BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay Marriage is Constitutional, and should be legalized.

Homosexuals are not gay by choice [1], and there is no scientific evidence to support any psychological or religious methods to "cure" it. The American Psychological Association has also acknowledged that homosexuality is in no way a mental illness. [2] Mental Illness and choice having been soundly ruled out, it must be determined that homosexuality is A: Natural B: Harmless Most counter-arguments for the case on Gay Marriage stem from the Bible, and its claim that homosexuality is in itself a sin. However, it is clearly stated through the First Amendment/Establishment Clause that the establishment of a national religion is unconstitutional. This means that the laws of Christianity (or any religion) have no place in Legislature. [3] Religious arguments ALSO being ruled out, that leaves the (few) unbiased secular arguments. I opt to let Con choose which ones he would like me to account for. [1] http://www.avert.org... [2] American Psychological Association, 'Resolution on Appropriate Affirmative Responses to Sexual Orientation Distress and Change Efforts'. [3] http://law2.umkc.edu...
Gay Marriage is Constitutional, and should be legalized.

==Acceptance==Thanks for making this debate.Obviously I have accepted.==Definitions== Gay: (In the context of the debate) of, relating to, or used by homosexuals gay rights movement> gay bar>.Marriage: (same-sex marriage) the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage marriage>.Constitutional: being in accordance with or authorized by the constitution of a state or society <a constitutional government>.Legalized: to make legal; especially : to give legal validity or sanction to
More atheists should be agnostics

I'm practically an atheist (in the sense I truly believe a God/gods do not exist). However, I see that God is always put outside any sort of testable parameters (conveniently) and due to the true subjective nature of the idea of God can always be shifted as so that we can never truly have enough evidence to prove or disapprove the existence of God.Agnosticism ,for those who think it just sitting on the fence, is the belief that there will never be enough evidence to prove or disapprove the existence of God.Though again it's extremely doubtful God exists , I would be unable to outrightly say that God doesn't exist.However I'm also unable to to say outrightly that we aren't all living in a computer simulation or that we were not all created by a giant spaghetti monster etc.
There can be no parallel universe

It's not that we can think there are parallel universes and what they might look like or how they might work. "The illusion is in the fact it simply can't Exist" Multi universes depend on the big bang hypothesis being valid. The big bang hypothesis depends solely on the red shift being a Doppler shift. But this is not backed up by any other type of observation and the red shift could easily be from other causes. Perhaps a gravitational interaction with masses in space for instance. Or a Raman effect from photons hitting ions with an uneven charge in space. Without knowing with absolute certainty that the big bang and Doppler red shift are what they are, a multi universe hypothesis is as useless a hypothesis that light is being shifted by a sorcerer waving his magic wand at photons. Saying there are multi universes is the same thing as saying anything is possible. To believe multi universes are possible is to believe anything you are told. You must believe you currently have a platypus head with equal zeal to that of multi universes being possible. You have a platypus head but everyone else sees it as a human head. (HPU) is a hypothesis and is un testable. It isn't even a theory it is a hypothesis based on untested unconfirmed theories. It is an ox before the cart. My opponent is right, all he has to do is show that they are possible. What do we have so far. Un testable hypothesizes based un untested theories. Simply saying that it is possible for parallel universes to exist is the same thing as saying anything is possible. There is no difference in the possibility that you have a platypus head and everyone sees it as a human head as parallel universes being possible. Occam's razor There can be no parallel universe. What is more likely you have a platypus head or there are infinite multi universes or ….There is only one universe and one reality that has been tested and observed.
There can be no parallel universe

What is more basic and understandable, human language or mathematical language. Your answer will determine how you vote in this debate. The hypothesis of the possibility of parallel universes is based on the idea that the universe contains everything. And all that has happened is happening and will happen. In short there is only one universe. The hypothesis of parallel universes (HPU) suggests that each of us lives in a separate universe unto themselves and that there are copies of your self thought the universe also living in separate universes unto themselves. The hypothesis of parallel universes is about perception not dimension. Unless you want to call perception a dimension You will never see a copy of yourself in this universe other than to imagine it. You will never see a copy of yourself in another parallel universe because you will never be in another universe unless you imagine it. (HPU) requires the rejection of reality in order for it to be considered. (HPU) is born from the unpredictability and inability to explain aspects of quantum mechanics. How particles react at the subatomic level. (HPU) is based on a quantum mechanics level not a "people" level so to speak. You will only know one universe and you will perceive it the same way everyone else will. We will avoid semantics here. If I see the gulf of Mexico you see the gulf of Mexico and you and I will never occupy the same space. Unlike what has been observed in quantum mechanics. There is only one universe unless you want to imagine there are more. But you will never see them or enter them. There are no parallel universes
There can be no parallel universe

We rarely have science debates on DDO. First, there is a misunderstanding about what a "parallel universe" is. That must first be defined before we can say it is or is not possible. Parallel Universe - "an interpretation of quantum mechanics that asserts the objective reality of the universal wavefunction, but denies the reality of wavefunction collapse, which implies that all possible alternative histories and futures are real. " [1] The term "parallel" is used, not because they are parallel in the class 3 dimentions, but that they are parallel in Spacetime. That means that they run parallel in a different dimention than the 3 we can see. Now, I would like to remind that based on the OP, my goal is not to prove that there are parallel universes, but show that they could exist (since Pro is trying to show that there can be no parallel universe). I believe that this is all that was needed, so I shall end my round here and await refutations. [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...(science)
There can be no parallel universe

If our known universe expands in all directions: Length width and height in all angles and all directions, there can be nothing parallel to it. The all direction theory implies a ball shape or a sphere shape but with no end in its size that the human mind can imagine. If there were to be another universe this universe would have to be finite in it's size to allow room for another universe under the all directions theory. If this universe implies a sphere shape under the length height width in all directions and angles theory. The other universe should also be a sphere of finite size. Two spheres can not be parallel. Two spheres can only be next to each other touching only on the subatomic level at one point. That point being as small as small can get using the reduce it by half into infinity level. Only two dimensions can be parallel which would make the universe and everything in it flat in order to be parallel to another universe.
There is more than 2 gender

I just would like to say wow that was an amazing debate. So bravo. Clap, Clap, Clap. However I like to say about the fact about intersexual people. Yes maybe it is not normal and maybe it's a defect yet it doesn't harm them in anyway. We can't call them a boy or a girl for sure. Yes I agree with your debate in some degree. People who are gender binary And gender fluid can be very selfish. Still there is people life in danger cause they are intersexual. Yes sometime a chromosome can change by a unnatural way but we can't just tell them they are a girl or a boy. People who say they like girl stuff and say they are girl when they are boy is just wrong. Problem like these block the real problem for gender. I believe we should find the real problem for gender other than someone who think they are born a other gender cause they feel like it. People who are in 3rd war country are getting killed because they are intersex, gay, or believe a different befief.
There is more than 2 gender

Discussing gender itself may be very complicated indeed; we can see transgender people - whose gender not correlate with their biological sex. Whereas "gender" is defined as socially constructed; intersex itself is not a 3rd gender, but a mere birth defect. Biologically there do not exist any new sex chromosomes in any way that determine the formation of both male and female gonads and genitals, but there exists a mutation, in fact an autosomal recessive inheritance. It is either the problem of genitals forming, or hormone changes during the process. Yes, intersex may be available as a 3rd biological sex - the ambiguity makes them hard to determine. The problem I would like to point out is this: people who are being selfish for their relationships with friends and family . People with genders such as non-binary, genderfluid, etc. claim to be "offended" by misusing pronouns that simply "assume" their gender when the person saying it has no intention of it. Why are they offended with mere words - mostly used in everyday conversation, that in any context except insulting, used simply as a pronoun, not a word to determine their gender. There exist third gender roles based on intersex in other parts of the world - and they have a culture in which assists/condemns those roles - but the problem is this: people who are not intersex. Gender is heavily dependent on what one receives upon growth and the environment around oneself - but identifying as a new gender is a completely new concept. One's preferences and tendencies may differ greatly, and that possibly being a reason to change or stay with one's gender and whole lifestyle, the tendencies are irrelevant with creating a new third gender. As human society progresses, we will reach the state where we do not care which gender we are, and these arguments will be probably pointless at that state, but I would like to argue that there are only 2 genders, i.e. 2 genders for now.
There is more than 2 gender

Hello, right now in this debate I am struggling to see which facts are right. My sister said there is more than 2 gender while other say there is only 2. I am very confuse about this topic and like to learn more about it. First I like to say that 1500 out of 1 people is intersex. This affect 0.05 % of people yet it is still affect 5 million people and we can't simply say there a male or female. Intersex people is born with a different chromosome and therefore have a male and a female genitals. Genes also affect gender in someway. A 'male might have female and genes. (Other way around). I can't say there is 700 gender but maybe gender is just more complicated than 2.
Adderall usage in college students without prescription

I would first point out that steroid use in professional sports is controversial and not ubiquitously considered unethical. Secondly, professional sports are naturally competitive where the university classroom is competitive to a much less extent. If one team chooses to use performance-enhancing substances that results in them winning, the other team loses. If a student chooses to use Adderall to study for a test and receives 100% it has no effect on the chances of any other students receiving 100%. As for my comparison to coffee I will first point out that fatigue is a mental condition, which is why many people drink coffee in the morning. Both caffeine and Adderall are stimulants, and there is evidence that caffeine also affects the dopamine system (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Therefore drinking caffeine enhances mental performance, and by my opponent"s logic consuming caffeine would be unethical unless the consumer was tired and/or suffering from a mental condition in which caffeine would help put them "on an even playing field." "The fact that it is illegal in itself makes the use of Adderall without a prescription unethical." Would you say it was unethical to drink alcohol during prohibition? Slavery was once legal, therefore was it ethical before it was abolished? Unfortunately public policy is not always a perfect indicator to the ethicality of an issue. On top on that my opponent seems to be assuming that everyone with a prescription to Adderall have ADHD. Given the vague criteria for diagnosis, which reportedly leads to frequent over-diagnosis, there are likely many people with an Adderall prescription who do not have ADHD. Is it unethical for these people to use Adderall? (http://bjp.rcpsych.org...)
Adderall usage in college students without prescription

Then we share something in common, as this is my first debate as well. Well to preface my argument I should start with some background on ADHD and what Adderall does for it. ADHD is essentially a mental condition where a person's frontal cortex does not receive enough dopamine (an important neurotransmitter) to properly function. The frontal cortex is the part of the brain responsible for problem solving, reasoning, critical thinking, etc. Adderall's role in this is to help counteract the dopamine deficiency so that the brain can function as a normal brain would. Therefore, my argument is that people who use Adderall who do not have ADHD only further enhance their problem solving and thought process to an above average level. Some, such as myself, might equate this to steroid use in professional sports (Although that is a completely different discussion for another time). For people who do have ADHD, Adderall merely negates their condition and puts them on an even playing field with people who do not have the condition. Thus, I must disagree with you when you say that taking Adderall is no less ethical than drinking coffee since you do not need a prescription from a doctor to have a cup of coffee, nor do people drink coffee as a means of treating a mental condition. Also, taking a prescription drug without a prescription is illegal...much unlike drinking coffee. The fact that it is illegal in itself makes the use of Adderall without a prescription unethical.
Adderall usage in college students without prescription

Greetings, I look forward to proceeding with this debate. As this is my first debate on this I ask the audience to please excuse any informality from this side. I do have some personal experience with the issue at hand as my girlfriend is prescribed Dexedrin, a compound completely, if not virtually, identical to Adderall. Also as I did attend university for some time, Con and I agree that many students certainly do use Adderall to enhance performance. I would please ask Con to elaborate on the way in which it puts people diagnosed with ADHD at a huge advantage. I argue that taking Adderall to stay up all night studying for an exam is no less ethical than drinking coffee or taking caffeine pills to do so. And although at first glance I negate your second claim as well, I will wait for you to elaborate before further sculpting my contention. Cheers and good luck!
Time Travel, to the future, is possible.

My opponents argument attacks the theory behind Special Relativity, "Clocks all operate by doing a certain thing at a certain rate. In the urban legends of fast traveling aircraft where the times are off by one second, that can easily be attributed to barometric conditions and other variables that effect the mechanism by which clocks work. .. Clocks, mechanical or electrical, are completely incapable of judging any time dilation, even if it did exist. An objective measure of time "changing" would have to exist, and we don't have that. " 1. Con's first mistake is to offer no sources decrediting the idea of Time Dilation and/or the possiblities behind Special Relativity. He simply argues with his own logic. Unless he is a credited physicist or mathmetician, his argument is irrelevant. 2. In his assertion that Time Dilation is something we don't have, he uses the example of the clocks on the ground and in the airplane, his assumptions that there are barometric conditions and other variables that effect the mechanisms by which clocks work, that argument may stand. Though I never referenced time travel here on Earth. Let me clarify by saying I used to idea of astronauts. Astronauts experience the effect of aging a little less then the rest of us. Because the Russian cosmonaut Sergi Avdeyev was in robit a total of 748 days during three spaceflights, he's about one fiftieth of a second younger then he would be fi he hadn't gone on those trips. This results from the interaction of the two effects. First, a clock sitting at rest wiht respect to Earth at the altitude of the Mir Space Station would slightly tick faster than one on Earths surface. Thats because Mir is higher up in Earths gravitational well. But the secoond and larger effect is that the astronaut would be traveling at more then 17,000 mph, and his clock would be clicking more slowly then if he were stationary with respect to Earths surface. His orbital velocity is .00254 % the spped of light-- the slowing of his clock is small but real. Mr. Avdeyev is the greatest time traveler to date. Mr. Avdeyev has travelled to the future by about one fiftieth of a second. Thats not much, but it is a stop. A journey of a thousand years must begin with a fraction of a second. This example is proving Special Relativity, and does not involve barometric pressure, because the lack of atmosphere of space. 3. In conclusion, the con has not offered any arugments to disprove the resolution, that "Time Travel, to the future, is possible". This is not an argument on Special Relativity.
Time Travel, to the future, is possible.

Special relativity works out on paper and correlates with other calculated data but cannot be used for time travel because of a very simple misocnception. Clocks don't tell time the way we think they do. The flaw of special relativity is that it assumes that clocks somehow look around at where they are and display time the same way a thermometer displays temperature. Clocks all operate by doing a certain thing at a certain rate. In the urban legends of fast traveling aircraft where the times are off by one second, that can easily be attributed to barometric conditions and other variables that effect the mechanism by which clocks work. Clocks, mechanical or electrical, are completely incapable of judging any time dilation, even if it did exist. An objective measure of time "changing" would have to exist, and we don't have that. It doesn't matter how fast something travels, time exists when motion exits and any velocity is a form of motion. Time travel is impossible because time only exists as a conceptual aid for motion and change.
Time Travel, to the future, is possible.

My opponent has again taken the coward's way out, and has again violated the rules of debate. While it is true that my counterpoint is purely from my own personal observation and no one else's, this is NOT grounds for dismissing it. Again, this is a direct violation of the rules of debate. If I say that 1+1=2, how is it any more or less true than when a mathematician says 1+1=2? My opponent has disrespectfully decided that NOTHING I say deserves analysis purely because the sources he cites comes from people with better credentials. That being said, I respectfully answer my opponent with a resounding "NO". I need not bring in outside opinions because my opinion is still valid. What is questionable is that you have not directly answered my question in the TWO ROUNDS I have given you to do so. *********************** My opponent SLIGHTLY touches upon the counterpoint I made at the beginning of this debate only at the very end. "Its not that the clock is clicking differently, its that to an outside observer it is clicking either slower or faster, it is the increased or decreased observation from our conscious that make time travel possible, time is after all an observation." My opponent, by making this point, basically shoots himself in the foot. What my opponent has been describing as time travel is only delayed reaction. If things travel at near the speed of light, they don't travel in time. It's just that an observer on earth wouldn't be able to interpret the data fast enough. We perceive information through light waves, and if things travel near the speed of light, of course it would give the ILLUSION that time is slowing. In reality, it is not. It's just that our flawed biological data processors (our eyes) are not correlating with reality properly. My opponent said it himself. To a person on earth, a clock moving away at the speed of light would seem to click SLOWER. But as soon as that clock makes its way BACK TO EARTH, it would seem to click FASTER until it reaches "normal time". This is akin to Doppler's effect of sound waves. Thus, all the experiments regarding time travel are based merely on illusion of the senses. In that case, I must conclude that my opponent did not, in any way, shape, or form, develop his argument that time travel is possible. All of his responses were based on illogical premises that I have pointed out several times over and his final response revealed an ADDITIONAL flaw in the entire concept of time travel.
Sherlock Holmes (Pro) is a "better" detective than Batman (Con)

Now, I will be presenting my case as to why Sherlock Holmes is a better detective.1. ) Prowess in Deductive ReasoningIt is a well known fact that Sherlock Holmes is a genius when it comes to deductive reasoning. In any media one checks, he is shown to be a master at logically piecing together observations and clues and miraculously coming to a conclusion, which is almost, always true. But what does this have to do with detective work? A detective, as per the definition provided, is "a private investigator whose function is to obtain information and evidence". Holmes's exceptional observation skills allows him to efficiently gather information and evidence, and his deductive reasoning skills allows him to put together the information into conclusions which prove to be, almost always, right. The whole purpose of a detective is to "solve crimes". And I hope to have shown, that by deductive reasoning, Sherlock Holmes does this marvelously. 2. ) FightingA small point I want to add is that Holmes is a boxer/ fighter, as shown in the story "A Study in Scarlet" by Watson summing him up (. http://en.wikipedia.org...). Although not a central skill necessary to detectives, it is an attribute that makes him even a better one. Rebuttal to Con's Opening Statement1. ) Logical FallaciesIn my reading of Con's opening statement, I found quite the bit of logical fallacies. a. Ad HominemIn their opening statement, Con attacks me personally, and not the issue at hand, by calling me "a ****** retard" and telling me to "go ****** kill yourself". b. False InformationCon asserts that Batman can "talk to bats". For the life of me, I cannot find any source that says Batman can talk to bats. Summon them, yes, but not talk. c. False CausalityCon asserts to be a good detective, one must fly and talk to bats. Based on the definition of detective, there exists no causal link (that Con made apparent) between flying and talking to bats (which I showed was false information), and being a detective.