BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Hillary Clinton is incomparable to Barack Obama. Barack Obama is a much better candidate.

I am not a Democrat or a Republican. In fact, I am a Libertarian but would like to express that Barack Obama is a better candidate for the president of the United States than Hillary Clinton. There are many reasons to vote for Hillary Clinton that Barack surpasses her on and are many aspects that Mrs. Clinton is incomparable to him on. - It is rumored that Hillary Clinton has more political experience than Barack Obama. However, this is untrue. She claims 35 years of experience, however, she only has 8 years of experience. Granted, she became first lady of Arkansas in 1979 and remained so until 1992, where she became first lady of the United States until 2000, when her experience actually begins. In her 21 years of being a first lady she was very inactive as a political figure but was helpful as a spouse of the president. Her only significant initiative was a failed attempt at a health care plan during her husband's term. And her senate term for 8 years was completely absent of accomplishments. Barack, however, had many accomplishments. He cosponsored bipartisan legislation for controlling conventional weapons and for promoting greater public accountability in the use of federal funds, sponsored legislation on lobbying and electoral fraud, climate change, nuclear terrorism, and care for returned U.S. military personnel. - He voted against the Iraq War unlike Hillary. 'Nuff said. - It is rumored that Hillary is more specific but if you visit their websites, you'll notice that the vast majority of Barack's plans have a PDF file attached with an incredible amount of detaiol, while Mrs. Clinton's only have her position and 4 or 5 bulletins. Hardly specific plans. - She is unwilling to compromise on her positions to suffice other parties, which she has proved in her initial health care plan and her new one. The first one was a solely Democratic effort that Mrs. Clinton did not intend to allow other Republicans who had small compromises collaborate on. Her newer plan is one that no Republican will ever vote for. It includes a mandate for health care, significantly higher taxes, and is just simply not bipartisan. - The mandate. Clinton proposes a mandate that each person will be forced to buy health care or else there will be a fine. Barack allows each person to choose and gives them the oppurtunity to do so with his plan's help. What sense does that make? You can't afford health care so let's put you further in the whole with a fee!?!? It reminds me of the Ancient British's plan to put debtors in jail. How can these people pay? - Mrs. Clinton intends to have a significant withdraw beginning on her first day in office. A withdraw from Iraq will take much more consideration and it is logistically impossible to bring our troops home in the short amount of time she suggests. - Barack Obama intends to meet with our leaders and our friends, while Hillary is too frightened. She calls it naieve. Obama has been endorsed by foreign policy leaders, unlike Hillary Clinton. - Not to mention the countless shameless, negative campaigning. - And I 'spose I'm done here.
The over indulgence in our entertainment negatively affects how we view & treat each other.

Background My opponent and I have been going back and fourth in this subject for some time now. We have very different views and decided to express our differences in a formal debate. Our disagreements range over a few different topics and we finally arrived at this resolution as the best way to cover all the basic points of our views. Resolution The resolution is more of a broad topic and will be clarified by whatever argument Pro makes in round 2. My role in this debate is to show why his case is unreasonable by refuting his points and if needed, providing my own. Over indulgence: Pros use of this word in the resolution assumes that this is the case when it comes to entertainment in our culture. Part of my argument is that this is not the case, and that Pro misinterprets the connection most people have with entertainment. Voters Voters are reminded that personal opinion of the resolution should not play a role in deciding the most convincing argument. For those who may be unfamiliar with acceptable voting criteria please read the following:http://www.debate.org...
The over indulgence in our entertainment negatively affects how we view & treat each other.

*RESOLUTION*: Pro will be instigating different subjects related to the topic at hand. Con will be contending by trying to debunk my evidence with his own that it doesn't. Ultimately revealing the reality of our actions & how they directly/indirectly may/not have affect on how we view & treat each other. Both parties will be rationalizing & dissecting each others arguments to evolve new ideas. RULES: First round is for acceptance & there will be a max character count to "murder the alphabet" on this topic once & for all. CHALLENGER: I intend on commanding your full attention. >D I await anxiously for my contender who's in between debates. I thank & admire you, Double_R for accepting when you are able to.
Gay marriage will not affect other American's

Actually I'm not gay. The researchers found that indeed, same-sex unions aren't bringing down the venerated institution of marriage. The rates of opposite-sex marriage did not differ in states where same-sex marriage or civil union were legalized in the time period analyzed. "We conclude that there is no relationship between implementation of same sex marriage or strong or weak same sex union laws and rates of opposite sex marriage," the researchers write. They had hypothesized that there could be a jump in the marriage rate with same-sex marriage laws directly after legalization, because of movements like the National Marriage Boycott where LGBT allies pledge to forgo marriage until same-sex marriage becomes legal, but the data didn't bear that theory out. http://www.popsci.com... Also it doesn't matter what religion says. Your religion shouldn't affect other people. You can't enforce your religion on other people.
Gay marriage will not affect other American's

youre probably gay i dont know why u would be defending it so much. its in the constitution many religions forbid it its just not human. and how do you know it wouldnt affect me? you dont know that it can affect me. if your gay you shouldnt marry a other guy and even if it does get legallized it shouldnt be called marraige. maybe something on the lines of gay partnership thats not marriage. its ridiculous how ANYONE would even call it marriage
Gay marriage will not affect other American's

This is a debate on whether it would affect your life or not. But any way Amendment 14 Section 1 says:All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.http://www.law.cornell.edu...
Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized.

During the course of this debate my opponent has made wild assumptions, while ignoring the facts and the rule of law. He is arguing that gays do not have equal rights, yet he fails to point out a single legitimate right that heterosexuals have, but which is being refused to homosexuals. We all have the exact same rights, and the right to which I am referring is the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. There is no right to marry someone you love. Furthermore, I have not abandoned my opening arguments; to the contrary, I am using this concluding round to bring my round one round two arguments full circle. While my opponent callously throws majority rule out the window, I cannot follow suit. The fact of the matter is that a clear majority of Americans do not want gay marriage to be legalized (I offered an explanation of why in round one with the slippery slope argument). Even more supportive of my position is that only 36% of Americans actually support gay marriage (1). These statistical facts apparently hold no water with my opponent, which is strange because public support is the "why" and "how" most laws are created. In order for my opponent's premise that "gay marriage should be legalized" to become true, a law would have to be created and passed. It's a fact, there is currently no law recognizing gay marriage at the federal level. I can only assume my opponent is referring to a national law to recognize gay marriage since he did not specify a state for such a law. Therefore, I merely pointed out the protocol by which to pass a federal law, and I am arguing that since no law has been passed, or even proposed, gay marriage should NOT be legalized. My opponent failed to reference any pending legislation at any level of government that would in fact legalize gay marriage, even though I asked for specific legislation in round one. If my opponent is unable to produce evidence of a pending bill in support of his argument, how can he possibly contend that gay marriage should be legalized? His arguments are merely based on his personal feelings and view of the world. Furthermore, based on his anti-American comments for this debate, and his profile content, I suspect he doesn't really like traditional America (ie: democracy), and would instead prefer a socialistic-type of nation where the beliefs of a few rule the lives of many. In response to my opponent's bizarre suggestions that polygamy, bestiality, or incest should be made legal in order to support his argument that gay marriage should also be legalized, I would argue the exact same reasons to oppose such laws as I am here for gay marriage. In conclusion, gay marriage should not be legalized because: a) Only 36% of Americans support such a law, and 55% are opposed to it. b) There are no supporting bills in the pipeline. If there is no pending bill, then gay marriage shouldn't be legalized because it needs to first go through the proper channel to become a law. (1) http://pewforum.org...
Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized.

So it seems that my opponent either drops, or agrees with the clarifications I gave toward his points about my opening argument, with arguments such as "since the right doesn't currently exist, you can't take it away." He has also seemed to dropped his slippery slope argument, so may the audience keep this in mind. ~Counterarguments~ 1. Process of a bill becoming a law I fail to see the weight in my opponent's argument concerning how a bill becomes a law. I am well aware of the process, but this fails to show for my opponent why gay marriage shouldn't be legalized. It basically amounts to that since gay marriage hasn't been made legal by the federal government, it shouldn't be legal. Is it just me or is that just absolutely redundant!? Also, I did not explicitly state whether the state or federal government should legalize gay marriage, but only that it should be legalized. The role of who should legalize it is of no concern in this debate. 2. 55% of Americans oppose gay marriage As I've stated before, just because a slight majority of Americans oppose gay marriage, this shows nothing on whether or not gay marriage should be legal, only that Americans oppose it. I respect their opinions, but this doesn't mean I agree with their opinions. Do note that a well 3/4 of America is Christian [1], and thus many would oppose gay marriage based solely on religious purposes. About 20% of Americans believe the sun revolves around the Earth [2], but does that give even an inkling on the merit of that claim? 3. Comment about "Yeah, screw democracy" First of all, I agreed with that statement in a partially sarcastic manner, though it probably wasn't clear. However, this is once again a FAILED argument. Not only should the comment section be out of the context of this debate, but whether or not I support democracy (which I do) has no merit on the legality of gay marriage. "Homosexual Americans have EXACTLY the same rights as heterosexual Americans, no less and no more. Both groups of people are permitted to marry someone of the opposite sex." --> EXCEPT MARRIAGE. Which is exactly the point of this debate. The point is, homosexual people want to marry, uh duh, the same gender! Not allowing them this option is taking away a right that is theirs. ~Conclusion~ In the progression of this brief debate, my opponent has given no substantial argument against gay marriage. The only feasible argument was his slippery slope argument, but he has failed to bring it back up. I tackled that argument in a new way, by asking him why polygamy, bestiality, or incest should be illegal if they all involve consenting adults. His recurring point is about 55% of Americans being opposed to gay marriage, but I clearly showed that to be a fallacious argument. For all the reasons I have shown, and for all the points I have refuted, vote for Pro. ---References--- 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://www.smirkingchimp.com...
Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized.

You are arguing that a law should be created to recognize gay marriage. Let's consider what it takes to become a law at the federal level, and then we can clearly determine whether or not gay marriage should be legalized: According to http://www.usconstitution.net... here is the general process: "First, a bill must pass both houses of Congress by a majority vote. After it has passed out of Congress, it is sent along to the President. If the President signs the bill, it becomes law. The President might not sign the bill, however. If he specifically rejects the bill, called a veto, the bill returns to Congress. There it is voted on again, and if both houses of Congress pass the bill again, but this time by a two-thirds majority, then the bill becomes law without the President's signature. This is called "overriding a veto," and is difficult to do because of the two-thirds majority requirement. Alternately, the President can sit on the bill, taking no action on it at all. If the President takes no action at all, and ten days passes (not including Sundays), the bill becomes law without the President's signature. However, if the Congress has adjourned before the ten days passes and without a Presidential signature, the bill fails. This is known as a pocket veto." Since the protocol as described above has not occurred in regards to legalized gay marriage, then it is indisputable that the recognition of gay marriage should not be a law. Furthermore, in your comments of this debate you agreed with the statement, "Yeah, screw democracy." If you are not pro-democracy, then that would explain why you so easily threw aside my argument that a majority of Americans do not want gay marriages to by recognized under the law. The fact of the matter is that we live in America, and it is a democracy (or representative democracy), and laws are created by a strict set of protocols which are directly influenced and affected by public opinion. Homosexual Americans have EXACTLY the same rights as heterosexual Americans, no less and no more. Both groups of people are permitted to marry someone of the opposite sex.
Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized.

*Note - Gay will be a loose term for the LGBT community. * ~Counterarguments~ "I have to point out the obvious. In your first paragraph, you say that gay marriage is already a right ("taking a right"), however in your second paragraph, you say that it "should" be a right. Which one is it? " --> All that meant is that it SHOULD be a right for gay people to marry, because others would contest that it SHOULDN'T a right for gay people to marry. "Your contention that gay marriage "should be a legal form of marriage" otherwise we as society would be taking a right away is false. The right to which you are referring doesn't exist (in most states) or in the U. S. Constitution. Since the right doesn't currently exist, you can't take it away. " --> Because there isn't a law, amendment, or what have you recognizing gay marriage, this is a discrimination on gays. The lack of a legal form of marriage recognizing gay marriage is discriminating against the RIGHT of gays to marry like any other heterosexual couple, because without a law recognizing the rights of gays, they CAN'T marry, a right that I am arguing should be present for heterosexuals AND homosexuals. "In the next round, please clarify for myself and the audience how you came to decide which legal reasons are substantial and which ones are not, and why. " --> I would say that the burden of proof is on you, since I argue there is no justifiable legal reason to prohibit gay couples to marry. Whatever your argument may be, I'd be glad to refute it. Gay couples should marry because they are voluntary and adults. Marriage should be given to anyone who fits these requirements. "Is the fact that more than ‘55% of Americans are opposed to gay marriage'(1) a substantial reason in your opinion, or just something we should ignore? " Argumentum ad populum. The fact that 55% of Americans are opposed to gay marriage has no merit on the justification for gay marriage. 1. Slippery Slope argument I'll disregard the problems with your slippery slope argument, but instead I'll take a new approach. Why NOT let polygamous marriage? I have yet to see a feasible argument against more than two partners who are consenting and adults. The only problems with the marriages we will supposedly "soon allow" are as follows: Polygamous marriages: Most show signs of coercion, and involve young under-aged girls. However, if it were to be between consenting adults, then I'd say that is fine and should be made legal. Incestuous: The reason why we say "no" to it in an intrinsic why is due to the Westermarck effect [1], a subject involving imprinting. But if it's between two or more consenting adults, then SURE. GO AHEAD. Bestiality (just in case you do this one): Animal abuse, most would say. The animal can't say "I do". ~Conclusion~ Not only does the classic slippery slope argument fail (in a new approach I'd dare say), but I have shown that gay couples SHOULD have rights, since not letting them have the ability to marry is discrimination. I will await my opponent's new arguments and rebuttals. ---References--- 1. . http://en.wikipedia.org...(psychology) #Westermarck_effect
Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized.

Thank you for the challenge to debate this topic. I haven't debated for some time (busy building new features for the site), but decided I need to have a little fun. I have to point out the obvious. In your first paragraph, you say that gay marriage is already a right ("taking a right"), however in your second paragraph, you say that it "should" be a right. Which one is it? Your contention that gay marriage "should be a legal form of marriage" otherwise we as society would be taking a right away is false. The right to which you are referring doesn't exist (in most states) or in the U.S. Constitution. Since the right doesn't currently exist, you can't take it away. You stated, "there are no substantial legal reasons to disallow same-sex marriage." Though not substantial in your opinion, are there other legal reasons to disallow same-sex marriage? If there are in fact legal reasons, how did you determine they were not substantial, and why would you choose to ignore them? In the next round, please clarify for myself and the audience how you came to decide which legal reasons are substantial and which ones are not, and why. Is the fact that more than ‘55% of Americans are opposed to gay marriage'(1) a substantial reason in your opinion, or just something we should ignore? If you want to marry two women, should you be allowed to do so…legally? What about three women, or four? What if you want to marry a sibling, should that be allowed? The answer to all of these satirical questions is of course, "no". Why? Because it's common sense that there's something inherently wrong with a man being married to multiple women, a sibling, or someone of the same sex. I'm personally not opposed to expanding several marriage benefits to people in relationships, specifically those dealing with taxes and hospital visitation privileges. However, from a moral point of view, I believe it is not in the best interest of the U.S. to recognize gay marriage. Once we go down that road, it opens up all sorts of doors that I and most Americans want to keep closed. For example, if gay marriage were to become a legal right in the U.S., then it would be only a matter of time before churches could be legally punished for not recognizing gay marriage, or, before children are taught the who, what, where, when and how of homosexuality. Marriage has always been, is, and should remain between a man and a woman. (1) http://pewforum.org...
Gmo are they good or bad

I disagree with you because GMO are organisms that have modified genes in them (ex. corn with cow genes in it) and all that gene modifying is unnatural and unhealthy. Also, a large portion of obese people are obese because they ate GMO in the first place! Plus, if you eat GMO then you get addicted and you eat more and more and more and get more and more and more obese.
should kids be able to drive at 13 years old

Please read what i have to say carefully... "You will never know what kids are doing out here now a days" This is the second sentence from your paragraph looking response. You have given all your arguments that contradict this sentence. Here are the sentences that are contradicting: "I believe if a kid was to drive at 13 years old that child might not no what to do" "Skip school because they can drive at such a young age nd go places that they owant to go" "They dont have no reguard or no respect for authority now a days." " To be honest with you im not going to sugar code nothing 50% of kids at schools break the rules everyday so imagine how they would be on the rode.I dont think that is such a great idea to have teenagers on the rode because half of the time they wont even be paying attention." (maybe give a reference as to where you got that percentage from) Bottom line is that the con is taking morality and a "what feels good" type of approach to this debate and has completely ignored the points i have made in the previous round. In order for this debate to continue you have to disprove what i have indicated in round 1.
should kids be able to drive at 13 years old

I am going to start off the second portion of the debate with saying this.You will never know what kids are doing out here now a days.Its so many dangerous things going on out here in the world and so much negativity happening before our eyes. So I believe if a kid was to drive at 13 years old that child might not no what to do.I believe with all this technology and different things kids might actually get in to so many accidents.Skip school because they can drive at such a young age nd go places that they owant to go.Now dont get me wrong I am not saying this about all kids but most kids yes.They dont have no reguard or no respect for authority now a days. So how are they going to have respect while they are on the rode with people. Also even if these kids go to driving school and everything you still dont think they arent going to break the rules? To be honest with you im not going to sugar code nothing 50% of kids at schools break the rules everyday so imagine how they would be on the rode.I dont think that is such a great idea to have teenagers on the rode because half of the time they wont even be paying attention.