BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay Marriage Is Beneficial To Everyone

1) Immediate effect vs Long Term effectRead the resolution you made Pro, it says that "Gay Marriage is beneficial to everyone" not "Gay Marriage is beneficial to everyone 50 years form now", stick to your own resolution before playing semantics then accuse me of starting it. Time is a factor for whether or not something is beneficial. There are cancer patients who will die tomorrow or some time over the next week, and the same will be true for the day gay marriage is legalized. If gay marriage is legal and they pass away, they wont benefit from it, and the Pro cannot deny that2) List of People who would not benefit from Gay Marriage - 16 and Under -According to the Pro this is how Gay Marriage benefits children,Gay Marriage -> more taxes -> better economy for all -> somehow benefits are passed to ALL the parents -> somehow benefits all of their kids. .. .. . Even with taxable incomes that doesnt mean people will have to pay less taxes if the government just spends all of it anyways (which they do). And any barely minimum amount that does benefit people would become negligible when that is transferred to the kids somehow. .. - Internationally - Same argument made by the Pro but again, the government might not transfer that savings to people if they spend any extra cash on themselves. Then any benefit that is somehow passed to people doesnt get passed overseas at all. when Gay Marriage was legalized in Argentina in July 2010 it did not affect the people of Somalia. .. . Or any other places that is economically isolated from the US and would not benefit from it. "Out of the nationalities, this may be surprising, but non-American white people can also be gay. :)"Oh thank you Sherlock Holmes I knew that already, keep in mind when they legalized Gay Marriage it didnt benefit us, so how would it work the other way around? It wouldnt - Religion - "Since most anti-gay people are religious, they believe in an afterlife, and could likely see the Earth as it continues, seeing their family benefit is a benefit. "3 words, Anti-Gay Athiests. .. - Homophobes - Conceded- Racists - Conceded- Some Conservatives - Conceded- Anti Gay Groups - Conceded- Anti Gay Authors - Conceded- Ignorant Bigots - Conceded- Parents - Conceded- Idiots - Conceded- Aliens - "Assuming the existence of aliens, when they come to study us our sexuality will no doubt be a huge characteristic for them to study"Pro, if ants were having gay sex it wouldnt benefit me. .. .. .. And the aliens havent found us yet so how could they benefit from something they dont even know is happening. .. .. .. .
Gay Marriage Is Beneficial To Everyone

I'm not gonna lie, I feel like we're playing with semantics here. But it's cool, I'm game. First off, I never resolved that gay marriage is beneficial to everyone immediately. Very few conscious things have an immediate, direct effect. If you eat food you must digest it. If you intend to go to Disneyland you must drive there and wait in line. If you want to have sex, you have to take off your clothes first. Therefore, that point is not correct. People under the age of 16 absolutely benefit - they live with their parents who benefit (which in turn benefits them) and the impacts on certain markets would also benefit them. America's market has been shown as having an impact on the international market - because of our girth and ties to so many countries, the rest of the world tends to follow a similar pattern. While correlation is not necessarily causation, I believe it would be safe to say. And the social impact would very likely lead other countries to legalize gay marriage, and experience those benefits head on. Since most anti-gay people are religious, they believe in an afterlife, and could likely see the Earth as it continues, seeing their family benefit is a benefit. Out of the nationalities, this may be surprising, but non-American white people can also be gay. :) It may benefit their research though! Assuming the existence of aliens, when they come to study us our sexuality will no doubt be a huge characteristic for them to study! The existence of gay marriage, and thus a more open and accepted sexuality will make it easier for them to observe our planet.
Jesus was black and Jewish

I agree with the definitions you proposed.So, let us start with Jesus' race.JESUS WAS BLACK(?): Now, according to the Bible and other sources, Jesus spent a good part of his childhood in Egypt. But in Egypt, it would appear that he did not stand out from the others, or I imagine it would have been mentioned. Most Egyptians would have been Black, and if he did not stand out from Black people... Well, he was Black.What's more, I will go a bit off the debate topic. Traditionally, he is depicting as having Long Hair. Where as in those days, Long Hair was very unpopular. This would mean that he most likely had short hair.I shall now quote the Bible. "for his feet shone like Bronze" Bronze, the alloy of copper and tin, is a fairly dark brown. If his feet shone like this metal, that would mean his feet were Black (or that he was a hobbit, but let us dismiss that idea). And, if his feet were black, we can assume that the rest of his body was too.JESUS WAS JEWISH(?):As we all know, Jesus mother Mary was Jewish. This means that Jesus was Jewish. Also, some of his followers even called him "rabbi". He also taught and read in the synagogue.Also, let's be logical. Christianity was invented after The CHRIST's death, obviously. Mohammad invented Islam in about 610 A.D. So, Jesus was, by elimination, Jewish.REFERENCES:http://news.bbc.co.uk... http://fr.wikipedia.org...
Jesus was black and Jewish

I understand that it is the position of Pro that:Jesus was "black" by which he most likely means of sub-Saharan African ancestral descent. That is, he was anthropologically similar to the normal racial types found in Central, South and Eastern sections of Africa. Jesus was "Jewish" meaning that:1. He considered himself to be Jewish2. He was a member in good standing of the Jewish community during his lifetime3. He was described as Jewish by those who knew him4. The religion of Jesus was Judaism, and his Jewishness did not come about as a result of cultural origin. In other words, Jesus must have been an observant Jew, and not simply a resident within a Jewish communityThis is contingent on the antiquity of the Jewish tradition. Therefore, we should also establish whether or not the modern notion of what should properly be called "Jewish" applied in ancient Judea, or whether or not this concept has evolved since that time into something that might have been unrecognizable to either party - the modern observer or the ancient Judean observer. Further, as a literary character, we may draw from literary works, such as biblical narratives, to assist us in this discussion. However, as an examination of an actual historical person, I'm afraid that this discussion will be impossible to 'prove' either way - there is no actual archaeological data upon which we can form any compelling argument. The best we can hope for in this regard is to use archaeology to better describe the literary narratives, and hopefully shave the probabilities somewhat. For my part, I should mention, I have no idea what my personal opinion is for this topic. I look forward to the research that will be involved, and should mention that I reserve the right to change my position - even if this means conceding the debate to my partner. I want to stress that this action would not constitute an act of improper conduct, but intellectual integrity. I await my partner's argument.
We should Destroy the Earth

1. All animals would be killed in the destruction of EarthUtilitarianism states that we should always act in the interests of the majority of parties, and there are way more non-human animals than humans on Earth. While animals are different from humans, there is no logical reason why they should be excluded from our analysis of whether an action is good or bad. The animals’ best interests would be to not destroy Earth, as that would probably necessitate their destruction, and animals inherently want to survive. Since the interests of animals outweigh those of people due to them being the majority, the Earth should not be destroyed regardless of whether humans support the destruction of Earth.2. Destroying the Earth would be costlyThe cost of destroying the Earth is massive regardless of how it is done. Humans would need to research to create a way of destroying the Earth, which would be difficult and therefore expensive since we’ve never destroyed an entire planet before. Then, all of the resources needed would need to be extracted and equipment created, again a very costly procedure. As such, it is also in our best interest not to destroy the Earth. 3. We’d be throwing away an opportunity to study biologyScientists estimate that around 86% of Earth’s species have not yet been described. [1] If we destroyed the Earth, we’d no longer be able to study all of them. This would become a detriment to us; an unknown species could, for instance, be used to create life-saving medicine.4. Simulations of brains would also be destroyedUnless souls exist--which they probably don't, since there is no evidence to such effect--there is no logical difference between a simulation of a brain and an actual brain. Simulated brains, such as neural networks, would be destroyed—therefore murdered, as they are just like real brains—without their own consent when computers are destroyed. 5. The majority of humans do not want to be killedIn utilitarianism, we should always cater to the majority. The majority of humans do not desire death, as it is human nature to try to survive. As such, if we destroy the Earth, we would be going against utilitarian morals.SOURCES[1]http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
We should Destroy the Earth

Now then with all formalities out of the way. .. Lets Debate! Why should we destroy the Earth? 1. Because it exist. There is a famous quote by the man know as George Mallory, which says "Because it's there". (1) The only reason would be to reach that goal, and destroying the Earth would achieve that goal. We should do our best to reach our dreams, and if it involves tearing down planets and people, then the ends justifies the means. 2. The Human Race is Evil Every day, we hear more and more stories about disgusting events. ISIS had committed even more terrorist attacks, like the Belgium attacks. North Korea is still around. We also have the fact that we are always at a state of war. If we were to go out and travel interstellar, and meet aliens, with our such barbaric nature, we would kill the, and destroy their worlds! The only way to stop this is to destroy the Earth with humans on it so that we can never ruin other aliens lives as well as the universe itself. 3. Think of all the Resources Remember, destroying the Earth doesn't just mean blowing it up, we can also mine it. All of those resources would help us be able to create our own world, a Dyson Sphere, even help us discover new materials. We would discover new theories and might even obtain interstellar travel. This leads to the next point. 4. The Greatest Science Expirement Ever Imagine the data we would receive from destroy the Earth. It would quite literally blow you away. The experiment would help us learn how to prevent future catastrophes and how to destroy more planets faster (if we are evil overlords of the universe). 5. It is already going to be destroyed by the sun Why wait for the next five billion years when we can destroy it sooner? (2) By that time, we probably could leave the solar system, so a great goodbye gift would be a glass of champagne. .. But instead of champagne it is a Planet Buster. We could all watch the Earth blow up, maybe with people on it for bonus points, and play the song Toxic on a MP3 player. These are just a few reasons on why we should destroy the Earth, and there are plenty more. I wish con good luck, or else they might be blown away. (3) 1. . http://blog.theclymb.com... 2. . http://www.universetoday.com... 3. . http://qntm.org...
We should Destroy the Earth

Hello everyone, and welcome to my first initiated debate. For my first actual debate, we shall debate on this important question. Should we destroy the Earth? It is a simple answer. We of course should destroy the Earth. Rules: First round is acceptance. Second round is for opening arguments, no rebuttals. Third round is for rebuttals. Fourth Round is for rebuttals and conclusion, no new arguments. BoP is shared. No forfeits. No trolling. No changing the definition of words. Definitions: We: People in general. Destroy: Put an end to the existence of the Earth. Earth: The 3rd planet around the sun. I would like to give the best of wishes to my opponent. May the best debater win and the loser learn from this debate. Thank you.
The moon is made of cheese

"Children's fairytales tell us that the moon is made of cheese, but like all bodies in the solar system, rock is the more realistic ingredient. The moon's surface is covered with dead volcanoes, impact craters, and lava flows, some visible to the unaided stargazer." - See more at: http://www.space.com... We have sent plenty of drones and even a man to the moon. We have verfied its crust, and know that the moon is made of volcanic rock like material.
The moon is made of cheese

I aim to show that the moon is made of cheese. My opponent must show that the moon is made of some other material, e.g. human skulls. You may attempt to argue that the moon is made of rock, though I doubt you'll get far with that claim since it's completely ridiculous. The first round is for acceptance. Rules: This is a bogus debate. The sources you cite do not have to be real, and any fact you claim to come from a fake cited source cannot be disproven by your opponent except by citing a contradictory fake source. However, fake sources can still be refuted using logic.
children being charged as adults

A child is defined as "a person 14 years and under. A 'child' should be distinguished from a 'minor' who is anyone under 18 in almost all states." http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... Children are always angry when parents treat them like babies when the parents say "no going outside when it is dark." Crimes: Even a 5-year-old is old enough to understand that stealing and murder are crimes. If a child is not taught a lesson when he is small, then he might do it again later.
Lowering the voting age to 15

Just because 15 year olds have the right to do some things, it doesn’t mean that they should use them. If all 16 year olds left home at 15 and started families it would be considered a disaster. And not all rights are given at 15 - most countries have a higher age for important things such as drinking alcohol, serving on a jury, joining the military, etc. It makes sense for different rights to be gained at different times as young people mature and get used to more responsibility. Because voting is so important, it should be one of the last rights to be gained.
Lowering the voting age to 15

15 year old's are not mature enough. The large majority still live at home and go to school. They may have adult bodies, but their minds are still those of children who have to be protected. By 18 they have become much more independent and are able to make their own way in the world. Their political views are likely to be more thoughtful compared to 16 year olds, who may just copy their parents opinions or adopt silly ideas for the sake of rebellion.
Lowering the voting age to 15

Now I know what most people are thinking, kids are too immature, or ignorant to vote. But for my friends and I, we have known more about voting situations then our parents the past 2 times. Now I have a group of very intelligent friends, and believe me I know that not all 14 and 15 year old are like that. But trust me on this the teenagers who don't want to spend the time to learn about the current political situation truly don't care enough to vote or even "waist there time" thinking about it. I have only met a handful of teenagers who keep up on current events,and those are the only ones who would vote before at least 18.
Under normal conditions, an average person CAN eat just one Lay's potato chip.

"None so blind as those who will not see" Have you ever asked yourself why America is so infested with lawyers? It's because the English language is so interestingly vague. When you use words such as "normal", "average" and "CAN", it's the same as opening Pandora's Box. The debate has pretty much boiled down to the definition of the word CAN. And once again, i will throw my opponent's definition back at him. "Can: to be able to; have the ability, power or skill to" Let's think about those 3 words, ability, power or skill. Can I juggle 5 different balls simultaneously? No, because I don't have the hand eye coordination. Can I run a 50 meter dash in 10 seconds? No, because I don't have the agility and leg muscles. Can I kick a nicotine addiction without a nicotine patch? No, because I don't have the willpower required. When my opponent brought up "Potatoes, nor salt, are physically addicting" he admits that will power is in deed an ability, power or skill that determines whether or not you Can or Cannot perform a task. So does the average person under normal conditions have the willpower to eat One and Only one potato chip? I spent most of this debate providing both examples and reasons why the average person under normal conditions DOES NOT have the willpower to resist the temptation to eat that second potato chip. Gluttony, peer pressure, forgetfulness, and my favorite, sunk pressure cost. And that's why you Cannot just eat one potato chip. If you don't believe me, give it a try. You can vote against me after your dead, if you never eat another Lay's potato chip for the rest of your life.
Under normal conditions, an average person CAN eat just one Lay's potato chip.

Unfortunately, I did not make a fatal flaw. My opponent did, in his poorly drafted resolution. "UNDER NORMAL CONDITIONS, an average person CAN eat just one Lay's potato chip" is the resolution. The resolution my opponent is trying to argue is "An average person CAN eat just one Lay's potato chip". The phrase under normal conditions changes the nature of the resolution drastically, and thus makes my opponent's rebuttal moot. Notice how I've explicitly used HIS OWN definition of the word "CAN" in my first round of arguments, because using HIS, not my definition, I've already shown that Under Normal Conditions, as the round spells out, an Average person CANNOT eat just one Lay's potato chip. Now to address my opponent's "refutation" as well as expand with new argumentation. "There are no conditions that prevent him from doing this, such as physically or mentally addicting chemicals in the chips. All it takes is a simple 'no.'" Let's be realistic for a second, who here in the audience plays video games? There are no addicting chemicals in World of Warcraft is there? Does the game reach out with physical hands to force people to play? But yet nevertheless there are millions of people out there who just CANNOT put down that mouse. So let's once again examine Bob who has opened a bag and ate one Lay's potato chip. After eating one Lay's potato chip a. There is peer pressure. After all, who goes around eating only one potato chip in a bag? That's just weird. b. There is sunk cost pressure. Have you ever finished something you ordered, even when you were full or even when it wasn't particularly good? Have you ever sat and finished a movie you didn't particularly like just because you bought the movie ticket? We are pressured, psychologically, to finish what we started. c. Gluttony. True, Lay's might not be addicting per say ... but there is no doubt that a combination of oil, salt, and potato makes Lay's appealing in terms of taste. The taste generates the desire to take another potato chip, thus a third pressure upon the individual. -------- Now ... Granted, there might exist people who can resist peer pressure, sunk cost pressure, and gluttony simultaneously. But that's not the debate resolution is it? The amount of will power required to resist these three pressures simultaneously is beyond the ABILITY, POWER OR SKILL of the AVERAGE person under NORMAL conditions. And therefore, I have already won this debate. Thank you.
Under normal conditions, an average person CAN eat just one Lay's potato chip.

My opponent makes one fatal flaw in his argument. The accepted definition of 'can' in this debate is "to be able to. " Therefore, my opponent's argument is moot because it does not negate the physical ability to eat one potato chip. I will explain further: Let's take Bob. Bob eats the potato chip. Now he can eat another one, or move on. Although Bob may come across another Lay's potato chip later in his life, he has the ability to refuse it. There are no conditions that prevent him from doing this, such as physically or mentally addicting chemicals in the chips. All it takes is a simple 'no. '
Under normal conditions, an average person CAN eat just one Lay's potato chip.

CAN an average person under normal conditions eat just one Lay's potato chip? Mr. Pluto said CAN is "have the ability, power, or skill to". I'll accept this simple and popular definition. And so let's see what happens when an Average person under Normal conditions undergo after opening a Lay's potato chip bag. Bob is an Average person. He's either hungry or has a craving for potato chips. After all, if we're dealing with normal conditions, what's a more normal condition that's a prerequisite for opening a potato chip bag? Now Bob reaches his hand in, and grabs one potato chip, brings it to his mouth, and eats it. Now at this point, under Normal Conditions, we would expect Bob to eat another Lay's potato chip at some point in his life. For Bob to never ever eat another Lay's potato chip, one of the following conditions must be met. 1. Bob develops a severe addiction to the scent of Lay's potato chips and begins to sneeze violently whenever a Lay's potato chip begins approaching his mouth. 2. Bob hates the taste of the chip the experience is embedded into his memory and thus preventing him from ever forgetting his hatred of Lay's potato chips. 3. Bob destroys all Lay's potato chips in existence and the Lay's potato chip formula and the Lay's company. 4. Bob dies immediately. 5. Bob loses the ability to digest food except intravenously. 6. Bob immediately becomes an exceptionally devout Buddhist and avoids all foods that might have been cooked in animal oil. 7. Etc. Etc. Etc. Unfortunately none of these are what you would call "normal conditions". Under Normal Conditions, Bob cannot just eat one Lay's potato chip. At some point in his life, he'll become hungry and run across another bag of Lay's potato chips. In fact, it is extremely likely he'll eat another Lay's potato chip right after he eats the first one. So here's my challenge, for Mr. Pluto, show me this normal condition under which Bob can eat just one Lay's potato chip. Because I've just shown that there IS NO normal condition under which an average Bob can eat just one Lay's potato chip for the duration of his life.