BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Against Gendercide.

Gendercide is the killing of a specific gender. It happens through out the world, though mostly in China and India. The ration of male to female is as high as 120 men to 100 women. Aproximately, hundreds of thousands die across the world, in case of gendercide. In rural India, the centuries-old practice of female infanticide can still be considered a wise course of action. From 978 female to 1000 male in 1901... the numers have changed over time, 923 female to 1000 male in 2010. In China, tradition of infanticide and abandonment, especially of females, existed in China before the foundation of the People's Republic in 1949. More than 50 million women were estimated to be 'missing' in China because of the institutionalized killing and neglect of girls due to Beijing's population control program that limits parents to one child. Gendercide is a big problem in the world, it may not be completly solved, but the hope is that it will decrease.
Homosexuality should be accepted by humanity

In conclusion, I would like to help you understand why I stand where I stand on the gay rights issue. I would also like to summarize my main points.The reason I am against homosexuality is not because of any opinion I created myself. The arguments I have given have a solid foundation in the Bible. I am not the first and I do hope not the last to have this foundation in the Bible. Now for my conclusion.The Bible is against homosexuality-As stated in the debate, the Bible is a solid foundation for life and always will be as long as men choose to follow it.Marriage ought to be between a man and a woman-Homosexuality violates natural law-Marriage has always been between men and womenThere is a difference between religion and God's law-Man has set up religion, God has established a relationship-Some religious groups attempt to accept gays, this is not right.The term homophobia is exaggerated in today's society-Homophobia is defined as the fear of homosexuals, which does not describe the majority of people- Homophobia does exist, but it does not affect the majority of people as pro-homosexuals describe it to beI would like to especially thank the readers for taking the time to read through this debate. Thanks to my opponent for taking a stand in what he believes in. As the old saying goes, stand for something or you'll fall for anything. This certainly does not describe him (or me I trust). He presented a clear and logical argument, and most of all he was polite in stating his opinion, a quality of which I find to be rare these days. I would like to remind the reader that it is not for you or I to decide if homosexuality is ok or not, ultimately it is God's law and the Bible that truly matter. Take some time and read a good KJV Bible, you will uncover the truths it holds. Thanks again, and please vote! Your vote does matter.-Inspired
Homosexuality should be accepted by humanity

-In conclusion, I will reiterate and summarize my arguments as to why homosexuality should be accepted by humanity. 1) Homosexuality is a viable lifestyle due to the fact that the possibility exists for heterosexuals to contract a venereal disease. -Homosexuality is not a vector, instead I proposed that diseases are the result of acts that do not depend on the partner. 2) Homosexuals have the ability to raise an adopted child. -No decrease in the capacity to raise or nurture a child. -Maternal or paternal instinct is still present. - Greater benefit to the child than being raised by incompetent single parent. 3) While a minority, homosexuality is a natural orientation that has merit. -Prevalent in the animal kingdom. -Is not against the laws of nature or against the wishes of a deity (at least in the animal kingdom). 4) Homophobia is detrimental to any nation that condones such a practice. -Psychological damage is the result of repeated verbal or physical abuse in the form of bullying. -Leads to increase in suicide and depression amongst homosexual youth. That concludes my part of the debate. Once again thanks to my opponent for participating in this informative debate on a very crucial topic.
Homosexuality should be accepted by humanity

One such comment brought up an excellent point to refine the points as listed. I understand where he is coming from, however I also understand what my opponent is trying to make clear, the resolution of equal rights of homosexuals. If the intention of my opponent is to cause deliberate unrest, then I would not like to be the gas on the fire and therefore withdraw from the debate. Let me make it clear that I do not support homosexuality or the acceptance of it. Let it be known I accept and respect the person for who they are, not their personal lifestyle. I am a born again Christian and of a Conservative mindset. I will be using references from Scripture, which I consider to be valid and truth. As my opponent is atheist, I can understand that this may seem controversial, but the Bible is the foundation upon my argument nevertheless. I will be arguing in favor of: - The Bible is against homosexuality - Marriage ought to be between a man and a woman - Homosexuality is against nature - A difference between religion and God's law - The term homophobia as being a term exaggerated in today's society, and placed upon those who disagree with the practice. I look forward to this debate. Thank you for such an interesting and crucial topic for society in this day and age.
Homosexuality should be accepted by humanity

Second Round is Arguments. Third Round is Rebuttals. Final Round is Conclusion. I will be arguing in favor of: -Homosexuality is a viable lifestyle. -Homosexuals have the ability to effectively raise an adopted child. -While a minority, Homosexuality is a natural orientation that has merit. -Homophobia is detrimental to any nation that condones such a practice. Homosexual- of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex Sexual Orientation- the inclination of an individual with respect to heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual behavior Homophobia- irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals . http://www.merriam-webster.com... . http://www.merriam-webster.com... . http://www.merriam-webster.com...
social security should b means tested against the rich

con says the rich dont run the country. i might beg to differ as they are who pulls the strings of politcians. but really this point is irrelvant, even if they dont rule the country, they still have the excess, like my division of land hypothetical illustragtes. con doesn't really give a moral argument for why we should take from everyone to have welfare or fund the governmet when it's more moral to take the excess. perhaps i shouldn't argue that the poor deserve a better livlihood given they have the necessities genereally. but i would still argue we shouldn't take more from them to fund the government and military when they have so little. this is where taking from the excess makes sense. ie the rich. you argue the rich dont own a lot of land and didn't inherit it. it doen't matter though, because they still own ninety percent of hte wealth, and an excess share whether it was inherited or not. the limited example where i might agree with you that they should get to keep their money is if someone works eighty hours a week at ten dollars and hour and saves almost all their money and invests it. but this doen't repesent hardly anyone who is rich. your example is no good cause someone who works for ten dollars isn't rich with excess wealth. you'd have to argue it's okay for somoen to have a million dollars when the others only had ten thousand each out of nine people. you can't really argue this is moral, at least that we should take more from the poor. again when i argue we should take the rich people social security i'm arguing because we need to fund the government and defense. i may have misundeerstood you. i assumed you'd want to fund social security for current retirees and near ones. the only way you can argue privatizing would fix the situation is to say we won't do that. talk about immoral and irresponsible as heck though if that' what you believe, letting people rot and breaking a promise to them to boot. if you do think they should be supported, you still havaen't addressed how we'd pay for it or the government. so yes if u want to fund social for a number of years you are still ignoring my initial post and havem't said anything in response to change that.
social security should b means tested against the rich

the rich are the ones who are engaging in theft. they borrow against social security their whole lives to fund the government, instead of paying for it themselves out of taxes, and leave the bill to the next generation. it's totally fair to charge the bill to the ones who created it by lessenig their benefits. it's not that i'm totally against lessening everyone's benefits, but when people are doing without a basic livelihood, it makes more sense to take from the excess than from people who are merely getting by. again talk about theft. if one person owned ninety percent of the land, and there are poor people who have no land, doesn't it make sense to take some of the excess instead of taking from the people just getting by? it's the moral thing to do. also con just ignored my points. if we privative it, how do we fund the current system for retirees and near retirees? if we want to balance the budget, how do we make a dent in it when spending for social security medicare defense interest account for ninety percent of the budget? especially without raising taxes as i assume you don't want to do? like most people, con just ignores the problem. like i said, it's not my first option to want to reduce their benefits. but we face serious financial problems. and it's the only fair and ethical way to do it.
social security should b means tested against the rich

First off, I would like to point out that your theory is flawed. You state that if we cut out benefits for the top 10%, we would have 10% more money to give to the poor but you fail to realize that the Rich have been paying for social security their whole lives. Suddenly removing benefits for something these people had already paid for (Whether they need it or not) is Robbery, unchristian and Sure to make a Ruckus. Whether you are Christian or not, The Scriptures tell us that we have a right to Reap what we Sow, and though not all of the Founding fathers were Christian, this principle is what America was founded on. This being said, The System hardly gives any Benefits to the Rich, or the Middle class. An Average Citizen will get 2-3% Feedback from the System. In a Nutshell, A Life time of payment for a mere 2-3% Increase. Addressing your Second Paragraph, You will make just about the same amount Money by merely saving up for retirement, than you will being enrolled in social security. Our Populace has grown accustomed to the Government providing free services, and hand-outs, so much so that they do not realize they are getting a Raw deal. Privatized Rates are Traditionally higher than Government Rates, because Private companies have competition to keep the Prices down, and the Benefits up. In Contrast to the measly 2-3% of Social Security Feed-back, over the past century private stock has had on average an 8% feedback. Privatizing the system would certainly be a step in the right direction, as the Government could focus on things like Defense, Prosperity, and International freedom, instead of owing 7 Million of it's own citizens money. Facing the Cold Hard Facts, the Government is in debt to its own citizens and must take away funds from our safety and international standing, perhaps even hiking taxes (America already being one of the highest taxed nation in the World) on the next generation, who are ill-prepared to pay, as they themselves want a nice fat check from the government. The system of Social security is a century old idea that is failing to conform to modern needs. Capitalism, is Thousands of years old, has provided, and endured. Privatizing the system, as I have briefly discussed earlier, is a more stable, and profitable system for not just the Poor, or Rich, or Middle-Class, but for all Americans who put their fair share into it. Citations: . http://www.wsj.com...
social security should b means tested against the rich

social security should be means tested against the rich a person making a hundred and fifty thousand dollars is in the ninety percentile of income. if we cut out benefits for the top ten percent, then, we'd be reducing the cost of social security by more than ten percent given theyd otherwise be getting much bigger than average payouts. cutting social security by ten fifteen or twenty percent would go a long way to balancing the budget. that is, if we cut the whole budget by thirteen percent, we'd balance the budget. i'm just arguing that social security houldn't be exempt. i'd rather not cut their benefits, but we need to find places to cut to balance the budget. please, tell me how you would address the fiscal situation without cutting benefits? or do you think everyone's benefits should be cut not just the rich? should we cut defense more? if you say we should privatize social security and medicare, you still have to show how you'd pay for current and near retirees. this will take decades to deal with. the current generation retiring has been borrowing aganst social security to pay for goverment and defense. it's only fair we focus on not lettin them pass the buck onto the next generation by cutting their benefits some.
All recreational drugs should be legalized in the U.S and sold commercially with a tax

Rounds 2 & 3 are for arguments, and rebuttals. Round for is for final thoughts and observations. Opening statement: Based on the ineffectual efforts of the U. S' "War on Drugs", and based on the spirit of The Declaration of Independence as well as The Constitution - where we are to view each other as free, responsible individuals- the possession and use of recreational drugs should be legalized.
All recreational drugs should be legalized in the U.S and sold commercially with a tax

"Recreational drugs" don't exist as a defined category.Looking to even the least reliable sources, we find that a wide variety of drugs has been used for "recreational" purposes:http://en.wikipedia.org... lists chloral hydrate as a recreational drug.And in more detail: "Its sedative properties were first published in 1869 and subsequently, because of its easy synthesis, its use was widespread. It was widely used recreationally and misprescribed in the late 19th century. Chloral hydrate is soluble in both water and alcohol, readily forming concentrated solutions. A solution of chloral hydrate in alcohol called "knockout drops" was used to prepare a Mickey Finn." http://en.wikipedia.org...Making the chemical used for knocking people out accessible to anybody more easily would be a bad thing. Surely, even more people would be sedated, robbed or raped.No society should make it easier to victimize its citizens.Hence, the resolution that ALL recreational drugs SHOULD be legalized is totally overblown.All I had to do to prove the resolution wrong was to show that not ALL "recreational" drugs should be legalized. If even one such drug exists that should not be legalized, then the resolution is disproved.As one example for such drug, I choose chloral hydrate.Over to my opponent.
This shadey car dealership would scream: Ebola is good for the world

I had ebola not malaria. Malaria is ebola for puzzys. I didnt die from ebola becauz i foudn the cure. Prostate simulation, chicken nuddle soup, sprite.Con says some bullsh1t about reading a f*cking tone. Well read the tone when your drug or high the tone is differenrt. Reading a toen is subjective. This tone reading parade isnt meaningful. If you can't sense the mocking tone of it and the sarcasm behind it all and the way that any Ebola victim would be offended by it you are both deaf and blind as it was a lyrics video.If I was deaf and blind I woundt be able to debate dipsh1t.D..ddDDDD DAVID F*CKING BOWIE INTERPUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOUNG GIRL THEY CALL THEM THE DIMOND DOGS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!dAvId F*CkING bbowwwieeND OF INTERRPUTFirstly, the song 'wake me up when September ends' deals with the death of lead singer Billie Joe Armstrong's father, who died when Armstrong was a childBoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooring. American music is strange.Conybro says all this stuff about the song he posted being means to the ebolas (oh no) but its all this subjective realtive music interpeation. aaaaaaand Conyboy dropped my argue that someone with the ebolas dont gives a sh1t what goes on because they too busy with ebola.Christians do not support Ebola in their fellowship, this is a huge lie never say that again.Those christians who dont support ebola arent true christians and are going to hell. Christians who dont support ebola dont support god's plan. God knows everything and plans everything out. anyone who objects against ebola is an heritic deserving of punishent. Pro's anecdotal evidence is just a lie, he'd have been on the news had he had Ebola, he is either impersonating or misrepresenting which is a violation and can get him banned form debate.org I suggest he comes up with a more substantial argument for the next Round or he loses this debate.im not sure i like your tone. Lower it else we'll have a problem. Ill sick my boyfriend on you. heres a pic of him http://crazybookfanatic.files.wordpress.com...; />Dreamy isnt he?Romnia has a law that i can keep my name out of the news and i requested a code 2:12 per section B of the Romaian internation news broadcasting code. It is my personal decision to not be on the news. ConclusonConyboy is a bighead argueer but he fialed.
This shadey car dealership would scream: Ebola is good for the world

Pro fallaciously claims that he himself has malaria, he wouldn't have access to the Internet if that was the case and would most likely have died if he already had it.The music video he posted is not mocking Chinese food but the one I posted legitimately mocked Ebola victims. If Ebola makes people inferior and kills them off how is it better for the world?The song was mocking, it's called reading a f*cking tone. If you can't sense the mocking tone of it and the sarcasm behind it all and the way that any Ebola victim would be offended by it you are both deaf and blind as it was a lyrics video.Firstly, the song 'wake me up when September ends' deals with the death of lead singer Billie Joe Armstrong's father, who died when Armstrong was a child. This is just about Ebola and laughing at how people suffer so badly form it.Secondly, it says 'here comes the rain again coming form my arse'. Arse is the British term for a** and this is mocking by taking the lines 'here comes the rain again falling form the stars' and turning rain into an innuendo for diarrhea as well as mocking the pure agonising suffering of actually experiencing indigestion and turning into a rain storm followed by 'seeing stars' from the sheer pain of it (people see stars after being punched in cartoons). It's horrible and mocking, Ebola helped contribute to this.I didn't say I cared about the bullying I said that bullying is making the ones without Ebola seem superior and causing unhappiness and displeasure in the world which is the core of what anyone sane judges their morals on. You said it's morally good but it really isn't. Unless you can provide an alternative moral outlook, you lose this debate.Christians do not support Ebola in their fellowship, this is a huge lie never say that again.Pro's anecdotal evidence is just a lie, he'd have been on the news had he had Ebola, he is either impersonating or misrepresenting which is a violation and can get him banned form debate.org I suggest he comes up with a more substantial argument for the next Round or he loses this debate.
This shadey car dealership would scream: Ebola is good for the world

Greenday sucks ebola. A better song is Alison gold's Chinese food http://www.youtube.com... The songs arent mocking the unfortenunte its protecting them. The song says in an awesome way that "Ebolllllla is here" and "we gots to protect ourselveeees". Wake me when ebola ends is tryin to lighten up the mood, notmake fun of ebolas. AAaaand who cares if someones bullying someone with ebola. Ebola victims sh1t like 10 liters of sh1t a day. The last thing an ebolaite is going to care about is someone making fun of them. Seriouly when i had ebola someone could have killed my cat or raped my face and I wouldn't care. I wouldn't care anyway becuz i hate my cat and love getting raped buuuut thats beside the point. It creates fun and chrstian fellowship Support ebola. Ebola for president! EBOLA/MALARIA 2016!!!!!
This shadey car dealership would scream: Ebola is good for the world

Don't listen to what some Ebola sufferers sing to enjoy their last moments of life, instead listen to this fantastic parody of a Greenday song by people who are mocking those who were unfortunate enough to have it!Those who mock others have good reason to laugh. Those who have it are trying to make songs about it with their dying breaths to compensate for it.bullies are inherently better off than their victims, since they are the alpha males/female sin the scenario.Mocking those with Ebola can only be done by those without it, those without it cannot mock those with it so I conclude that Ebola is indeed bad for the world as it increases bullying frequency and also makes people begin to romanticize death with reggae songs as Pro showed and that would in turn lead to world-wide suicide.http://www.youtube.com...
Should Guns Be Banned

Accepted. Con states: "you cannot overturn an amendment... that has only been done once in the history of then United States."In that case, you have contradicted your first point and in fact one can overturn an amendment if necessary. The issue is that guns make it easier for people to kill other people. With easier access to guns, comes more gun related crime incidents. Anything that leads to more violence in society and causes cases such as mass shootings, should logically restricted and made less available. "there would just be underground black marketing just like during the prohibition... everyone would just disobey the system."I'd first note that Con does not provide any evidence for this assumption. As stated previously, the main positive to gun regulation is the fact there would be less gun crime and less shootings. If carrying a gun carried criminal penalties, then there's nothing to suggest that "everyone" would indeed disobey the system. "the government has this weird idea that if they make something illegal people would just stop cold turkey... but it just doesn't work that way."Again, the motivation is decreasing the amount of incidents related to gun crime. By outlawing or restricting gun ownership, the crime rate (which should be a priority to any government) would lessen and it would be made less easy for people to commit large-scale gun attacks. "obeying someone's law just for the f*ck of it is not part of human nature in fact it goes against everything in human nature."Once again Con offers no evidence or source to support this assertion. In fact, Con may as well state that no laws should be in place because following them supposedly goes against human nature. This would include well-recognized laws such as the criminality of murder, rape, pedophilia, assault, etc. Would Con go as far as to suggest that these should also not be laws because they contradict what he considers "human nature"? The fact is that laws are put in place to maintain the structure of society and to protect to the rights of citizens. As guns heavily contribute to violence, making them less easy to access would serve as more of a benefit than detriment to society. [1.] http://listverse.com...