BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay marriage

Another reason why it shouldn't be legal is because how are we supposed to reproduce if you have two people of the same sex. There's a reason why guys and girls are supposed to marry each other, so they can have babies and more generations. If gay people adopt kids, it wouldn't be a biological union, it would be like a step family or a foster family and the union of family would be lost because you have random babies just coming to your house and you're not actually making you're own babies 1) http://www.tfpstudentaction.org...
Gay marriage

One of the amendments states there is a separation between church and state, so you can't necessarily make gay marriage illegal because it is 'against God'. Marriage there is only one thing that is most important love, if you fell in love with someone it should matter their sexuality or gender. It should matter if you want to be with that person for the rest of your life. The definition of love is "Very strong affection: an intense feeling of tender affection and compassion." Why should we only limit that affection for only 'straight' people. Homosexuals are human to not some weird creature they are like all of us. 1) http://teenink.com...
Gay marriage

Gay marriage is something that people came up with years ago, but 2000 years ago, marriage was the union of a guy and a woman not two guys or two women. The world now a days is creating so many new ideas and making up things that long time ago didn't exist, such as gay marriage. In some cases guy start to wear make up and acting like girls, which is something that is not right. People get plastic surgeries to look like the opposite sex and honestly, that's wrong because we were made the way we are and we shouldn't change how we look or how we act just because we want to be someone that we're not. 1) http://www.biblestudytools.com... 2) http://www.kliniksanssouci.de...
Gay marriage

Why should we have our decisions be made by someone else? What if the world was switched and being gay was the norm and being straight wasn't? Wouldn't you want the chance and personal choice to marry someone you love, not someone society prefers as 'right'. Not only homosexuals to marry and limiting it to hetros is on the court's interpretation violating the 14th commandment for equal protection. So tell me do you still believe marriage should only be for heterosexuals, or should we allow homosexuals this too? 1) http://www.pewresearch.org...
The UK should dispose of all its nuclear bombs.

Hello, fellow Brit here. I am happy to debate this with you. National security: Without a nuclear arsenal, the UK would have far less national security against possible threats, which may not be clear to us now, but may arise in the future. We cannot predict what is going to happen further down the line, so it is best that we maintain a nuclear arsenal to ensure that if such a scenario develops that we need to use them, we will be able to. Getting rid of them would only serve to remove much of our power. Diplomacy: Without a nuclear arsenal, the UK would lose its status as a nuclear power, and thus, lose its influence on the international stage. By maintaining our nuclear power, we always have the threat of mutually assured destruction we were ever to be attacked by nukes. This in itself deters other nations from even considering attacking the UK with nukes, and maintains the UK"s influence. NATO and the USA: It is true that the UK"s allies do already have a substantial amount of nuclear weapons already, and could easily deter any threat without us. However, we cannot simply rely on our allies for national security if we have the ability to protect ourselves. It is important that we maintain our own security rather than allowing our allies to do it for us. If a nuclear war were to ever break out, we would have to rely on our allies to protect us if we didn"t have access to our own. Conclusion: It is important that we maintain our nuclear arsenal as we have no understanding of what the future holds for us, and thus, will never know if we will need them. So it is important that we maintain them to ensure that if we are drawn into a nuclear conflict, we are able to protect ourselves. By scrapping our nuclear weapons, we would also remove our status as a nuclear power, meaning we have less of an influence internationally.
The UK should dispose of all its nuclear bombs.

This will be a short debate because i have debated in the past and some of the responses i received were not pleasant. I will be arguing that the UK should dispose of ALL its nuclear bombs by 2016. here are my reasons 1- Nukes cost lots of money to maintain and the old Brits don't have to much of that. Selling them would be great for the economy 2- Its NOT the cold war anymore. The soviet union is no longer here, and the only possible nuclear threats (even this is debatable) today are North Korea, Iran or terrorists getting there hands on them. There are reasons why none of these require the UK to have nukes.That is why the UK have nukes. 3- No country/group would ever nuke the UK they would nuke the US first and the US has over 7,500 nukes and i am sure they would use more than a efficient amount to deal with the terrorists/rough state. France has 300 and NATO has like 200 so why does the UK need any the west always works as 1. 4-The only real nuclear threat that could threaten the UK s existence would be Russia with 8,500 nukes. BUT even if the USA provoked it enough to make it use nuclear weapons. Both the US/Russia would launch all their nuclear bombs and completely destroy each other. Now it the UK has nukes and this happens (witch it PROBABLY WONT) what would be the difference? conclusion: I don't really see any argument for it. I live in the UK and if a nuclear war broke out i can imagination the UK being Americas slave (as per usual) and would be backing the US, Sanctioning Russia, and creating LOTS of propaganda. Then when the nukes were launched at each other the UK would lend its master a hand and nuke Russia 2 this would result in nothing more to Russia because the US would have killed like 90% of the population already. You know what would happen to the UK? It would jump in get destroyed and change nothing. I would rather live than die and take out 100,000 innocent Russians down with me. note- I would prefer to argue with a fellow Brit.
The UK should dispose of all its nuclear bombs.

I guess to finish things off I will conclude my main argument for keeping our nuclear weapons. I believe it is important that we maintain our nuclear weapons to ensure our own safety, and if we were to remove them all it would be an incredibly bad decision unless, of course, we had the entire international community on our side. But without this happening, I see no reasonable argument for abandoning our entire nuclear arsenal. I would concede to agreeing that we could abandon some to save money, but abandoning them all is a step too far. I would argue against your main point (that being you hope in a nuclear war the UK does not have nukes) by saying that in a nuclear war (presumably between the US and Russia) the UK would most likely have a role within it, whether that's a good thing or not. My point is, we are one of the worlds most powerful nations and we have a lot of enemies, so it is important that we maintain a strong nuclear arsenal as a deterrent. To conclude, abandoning all of our nukes would be major mistake as we'd lose a lot of power, both militarily and internationally, that we may need in the future for whatever reason.
The UK should dispose of all its nuclear bombs.

Money wise i agree with your idea in paragraph one. I agree terrorists don't come into this debate, but. However the reasons i have continued are: 1- Many countries have tried to get the international community involved to start getting rid of stock piles, but when the country proposing this does not do anything about their own nukes nether do other countries. If the UK got all the nuclear powers in a meeting and said "The UK will depose of all 280 nuclear bombs and all nuclear submarines in the next 3 months, only if all other countries commit to the same" That might be more effective. If it done so lots of world wide people would admire the UK. 2- Briton does not need power for much and even with out nukes it still has the *5th strongest army*. No offense to the UK but its power is usually a bad thing, the UK is not really in any threat, and they were involved in Iraq, Libya and more. 3-My main point(i feel most strongly about): If nuclear war broke out i would hope the UK has no nukes due to the fact i live here and so do over 60million people. con= -damage our international influence vs pro= -possible nuke free/reduced world -money to the economic -more likely to be safe in a nuclear war. - my argument has altered since the start i see, but same objective, Due to these reason i think that less nukes (despite being better than all nukes) is not on my agenda. All must go. note- I did not add future threat in con's list because if they did come (in a nuke free world they would be less likely) i would support the making of new nukes.
The UK should dispose of all its nuclear bombs.

I understand your point about the UK having economic issues in the present time, and I see the benefit in abandoning our nuclear bombs to save money. However, I would argue that we shouldn"t completely remove them due to the reasons I brought up, those being that we it would remove much of our power and damage our international influence. I would propose a middle way between the two where we can decrease our spending, but still maintain enough to ensure security. That way, we can maintain some of what we currently have whilst saving money. As for encouraging other nations to abandon their own nuclear weapons, I would say that it would be far more effective to propose it on an international level and having other nations do the same as us at the same time rather than the UK being the only nation decreasing its spending. This way, we can get the international community involved, although it would be difficult. I would also argue that terrorism doesn"t really come into this debate as nukes are used for fighting external forces, whereas terrorism is an internal problem which can never really be dealt with using nuclear weapons. Also, the UK isn"t really being targeted for terrorism due to it having nuclear weapons; it"s being targeted mainly due to its interventionist policies. To conclude, we shouldn"t abandon our nuclear arsenal unless we have the rest of the international community involved. However, if we were to reduce spending on our nuclear weapons, we should still maintain enough of our nuclear arsenal to ensure that we still maintain our power and influence.
The UK should dispose of all its nuclear bombs.

I see your point of the future but i am talking about right now. If the UK wanted it could make more in the future. First i will emphasize a point i made then i will try my best to combat yours. Point: The UK has a large money problem and it costs lots to maintain nuclear bombs and i am sure that 280 nukes sold would also get the UK some money and that would be a good way to get the country back on track. I hate to quote points because it can be really annoying but i must: " threat of mutually assured destruction"- I know i have said it before but i am sure if anyone launched a nuke at the UK America in particular would nuke them back. Think of a list of countries/organizations that would nuke the UK. Terrorists: MAD does not really work on them because you don't know were to nuke. Russia: If they were nuking any won it would be he US. As long as the UK backed down a bit it would be in no danger. Rough state: If a rough state like Iran/North Korea Nuked any one it would be the US. If it for some reason they hit the UK the US would Destroy zed country. " Getting rid of them would only serve to remove much of our power."- I agree but maybe that's a good thing if teh UK done it right it would look really good and encourage others to do the same. I mean people in other countries would think a lot better of the UK if they done that and the UK would be under less threat from terrorism. This debate is going well so far i hope it does not turn into an argument, i have a bad experience with that.
Professional wrestling should be an Olympic sport like gymnastics

Take a look at figure skating and gymnastics. Both are choreographed performances just like professional wrestling. Have it judged and the winner is the team with the better performance. It would be great to see USA against Mexico, or Japan against Canada. You take two of the best workers from a certain country and put them in a match against each other and get scored by the judges. It"s the exact same thing as figures skating, so why not? For example it could be Chris Jericho vs Lance Storm of Canada or Bryan Danielson (Daniel Bryan) vs Jonathan Good (Dean Ambrose/Jon Moxley) of America. I genuinely think it could work. Have each match scored out of ten just like all of the other choreographed performances in the Olympics.
Professional wrestling should be an Olympic sport like gymnastics

Placing two participants from the same country in the ring together does remove many of the problems with judging. However, it brings out all the more the fact that we must "suspend our disbelief" in the competition. A central component of any "wrestling" match is that two opponents are in the ring together. By placing teammate in the ring who are pretending to fight against each other we see all the more how inferior Professional Wrestling is to actual combat-based sports. When we have judo, why would we want Professional Wrestling? It would be like adding NERF guns to a marksmen competition. While I doubt that independent promotions could put on a performance like the bigger promotions, my point was that we need to look beyond North America and Europe. Professional Wrestling is all but non-existent in Africa, South America and most of Asia. It makes no sense to make a world-wide competition out of something unknown to three-fifths of the world. Perhaps in thirty years, if Professional Wrestling extends beyond its current boarders, we could revisit the issue. For now Professional Wrestling is not suited for the global arena.
Professional wrestling should be an Olympic sport like gymnastics

I don't mean judging individually I mean that you grade both men together as a team who'd have to choreograph each moves and such and if their match was better than the match of their opponents then they win. Storm and Jericho would get graded on their overall performance and their moves. They do not get graded individually. They should be graded on their ability to work together (even thought they are technically"fighting" each other). It should be who put on the better performance, team Canada or team USA. It is all about how is your chemistry with your partner who you have worked a routine with. Storm Vs Jericho is graded as a 9 based on moves and entertainment while Bryan Vs Ambrose is given a 7. it would be similar to gymnastics in a way. And although i agree with you that in mainland Europe there are not many big televised wrestling promotions, there are many independent wrestlers and promotions that would be pretty good and could put on just as good performances as some of the wrestlers from the bigger promotions like WWE or TNA.
Professional wrestling should be an Olympic sport like gymnastics

Greetings. This is my first attempt at debate on this site, so please forgive any errors in decorum. While professional wrestling can be entertaining, and no one would deny that the participants are in excellent physical condition, there appear to be at least three reasons why it could not be an Olympic sport. First and foremost, it is a choreographed fight between opposing competitors. Many of the moves require both competitors to work together and know in advance what the other one will do. Take the example of Chris Jericho vs. Lance Storm. For Jericho to perform a move, Storm would have to be able to perform his portion of that move. If Storm is less skilled then he could make it impossible for Jericho to perform his move, or Storm could intentionally prevent Jericho from performing his move. Figure skating has pairs events, but in that case two competitors are working together and are scored together. In professional wrestling, two competitors are working against each other and would have to be scored separately. Second, professional wrestling has a somewhat limited appeal. It is popular in North America and Britain, and to a lesser degree in some other parts of Europe. However, it is virtually non-existent in the rest of the world. The Olympics is a world-wide competition. We would not my Cricket an Olympic sport, not because it is a bad sport but because it is not commonly played or even understood in most of the world. Similarly, we should not make profession wrestling an Olympic sport because it is no commonly played or understood in much of the world. Finally, the fact that professional wrestling is a "pretend fight" makes unsuited for the Olympics. I grant that this may just be my own preference, but it seems right. The Olympics has various kinds of dances, such as figure skating and floor routines in gymnastics. It has actual competitive fights, such Greco-Roman wrestling, judo, and fencing. Professional wrestling lacks the grace of gymnastics and the authenticity of judo. Putting it in the Olympics would add very little and take away quite a bit away from the nature of the Olympics. Without denying the athletic nature of professional wrestling, it does not belong in the Olympics.
Ego's dictate debates instead of facts.

standard debate rules apply. no ad hominems, trolling, unprofessional mannerisms, or new arguments in final speeches. standard debate rules in regard to dropped arguments also apply. (attacking subpoints. ) That is what leadership is all about: staking your ground ahead of where opinion is and convincing people, not simply following the popular opinion of the moment. it is because I believe the words of Doris kerns goodwin that I must negate the resolution which states resolved: Ego's dictate debates instead of facts. before we begin I would like to offer the following definitions and observations in order to clarify the grounds and framework of this debate. firstly is ego. ego is defined by the Cambridge English Dictionary as, the idea or opinion that you have about yourself. nextly, instead is defined by the same source as, rather than; an alternative. (note that if you visit the site I am using the American English tab as that is my nationality) finally, dictate is defined as to give orders, or state something with total authority: thus the resolution states that the ideas one has about themselves are the driving forces of debate rather than facts in all circumstances. throughout my next arguments, I shall prove that two areas of science or thought leave no room for the resolution. psychology and logic. Psychology. subpoint A the psychology of persuasion offers no room for the resolution. (1) psychological theorists have found that people's actions are all subject to one form of persuasion or another. Contention 2. Logic leaves no room for the resolution. if the resolution were true, no one would have reason to debate. you debate, you convince no one who doesn't already agree with you and nothing changes. we can see throughout history and throughout our own lives that this simply is not true. and I'm out of characters. I eagerly await your response.
Ego's dictate debates instead of facts.

1. While it is true that there are indeed multiple ways to relieve cognitive dissonance, they all rely on one thing that has to happen first. You have to recognize that one of your beliefs or actions are wrong.Once you identify this truth, then what you do after that can only be measured on an individual basis. If the resolution were true, and ego dictated debate, then we would never recognize that one of our beliefs were wrong and cognitive dissonance would never occur. That has been the point of my entire cognitive dissonance argument. As for his point on fallacies, fallacies are only identified when we apply logic to them. we apply logic, and we find that the statement doesn't make sense. fallacies are errors in logic nothing more. If a machine malfunctions, is it therefore incapable of naturally running its programming? errors in logic do not disprove logic. Especially when logic must be applied to identify them. 2. I would like to point out that the limbic system and the cerebral cortex work together, they do not fight each other.Together, the limbic system and the cerebral cortex create the human consciousness. while the cingulate gyrus regulates aggression and emotions, we have to recognize that aggression and emotional reactions are appropriate and the cingulate gyrus ensures that we only have them when appropriate. it also receives its input from the neocortex which is involved in conscious thought. simply because every thought or decision we make doesn't make it's way to the command center, doesn't mean that we're not in control. Also, simply because we feel emotions during debates and don't go through them like machines, is not evidence that they are overriding higher brain functions. To feel is to be human. To think is to be human. these do not contradict each other, they go hand in hand and foster each others proliferation. And with that, I'm out of characters. Thank you for the debate.
Ego's dictate debates instead of facts.

1. I have not misstated the definition of cognitive dissonance, though it was incomplete. (please note that I did not do this on purpose, I just assumed there was nothing else to it, which was a mistake on my part). But the basic idea is still holding (or be confronted by) two conflicting beliefs. What you describe is one of four means of reducing cognitive dissonance, not the phenomenon itself. The other three support my view quite well and involve ignoring logic in favor of protecting ingrained beliefs. You have yet to explain why fallacies are so prevalent during debates, as it's incompatible with your claim that humans are capable of naturally applying logic, and without this, your "debate drives ego" premise doesn't hold up. 2. I did some digging and found that the cingulate gyrus REGULATES aggression and emotions, which is quite different from merely inhibiting it. The larger structure the gyrus is located in is called the cingulate cortex, which regulates several other things as well: pain, empathy, maternal instincts, recognition, language expression, memory formation, decision making and many other subconcious functions. Let that sink in for a moment... As previously established and confirmed by yourself, higher brain functions are located in the cerebral cortex, which include logic and reasoning. The cingulate cortex, a part of the limbic brain, doesn't only regulate instincts, emotions and aggression, it also regulates the decision making process. Considering the fact that the limbic brain always takes precendence, it can and often will override those higher functions. This is further confirmed by recent studies (google: Antonio Damasio) and brain scans showing that emotional centers light up like a christmas tree during debates. I thus thank my opponent for providing me with the means to disprove his claim. Everything I mentioned can be googled. I wanted to include links, but my own word limit was working against me. Thank you for this debate.