BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Classroom Prayer Should Be Banned in US Schools

I am aware most debates today are done with acceptance in the comments, but I prefer to randomize my opponent. This debate is on the United States of America on all types of prayer while in the classroom. Prayer is defined as devout religious demonstration relative to God or a religious object. The debate is not about within the lunchroom or hallways but during designated teaching time. Rounds: 1- Pro Guidelines/Con Acceptance and Arguments 2-3- Arguments and Rebuttals 4- Pro Rebuttals/Con Final Round 5- Pro Final Round/Con Nothing Rules: 1. No Trolling or Ad Hominem Attacks 2. Within the Final Round, only a summarization of debate and final comments are allowed. No new arguments or rebuttals may be brought up. 3. When a rule is broken by one opponent, the other may either break same rule and offense will be flown through on conduct or refrain and note as a deduction of conduct points. 4. I have defined the terms for this debate. By accepting the debate, you thus accept these to be the definition of the terms for these purposes. 5. All empirical evidence must be supported with a source.
Obesity In America should we do something

I Agree with my opponent about not being able to force people to fight their obese problems, but their are many obese people who want to make a change for example Jamie Oliver a chef from England is not obese but tries his best to change other people's eating habits. Forcing people is obviously not an option but getting people to help is, the United States is the 3rd most obese country in the world behind Mexico and Australia and that is a substantial problem Obesity in childhood can add up to health problems"often for life. In adults, overweight and obesity are linked to increased risk of heart disease, type 2 diabetes (high blood sugar), high blood pressure, certain cancers, and other chronic conditions.
Obesity In America should we do something

Now I agree with you in everyway on this don't get me wrong, but the problem is we cannot force obese people or people who will become obese to change their ways. They have to change for themselves or they have to want to change otherwise they will just keep going back or finding different ways to get the food they want. If we say no you cannot have this or stop serving obese people fast food.. will that stop them? No they will find someone to buy it for them or sneak it one way or another. We can overall help them and make it easier for them and also harder to get certain foods but in the end it is up to the person whether they want to fix their lifestyle or not., I would like to take the time to thank my opponent for offering this debate and to anyone who is reading this. Thank you.
Animal Rights

I think that animals are not necessarily more or less than humans. It's impossible to rank life. For example, by better, what do you mean? Smarter? If so, should smart humans be able to mistreat less than average humans? How do you even define intelligence in a way that holds true for every species on planet earth and beyond? If it's physical ability, we are sorely lacking. In fact, take away our tools and we're useless. Besides, even if we are superior, why would we mistreat animals when there's another way? Factory farms push horrid pollutants into the waters of earth, and natural farms don't require them. All in all, we need to take responsibility for our actions, better than animals, or not.
Animal Rights

I agree that factory farms are the most efficient way to produce food, but they are not the most sustainable. If we took all the grain used to feed factory farm animals and gave it to humans, world hunger would end. As for your most happiness to the most people, more animals are being held in factory farms, bullfights, etc. than there are humans that benefit from them. And even more are affected by the pollutants that factory farms produce. I would like to say now that I forfeit, but not because you convinced me. Debate over.
No believer in any religion that includes an afterlife can provide me with a sound argument

A little background, I have a degree in Philosophy and Chemistry. One of my main interests in Philosophy was to be able to prove my religion true, so I studied the apologetics and am now sure that Christianity, my faith of 27 years, is impossible because this world cannot exist in its current form if an omnibenevolent and omnipotent god exists. My challenge is as follows. I want a follower of any faith that includes an afterlife to convince me that their faith comports with reality. Thus Con will have the burden of proving that his or her belief system is factually correct. I will be responsible for finding flaws in the arguments. The only rules are that you are only allowed to use rational arguments, faith based arguments are not allowed and you cannot post a new argument in the final round because I will not be able to respond.
Official March Beginner's Tournament 2016 Round 2: Feminism is Beneficial to the Modern World.

Pardon the extremely brief round, last-minute scheduling conflicts only left me with minimal time to finish. As with Pro prior, this should be of no relevance to voters, only an explanation--Pro argues that current prevailing sexual norms and gender roles place women at a disadvantage, and that these gender roles are not only harmful to the, but to men as well. Pro cites the example of Hitchen and Maher's "male bashing", which fixates on attacking men due to behaving in a feminine matter. This ties into the subsequent, implicit argument that the fight against gender roles, largely spearheaded by feminism, is in the best interests of men (the other half of society) as well.Whether this is actually beneficial can be answered through a series of seemingly arbitrary rhetorical questions:Is feminism advocating for equality? Maybe in some cases - as I argued in my opening round, this is neither desirable nor likely achievable. The fact remains that modern, developed society is based in the fundamental inequality of humanity as a sexually dimorphic species.Is feminism advocating for women's interests, in particular? Given its historical trends, nature, and modern behavior, probably we can know this is true in some sense. At the very least, feminism acts in the best immediate interests of women.Is feminism doing any good that is not outweighed by its short-term or long-term problesm? No! Not only does it ruthlessly strive in favor of advancing women's interests (often to the detriment of men's, for example ), but the very advancement thereof poses an fundamental problem for society, as it is based on certain inequalities (which will, in some cases, NOT be to the immediate interests of women) common to the human condition. There is no evidence that an alternative or inverted arrangement (the forme of which appears to be the minimum of feminism's demands) is compatible with modern, civilized society.
Official March Beginner's Tournament 2016 Round 2: Feminism is Beneficial to the Modern World.

Full Resolution: On balance, Feminism is Beneficial to the Modern World.Modern/Modernity (http://www.businessdictionary.com...)Characteristics of modern (post second World War) societies that have capitalistic economies and democratic political structures, and are highly industrialized and divided into social classes based on economic status. These characteristics include regular pattern of everyday life, urbanization, influx of women at all levels of employment and business, secular outlook, sexual freedom, sharp reduction in birth rate and death rate, centralized bureaucratic government, standardized education system, and pervasive use of technology specially in communications.Feminism (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)Organized self-identified/self-proclaimed feminist activity in support of women's rights and interests. Structure:Round 1: Acceptance ONLYRound 2: ArgumentsRound 3: Arguments and RebuttalsRound 4: Rebuttals and ConclusionThere shall be no semantics in this debate. Both sides are prohibited from debating and overhauling definitions. if you have any concern regarding the definitions, raise them now before the debate commences. Pro is prohibited from using lawyering methods of scapegoating, such as shifting between different feminist stances. If Pro violates this rule and refutes Con by using such infraction, Pro will forfeit the entire debate. Both sides are not allowed to raise new arguments in the last round.This debate is issued as part of the Beginner's Tournament (http://www.debate.org...). Only someloser(http://www.debate.org...) can accept this debate. If someone other than him manages to accept this challenge, that person will forfeit the entire debate. Once the challenge is issued, the contender may accept whenever he is ready. =====Both of us are fellow proteges of the ancient Cody_Franklin who as we believe right now is currently lurking for a revival. It was prophesied that only one of us may remain as his protege. I intend to make that title mine. Time for you to lose, someloser. Kissing his feet should be my prize, not yours.That said, RAWR!!!
If we legalize Marijuana, the world will lack the motivation necessary to do anything.

I can tell that this debate will not get many views, nor will it get many votes. The only reason I accepted this debate is because I saw it as TheCalmOne trying to challenge me on what he knows to be my favorite subject. I figured he would provide better arguments. "Marijuana does make you less motivated, and the facts can be seen here" I looked at the link you provided and saw nothing beneficial to your case. Even if it DID mention that Marijuana makes you less motivated, they have no studies, cases, etc. Everything on that site is just straight information. They could say ANYTHING that they wanted on that site. "Marijuana is bad for people because it gets you high, and when you are high, you cannot do anything. " This is rather off-topic. Anyways, you can do things while you are high. People get high and drive every day. Period. So I'm not sure what you are trying to prove by this "argument". "Voters remember that a high nation is a bad nation! " Hahaha. Well, I'm sure that even if Marijuana is legalized, we will NOT be a "high nation". I've disproved every argument TheCalmOne thinks he has stated. Although this was a rather amusing debate.
If we legalize Marijuana, the world will lack the motivation necessary to do anything.

Don't get offended; I only posted this because you are for marijuana and I am against it. Marijuana does make you less motivated, and the facts can be seen here: . http://www.camh.net... Marijuana is bad for people because it gets you high, and when you are high, you cannot do anything. Voters remember that a high nation is a bad nation!
If we legalize Marijuana, the world will lack the motivation necessary to do anything.

You had a semi-smart topic, but no facts to back it up. "Marijuana makes you less motivated," Without any form a source, I'll simply say that this is a ridiculous assumption, and my argument will not change until you come up with a source. "so if everybody did it, nobody would want to do anything. " The legalization of Marijuana is not about everybody smoking, it is about a certain percentile. If you can bring me a percentile that states that if Marijuana was legalized, then 100% of people would smoke it, then your argument would hold more water with me. "I've seen several studies in which Marijuana has shown a significant impact on the motivational side of the human brain. " I'm not sure that there is even a "motivational" side to the brain. Maybe you are referring to the left side of the brain? In any case, I need sources. My opponent has not suggested anything logical whatsoever, and I hope he decides to do so within the next round considering that it is the last one.
Objective Morality Does Not Exist, Regardless of the Biblical God's Existence

My position is that objective morality exists, and it has nothing to do with any of the world's religions. I believe morality can be explained through neuroscience and behavioral psychology, and our understanding of morality will become clearer as science progresses in the coming decades. That's my position, but I won't argue for it until you get a chance to present your argument. This should be interesting!
Objective Morality Does Not Exist, Regardless of the Biblical God's Existence

(I am only specifying the Christian God because I am not familiar with other religions. )Definitions [1]Objective : (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. Subjective : based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. Morality : principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. StructureCon may elect to use Round #1 for acceptance only or to present arguments. If the latter is chosen, then Con must waive the final round in order to maintain an equal number of opportunities to argue. The rest of the debate shall not follow any specific structure. [1] Oxford Dictionaries - . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
whether or not being gay is moral

Thank you. I am glad that we agree that BEING GAY IS NOT MORAL or immoral. Being gay is being gay. With that said you did make one point that I will expand on but we both know is not essential to the question of "moral." My friend in your round two argument you said that" "Okay your argument is full of amazing points. The only part i disagree with is when you told me it's a choice. for you it may have been. but it isn't for everybody." BUT I SAY OBJECTION. I never disclosed my own view on whether being gay was a choice or not. WHAT I ACTUALLY SAID WAS: "My friend - you claimed "i believe that being gay is moral because it isn't a choice." OBJECTION. When a subject lacks a choice it is not de facto "moral." Even in moral determinings - lacking a choice may be a modification for even being moral or accountable. My point is this does not prove that being gay is moral. Being gay is being gay." TO THAT I HOLD TRUE! WHY? Because it is, in fact, true. Whether or not you had a choice in being gay is not relevant. If it is not a choice then it is not a moral dilemma. IF YOU'RE BEING GAY WASN'T A CHOICE THAT DOESN'T MAKE YOU MORAL or IMMORAL. IT MAKES YOU GAY. For me, being a disclosed gay man, I have no opinion on whether or not I made a choice to be gay or if I was just gay by genetics or nature or whatever you call it. To me it doesn't really matter. HOWEVER - lets say, for arguments sake, that being gay WAS A CHOICE.... the only moral agent is the BARE NAKED INDIVIDUAL REGARDLESS OF IDENTITY and his actions. I CONCLUDE BY SAYING THIS: If I am gay beyond my choosing THEN I ALSO CHOOSE TO BE GAY. Does that make me moral or immoral? NO! Identification and subsequent action are only mine to determine for myself. If someone else has something to say then they should have their say. AGAIN I ASK ANYONE reading this and my esteemed opponent to not accept this topic as true on the basis of what has been covered. We are who we are. All of us.
whether or not being gay is moral

I am a gay man. Let's get that "straight." ;) BEING GAY IS NOT MORAL. It's also not immoral. My sole argument against your position and stated topic is that what is moral has nothing to do with being gay. What's worse - even trying to argue against it fuels our common enemies of equality. It's about framework. We don't even know if morality is objective or exists. That being said - I will go over your major points. My friend - you claimed "i believe that being gay is moral because it isn't a choice." OBJECTION. When a subject lacks a choice it is not de facto "moral." Even in moral determinings - lacking a choice may be a modification for even being moral or accountable. My point is this does not prove that being gay is moral. Being gay is being gay. My friend - you said "notice that most people that are against it just don't understand it and never will." I SAY - YES. you're absolutely right. HOWEVER - since when did any demographic actually get to decide for any individual actually what was right or wrong. For those of them that somehow get locked in this weird idea that they're actually deciding what is moral for everyone- we can simply respond "Ad Populum" logical fallacy. Or "Non Sequitur". It does not follow logically that because a church says something is infallible - the whole world becomes bound to those words. Why give them any credence at all? My friend you have said "unless you are gay how are you going to tell me whether or not i made the decision to be gay." I am gay and I am telling you. My friend, you said "as for the bible..." I say "who cares" My friend you concluded: "furthermore, there is the argument that god made man to be with a woman so homosexuality is "unnatural" well what of blind and deaf people? are they sinners too because god made their eyes to see but they don't see and their ears don't hear? jesus healed a blind man. did he ever heal a homosexual? no. because there isn't anything wrong with it. homosexuals balance the population. the earth would be severely overpopulated if it wasn't for us. we already can't feed and house and employ everybody. god put us here for a reason. that counters the "inability to procreate" " I say OBJECTION! These were never valid arguments. Anything that happens in nature - is natural. YES even terrible things. What is of nature is beyond right and wrong - good and evil. It is a statement of what is. Being gay, to me, makes for a wonderful life. I don't have to wonder whether my natural existence is moral because I am not subject to that actual judgment. I am asking anyone to view this and my friend representing opposing to remove this thought from your mind - to smirk at those that would try to superimpose "moral" on any aspect of you. Being gay is not a subject we morally determine. Love and life are not interested in the cries of the hateful and destructive.
whether or not being gay is moral

i believe that being gay is moral because it isn't a choice. notice that most people that are against it just don't understand it and never will. think about it. unless you are gay how are you going to tell me whether or not i made the decision to be gay. as for the bible, it has been edited and reedited so many times it just doesn't even have any credibility anymore. not to mention that every supposed opposition to homosexuality in the bible is merely and opposition to immoral acts that would be no different for heterosexuals. and for those that refer to romans 1 it says that god gave them up to strange afflictions. that is about as vague as saying you ate food for breakfast. it goes on to prove that those who say the bible is against homosexuality are just trying to make God their ultimate authority and failing miserably at it. furthermore, there is the argument that god made man to be with a woman so homosexuality is "unnatural" well what of blind and deaf people? are they sinners too because god made their eyes to see but they don't see and their ears don't hear? jesus healed a blind man. did he ever heal a homosexual? no. because there isn't anything wrong with it. homosexuals balance the population. the earth would be severely overpopulated if it wasn't for us. we already can't feed and house and employ everybody. god put us here for a reason. that counters the "inability to procreate" but the thing is we are still firtile we just can't muster the thought of the action it requires. we could still donate our semen or whatever... but that's besides the point. so.... a penny for your thoughts??
Consensual incest is permissible.

I think most of your criticism of incestual relationships could be applied to any relationship (e.g. pregnancy, polygamy, strain in the family, HIV/AIDS, etc.), and if we assume that sex between adults and children cannot be consensual, then it does not create the possibility of paedophilia. Am I not uncomfortable with parents having sex with their children? Well, I stand by my statement that they should not be treated any differently, but a parent is in a position of responsibility, and so there should be according implications in line with the great responsibility they have for their teenage child's wellbeing.On DeformitiesWell, first cousins without history of inbreeding are likely to suffer little in terms of deformities.[1] But regardles, I see the situation thusly:If the child will be seriously deformed, so that it will likely suffer in life, then the pregnancy should be aborted as an act of mercy. If the child will likely be healthy and happy - then nothing is wrong.I might be being quite brief, but if you want me to expand on any points, we still have plenty of rounds to do so.
Consensual incest is permissible.

Incredibly sorry for the forfeit.______________________________I do not claim incest to be an endorsement of paedophililia, but it would set president for much older parents to be in a CIR with their much younger children. Some people may not see the line._______________________________In the family strain: it is likely that a father wouldn't take kindly to his child being in a CIR with his child._______________________________Normal' couples are fully entitled to give birth to deformed children, and a non-incestual couple who possess an incredibly unlucky combination of genes would also theoretically be allowed to have children, in the effort of maintaining coherency, incestual couples should also be allowed to have children, even if it should be discouraged. Indeed those in both CIRs and non-CIRs are entitled to give birth, but this does not mean that this is permissable.Furthermore, all this has nothing to do with the permissibility of a relationship between two brothers, or even a sterile couple, or even a couple who have no intention of having children and use contraception to that effect.Is it permissable to substantially increase the chances of a deformed baby to be born just because you selfishly acted on your desire for pleasure? Keep in mind that this baby may or may not face a life of incredible hardship or death.This is certainly not permissable.About contraception: why not just hire/buy 57 prostitutes?Take your bets on the chances one will have a child.CIRs are thought by just about everyone to be 'disgusting'; however, personal disgust alone is not a reason to punish someone.I find rape disgusting. I find murder disgusting. Incest is nowhere near as bad as the things I just mentioned.Make no mistake; I do not find CIRs disgusting. But I do not condone these incestuals' (I hope that doesn't sound offensive) actions. When these actions are taken, others must be taken. Not by law, mind you. But you and I would have a moral responsibility to heavily discourage these happenings and to show the immorality of their actions.