BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay Marriage

I would like to tell my opponent that I also enjoy talking to him for the first time on this site, and its been a long time since I've been been a devil's advocate, so I just hope I do a decent job. I would like to ask my opponent why gay marriage should be included. Those in homosexual relationships can get the same rights without marriage per se. What does marriage do that a power of attorny cannot? Why should gay marriage be allowed, when marriage itself was started by the religious, which deem gays as unacceptable, or hell-bound? In the OT for example those that are gay should be put to death. When Jesus came he made the punishment on earth less severe but did not erase the crime. Why should homosexuals be allowed to "dirty" religious institutions, when by their nature they are against religion. I understand there are religious homosexuals, and they may have a personal relationship with God, but that does not refute that God would not want Gay marriage to be legal when it clearly goes against his rules. Gays should be given the same rights, however they can get the same rights without changing an institution founded by a religion which by its nature hates them, or at the very least does not want to accept them. I await my opponents responce.
Gay Marriage

Its nice to discuss with you for my first time on the site. :) I would like to point out that the definition she has pointed out is incomplete and the full definition stated is: a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage I would like to start off by saying that denying gays the right to wed is denying them happiness. If that's what would make them happy, it isn't out of reason. If two men or two women are in a deep, committed, romantic relationship, why shouldn't they be able to see each other if one is desperately ill and in the hospital?
Critcism is bad unless its constructive.

Criticism is perfectly fine. I think it is always good to be straightforward with someone and tell them straight up that their opinion or ideas are bad. For example, What if someone wrote an article saying that Hitler was right, would you still be positive with the person who wrote that article? Probably not. There would be no positive aspects in an article like that, And I wouldn't care If I made the person feel bad. Lets stop focusing so much on peoples feelings and explain to people who have written terrible things that your work is disgusting.
Critcism is bad unless its constructive.

Criticism is the expression of disapproval of someone on the basis of faults or mistakes, constructive criticism on the other hand is the process of offering valid and well reasoned opinion to support your criticism. Constructive criticism is a positive form of criticism where a person comes to understand that not everything he or she did was only negative and that there are positives as well. In this way, the person getting criticized will not get affected in a negative way and will rather improve. Studies have shown that negative or derogatory criticism causes people to feel poor about themselves and even mess with the productivity if their brains. Hence it is here that constructive criticism is necessary. Detrimental criticism may often lead to the criticized person feeling bad about themselves and giving up. For examples, an author may stop writing because their worst fears have come true, and their work is not that good. When people show you their art, the first thing that they say is that "this isn't good." So giving them pictures makes them realize there is room for improvement. However, starting of by giving a negative comment may ensure that they feel the urge never to write or practice their art again. Criticism is necessary, but for it to be useful, it is important that it is constructive.
Recreational Drugs should be Legalized

Hempforvictory: You 'feel' that all drugs should be legalized because legalizing and regulating drugs will benefit society and the economy. But the reasons you give are at least unproven conjecture and mostly disproven positions. 1) I agree that recreational drugs are widely traded and used on the black market, you fail to substantiate that black marketeers profit unduly from the fact of the illegality. You assert that making drugs illegal, gives funding for potentially worse criminal activity. This is equivalent to saying that making rape illegal causes pimps to make more money in prostitution. 2) In this justification you have put money ahead of the ruined lives of addicts, their families and society. 3) I agree that the law should be less interested in catching and punishing users, but as a society we should be severe in the punishment of the criminals who smuggle in and sell the drugs. Perhaps capital punishment for top kingpin and those who are repeat offenders. 4) This justification is just too far from fact to deal with. Did you ever read of the terrible results of this very experiments in Amsterdam (The Netherlands) and Zurich, Switzerland? For the past 20 yers, the Swiss have tolerated heroin and other drug use, as a result, Switzerland now has one of the highest rates of heroin addiction in the world. None of the benefits that you claim have accrued to either country. What make you think we would benefit, where they have not. I suggest: Blind faith
Recreational Drugs should be Legalized

I feel that all drugs should be legalized for a variety of reasons. Legalizing and regulating drugs will not only benefit society and the economy, but will benefit drug users and may actually lower the rate of drug use. I will now post several reasons to support my argument: 1) Recreational drugs are perhaps the most widely traded product on the black market. By making them illegal, the black market receives more funds for perpetuating other illegal activities. Essentially, by making the drug trade illegal, you give funding to potentially worse criminal activity. 2) The billions of dollars tied up in the drug market would go to legitimate business owners if the practice were made legal. Not only will this allow for these transfer of funds to be subject to taxation, but the recipients of the money are less likely to be involved in other illegal activities. Since their money is now legitimate, they can use it for investment in other, perhaps more respectable endeavors without scrutiny. 3) Drugs are addicting, and many of the people using them do so because of their addiction and not necessarily because they really want to be. They realize that the drugs are damaging their lives, but they resist getting help because they are afraid of the law. The law should reach out to help these people, not cast them away as criminals. 4) Finally, the tax dollars collected from drug purchases could go to funding drug education and rehabilitation facilities. A person purchasing heroine should be fully aware of the consequences of their decision and should have access to clean needles and "safe" drugs that are not cut with other poisons, if that is their decision. Tell a person no, you're not allowed to may make them want to do it more. Tell them that they can, but it will ruin their life, and the psychological effect is entirely different.
Recreational Drugs should be Legalized

Your points refuted: 1) "Society will benefit from less crimes related to the illegal drug trade." This takes us back to my previous analogy that you misunderstood. Perhaps it was my fault: we can always reduce crimes by making previously criminal behavior legal. So your argument would therefore justify legalizing rape. 2) "The economy will benefit from a smaller black market, keeping more money in the legitimate sector." The black market will redouble efforts to sell to children. There is nothing in what you or R. P. propose that can undo the reality that the profit motive of the drug cartels will persist. 3) "The government will benefit from not losing money to an impossible War on Drugs, but instead possibly accruing a positive balance from taxes collected on the sale of drugs like marijuana." The war can be won, but not with the half hearted mesures of the past. Taxing marijuana will increase its cost, which undermines your contention of undercutting the black market. 4) "Addiction rates will decrease when addicts are treated as sick people with a medical condition, rather than rebels who know better than the government." You pointed to Switzerland as your example of how this would work. That country has about 30,000 heroin addicts in a population of approx. 10 million. Extrapolating to the U.S. population, that would be about 900,000 heroin addicts. Not exactly something to be proud of. 5) "Most importantly, the presence of illegal drugs in schools will greatly diminish, which will ultimately have the most profound effect on lowering future drug usage rates." There is absolutly no factual evidence that this would happen. The laws of economics suggest that it would be the exact opposite. When markets erode, organizations will adapt by finding new methods or by creating new markets. Either way, targeting children will be expanded. Thanks for a really great debate. I predict that you will, someday, support my view. This is especially true if you get your wish.
Recreational Drugs should be Legalized

Likewise, Hempforvictory, I am honored to debate someone with your abilities. I deduce from your handle, your choice of presidentiial candidate, and your choice of sources, that your interests are more related to your personal preferences than a desire to rid society of the drug scurge. By contrast, even though I drink alcohol, my only concern is for those who misuse drugs, thse who eventually will, and the rest of society who must endure the problems they create. Because of my positions, I would willingly give up my cosumption of alcohol if we could effectively ban its use. The difference between attempting to ban alcohol and maintaining a ban on drugs is based on numbers. There are over 130 million alcohol users compared to less than 30 million drug users. Tobacco will, ultimately, go away on its own, but right now would be better. Further, comparing drug use favorably to alcohol and tobacco use is upside-down. I beleve the more consistant view would be: alcohol and tobacco as well as all other dangerous and debilitating drugs should be outlawed. Do you beleive that children should be free to obtain drugs? If so, I refuse to continue the debate. If not, can you see my concern that drug dealers would be left with only children to sell to. That is, if legalization did actually cause adults to eschew illegal sources. It is an estalished fact of economics that organizations will produce a good so long as the marginal cost is less than the marginal price. This means that the same students who sell and buy drugs in school will continue to be able to do so. Additionally, any presently existing taboos that prevent the saner individuals from participaiing will disappear when children are told by their associates that "...it is ok! Even the goverment says that it is." Ron Paul's retort woould involve education. Education is expensive. Who pays? I do. Oh, R.P. might say that taxes on drugs would pay for education and treatment, but that drives up the cost of the drugs, and creates a profit margin for the dealers. It is a fantacy, that drug dearlers would go away with dug legalization. They will proliferate in a society that tolerates drugs. BTW: You are not a conservative. Your profile suggests some conservative positions - mainly economic. But in the social arena you are decidedly overwhelmingly liberal.
Kashmir should become independent from India

India has continually abused the wishes of the Kashmiri people to either become part of Pakistan or become independent. Admittedly, since Pakistan is unstable right now, it would be better for Kashmir to be independent, or at least an autonomous republic with Pakistan. My arguments for this are: 1. The majority of Ethnic Kashmiris are Muslim. Even today, the only part of Kashmir that isn't of Muslim majority is Jammy. This is because India has promoted migration to Kashmir, as a way of saying, "Hey everyone, Kashmir isn't a Muslim land!". 2.Human Rights Violation by India against ethnic Kashmiris There is random disappearances of any person who dares to speak out against the Indian Government. Indian police force (most of whom aren't even from Kashmir), abuse their powers. Torture has even been used. There have been more than 93,000 innocent deaths in Indian Occupied Kashmir from 1989 to June, 2010. http://www.safhr.org... http://www.presstv.ir... 3. Kashmiris do not want to be part of India Most kashmiris want to be independent. Many less would like to be part of Pakistan. Even less for India. http://www.reuters.com...
Resolved: Cats rule the world.

Thank you, I would like to extend across all arguments, since teddy didn't touch on any of them. Now on to the debate. 1. Humans kill cats and cats only eat us if dead.Teddy here is forgetting one thing and that is big cats. Here's a list of big cats: tiger, liger, lion, lepard, sabber tooth tiger, etc... http://www.thefreedictionary.com.... So lets look at some death tolls now. Big cats kill a total of 20 people and mall over 246 people in the US and now lets multiply that by other nations in the world. http://bigcatrescue.org... if there are 196 countries and multiply that by these numbers and we get 3,920 deaths and 48,216 maulings! But that is being very generous since the US is a developed nation and we aren't counting countries like Bangladesh who had a record high 50 deaths last year a record high and it is climbing since they are being forced out of their habitat. http://zeenews.india.com...2. Humans rule the world until cats can drive, shop, and feed us.This is false. for many years and still today cats including both big cats and felines can easily hunt for themselves. It is just the fact that we have domesticated the house cat that we take care of them so much other wise you would have an animal like the badger running around and still being able to tend for itself.3. Humans rule the world until cats decide when we die.I already refuted this in contention 1 and mixed with the deaths caused by cat diesseases like the cat poop parasite you already have the cats ruling the world. Then you have humans who can't get along. In the words of Thomas Malthus he states that humans are evil creaters who rape kill and destroy everything, and after our many years of existance we have had only 300 years of no conflict.
Resolved: Cats rule the world.

Staff Sergeant Allan (aka, lannan13), has proposed that cats rule the world due to their poop. I respectfully disagree, and contend that humans still rule the world, for the following three reasons.1. Humans kill cats and then eat them, cats only eat us if we are already dead. According to animalpeoplenews.org, "How many cats and dogs are eaten in Asia" , approximately 4 million cats per year are consumed by humans, in Asia alone. While it is true that cats eat dead people, they do not kill us first, cook us, add seasoning, and use utensils.www.animalpeoplenews.org/03/9/dogs.catseatenAsia903.html2. Humans rule the world until cats can drive, shop, and feed us.Humans get in their vehicles, go to the store, pick out cat food, bring it home , decide when they are going to feed their cats, put the food in a bowel, and then fill another bowel with water.Cats can not rule the world until they are capable of getting in their vehicles, going to the store, buying cereal for humans, bringing it home, deciding when they are going to feed us, putting the cereal in a bowel and adding milk.3. Humans rule the world until cats decide when we die.Recently a buddy of mine, decided to have his cat put down, instead of paying $300.00 for medicine.Cats can not rule the world until they are in position, to decide on if humans should live or die. To date I know of no cats who make these end of life decisions for humans. However over 2.5 million cats are put down by humans each year. "Importance of spray and neuter"http://www.humanesocietyall.com...,
Resolved: Cats rule the world.

Alrighty then lets get things rolling. Cats rule the world by the cat poop parasite, or scientifically known as Toxoplasma gondii. This parasite is formed by an infection in the cat's intestines and then it makes it's way into the cats poop. Even touching the places where the poop has been you get you infected. http://animal.discovery.com... And it has infected 22.5% of the US population that is 12 and older and 95% of the world! Those found with the parasite have a 1.5 chance of committing suicide. http://www.newser.com... and http://www.cbsnews.com.... It also infects ants and makes them stand on the edge of grass so birds will eat them and then it will infect the bird so it won't fly away when cats go after them. Then there is Cat Scratch Disease which causes mild infection, swollen lymph nodes, fever and fatigue. Cryptosporidiosis causes fever, nausea, cramps, vomiting, and diharria. Hookworm causes intestinal bleeding, inflammation, and abdominal pains. (the link for these are at the bottom of this page titled 10 scary diseases pets can give you. http://www.cbsnews.com...) I now await my opponents arguments.
Resolved: Cats rule the world.

Let me first address the substance of the debate between Staff Sergeant Allan and I, and then end with an expression of my gratitude. On the debate substance, I will congratulate Allan on one point, refute his findings on one argument, and end with 4 points, on which I rest my case. I do appauld Allan on his finding of the parody, “The Human King”. In fairness though, this parody was created by humans, to poke fun at humans, parodying a movie about cats, also made by humans. I do dispute his conclusion that cats kill more humans, then vice versa. In fairness Staff Sergeant Allan did not give me a definitive number to top until the last round. Topping that number would have easy had I included the euthanasia and road kills in the rest of the world, and if I had included the number of cats eaten in Louisiana and Alabama. I rest my case on the 4 arguments listed below , these are common sense arguments, and they were not sufficiently refuted by Staff Sergeant Allan1. Humans kill cats and then eat them, cats only eat us if we are already dead. 2. Humans rule the world until cats can drive, shop, and feed us.3. Humans rule the world until cats decide when we die.4. Allan is Correct! We domesticated the cat, not the other way around. Having proven my case by the preponderance of the evidence, I ask that you vote Con. Finally let thank Staff Sergeant Allan, for having offered this debate. Staff Sergeant Allan (lannan13) is a legend on this site, with a 99.71% percentile, and soon to exceed 2100 posts. One of his recent opponents “ashleystruelove” simply disappeared after debating Allan. So for me it simply a honor to be able to be on the same debate platform as the legend. However, it would be even sweeter to defeat him. Besides, even with a loss, Alan will still be in the 96% percentile.
Resolved: Cats rule the world.

1. Poop argument just doesn't smell right. For this debate here today I argued that the cat parasite controls many things, but here's a newsflash it was made via cat! So to look at it this way people say my child did X and since he did X I am responsible since I am their parent. The same logic can be drawn to the Toxoplasma gondii. 2. Allan is correct! We've domesticated cats. This is were you'll call me out on this, but it is actually the other way around! It started when Jaroslav Flegr got a strange urge to take care of cats and said, "There's something wrong with me. " Since he didn't like cats and all of the sudden got a strange urge to take care of cats. And the T-Gondi parasite kills millions of people each year! . http://www.theatlantic.com... (This isn't new arguments this is just an extension on the T-Gondi/ poop parasite argument. )My opponent says I can make the argument when Human King opens in theaters and well, ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, and children of all ages, I give you, "the Human King. " (see video). Leopards stick dead humans in trees for their own amusement. . http://www.arkive.org... 3. Humans net kills Let's look at the score according to Flegr (in link earlier this round). he states that the T-Gondi parasite kills Millions of people each year! so the score is 10,839,000 to 6.5 million in favor of cats. With all arguments refuted and with the death and disease that cats have caused humans and made us think that we own them, shows that the Cats rule the world.
Offensive Is Subjective; We Should Not Pay Attention to Those Who Are Offended

Before we share the argument(s) definitions of terms relevant to the topic should be cited. So, let's take a look: Offensive[1] - (adj.) causing someone to feel resentful, upset, or annoyed. Synonyms : insulting, rude, derogatory, disrespectful, hurtful, abusive, humiliating, uncivil, impolite. (adj.) actively aggressive; attacking. Synonyms : hostile, threatening, antagonistic. (noun) an attacking military campaign. Subjective [2] - based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. Synonyms : personal, individual, internal. Here we talk about "offensiveness" of verbal attacks being subjective, so no-one should pay attention. In most countries such cases is regarded as offence under civil laws. The words by itself is not offensive, but the intention behind it what makes it offensive. As an example word "nigger" comes from Latin and it means black. But the word is so much used to insult and dehumanize blacks, now it become an offensive word. Now, should we disregard the case because of subjectivity? Answer philosophically complicated. Because we can disregard any case, just by arguing it is subjective, such as murder, rape, pedophilia (catholic priests would be happy), and many other things. So, we cannot disregard any case based on subjectivity. And, secondly, we cannot disregard it, because of the consequences. It can create clash of racial, religious (and etc.) groups, which will end with violence. In order to protect society (from itself), there must be laws which will prevent mentally unevolved people from verbally attacking and abusing other people. [1] & [2] - Google Search.
Offensive Is Subjective; We Should Not Pay Attention to Those Who Are Offended

I'm looking for a serious opponent who will argue this topic. Please don't break this rule. Pro (Me) will be arguing: Offensive is subjective and shouldn't be paid attention to in most situations. Con will be arguing against me. 1) ACCEPTANCE OF THE CHALLENGE ONLY 2) First Arguments 3) Rebuttals/New Arguments 4) Rebuttals to the Rebuttals/Summary/NO New Arguments No insults. No derogatory name calling.
Chronic masturbator

Hello, Sir. I accept your debate. Okay. The action you mentioned in the topic of the debate is very inappropriate and sinful. Not only is it disgusting, It's also a sin, According to Jehovah's Witness ideology. I have never done it myself, And I never will, B/c it goes against my religious beliefs. I want to be one of the 144, 000 people that go to heaven. Please, Sir, Never do that (m---------). Thank you for reading my argument. Have a nice day.
Chronic masturbator

Chronic masturbator My testosterone levels have risen That time has come again To produce a life giving juice And to throw it away My dick is hard Time to rub it Time to watch porn People tell me how masturbation Is bad for me They tell me how it makes me Anti social Because of it I will lose friends And never have a girlfriend Because of it I will become lazy Unresponsive to people And disconnected from them I still masturbate every day Usually twice a day I am a chronic masturbator Chronic masturbation is an illness That beats you by making you feel good I masturbate again and again So hard to resist It's hard to fight something That makes you feel so good So I will never stop