BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay Marriage Should be Legalized in the UK

Now, he makes the very simplistic claim that gay marriage only affects gay couples, and since it only affects them in a positive way, there is no reason not to legalise it. This is simplistic because one could say much the same about incestuous couples, or polygamous relationships. Laws reflect the values of society, and what we choose to legalise does have consequences on the rest of society, in terms of the message sent out to that society about the morals that we choose to value; and so just because a small minority want something, that doesn't necessarily mean that they should be granted it. Let us remember that no-one is saying that homosexual couples cannot have their union recognised by the State, and benefit from all the legal protection that comes from that. The Civil Partnership Bill, finally passed in 2005, granted homosexuals, through civil-partnerships, recognition and protection under the law that is identical to what heterosexual couples already receive. [1] The only difference is the name. For heterosexuals, this is called marriage. For homosexuals, this is called civil-partnership. So let us be very clear here. This debate is not over whether homosexuals should or should not be allowed to live together, have sex, be recognised in law as a couple, have the same tax benefits as married couples, etc. In the UK, they already have all those rights, and it is right that they have them. The issue here is simply over a single name. Should they be allowed to call their union a marriage or not? I submit to you that they should not. The UK is unquestionably a Christian country. In the 2001 census, 72% affiliated themselves with the Christian faith. [2] Our society and government is based on Christian values - we even have Bishops in the House of Lords, and the monarch is bound, by our unwritten constitution, to be the head of the Church of England. This does not mean that we don't recognise Freedom of Religion; of course we do! Every citizen has the right to hold any faith (or none at all) as they so wish. But the point is that the vast majority of the population is Christian, and so it is right, in a democratic society, that the laws of said society respect the values of the majority, one of which is that the institution of marriage is a spiritual union, ordained by God, between one man and one woman. The State can do many things. But the one thing it cannot do is interfere in matters of religious conscience. It has no right to presume that it can interfere with or otherwise redefine the institution of marriage, when the majority of the population holds that marriage is a god-given institution. This of course does not prevent the state from creating its own institution - in this case civil partnerships - under which homosexuals can have identical rights to 'ordinary' married couples, which is exactly what it has done. This is a perfectly sensible and reasonable compromise, and it is one that should be maintained. [1] = . http://news.bbc.co.uk... [2] = . http://news.bbc.co.uk...
the teacher is my intelligene, nature is the teacher

Teacher is a person who teaches us how to be good and have good knowledge. However, in this case, the teacher is not a person, but it is the nature. My opponent didn't provide any arguments that i canmot proceed to rebut. Now i am going to send my arguments regarding why i am offending the statement. First is that people don't study from the nature. Mostly from.experience and blah No idea anymore. Now i am waiting for my opponent
The U.S. Constitution should be interpreted as a living document.

Unfortunately, my opponent failed to meet his three day deadline to post an argument for Round 3. Given that he hasn't taken five minutes to explain himself or offer an apology in the comments section, I have no choice but to assume that he has conceded this debate to me. I will not waste any more of my time offering any further arguments.If anyone else would like to debate me on this topic in the future, feel free to offer me a challenge. Until then, however, please vote for Pro as the winner of this debate. Thanks for reading.
The U.S. Constitution should be interpreted as a living document.

As Pro, I will argue that the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted as a living document. In the context of American constitutional law, describing the Constitution as a "living document" (or referring to it as a "Living Constitution") invokes the notion that the Constitution is "has relevant meaning beyond the original text and is an evolving and dynamic document that changes over time" - even without the passage of constitutional amendments. [1] Proponents of this idea believe that the views of contemporaneous society should be taken into account when interpreting key constitutional phrases. As Pro, I will bear the burden of proof in establishing that the Constitution should be interpreted as a living document, but Con is encouraged to articulate or defend an alternative methodology of constitutional interpretation (i.e., "originalism"). As this will be a legal debate, citations to authority are allowed and encouraged. Citations to Supreme Court decisions and the text of the Constitution itself will be privileged, but citations to other persuasive authorities (i.e., the Federalist Papers, books, law review articles, etc) are also acceptable. The other rules are as follows: 1. The debate will last four rounds, with the first round merely for acceptance. 2. For every round, each debater will have 72 hours to post their argument, and up to 8,000 characters to make their arguments. 3. The voting period will last three months. This will be my first debate on debate.org. While this may result in some basic mistakes in formatting or debate style, I am highly familiar with the subject matter. Thanks and good luck! [1] http://definitions.uslegal.com...
Favorite Childhood song

this song my grandma left for me before she died Nickleback Far away " This time, this place Misused, mistakes Too long, too late Who was I to make you wait? Just one chance, just one breath Just in case there's just one left ‘Cause you know You know, you know That I love you, I have loved you all along And I miss you, been far away for far too long I keep dreaming you'll be with me and you'll never go Stop breathing if I don't see you anymore One my knees, I'll ask Last chance for one last dance ‘Cause with you I'd withstand All of it to hold your hand I'd give it all, I'd give for us Give anything but I won't give up ‘Cause you know You know, you know That I love you, I have loved you all along And I miss you, been far away for far too long I keep dreaming you'll be with me and you'll never go Stop breathing if I don't see you anymore So far away, been far away for far too long So far away, been far away for far too long But you know You know, you know I wanted I wanted you to stay ‘Cause I needed I need to hear you say I love you, I have loved you all along And I forgive you for being away for far too long So keep breathing ‘cause I'm not leaving you anymore Believe it, hold on to me, never let me go Keep breathing ‘cause I'm not leaving you anymore Believe it, hold on to me, never let me go Hold on to me, never let me go Hold on to me, never let me go" http://www.metrolyrics.com... its hard to sum this song up so i copied the whole song.
Favorite Childhood song

All the small things- Blink 182http://www.youtube.com...I liked it, because of the chorus, it made me think about turning the bathroom light off."Say it ain't so, I will not goTurn the lights off, carry me homeNa, na, na, naNa, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na "http://www.lyrics007.com...
Favorite Childhood song

My former favorite song is "I'm already there" By Lonestar Mostly because of this chorus "I'm already there Take a look around I'm the sunshine in your hair I'm the shadow on the ground I'm the whisper in the wind I'm your imaginary friend And I know I'm in your prayers Oh I'm already there" And also because it gave me strength after my father died. He sang this song to me every time it was on.
Favorite Childhood song

This debate is you favorite songs when you were a child. Childhood is- The more circumscribed period of time from infancy to the onset of puberty. Rules: No profanity in your summeries. (in songs are aloud as long as it isn't repetitive.) 1 song per round each round give a summery why you liked that song as a child. Voters vote on who's song's are better and rule violations FF= lose. If any of these rules are violated then all 7 points go to the opponet. http://www.youtube.com... What its Like by Everlast. The reason I liked this song as a kid was because of the entrance sounded great and I liked the rythum of it. Funny since I'm now against abortion, but this song is Pro-choice.
Favorite Childhood song

John Lennon Imagine " Imagine there's no countries It isn't hard to do Nothing to kill or die for And no religion, too Imagine all the people Living life in peace You, you may say I'm a dreamer But I'm not the only one I hope someday you will join us And the world will be as one Imagine no possessions I wonder if you can No need for greed or hunger A brotherhood of man Imagine all the people Sharing all the world You, you may say I'm a dreamer But I'm not the only one I hope someday you will join us And the world will live as one" i just love this song. www.metrolyrics.com/imagine-lyrics-john-lennon.html#ixzz25bfZHWzs
Favorite Childhood song

Unforgiven- Metallica http://www.youtube.com...This was my first favorite Metallica song. I'm not like one of those people who like Metallica because of Enter Sandman was on Rock Band... My dad played this song a lot I just really liked the chorus. What I've felt What I've known Never shined through in what I've shown Never be Never see Won't see what might have been What I've felt What I've known Never shined through in what I've shown Never free Never me So I dub thee unforgiven http://www.lyricsfreak.com...
Favorite Childhood song

moments by emerson drive "I was coming to the end of a long long walk When a man crawled out of a cardboard box Under the E. Street Bridge Followed me on to it I went out halfway across With that homeless shadow tagging along So I dug for some change Wouldn't need it anyway He took it lookin' just a bit ashamed He said, You know, I haven't always been this way I've had my moments, days in the sun Moments I was second to none Moments when I knew I did what I thought I couldn't do Like that plane ride coming home from the war That summer my son was born And memories like a coat so warm A cold wind can't get through Lookin' at me now you might not know it But I've had my moments I stood there tryin' to find my nerve Wondered if a single soul on Earth Would care at all Miss me when I'm gone That old man just kept hanging around Lookin' at me, lookin' down I think he recognized That look in my eyes Standing with him there I felt ashamed I said, You know, I haven't always been this way I've had my moments, days in the sun Moments I was second to none Moments when I knew I did what I thought I couldn't do Like the day I walked away from the wine For a woman who became my wife And a love that, when it was right, Could always see me through Lookin' at me now you might not know it But I've had my moments I know somewhere 'round a trashcan fire tonight That old man tells his story one more time (He says) I've had my moments, days in the sun Moments I was second to none Moments when I knew I did what I thought I couldn't do Like that cool night on the E. Street Bridge When a young man almost ended it I was right there, wasn't scared a bit And I helped to pull him through Lookin' at me now you might not know it Oh, lookin' at me now you might not know it But I've had my moments (4x's)" i used to be homeless for a few weeks and this song brings tears to my eyes because of the former life that homeless used to have. http://www.cowboylyrics.com...
Religion is overall not beneficial to the well being of society and humanity

The problem is not the religions themselves, the problem is the way the religions are interpreted and practiced. There is some truth to your statement but don't bash the religions themselves. Most religions agree to just be a good hearted person and make righteous decisions. But when people take religion to an extreme level, they mock anyone who isn't part of there religion and thats how wars start (the Crusades). Aside from that, I think we can both agree that the human race is just not mature enough to handle religion in a peaceful manner.
Impromptu 12

3)Mac/Apple (company) should be illegal. 1. I disagree, I will take the NEG 2. FREEDOM - In our demented version of capitalism, Mac/Apple has the right to exist as much as any other company. - The United States prides itself on freedom - In the spirit of competition, Mac/Apple offers an alternative to IBM and products of similar producers 3. SHOULD = OUGHT This implies a moral imperative. Even the illegal/unethical practices of an individual within a corporation may be reprehensible, it isn't reflective of the corporation as a whole. There is no reason that Mac/Apple should not exist. Thanks
I argue that God is Perfect, Also has a right to kill all of mankind

You said the bible is so widely interpreted. The fundamentals of the bible are not God is Good and Perfect. Here is another thing, Because God lets us choose are own downfall by sinning does not make him sinful. If I let a someone screw his life does not make me responsible for his action, Its the same thing with God. God did not make sin, You have to accept that. He allowed it to dwell. Sin came from man, Us eating from the fruit. You also said"Omnibenevolent if he hates in ANY respect. " That's just simply not true. So if (big if! ) God hate the sin of man and the sinner, He isn't Good? You are forgetting God is just. It would be evil if God DIDN'T hate evil. Neither does he tolerate it, He sends people (non christian) to hell if they don't. Hate is not bad if it is toward evil. You tell me ONE sin God commit and I would believe you. Gods creation can't corrupt himself because he created it. He has all power over it. A craftsman has all power over his craft. Your logic is off thanku
I argue that God is Perfect, Also has a right to kill all of mankind

Let's be honest here, I can quote scripture back and forth with you. But let's focus on the fundamental argument. God's Perfection. I say it is not true, One because the Bible is so widely interpreted for one reason. Also, Once again unaddressed is the point of his Omnibenevolence, Not perfect love. Omnipotent, Not a lot of power. Omniscient, Not wise. He must exhume all of these traits to the literal maximum. He cannot be Omnibenevolent if he hates in ANY respect. Another important factor, Is just the fact that he has the right to kill mankind. This is the 2nd part of your inquiry. He makes the law right? He is held by no higher standard. Nothing stops him from breaking his own standards, Because in his Omnipresence he is present in sin. He made sin, Even if he sins not now he made and dwells with it. Just by that fact his own creation corrupted himself. Justice cannot be had without checks and balances, He cannot be beyond the law. He has no right, Imperfect.
I argue that God is Perfect, Also has a right to kill all of mankind

On the topic of actions Let's say that I lied, When is that lie no longer a lie? It always is a lie for the face of eternity, And God who made all things is eternal. People will always be conscious, Whether in heaven or hell. What happens is that it has a enernal effect, That lie will always be a lie, No matter what you do. Actions are not finite if your existence is infinite, . Free will is the freedom to choose. God putting the tree in the garden was giving man a choice, Sin of no sin. Because God gave you the choice to sin does not mean it was wrong. What would be is If God made us sin, But the bible goes against that. James 1:13 The marriage thing is for a unbeliever who believed, While having a unbelieving wife. The verses (Ecclesiastes 7:14 vs Genesis 6:9) were talking about noah, Who was not perfect genesis 9:21. And about sacrifice, God commanded sacrifice in the old testament so it shows our need for forgiveness. Jesus was the final sacrifice
I argue that God is Perfect, Also has a right to kill all of mankind

Here is the problem though, You did not address that he is all loving, All powerful and all knowing. On that alone, I win. Also, If God wanted to give mankind free will why was it a sin to partake of the Fruit? And why must we be judged on God's infinite standard being finite? It is wrong. How can man be judged as a "sinner" if they can be forgiven? Forgot to address my verse on God not tolerating a single mistake. Also, Examples of God's contradictions. If these are to be believed, He is not eternally consistent thus no argument for you. Yes or No sacrifice? (Genesis 4:2-4 and Psalm 60:4 ex http://www. Skepticsannotatedbible. Com/contra/desire. Html) Yes or No Mercy on Righteous? (Ecclesiastes 7:14 vs Genesis 6:9 Saying Moses is perfect, But Jesus was the only perfect one no? Http://www. Skepticsannotatedbible. Com/contra/just. Html) Yes or No Marrying Unbelievers (1st Corinthians 7:12-12 vs 2nd Corinthians 6:14) The Bible is flawed, Thus a God by it's standards is not perfect.
I argue that God is Perfect, Also has a right to kill all of mankind

You said "He cannot be all loving if he hates and destroys his own creation" The problem is that he can because he can love and hate his creation. He is not limited with one emotion, He can have many Plus what is wrong with God hating his own creation, When it is wicked. He gave them free will and they took advantage of him (Romans 3:10) Also God hates the wicked not the righteous( psalm 11:5) God is just by hating the wicked, He doesn't hate them because of there "goodness" because of there murder and deceit. Also God loves good, You can't call him unloving because he hates bad. Another thing, Gods anger is perfect, And is only angry at what is evil, Our anger is imperfect, We can't use human standards with God who created the universe. (Psalm 7:11) Our finite actions have a eternal consequence, Because Gods standard is infinite and he is infinite, That is why Its right for him to send to hell. Weather out sin is finite doesn't change Gods eternal standars Thankyou!
I argue that God is Perfect, Also has a right to kill all of mankind

The problem here is that God is Omni in the bible. Omniscient (Psalm 147:4-5), Omnipotent (Job 37:23 which also states that he does not oppress. ) and Omnibenevolent (Psalm 100:5; Psalm 145:17; John 3:16). But, He cannot be all loving if he hates and destroys his own creation. Neither can eternal punishment be right for finite actions. And, Did not Jesus forgive our sins? (Unless Jeremiah 31:30, Deuteronomy 24:16 or 2 Chronicles 25:4 are to be believed. ) But after killing many, Amaziah did "What was right in the sight of the lord. " He took pleasure in their deaths. Isaac of Abraham in Genesis 26 also had many slaves which God endorsed. Thus meaning God endorses slavery (Joshua 9:23-27, Exodus 20:17 Deuteronomy 15:12) God cannot condemn anger if his is angry. That makes him imperfect, And thus by your definition not God. There are many records of his anger and imperfection. In fact, Being impersonated by satan during my aforementioned Census. Thank you for your time.
I argue that God is Perfect, Also has a right to kill all of mankind

Thank you. I believe that God has many attributes, Not only Wrath against mankind, But love. That said, I believe that all people deserve eternal punishment, And because of this he has the right to kill the wicked. There is a trend in society that God is love and peace, But equally as so, He is wrathful and vile against the wicked. Most people in the world are not true Christians, So God is sending most people to hell anyways. Also God is prophesying truth and mercy, But he also prophecies wrath against the ungodly(most of the world) look at 2 Peter 3:7. Yet (ezekiel 33:11) God does not enjoy/take pleasure in the punishment of the wicked, But he must because he is a just God. This is why God has the right, And he will at one point. God is not an either or, He is both, Which is why he has the right to destroy the earth. God is also perfect, There has not been a single record in the bible of a imperfection God did. romand 8:28 Thankyou
I argue that God is Perfect, Also has a right to kill all of mankind

Isaiah Wood, I accept your challenge. I believe that if an Abrahamic God by which you set the standards to does not have the right to rage against mankind. Yahweh as portrayed in the Bible is cruel, But I believe that a being in his position does not have the right to make these contradictions. For if he is to prophesy truth and mercy, He must also abide by them. Why you may ask? Because if the person making the law is above it, And values it not then it is useless to make. As this well compiled source states, (http://www. Skepticsannotatedbible. Com/cruelty/long. Html) The number of cruelties under God is tremendous and in the thousands. I beg a simple question, If God is so wrathful why must he be preaching of love and tolerance? Ezekiel 18:24-26 say that he will kill you for a single mistake. So, Once again he preaches intolerance while being intolerant. I am ready for your challenge. Thank you and I wish to respect you and your regards. Thank you as well!
I argue that God is Perfect, Also has a right to kill all of mankind

I believe that God has the right to do what he wishes, With out defying his character. In revelation, It talks about how God will destroy the earth and engulf it with fire. Also because human nature is sinful, And Gods standard is perfect (being a perfect God) gives him a right to judge. I i was guilty of murder, I would be guilty before the judge. God says that whoever is angry has committed murder. Matthew 5:21-23 https://www. Biblegateway. Com/passage/? Search=Matthew+5%3A21-23&version=NET Another thing I have never heard of God making a mistake, Which is why I believe he is perfect thankyou. I also would like to say to my opponent, I give you full respect, And thank you.
WW3 the Miner countries

Uh... no where and no time did you say there wasn't a drug war for this debate I can only use Wikipedia because my school blocks other sites. I'll leave it up to you to choose how the war starts. For the purpose of this debate, lets say Mexico's drug war is finished. Said this at the end of round 2. Since this is round 4 and we havent even started the war yet, why dont we start a new debate and start it then? And when we do start, are we gonna use allies like the USA, or is it just us? Just wondering.
WW3 the Miner countries

My Mexican argument wasn't refuted.Yeah, it was. I said for this debate, there is no drug war. Uh... no where and no time did you say there wasn't a drug war for this debate AustraliaThey were in WWII, which we won. At that time Australia was a dominion of Britain. Which means they're independent but Britain can still influence decision. I was under the assumption that this was a no-holds barred war, no allies, just war.Please clarify this for meIt is war but the normal things that make this world go round still make this world go round.
WW3 the Miner countries

Please don't respond till this weekend I won't be able to respond till Monday.1. My mexican arguement wasn't refuted.2. Australia is currently stationing U.S. troops there. So I'd dobt that the U.S. would let Australia do anything and Australia is allies with everyone. I mean honnestly when was the last time that Austriala went to war after loosing its Dominion title.3. Small country easy to invade.4. Hasn't gone to war after loosing the title of dominion.5. Never on the winning side of a war.