BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
People should be allowed to legally refuse doing work for gay weddings (flowers, cakes, etc.)

With the example of photographer and the Muslim, the reason they would refuse is due to their perception that it is an endorsement. I wouldn't consider photography or delivering drinks to be endorsement, but that is not their perception. From my view if someone feels like they are doing something wrong by doing something, and not doing that thing doesn't bring harm to the other person, they should be allowed to refuse. As to the argument concerning sending another employee, I believe the florist was her business and she was the only person working there. She couldn't then send another employee, so the closest thing was referring another service, which she did. Regarding the rights of businesses, I think businesses should have these kinds of rights, while I am aware they do not. I think it would be acceptable for people to boycott her business or protest or criticize her, but I don't think her actions should merit legal ramifications. If it were a government entity acting in such a way, I would understand, as there is only one government. However there are multiple businesses and as such customers can go to other businesses and/or take the actions I mentioned above (boycott, etc). This particular woman did all she could to help this customer while doing something she believes to be wrong. The customer could have gone to any of the businesses she referred him to, but instead the government was involved. I don't think this action or actions like it do the amount of harm that would merit government involvement.
People should be allowed to legally refuse doing work for gay weddings (flowers, cakes, etc.)

I understand what you're saying. As far as my 'referral' bit goes, I'm saying they refer them to another company, but if that is not accepted they must do the work. Providing flowers for a gay wedding (selling them to them) is not any kind of active participation or endorsement of said marriage. As your own link says, it is not protected speech. At most, providing flowers for a wedding is done during preparation. I've never seen a florist attend the actual wedding and spruce up the flowers here and there during the actual event. The photographer is a better example of what you're getting at here. In the photographer's case, I don't think there's anything stopping that person from sending another person from their company. If it isn't an actual business and just a private citizen, that's another matter. It's not a service the public can expect from them. For a business it is, but a business can absolutely send whomever they want. In this case it's literally the same as my Muslim airplane attendant example, because they're still being serviced by the company in the end, and there is no issue. Ideally, it would be an invisible affair to the clients themselves. So to conclude this bit, Businesses do not have freedom of speech per se, individuals do. If you operate a business you have a lot less leeway than most people seem to think, and could easily be in trouble legally for doing this sort of thing. People have posters up that say things along the lines of "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." These are meaningless posters that carry no legal weight. [1] I don't believe these two cases warrant an exemption from anti-discrimination law with all the ways around it already. --- [1] - https://www.legalzoom.com...
Gun Control

First off all, you state "While I concede the guns available on the public market have improved dramatically over the last 220 years (they are more reliable, easier to use, and more efficient at killing), our military has not improved at the exact same rate; it has improved many times faster. In 1791, it was theoretically possible for citizens to win a war against their own government. I assert that today, that same feat is impossible." well your assertion is just not true, smaller less notable revolutions have taken place against fully armed governments within only a few years of now, AND THEY SUCCEEDED!"My opponent must either adopt this absurd opinion or demonstrate why tanks, fighter jets, and nuclear bombs would not help deter government tyranny despite that they are necessary tools for each side of a conflict to possess" Just stop with your mutilated style of formal debate, YOU ARE NOT THE MODERATOR!, stop trying to form this debate to the point where it isn't a debate, your trying to have some sort of organizational authority!"My opponent's syllogism, though not explicitly stated, is thus:1. Whatever helps citizens deter government tyranny ought to be publicly available.2. Firearms help citizens deter government tyranny.3. Therefore, firearms ought to be publicly available.However, if we accept the first premise, which is the cornerstone of my opponent's logic, then we must accept that tanks and fighter jets and nuclear bombs ought to be publicly available to citizens as well." That's not true, your assumed view of my logic reversed would mean that any thing that can be used to stop government tyranny should be banned, cars, knives, baseball bats, screwdrivers, pencils etc. I do not believe something like that or have it as the cornerstone of my logic because it is just an insane way to view the world.It is possible that American citizens could stop the U.S. military, just look in the Middle East, where we are winning, but it is a war that is taking a lot of money and time, the U.S. military doesn't just bomb everything. If those citizens were all armed, trust me that war would be a lot harder."We know only too well that war comes not when the forces of freedom are strong, but when they are weak. It is then that tyrants are tempted." -Ronald Reagan
Gun Control

My opponent's stance is this: "Gun control in the USA should remain as is." And his reasoning is singular: Firearms in the hands of the people are useful in order to deter potential government tyranny, and, in the worst case scenario, to actively fight against their own government. This is, he states, why the founding fathers penned the Second Amendment in the first place. I don't disagree, but regardless, this argument fails for two reasons:I. Then and NowWhen the Second Amendment was first adopted in 1791, the United State's militia looked a lot different from its modern day counterpart. We once primarily used horses, cannonballs, and unreliable rifles with slow rates of fire. More than two centuries of technological advancements have astronomically improved our military to be a near-unstoppable force. I feel little compulsion to defend this one simple fact: Our 2017 military would destroy our 1791 military with minimal, if any, casualties. To me, this seems like an obviously uncontroversial statement. If my opponent for some reason disagrees, may he say so next round.While I concede the guns available on the public market have improved dramatically over the last 220 years (they are more reliable, easier to use, and more efficient at killing), our military has not improved at the exact same rate; it has improved many times faster. In 1791, it was theoretically possible for citizens to win a war against their own government. I assert that today, that same feat is impossible.My opponent must demonstrate that it is theoretically possible for American citizens, using legal firearms, to win a war against the American military. Keep in mind that the US Military currently has nearly 14,000 total aircraft, including transport aircraft, fighter aircraft, and attack helicopters, almost 6,000 combat tanks, and over 40,000 armored fighting land vehicles[1]. Citizens have precisely zero of all of those essential tools. Not to mention the military has a slew of missiles and bombs. Fighting a war against all of this and more, American citizens may as well arm themselves with water pistols.II. The Absurd Logical Consequence My opponent's syllogism, though not explicitly stated, is thus:1. Whatever helps citizens deter government tyranny ought to be publicly available.2. Firearms help citizens deter government tyranny.3. Therefore, firearms ought to be publicly available.However, if we accept the first premise, which is the cornerstone of my opponent's logic, then we must accept that tanks and fighter jets and nuclear bombs ought to be publicly available to citizens as well. My opponent must either adopt this absurd opinion or demonstrate why tanks, fighter jets, and nuclear bombs would not help deter government tyranny despite that they are necessary tools for each side of a conflict to possess (hence the USA Military possesses them in great numbers).Source:[1] https://www.globalfirepower.com...
Gun Control

Yes, I'm sorry that I didn't make it clear that it was for acceptance, I meant to make a sort of description when I posted that. Onto the debate; My stance is against gun control. Like I said, the 2nd amendment was not created so that the people would have the right to defend themselves from criminals, or to hunt but it was rather created to protect from tyrannical government. The single biggest threat to freedom is government, when you give the people the right to defend themselves from the government, tyranny can never succeed. The founding fathers created the 2nd amendment because they had experienced it, they knew what it was like to be threatened by the power of government tyranny. Many people fall under the common misconception that is, tyranny could never exist in a modernized society like this, well that's what the Europeans thought the same, then Hitler left 6 million Jews dead. That is my opening statement.
Gun Control

I accept. Thank you, Renegade184, for making this debate possible.I'm left to assume the first round is for acceptance only since you labeled what you said as a "quick opening statement" rather than your actual argument, so I look forward to you expanding on that.Before I pass the floor to you, I'd just like to make it clear that the burden of proof is entirely 100% on you to prove that gun control should remain as is. My role in this debate will simply be to debunk the soundness of whatever arguments you put forth; if I succeed in that, the debate goes to myself. If not, not. There is no need for me to present any arguments of my own for why gun control should be more strict or less strict.Over to you.
Officer Darren Wilson Should Have Been Indicted

I accept this challenge and will provide some structure to this debate. Resolution; Officer Darren Wilson should have been Indicted. Round 1- preface Round 2-cases ( no refuting this round.( doing so will result in loss of conduct.)) Round 3- refutation Round 4- closing conclusions ( no new information, conduct rules apply here as well.) BOP rests with pro. This resolution is obviously related to the case of Michael Brown being shot by officer Wilson thereby dieing. In this debate I will prove that many threads could easily have ripped to threaten any case a prosecution could bring forth. I will prove eye witness statements to be unreliable due to the changing stories of Dorian Wilson and who was actually there. Autopsy results are consistent with Darren Wilson's story as well. We also have to add into the equation that he robbed a store earlier. There is simply no compelling argument to indict officer Wilson for simply doing his job within full legal scope allowed to him. Next round I will explain in depth. The only way pro can win is if HE/She proves the officer to have done something illegal. Emphasis on the word prove.
Officer Darren Wilson Should Have Been Indicted

There was enough evidence to at least take aspects of the case to trial. This is not a racial issue. This is not about political agenda's. This is about the simple fact a teenager was murdered in broad daylight. 15 witnesses say Brown had his hands in the air when the last shot was fired, 2 do not. Officer Wilson says he was in fear for his life "It was like a 5 year old vs. Hulk Hogan" but was not bleeding and did not have any visible facial injuries (besides a dime sized pink mark). This is not about personal opinion. I am not saying he was guilty of murder.. but there was certainly enough evidence to warrant a trial. I find it hard to believe that there is anyone out there who thinks a cop can shoot at the back of a teenager as he runs away, kill him, and face no repercussions.
Same-Sex adoption

You still have given me nothing to argue. Your replies are completely invalid. How do I even keep a debate going with that? I'm pretty sure that there have been studies done. If not, I don't think I would have found as many resources in my last debate. However; say there weren't. Why don't you tell me what you want to be in the study? What are you wanting to conduct? This could at least give me an opportunity to debate something. Seeing as how you've given me nothing.You continue to say that I've went toward the moral side of the conversation, but you haven't given me anything to do otherwise. Shall I just sit here and argue with myself? Okay, I can do that.Example:"I believe that children raised with homosexual parents will, themselves, become homosexual." My thoughts:I don't think this is correct because homosexual people had to come out of heterosexuals. Saying that a child seeing their parents kiss the same sex would make them want to would be just as idiotic as saying every child from heterosexual parents will be heterosexual. We all know that this is incorrect. You're going to love and be attracted to anyone. It doesn't matter what you're exposed to. Yes, it may influence them but so does having heterosexual parents. In the end it seems the only valid reason anyone would make this statement is just because they don't want more homosexual people. That's pretty ignorant.Another side that I tend argue with this is that they shouldn't feel pressured to have any specific sexuality. In a same-sex household, the parents know what its like to be put down or told they're wrong their entire life. They have been told that they are going to "burn in Hell," or they're "disgusting," they are far less likely to pass judgement on another for being themselves.If a same-sex couple wants to have a child, they have to actually work for it. They have to fill out documents, possibly try numerous times, they have to be judged by many people. They have to actually want the child. They have to put forth time and effort into getting a baby. They aren't like many heterosexual people. They can't just have sex and produce a "mistake." They have to want this. This makes them better parents than a lot of people. I believe this because they aren't being forced into parenting. I'm not saying heterosexual couples can't raise a child right but I am saying some of them can't. You see a teenager walking around the street carrying a baby with rags on. She is living off her parents can't get a job, and the father has left her. No one can tell me that woman can take more care of a child just because she is heterosexual. Whenever there are thousands of same-sex couples that have a home, have a steady job, have been together for years, and even have their own home. But they aren't able to adopt just because they happen to be two men, or two women.
Same-Sex adoption

Actually , i was just pointing the fact that you were more giving a precision on the moral side of the argument you are just exposing . here we are talking about child adoption , not marriage only , so please , let's get back to the point . you are outdated in what concerns subjet-in proprieties. i'am okay with child adoption for gay couples, only if there will be coherent and rational studies going on , and by that i mean official studies. thank you.
Same-Sex adoption

With all do respect, there are studies saying that children of same-sex parents are happier. I'm not quite sure that I saw any other information open for debate in your reply. What is it exactly that you're arguing against it for? Maybe I'm ignorant and there were obvious oppositions but I saw none. For the record, I looked up "Studies about same-sex parenting." I didn't look up "Positive studies about same- sex parenting." Therefore; I did not look this information up to help me only. Do with the links as you please but as far as I can tell, many research has been done. There are even videos of the kids themselves talking about their parents on YouTube. Kids tend to not care if you have two dads or two moms. It doesn't matter. All that matters is that the kid is happy. Yes, I did focus on pointing out that the children need a home. That is my main point. I don't see them as being a "homosexual family," I see them as simply being a family. But, by all means, continue to try to debate with me. Just, please, next time; give me something to debate with. I cannot clearly debate with something that is just restating what I've said. I cannot clearly debate with something as off topic as same-sex marriage. That is for another post. Give me facts, give me opinions. Say something I may actually reply to. Otherwise, this is a pretty useless argument.Studies/ Websites:"Children Of Gay Parents Are Happier And Healthier Than Their Peers, New Study Finds"http://www.huffingtonpost.com...This website points out the flaws in negative feedback from "studies," made. Use it as you will.http://thinkprogress.org...Probably the most creditable website, for it was in the actual newshttp://www.newrepublic.com..."World’s largest study on same-sex parents finds kids are healthier and happier than peers"From:http://www.salon.com..."Children of same-sex couples are happier and healthier than peers, research shows"From:http://www.washingtonpost.com...
Same-Sex adoption

i agree with you about the fact that every child should have a home , and that's a fundamental right for the modern constitution we are now leaving in . but here there is a welding between two subjects , as your argument is a bit asymmetric, because here we are talking about 'adoption for gay couples' as i see and you are pushing more the moral aspect of the idea, as we have to see things with a bit of logic and rationality . so lets get things done , by first saying that the fact of being well treated and being provided by moral support is very important for every child in the universe , but if we see things from an other angle, we gonna have to study a bit deeply the psychological structure for our subject that is the child which is adopted by gay couple. first of all , i'am okay for gay marriage and all that , i'am not saying that gay couples can not handle the responsibility of that child but the child is more like a human being that goes into a psychological genesis , which is the development process for his brain , and as he is exposed to this posture, i can assure you that we are going to need some science studies and medical approve that when two parents from the same gender raise a kid , this kid will not get any problems threw his personal development , because lets say that for example that he is straight , and his parents are gay . i'am pretty sure that this is going to influence on his childhood like gay people get influenced by their parents once they see them kissing for example. this is my point of view , that says that we should go threw studies before legalizing such a process. that's it , thank you.
Same-Sex adoption

I believe that same-sex couples should be able to adopt simply because I believe every child should be able to have a home. I also believe that every capable adult that wants a child should be allowed the opportunity to have one. There are thousands of children and teenagers that go without a home daily, that is not right. Everyone should be given the opportunity to have a loving home to go to. Everyone should have the opportunity to be held by a loving parent. No matter the sex of that parent. It does not matter what is on the outside, it doesn't matter what the sexuality of that parent is, all that matters is that they can provide the love and acceptance that child needs. Millions of heterosexual couples are able to reproduce, and they do. However, there are a countless amount of those that aren't capable of providing the home that a child needs. Some don't even try. A couple should not be able to treat a child badly just for the simple fact that they are heterosexual and they are capable of conceiving a child. There should not be thousands of teenagers walking around with a child that they don't know the first thing about taking care of. Its not right. A child deserves happiness. A child deserves love. No matter where that love may come from, they preserve every right to have that.
The Lesser of Two evils is a dangerous mentality.

"The problem with that line of reasoning is that everyone personal morality would conflict with another." There in is the problem with morality as a whole. Morality is variable between persons. Morality - conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct. The conduct is completely variable by social norms and those who influence you. My point is that morality is trivial when it comes to most topics of debate which is also why we have so many debates. Facts may often be overlooked when emotion enters the debate. "If there is no unified morality then anyone can do whatever they want and be able to justify it." To begin with there already is no unified morality. As mentioned above morality is variable by norms and influence. It is basically human to justify any personal action as correct. "Something that is immoral may illicit an emotional reaction, such as a murderer killing a bunch of people would likely make you angry. In such a case those emotions are justified. " The word murder alone illicit emotion. If people take a step back and see how they have came about it may change their minds. What if it is a solider who has killed people in war, ect. "Voting for someone who is in line with your beliefs or not voting at all because no one fits your beliefs gives you a clear conscience, which is a justified emotional response." Conscience - the inner sense of what is right or wrong in one's conduct or motives, impelling one toward right action. Again I use the variable by norms stance. To eaches own fits well here. You justify a choice made by making it appeal to irrational senses.[1] "Your example is on the right track and so we should look at the implications of any particular proposal. However, we must not dismiss something merely because it illicit an emotional reaction." Proposal in this case are bills presented before Congress. On the contrary it should be on the plate to be dismissed. Should the argument be founded upon a base of irrational thought – in this case emotion – it should be dismissed. Bills have a huge effect on the country as a whole and should be backed by facts. My opponent brought fourth the argument that "the lesser of two evils mentality in voting is a dangerous and destructive philosophy." I have argued the contrary with as reasonable responses as possible. Not only is the less evil a better option to chose it is also less dangerous than my opponent suggests. Also calling it destructive saying morality has a better outcome in the end than the lesser evil, where as morality bias is more destructive to any process of bill making than any evils. I thank my opponent for this debate. [1]http://biosingularity.wordpress.com...