highest" being. 4) God is defined as the highest being. 5) By these necessary standards, god is ill-defined. 6) God cannot be objective. 7) God cannot actually exist. But this can cause a lot of confusion as the proof here is worded in such a way that a few terms used in it are intrinsically ambiguous, as they connect to terms used in other contexts. A better written version of the proof can be worded as follows: 1) For something to exist beyond the level of notion, it is necessary for it to be objective, i. e. independent on human (or otherwise) perspective; because if it isn't, then it cannot exist independent on the level of notion, and hence be meaningless beyond that level. 2) By definition, it is necessary for an objective term or concept to be fully and hermetically well-defined; because by definition, an objective concept or entity is one that is dependent on a timeless means of predication, or in other words definition. It must be well-defined, because if it isn't, then there are no predicated qualities given to the concept, and hence no meaning beyond what a subjective perception will give it. 3) Well ordered definitions can and must be manifested in the form of a well-ordered expression, identical to those used in mathematics nowadays; which come, in every case, in the form of some well-ordered, formal, objective, mathematical language, such as set-theory, etc. Moreover, such definitions must be non-paradoxical, because when a paradox is present, the concept loses any and all objectivity, and hence meaning. 4) To prevent a common paradox, a slightly different form of Russell's paradox; it is necessary for the concept to be completely limited by the language it is defined within; meaning that it cannot predicate over its own predicator. 5) God is commonly defined as an unlimited being. 6) By these necessary standards, i. e. those presented in 1)-4), God is ill-defined. 7) God cannot exist objectively. 8) God cannot exist beyond the level of notion, and hence has no effect beyond psychological. Of course, you could claim that your God is limited; and in that case, this proof has nothing to do with your God.
KthulhuHimself's Argument is valid

1) For something to actually exist, it has to be objective.2) By definition, objectivity requires the objective concept to be well-defined (which cannot be paradoxical or internally contradictory).3) Well-ordered definitions require well-ordered formal languages, and in order for the definition to be non-paradoxical, and hence well-ordered, the defined concept must be completely limited by the defining language (to prevent Russell's paradox), i.e. cannot be the "highest" being.4) God is defined as the highest being.5) By these necessary standards, god is ill-defined.6) God cannot be objective.7) God cannot actually exist.This is his argument from the forums. Essentially my opponent must show his argument is valid, and I must show his argument to be invalid. Thus if there is no good reason to accept his argument then he has lost the debate.RULES: No plagiarism(putting unoriginal content without sourcing)No trollingNo lawyeringAccepting this debate entails you accept stipulationsNo personal attacks/Ad hominem No pictures/images
Military force is justified to protect economic dependencies.

This topic is slightly confusing so let me clarify. An economic dependency is MY word for a location of economic investment. Expanding on this, I give an example. Country A relies on exporting oil to Country B for a large percentage of GDP Hope this clears things up. So my argument(s): 1. Economy is necessity for life A nation must have an economy to survive. When the economy fails, the country fails. A government must do anything in it's power to survive. If that means using military force to secure the economy, then it's justified. 2. Why it's justified Locke's social contract states that the government's only obligation is to protect it's people. Without an economy, the government can not protect it's people. No money for defense, no money for civil reforms, no money for social aid. To fulfill the social contract, a government must protect it's economy Good luck to anyone who takes this debate.
Ultimate should be added to the Summer Olympics.

My opponent forfeited the last two rounds, so I ask for conduct points in this debate. My opponent asked a question. but she terminated the sentence with a period, so I ask for spelling and grammar points. I presented the only argument in the debate rounds so far, so I ask for arguments points. My sources are clearly better. I ask you to click on my opponent's source; yeah, it goes to wiki answers home page, so I ask for sources points.
Ultimate should be added to the Summer Olympics.

My opponent forfeited the last round, so I ask for conduct points in this debate. My opponent asked a question. but she terminated the sentence with a period, so I ask for spelling and grammar points. I presented the only argument in the debate rounds so far, so I ask for arguments points. My sources are clearly better. I ask you to click on my opponent's source; yeah, it goes to wiki answers home page, so I ask for sources points.
Ultimate should be added to the Summer Olympics.

I very much disagree because satistics show that average ultimate players only play up to 25 times per year. Other sports that are in the olympics like, Football which is played about 256 times a year also known as 16 times a week for 16 week in the nfl . There are 2,460 basketball games a year the majority of the games here are exciting and amazing. It also gives you this firey feeling that cannot seem to be exstingiushed. Why would any one try to ruin that by playing this unpopular, boring, and useless game. ( NO OFFENSE TO ANY ULTIMATE PLAYERS ) http://wiki.answers.com... please dont be too judgemental this is my first online debate
Ultimate should be added to the Summer Olympics.

Resolution: Ultimate should be added to the Summer olympics.Rules:(1) Debater must have typing experience and internet access.(2) Place your arguments and sources inside the debate(3) Structure the debate in a readable, coherent fashion.(4) No semantics, trolling, or lawyering.(5) Must insert one witty quote per round.Rounds:(1) Acceptance + Internet High Five(2) Main Argument(3) Rebuttal to opponent's main argument(4) Response to rebuttal + closing arguments + voting issues (one paragraph)"When a ball dreams, it dreams it’s a frisbee." -Stancil JohnsonDefinitions: Ultimate: a non-contact team sport played with a flying disc. See: tinyurl.com/ultimatedebateBurden of Proof: The burden of proof will be shared. We both must provide adequate justification for our sides. This resolution will chiefly delve into the characteristics of the sport that would or would not make it a wholesome addition to the Olympics. Assume the 75 country threshhold has been attained.By accepting this debate you accept the rules, definitions, and BOP. I accept this debate which I have thusly created and challenge those of rhetorical wizardry to a verbal duel. With my hand elevated and ready for forearm pronation, I slap yours in a ritualistic manner. Good luck to whomever accepts, and may the Gods smile upon you during this debate. Kittens!
Should Minecraft be used for education

It would not cost hundreds of dollars, and if the school already gives out laptops to the kids, all they need is the program, and you get a big discount if you are buying for a school. The parents probably would not mind if it is for 10 minutes, and the teachers could send the kids home with permission slips just in case some parents may not like it. I agree it is not necessary, but it is an extremely fun way to learn. If kids didn't like it they could do another activity. The whole point of this, though, is to put in little bits of fun here and there, and make the kids a tiny bit happier.
Should Minecraft be used for education

Although I see your points, I don't think that this would be the most cost-effective solution to children's learning. It could cost hundreds of dollars to do, and I think there are just as good, if not better alternatives for kids to learn - there are many websites that could prove beneficial to kids without all the the disadvantages of the minecraft program. I'm also not sure that if kids only use it for 10 minutes a week, it is worth the time. Surely there are cheaper substitutes that the kids could use that are better for their education of a subject? Many parents may also be against this form of learning as they might think it is not beneficial to their childrens' education - which may be very problematic for the school trying to enforce the minecraft way of learning. I guess I just don't think that using minecraft as a way of learning is particularly efficient; and there are many cheaper, less problematic means of learning about subjects.
Should Minecraft be used for education

If the school gives out laptops, to be used for school (I know many that do), minecraft could be installed easily. You are right, they will not learn history in a historical context. But they will experience it. If the teacher guides them through it and shows them what would have happened in real life and what wouldn't have, they will learn easier. If a few students get carried away, the program I mentioned earlier allows the teacher to freeze all students, or the teacher could kick, jail, or even ban the student if the student destroyed another person's building or wrote a swear word. The program I mentioned is not exploiting the market, because the person who made the program is a school teacher who uses it in his classroom. I agree with you that it should not be used all the time. But it can be used for just 10 minutes every week or so.
Should Minecraft be used for education

Hi! I don't think that minecraft is a good way for kids to learn. This because it isn't a very accurate means of obtaining information at all. It is a game - meant for enjoyment, not for educational purposes (any variation ie 'edu-minecraft' are exploiting the market and are not a suitable educational tool). I really don't see how kids could learn anything through minecraft any better than they can do through a text book - which would be at a lower price than buying the computers, video games etc. The game structure will get kids hyped up and difficult to control in a classroom environment; it will also distract the kids from actually learning as they will care more about the game than actually learning. In addition, it will give the kids a distorted view of what they learn - for example if they are learning about history, they won't learn about it in a historical context - it will rather be in in the context of minecraft. This could prove detrimental in exams where it really matters