BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: The United States federal government should require all states to legalize gay marriage.

Thank you and good luck.Gay Marriage = GMPoint one.P1aHomosexuals has rights too!The right to marry isn't in any documents like the Bill of Rights, but it is somewhat implied in the United States Declaration of Independence."We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happinesss"I will not/am not claiming the right to marry is a right, but it is against the overlying culture of America to deny such a event. To deny homosexuals the right to marry is a offensive attack on homosexuals, rights and, in a sense, marriage itself. To wrap up I ask CiRrk this: Why is denying a Black-White , or Black-Asian seen as bad policy in America? What is the difference? P1b1No intelligent reason to.Seriously? Why ban GM?P1b2Are you sure it isn't a Christian thing?It is mostly common knowledge that most religions ( like Christians) take a dim view on GM. Banning GM because of your religion takes a bad view on it is a laughably Taliban-ish excuse. Here is a graph of all the states banning gay marriage.http://c498390.r90.cf2.rackcdn.com......And now the Baptist populationhttp://www.valpo.edu......And thishttp://www.valpo.edu......While states that banned GM might not exactly correlate with religion, it does on some levels. I am running out of time, but I wish CiRrk good luck.
Pure Moral Reasons Are Not Enough to Form Laws

I look forward to a good and interesting round. The Original Foundations of Morality can be traced back to the Ten Commandments Supposedly given by god. For thousands of years and even now we can view these commandments, regardless of religious beliefs to be the supreme moral laws that govern us. While the first 5-6 commandments(depending on religion and translation) may be spiritual the last are in the form or moral Imperatives. You shall not kill You shall not commit adultery You shall not steal You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor You shall not covet your neighbor's wife You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor These are the six Original Moral laws and the reason behind laws for thousands of years up until the present. Why do we have many of our laws? Because we believe that the prohibited acts are Morally wrong. The Commandments aside let us look at many modern day laws that have purely moral backgrounds. .. Why is Prostitution Illegal? Because many people consider it Immoral Why did We Stop Segregation and slavery? Mainly on the foundation that all men are moral equals, and that both of these concepts are MORALLY wrong. Why did the international Community try so hard to stop the holocaust? at this time there was no international law that was being broken, however the international community felt that what the Nazis were doing was wrong, that thier actions were Morally Forbidden. The Entire Principle of equality is founded upon Pure Morals, Obviously not everybody is Mentally, Physically or Genetically equal, so why is it such an established norm that people should be treated equally when they plainly are not equal? because People are MORAL equals, A purely Moral principle. OPPONENTS POINTS "few basic rights (such as freedom)" Why is freedom so fundamental? why do we frown on Despotisms when what they are doing is legal in their own land? Because it is Morally wrong to take away freedom, we consider it to be the natural condition , our laws are based on the Moral Concept That Freedom is a Human right.
Pure Moral Reasons Are Not Enough to Form Laws

I believe the only reason we should have for laws is to protect living beings, owned items/ structures, and a few basic rights (such as freedom) from being non-consensually harmed or taken. And people whom are unable to make rational decisions for themselves should be protected from themselves (Not spiritually or in a way we can not prove, psychologically only, something like suicide) All other reasons people may find immoral for themselves, but others should be allowed to chose to do as they wish, as long as it doesn't non-consensually harm someone else. You could argue with morals when deciding new laws, but morals shouldn't be the sole reason, there should be other logical reasons either then just 'that is immoral, there for it is against the law' I would like to ask my opponent not to argue that the concept of basic protection is a moral concept. As that isn't what this debate is truly on, it is truly a debate on the right of choice, not a technicality like that, really it is a kritik to argue that way.
God is not real

Ladies & Gentlemen; The question before us today is whether or not God exists; And to that effect the naysayer has offered one piece of evidence, to whit 'The Bible is rationally unbelievable'. In weighing the pro's and con's we participate in rational enquiry and with insufficient evidence to the contrary we grant "The benefit of the doubt" to the contender, which in effect supports a premise that God does in fact exist. (bows) Good-day (bows) Please save your flowers.
God is not real

Well im gonna bring out the most basic of paradox's. Does god know what sinful lust is like, if he does then he is all good, but if he doesn't he isn't all knowing. You give me a short one, ill give short answers. The bible contradicts itself several times, including God having different personalities, and funny enough he is like the civilization that writes about him, and how he's so on there side. Plus Durteronomy, probably a misspell, is just absolute bullcrap.
Defining yourself is a barrier to variety.

I think the act of defining yourself and sticking to it is a rigid act. If stuck in a box, Outside influences will have little effect on subconscious dissolution of your rigidity. People have preference to what they hold because it gives them security. A person's possessions define them. Giving definition to yourself is solidity in scope of action. Less action and less variety. Self definition is not analysis of the world based on meanings. Self definition impedes on learning conscious variety. Self definition is also detrimental in the feeling of losses. Defining yourself by taking ownership of possessions makes them become you. When an object is lost, You feel turmoil from the loss. Is self definition is implied by actions taken and decisions made. A decision verifies a stance be it spontaneous guess or not. There is implied objective self definition in every action. This is the self. The self as defined by itself to certain generalized music is a barrier to the self learning of variety. Hmm
Nature can't pull

Unsure if the forfeiture is a concession to my points raised - Or if this was simply someone not wanting to put effort into an endeavor they will not 'win' at - So they choose not to do anything at all. I Sincerely hope this is not the case. As there has been no new points raised in this debate, I maintain my current stance on the subject. I would like to re-iterate my thanks to my opponent in this debate, I truly do appreciate the insight gained on this matter, The perception of Pulling and pushing had not fully entered my mind before, and this was certainly a growing experience for myself. That is what I truly ask for in a Debate - that is "Teach each other". I Hope you have a great week, Hope to see you in another debate in the future! :)
Nature can't pull

Unsure what that first paragraph is, in relations to this debate - Also I note the Irony pointed that while you made that speech on accepting other stand points, as if to prove it is difficult to show your side of the debate... *directly* after I conceded to your spinning motion theory - To me that entire paragraph is irrelevant, and to be honest - slightly insulting.You proceed to say that the act of pulling is an illusion - following it specifically saying that muscles that pull are weaker than pushing muscles, (along with why this occurs, and an in depth reasoning as to how it occurs too).The very fact you referenced muscles specifically designed to pull, kind of proves my point that nature can pull - I can concede that the pulling motion is most definitely weaker than pushing muscles - However the additional difficulty and lack of results from a motion in no way discards the fact it exists.It is like saying you cannot have a Square wheel, simply because a round wheel works better.I maintain that Nature can 'pull', however as this debate has raised, it is noticeably weaker than muscles designed to 'push'.My opponent has actually provided the answer for my next point, WHY this is perceived as a 'pulling' motion - specifically how the body utilises a combination of vacuum and internal muscle 'pulleys'. He originally raised that the motion of 'pulling' is illogical and must be some kind of 'magic' - as if to disparage my standpoint before even addressing it - To which he then proceed to fully explain how this happens, and why it occurs. I see little point to add what he has written, as he has explained it completely.I do enjoy the fact that this debate has opened my understanding, and has brought about me searching into this spin theory within the galaxy - However since you have actually agreed to my point without prodding - that is "Nature can Pull" - I feel little need to elaborate further.My investigations into Aether lead me to believe that this is in no fact apart of this debate, except that Aether is simply the substance within the space of substances, in which case it is relevant to every debate ever to be created, and should be re-addressed in each debate in the past, as it affects everything.I am happy to use this last round if my opponent wishes to divulge further upon this Aether subject, if there is anything else that could be used to support his side of the debate - however I would like to note that it will be the final round, so please provide your response as succinctly as possible.Thank you - I have truly enjoyed this debate, and I am very impressed with the points you have raised (This is my opinion, Just wanted to let you know :) )
Nature can't pull

It is up to science to unveil the deceptions of the mind. Primitive people made up all kinds of crazy ideas to explain nature and natural events. These ancient ideas have been moulded and welded into our belief systems and religions. It is considered sacrilegious to question people in religious and scientific authority. Modern science can't easily shake off the past and start fresh. There are thousands of years of misconceptions and primitive thinking which has to be eradicated first. It is a never ending job to fight against ignorance and stupidity. Old concepts must eventually die a slow and painful death over thousands of years. One post on a website isn't going to have much effect on people who have been brainwashed by the system from birth. Human pride will prevent them from accepting new ideas because new ideas are considered a personal attack on that person's integrity. Thus, they will defend these old ideas to death, because the death of an idea can be seen as the equivalent death of the individual. Thus, from a psychoanalytical point of view, the primitive brain (pineal gland), is always trying to defend itself from exposure of its own primitive thought processes. Pulling action is an illusion. That is my statement. It is logically impossible for one object to pull another object. Note - Pulling muscles are much weaker than pushing muscles. Why? In order to pull - the body must manufacture a vacuum by creating electrical energy. The body uses leverage and a pulley system to amplify the pulling action. The muscles use a sliding filament method of contracting. This process uses calcium and ATP in a circular motion of chemical exchange. On a sub-atomic level - this could be viewed as a push which creates a stored vacuum which is used at a later date. Note - When you push anything - a vacuum is left behind the object that is pushed. Thus, there is really no pulling involved. There is only push and vacuum. The pulling action becomes more and more absurd the greater the distance from the object being pulled. The Earth pulling the moon, for example, is a good case study of this stupidity. Pushing is a logical force which requires no magic or invisible ropes for it to work. I maintain that it can't.
Nature can't pull

Hmm I can see the logical reasoning behind the spin part you mention - I can see that working.I too feel that simply because we believe ourselves to be complex, most assume the universe is complex as well - and had already considered the concept that the universe is working on basic, but flawlessly executed functions.So with regards to Atoms and subatomic particles, I can concede that potentially this is the case. (I have yet to see proven or unproven sources to confirm this as more than a theory)However this does not definitively prove that nature canot exhibit the signs that we originally perceived as pulling.In nature, one can experience this almost anywhere - A tiger can pull a carcass up a tree, Puppies playing tug of war (Although this could be construde as a lack of push :P but bracketed part is made in jest)I understand I have changed Tangent here, however I can see your point regarding atoms and the spin function of these microscopic particles (Without actual proof to make fact) and do not wish to dedicate rounds onto something we both agree could be possible.I do not concede to your notion of Aether, as you have yet to prove they actually exist, and as such - I cannot argue against that which I do not know - I have tried reading up on all I can - however it will take me more than 3 days to effectively debate this topic.I will potentially re-address these subjects in the following round, if I am confident with my personal knowledge on the matter - otherwise I am willing to concede by ommision, due to lack of knowledge to prove otherwise (Though my hope is to learn more so all sides can be addressed)What is your stance on Nature - as described by myself in the first round, As in anything not man made - or controled by Man (effectively in a "Natural state" - ie. Nature). Do you still maintain that The Animal kingdom, or any other 'natural' ecosystem, *cannot* exhibit 'pulling' motions?I maintain that it can.
Nature can't pull

In order to understand that nature can't pull, one must first understand what the fundamental actions of the universe are. These actions could be described as either push or spin. The push action has its opposite which is a vacuum. Spin has 3 states - These states are left spin, right spin and no spin. No spin could be regarded as a perfect vacuum which all matter rotates around. Matter is falling into the no spin vacuum. (Note - Some people may interpret this as gravity.) It would be advisable to visit Robert Distinti's website to get a complete understanding of these principles. Robert Distini's ideas may differ from mine, but his concepts are similar to mine in many ways. Once you have understood Robert Distini's ideas, then you may understand that my ideas are a natural progression of his concepts. http://www.youtube.com... The biggest illusion is modern physics, which has created many illogical concepts like pulling gravity, photons, curved space, Big Bang, gravitons, invisible fields, quarks, action at a distance and relativity. The universe isn't that complicated. The universe is made of only one sub-atomic particle which has 3 states. Left spin, right spin and no spin. Nature isn't wasteful. If the universe can operate without pull, it will find a way of doing it. This is not a game of semantics. When I say that nature can't pull, that means that it really can't pull. Thus, there is no back door methodology or intellectual trickery involved here. In a tug of war, the aether is pushing in from all directions. The side that wins is the side that found the biggest vacuum or lack of push. If the aether stopped pushing, then the universe would explode. That means, that all the matter would convert back into aether. This is what happens at the centre of all galaxies. Thus, you get aether jets which project out at 90 degrees the the galaxies rotation. Note - Magnetism and electricity have the same 90 degree angle relationship. Thus, a galaxy is an atom in a different fractal dimension.
Nature can't pull

1. The first point that I wish to make is that the concept of pulling from a large or small distance is illogical. It requires magical forces which defy logic. Whereas, a pushing force is easy to understand and is mechanical in nature. A pulling force requires the use of invisible strings and ropes which connect two objects together. While living creatures may appear to be pulling objects, this is just an illusion. It is really a lack of push (and or a vacuum) that creates a so called 'pull action'. 2. The research of Australian scientist Brian Schmidt into dark energy has confirmed that space pushes on planets and that gravity doesn't pull. http://www.smh.com.au... 3. What holds matter together? If gravity doesn't hold matter together, then what does? The answer to this question must be that space is not empty and that it contains particles of aether which are too small to be observed using modern or old technologies. This mysterious substance can be felt constantly and its effects create all the apparent mysterious forces and effects that we may call light, gravity magnetism and electricity.
Nature can't pull

Despite the large scope of the debate here, I believe that I can debate this matter effectively, so I accept.My aim for this debate is to prove that while 'nature' exhibits evidence of 'pushing' - it is simply a matter of perspective that leads you to believe that the concept of nature 'pulling', does not exist.To begin with, I will provide definitions to provide my own perspective on the matter :Nature : All forces that were not developed, or is outside, Human control. This includes Weather, Animals (Barring Humanity) and cosmic and atomic forces.Pull/Push : Force exerted upon another source that physically moves the substance, or affects its' trajectory. This can be grouped in both physical (Visible) forces, along with unseen (Invisible) Forces, such as gravity and magnetismBoth forms use the same situational details, just invert the direction.I will leave the next round for Pro to assert his position, to which I will begin to debate in ernest.Good Luck to my opponent, I hope we have a great debate, and both gain insight throughout our discussion.
Not all countries had had a slave trade, some just kidnapped slaves

In the case of Scotland and Spain, yes they traded from Africans, so in this case, blacks who were at the mercy of Scottish and Spanish slaveowners have only themselves to blame for selling their own to the Scottish and Spanish. But in the case of England and Denmark, it wasn't a trade. It was conquest and theft and kidnapping. They were so bent on domination that they couldn't help themselves, and thought it was OK to kidnap black people and enslave them. Sweden did this too.
Gay Marriage

The average estimates were that 21% of men are gay and 22% of women are lesbians. In fact, roughly a quarter of the public thinks more than 25% of men and 25% of women are homosexual. In total about 50% of people are gay or lesbian and that doesn't necessarily mean they shouldn't get married. In the bible it may state certain things about a man and women being together but 22.8% of the American population is religiously unaffiliated or if you call it an "atheist".
Gay Marriage

Same sex marriage is less likely to divorce says The Williams Institute, not only is same sex marriage growing but it is also taken more seriously and more appreciated since gay people have worked so hard to make same sex marriage legal. Researchers in the Williams Institute have researched that the average divorce rate for same sex marriage is 1.1 percent, compared to the annual 2 percent rate for heterosexual. Therefore same sex marriage is less likely to divorce then heterosexual marriage.
Gay Marriage

Gay couples that are married are not fit to raise children. Gay couples could influence the child's mindset to make them think its "appropriate" to be gay. Homosexual-ism is a behavior that is learned and is not genetic which means that the gay couples could be teaching their child to be gay. While raising a family its important that the child has a prospective of both genders. The child could develop issues at school such as being bullied because she or he has two "dads" or two "mom." Gay marriage is ruining the children lives in which they are our future. http://www.charismanews.com...
Gay Marriage

Men and women can be naturally fit for each other but about 10 percent of women (6.1 million) in the United States from age 15-44 have difficulty getting pregnant or staying pregnant and 1 in 25 males have a low sperm count. Yes male and female reproduce babies, lots of children are put in foster care and adoption centers, in fact children usually wait three years to be adopted or move from 3 or more foster homes and are usually separated from their siblings. This is where gay married couples that want to have children but can't produce together come in.
Global capitalism faces crisis

This them is an important and urgent problem facing us these days. I believe global capitalism is closely linked to the economic dimention of globalization. This situation dates back to the 1980s. Manfred B. Steger argues that ``in the 1980s, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and US President Ronald Reagan acted as the the co-leaders of the neoliberal revolution against Keynesianism. Soon thereafter, business elites in the US and Japan consciously linked the novel term `globalization` to a political agenda aiming at the `liberation` of state-regulated economies around the world. This budding neoliberal economic order received further legitimation with the 1989-91 collapse of communism in the Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. ``( Globalization, 2013. Oxford University Press, P.40-P.41. ) The important thing is that in the last two decade of the 20th century a new economic idea which promotes free flow of capital and finance on a global scale without the involvement of national governments of the world has emerged. This symbolizes the emergence of global capitalism. These days the economic divide between the rich and the poor among the developed countries poses a serious problem. What causes this situation? The main problem lies in the basic structure of modern global capitalism which seeks short-term profit by reducing cost, particularly, labor cost. The main actors are big multinational companies of the U. S. , Japan and European countries. Managers of these companies have been transferring their production facilities to low-waged countries like China, India and other developing countries for many years. This has caused loss of employment opportunities among employees of the developed countries so far. Their life has been seriously damaged. Managers and capitalists place the highest priority on realizing maximum profit on a global competitive world. They don`t pay much attention to the distribution of profit for employees. This causes the concentration of wealth among managers and capitalists of the big business of the West. As a result, distrust and anger toward them are erupting among the working people. In recent years, decent life of the middle-class in those countries are being destructed and eroded. Reflecting these dire situation, movements of anti-big business and anti-global capitalism are taking place in many pats of the world. Taking this situation into consideration, we can say that global capitalism faces crisis. The most important thing which we must recognize is that global capitalism destroys not only the foundation of democracy but the dignity of human beings. Behind this situation only the rich capitalists and the top executives of big business are getting the benefits brought by the global capitalism. Unfortunately, many people have lost their hope for their future. As a result, many societies and communities are cracking and fracturing. In other words, we face social crisis imposed by global capitalism.