BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Keeping God Out of Elections

Okay, here we go. If you want to talk about this from an amendment point of view then the debate is over because it says it plain black and white that US citizens have freedom of religion. I think that is good. Freedom of religion is fine in my opinion and people should be more than welcome to discuss their religion. I just think that when presidential candidates, Rick Santorum for example, used religion as a platform to run for president. I think that is wrong. To use religion to gain voters and money for an election is where I think the line should be drawn. I can only hope that voters look into all issues when a candidate is running for office. If there is an candidate that as a part of his or her religion believes in human sacrifice the responsible voter should realize that the candidate is most likely not a good choice. Having said that, if religion was kept out of elections in the first place, the religious beliefs of the candidate would have no baring on their political policies in the first place. JFK was a Catholic but no one saw him making the entire us population go out and make their communion. Lastly, there a many other quotes that someone can use to motivate or guide a group. Your last point is irrelevant.
Keeping God Out of Elections

I am going to slop something down becasue hey, it's a noobsnipe. A religious rights debate would be necessary because the First Amendment says US citizens have freedom of religion. The Amendments are often debated. I agree with the rest, however, what I don't agree with is that God should be kept ENTIRELY out of elections. Reasons religion should not be left out from elections: 1. If someone wants to debate religious rights, then they are not allowed to talk about God?2. If someone has a religion that involves human sacrifice, then the voters should keep that in mind.3. Jesus also said, "Love thy neighbour as thyself. Do not bare false witness. " This can help polititians guide the country.
Cross Country is not a sport

"an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment." That is the dictionary definition of the word "sport". I run Cross Country, and, believe me, it is extremely physically exerting to run at 10+ miles per hour for 3 miles straight. It takes a lot more skill to run than you may think. You may believe that running is a piece of cake, because all you have to do is move your legs, but it is much more than that. While running a race at sub-6:00 miles, dehydration, tiredness, cramps, and leg muscles tiring out are just some examples of the struggle it is to keep on moving during a race. It takes a lot of skill to put yourself in a state of mind that blocks out any pain, and focuses on breathing, stride efficiency, and the will to keep moving forward. Watching Cross Country entertains me, and many others, so it is a form of entertainment -- furthermore proving my point of CC being a "real" sport.
Gay marriage

"Key word in one of your statements was men and women" When it says men and women it is not making it a single subject, it is making it 2 distinct subjects. It is like the following two statements: Women have the right to marry. Men have the right to marry. Neither indicates straight marriage, and you can combine the sentences like this: Men and Women have the right to marry. Men and women would be separate subjects. If one wanted to make it heterosexual marriage they would say it like: Men and women have the right to heterosexual marriage. OR Men have the right to marry women and women have the right to marry men. It does not indicate heterosexual marriage. Con also asserts it is wrong to teach you son it is alright to be gay. He provided no evidence for that. Would I mind if my son was gay? No. Con also asserts that a kid shouldn't be raised by a gay couple. He did not support why that is. In conclusion: Con failed to refute any of my points and has not supported any of his own.
Gay marriage

Key word in one of your statements was men and women of full age MEN AND WOMEN. You were not giving the opposite sexual part for no reason. As for it being immoral, it is wrong to show young kids that it is okay to like other boys, would you like your son liking little boys as a young child. I know its 2015 and were suppose to be changing but gay marriage should never be allowed. Also a kid should not be raised by two of the same gender its a reason we have two parents(diffrent sex)
Gay marriage

Con argues that it is immoral and unbiblicalThis leaves con with the BoP to show:1)It is,in fact,immoral2)The Bible is accurateAnother point to make is that the USA is a secular nation,it is not to make laws based off of religious reasonsIn the Supreme Court case of Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur,it was stated"freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause"In 2010,US District Judge Vaughn Walker said the banning of gay marriage(in regards to proposition 8 in California)was "unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses"In 1888 the US Supreme Court ruled that marriage is a fundamental rightArticle 16 of the Universal Declaration for Human Rights states"men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion... the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution"
huckabee is better then your candidate

First answer these questions 1. Who is your candidate? The candidate I am current supporting, is Mike Huckabee. 2. Why do you like your candidate? I am supporting Mike Huckabee because I feel his views on the political issues I deem most important to the country at this time are the best for America. 3. Why is he better then Huckabee? I do not believe he is *better* than Huckabee. I disagree with the topic statement above saying that Huckabee is BETTER than my candidate. Rather, I personally believe and am willing to argue that Huckabee is JUST AS GOOD AS the candidate I am supporting for the 2008 election. *** I disagree with the statement "Huckabee is better than your candidate" for the following reasons: Mike Huckabee and Mike Huckabee are the same person, therefore, by the rules of logic: If A = A, the statement A > A is false. Therefore, your stance is false.
huckabee is better then your candidate

My opponent has not addressed any of my arguments, nor has he presented an argument himself. Thus, I will reiterate my stance. My opponent declares that Mike Huckabee is better than the candidate I support. Since I support Mike Huckabee, I disagree with his statement that Mike Huckabee is better than Mike Huckabee. I disagree for the reason that Mike Huckabee and Mike Huckabee are one and the same person, thus, it is IMPOSSIBLE for Mike Huckabee to be better than Mike Huckabee. A = A Therefore A cannot be > A I thank you for your time and for this debate.
huckabee is better then your candidate

I am attending this debate because I disagree with your stance. According to the title, you believe that "Huckabee" is better than my candidate. I am here to argue that Mike Huckabee is NOT, as you say, better than my candidate. I am here to argue that Mike Huckabee is JUST AS GOOD AS my candidate in nearly every way, shape, and form. As I said before, since I support Mike Huckabee, your statement that Mike Huckabee is better than Mike Huckabee is FALSE. Unless you have an argument stating that Mike Huckabee is better than himself, I believe this debate has been decided in my favor.
the leaving certificate should be abolished

Unfortunately Pro has forfeited all of his rounds past round 1 and has not made any real valid arguments. The source Pro used in Round 1 is not a reliable source at all because it was just an article about one person's thoughts. Also Pro has failed to prove anything in this debate, however in my round 1 I did manage to give evidence that the Irish leaving certificate is worth keeping. Due to Pro's unfortunate performance in this debate, I urge a Con vote
the leaving certificate should be abolished

.. The topic of my opponent's argument is "the leaving certificate should be abolished" and the key word in that line is "abolished". Using thefreedirectionay. com the definition of abolished is: "1. to do away with" and "2. To destroy completely". [1] Pro is arguing that it should be gone for good, but I however disagree, it is a very useful certificate and surely maybe it just needs to be amended (instead of abolished). Perhaps it is just the actual exams that need to change and not the system. I agree about the idea of more personal creativity in the actual test, but the Leaving Cert, I believe does not exceed all acceptable boundaries regarding stress. Modernisation is required but not abolishment. In this debate Pro will need to PROVE that the whole entire leaving certificate needs to go instead of only just be amended. For the time being I will argue reasons why the leaving certificate should be kept. Some Irish students go to university in the United Kingdom, particularly in Northern Ireland and larger British cities. Increasingly students from the Republic attend university in Northern Ireland, and vice-versa. In recognition of this, the Established Leaving Certificate underwent a process with UCAS to gain entry to the UCAS Tariff for direct entry to United Kingdom universities. This introduced the examination directly onto the UCAS Tariff, allowing it to be compared more easily with other qualifications on the UCAS Tariff. On June 8, 2004 it was decided that a Leaving Certificate (higher) subject will be worth two-thirds of an A-level (UK, except Scotland). [2] Instead of Irish students going to study A-levels in the UK, the Irish leaving certificate allows students to undertake several more than a typical A-level student ,it allows a wider variety of subjects as well then what you get in a A-level selection course as well. [2] And also in truth the certificate is good as long as you chose the subjects you know you will enjoy and work well enough to them. The problem when arguing against this (which my opponent is doing) is that every student is different and you cannot necessarily change to a different system without affecting the other students. I think pro should try to PROVE that the student majority will be happy with the whole certificate being abolished. I end my first Round here. .. Sources: [1] . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org...
the leaving certificate should be abolished

The leaving certificate examination should be abolished in Ireand and other countries because it undermines the potential of students.If the government were to abolish it and implement continuos assessment students could have there overall work noticed.What if a top student who has always done well and has consecutive A-grades becomes nervous on the day and loses track of mind?what has his/her hard work ammounted to?absolutely nothing! http://www.spunout.ie...
Letting the bunnies out of the cage has a net positive outcome.

Who will oppose such a notion indeed. Let me first clarify where my opponent has failed to. :: Analysis :: What is meant by "Letting the bunnies out of the cage"? A cursory web search was enough to show that "Letting the bunnies out of the cage" is not an idiom. That is to say, it is not a phrase that means something other than what it says. Indeed, "Letting the bunnies out of the cage" should be taken as literally letting the bunnies out of the cage. However, there is still a great deal of uncertainty in the phrase. "The" bunnies? Of which bunnies do we speak? Obviously, this is a question with no definite answer. Therefore, it is best to approach this debate from a general viewpoint. However, it is clear that these bunnies are caged. "The" cage obviously refers to whatever cage the bunnies are currently in. Therefore, we should consider the statement for every bunny that is caged. Now obviously, we're not going to go over the scenario for every caged bunny in existence. Generalizations will be needed, and I will speak more on that when I get to said generalizations. Hence, "A net positive outcome" will depend not on one scenario having a bigger positive effect than negative, but on the weighted combination of all scenarios having a net positive effect. :: Argumentation :: Consider that at this point, my opponent has failed to bring up any good effects of letting the bunnies out of the cage. Therefore, I could stop here and we'd be even, each with arguments of 0 strength. However, it seems wise for me to go ahead and list some reasons why there is not a net positive effect from letting the bunnies out of the cage. First, let us consider the scenario of the average caged bunny. Most caged bunnies have been placed in a cage by a human being. This placement is not simply a random decision - there is a reason. Perhaps the human did not want the bunnies getting loose, perhaps the human wanted to protect his or her valued possessions from being ruined by said bunnies. There are probably other reasons, as well. The point here is, there are reasons the bunnies are put in cages. Most of the time, to let the bunnies out of the cage is to undo this decision, and to go against whatever reason there was for caging the bunnies in the first place. For instance, many possible instances of letting the bunnies out of the cage would lead to the bunnies getting loose. Many would lead to the bunnies ruining some goods - perhaps devaluing them even more than the worth of the bunnies themselves. In any case, this is a clear negative outcome. And since there are as of yet no positive effects given by my opponent, the net outcome is negative so far. Also, uncaged bunnies are much more hassle than caged bunnies. This extra hassle a person has to deal with is another negative effect. I do not wish to make this too lengthy, and since my opponent made no arguments last round, I will end here for now.
Homosexuality is not Immoral

(My first debate.) My argument on this one is firstly, I can clear that I am myself a homosexual. So there's that. Second, the only argument against it is religious, mostly of the Christian religion, a religion that has no proof for the existence of the omnipotent figure mentioned in its Bible, other than the Bible itself. "18:22 Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable. (Leviticus 18:22 NIV)" and "20:13 ""If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. (Leviticus 20:13 NIV)" which is much more extreme of course. Other than the Bible and other religious books/scriptures, there is no argument other than, "Because it it odd/gross."There is scientific proof as well that homosexuality, bisexuality, pansexuality, etc. are caused by genetics. If God is, in fact, real, he would not allow this to happen of course. So what rational argument is there that homosexuality is immoral at all? Or, as the bible says, punishable by death?
Homosexuality is not Immoral

Previously I have asserted that ones culture is what makes for morality or immorality, for instance if you were from the tribe of the white cannibals from the Orinoco you might consider it very moral to eat your enemies and very immoral not to eat your dead relatives and sexuality is certainly not immune from those social mores. Religions such as Islam, Judaism and Christianity tend to reinforce and codify our cultures and ethos too. We have an immutable system that cannot be argued against now. Why shouldn’t I put my old feller there? Because god says not to. God is not liable to be wrong, he is all knowing after all. But cannot expressions of love be good, isn’t god all about love? As Pro has indicated god knows what god wants, and that is not filthy perversion from people under control of the one who wants to see you burned for eternity. God (via the bible) wants you to have angel wings and sing songs of his praise, he doesn’t want you to miss out on an eternity of singing “Gentle Jesus meek and mild….” Just because you wanted to enjoy a few short decades of perverted love. True love is going to church on Sunday and admiring the deity that made you the way that you are. If the bible is correct (and how can we assume that it isn’t when we cant even prove god doesn’t exist?) all you are being asked is not to succumb to sin and you are finding excuses NOT to do that one small request. Are there rational reasons for not doing such a simple request by the god of the Christians? How about trying not to get killed? The Nazi’s being the god fearing puritans that they were (God is with us, on every soldier) sought out homosexuals to kill with every amount of fanaticism and cruelty that their god could muster, and he is one vicious mother when he gets going as the bible attests, mainstream bible belt America loves to hurt homosexuals too, god wills it as you can see from your references. The sad story of Matthew Shepherd (1) who was sought out and tortured to death purely because he was a known ungodly homosexual, and since the bible tells what righteous Christians must surely do, they surely did it. God hates evil, and god hates homosexuals, or to put it more prosaically “God hates f@gs” as the Late Reverend Fred Phelps (2) of Topeka preaches to a loud, smelly but enthusiastic bunch of his inbred relatives, everyone of them an enthusiastic god loving heterosexual, even the babies. I wish to emphasise that culture controls morality, but your superstition, whatever it may be also emphasises its morality back into your culture in some sort of parasitic feedback. The dominant religion emphasises common values with the culture and uses culture to reinforce its own issues. (1)www.matthewsplace.com/learn/matthews-story/ (2)http://www.duffelblog.com... Over to you Pro
Homosexuality is not Immoral

This also is my first debate, so I'm in fact just experimenting. I note that you identify yourself as a homosexual, and further that you argue that the only argument for a con view is religious, which I disagree with. I myself do not condone religious thought and would never recommend it to anyone, even if they do consider themselves to be moral experts. I better lay down some definitions of what I mean by the terms I use because I don't view "morality" as being controlled by religion, or even necessarily relevant to religion because I see religion as really being a user, not a definer of morality. (1) immoral adj 1. transgressing accepted moral rules; corrupt 2. sexually dissolute; profligate or promiscuous and conversely(2) moral adj. 1. Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary. 2. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson. . .. Yes, the bible does in certain verses condemn people to death for gathering twigs on Sabbath days, consuming prawns with, or without tartar sauce, wearing garments of two different kinds of thread, eating yummy bacon, or even making bacon with the non complimentary gender. A particularly amusing example of the confusion caused by this irrational argument appeared long ago in "A letter to doctor Laura" (3). The church is no final arbiter of what is or is not moral, they try to direct the communities perception of what is and isn't to suit themselves. However, as you may have noted, no where in any definition of what is immoral is religion directly, or even indirectly the originator. Because of their attitude of absolute values, morals and qualities, they mistakenly believe that Jehovah, Allah or whoever have made shrimp eating immoral, but nothing could be further from the truth. As you can see from the definitions of morality/immorality it is not the bible or other books that defines morality, it is community attitudes that define them. The practice of homosexuality has been part of mainstream societies in various countries over the ages and most certainly not immoral in them, which is not to say that I concede that homosexuality isn't immoral, but is dependant only upon the culture within which we refer. (4)Don't expect to enjoy homosexuality in Kansas City in this day and age, it is immoral there, not because of religion but despite it. Likewise don't expect much sympathy in Saudi Arabia either, you'll still lose your bits. Your surrounding culture makes the practice immoral. Sources(1) . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...(2) . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... (3) . http://www.humanistsofutah.org...(4) . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Lying is sometimes justified.

--Argument 1: Legitimate reasons--Scenario 1: Sam is a street medic. His job is to save people no matter what. One of his patients is dying. To keep the patient from giving up, Sam must tell the patient a lie. This lie would give the patient confidence, and he could live long enough for the medic to save him. But is lying justified here? Is this lying, and is it justified? Would this really be lying? First we need to look at the definition. The definition of lying is saying a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood. Sam is intentionally saying a false statement in order to deceive the patient, so yes this is lying. Now what we need to look at next: Is this really justified? In other words does Sam have a legitimate reason to lie to the patient? Yes he most certainly does. If he lies to the patient, he will keep him alive, and will be able to save him. His reason to lie is to save lives. If I am correct, then saving lives is a legitimate reason to lie. For example, stealing has sometimes been justified, when it was for the reason of saving one or multiple lives. Stealing and lying are at about the same level as far as how bad the crime is, but even if they were not, they would both still be justified because of the Supreme Court justifiable system, where saving lives is a justifiable reason. Therefore my resolution has been proved in the scenario. Scenario 2: Rose is a seven year old girl. Her mother had been kidnapped two weeks ago, and recently they found her body. She had been beaten, and suffocated. The guardian, Tom has to tell the child that her mother died, but he lies to her and simply says she was hit my a car, so that the child is not scared, and doesn't have emotional problems in the future. First we need to look at if this would be considered lying. Is Tom saying a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive? Yes he is intentionally deceiving the child, so that her pain and suffering are minimized. How is this Justified? Tom would be saving a life, but in a different way than Sam in the previous scenario. He would be preventing Rose;s Future from becoming ruined. He would be giving her a chance at a more normal life. This proves my resolution to be true. Thanks for reading(1) . http://www.debate.org......(2) . http://www.scu.edu...
Lying is sometimes justified.

I will be arguing that lying is justified under certain circumstances. My opponent will be arguing that even under the worst case scenarios, lying is not acceptable. Lying: saying a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood. Justified: show a satisfactory reason or excuse for something done. Religious references shall not be used (such as Bible or Qur'an). When a scenario is presented, it can not be argued invalid. By accepting, you agree what I am debating for, and what you are debating for. You agree to the rules and definitions. With that said, let the debate commence!
Pie

Nutrition Facts Serving Size 144 g Amount Per Serving Calories 272Calories from Fat 69 Total Fat 7.7g Saturated Fat 1.7g Cholesterol 2mg Sodium 222mg Total Carbohydrates 47.4g Dietary Fiber 2.0g Sugars 36.8g Protein 5.1g Vitamin A 174% " Vitamin C 5% Calcium 14% " Iron 8% Nutrition Grade B * Based on a 2000 calorie diet 1 regular pie crust (view) 3/4 cup sugar (view) 12 oz fat free evaporated milk (view) 15 oz pure pumpkin (view) 1/4 teaspoon ground cloves (view) 1 teaspoon pumpkin pie spice (view)