BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Homosexual marriage

With many thanks to "I-am-a-panda" for his considered and informed response, I would like to reply to his comments as follows: China's record on human rights and freedom of expression has been rightly criticised in the past. However, these days, Chinese citizens are free to practice religion and express their views, within certain parameters. However, these parameters are a lot less draconian than those found in sub-Saharan Africa. An invasion without the sanction of the UN would be controversial, I agree, but it wouldn't be unprecedented – the US and the UK invaded Iraq without any resolution from the UN. With regard to a second cold war, given the economic dire straits America and Europe are currently in and their pre-existing military commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan, together with the growing tensions between the West and Iran and Russia, it is highly questionable that developed nations would have the resources or inclination to ratchet up the pressure on China to withdraw from Africa – particularly if they could see tangible benefits accruing to the native populations. I relation to my opponent's point about rebels, rather than the national governments, controlling the natural resources: I concur this is often the case. However, I disagree that these bandits have anyone's best interest other than their own at heart – it really is all about the money. Yes, China has its own problems with corruption, but when cases are uncovered, the culprits are executed. In Africa, the crooks just pay the government off. Also, while I accept it is true that there is a divide in prosperity between the wealthy cities and the impoverished rural areas of China, which results in an overall low GDP per capita statistic, this problem is now being seriously addressed. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn... In any case, China is the world's second largest economy, has the world's largest foreign currency and gold reserves and has lent the US and Europe most of the money required to bail out their faltering economies. This is yet another reason why the West wouldn't challenge China's intervention in Africa – China would react by pulling the plug on foreign lending and their economies would go into freefall. http://siteresources.worldbank.org... http://www.bloomberg.com... My opponent's final point about the environment was a valid one, but needs to be put in context. Chinese people produce far lower CO2 emissions than Americans, who with only 5% of the world's population, nevertheless, produce 25% of the world's pollution. All considered, I believe that the Chinese colonisation of Africa is a long overdue solution to the world's greatest humanitarian problem. Many thanks.
Homosexual marriage

He is actually the seventh person that I have challenged. 1. He said: "The "rights" my opponent referred to are not, as he has conceded, defined in the 9th Amendment, so they therefore need to be defined by legislation. There is no Federal consensus that having a wedding ceremony officially recognised is a "right", either for straight or homosexual people. " First, let me dispute my opponents interpretation of the Ninth Amendment independent of the topic. Legislation is not required for interpretation of the Ninth Amendment. The constitution is above legislation, not subject to it. A wedding ceremony is not required for a marriage. It is only a public declaration. Even in the Catholic Church, the priest blesses the marriage, but the sacrament is between the couple and God. A common law marriage is valid, and requires cohabitation. The United States has a long history of discrimination, anti-miscegenation laws prohibited marriage and sexual relationships between Whites, and other races. Many religious conservatives supported these laws. One silly argument said that God placed Blacks and Whites on different continents and thus it was God's intention for them never to marry. Other arguments were based on racist interpretations of the Bible. In 1967 in the Loving v. Virginia case, the Supreme Court declared anti-miscegenation laws a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and therefore unconstitutional. Isn't banning gay marriage just more discrimination? 2. The existence of anti-miscegenation laws for three hundred years does not prove that they were right, it only proves the depth of discrimination present in America. Preventing marriage of homosexuals is very similar. 3. My opponent said: "In certain traditions however, men are allowed to marry pre-pubescent girls or close relatives. Would people from these belief systems be entitled to have their "marriages" legally recognised in the US? If homosexual "marriages" are to receive official recognition, the United Sates must by the same token extend the same "right" to first cousins and paedophiles who wish to have their "wedding ceremonies" legally recognised. " Marriage is a legal contract. In the U. S. you must be an adult to enter into a legally binding contract, thus the above argument is invalid. When close relatives reproduce, it causes high rate of genetic defects, thus it is bad the offspring and bad for society. If homosexuals marry, no one suffers. 4. To a Homosexual man, marrying a woman, is probably as distasteful to them as is is for a heterosexual man marrying a man. But that is what opponents to gay marriage support. Many homosexuals in heterosexual marriages go out and have sexual relationship with other men, and then bring diseases home to there wives. This is does not help any one. Further homosexuality is likely to be genetic. Forcing them into heterosexual relationships increases prevalence of this condition. Thank you Ladies and Gentlemen. My sources: . http://www.timesonline.co.uk... . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://www.narth.com...
Homosexual marriage

With sincere apologies for the delay in responding to this debate and with many thanks to my opponent for kindly inviting me to participate, I should like to respond as follows: 1 – The "rights" my opponent referred to are not, as he has conceded, defined in the 9th Amendment, so they therefore need to be defined by legislation. There is no Federal consensus that having a wedding ceremony officially recognised is a "right", either for straight or homosexual people. 2 – As a result of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, each State is entitled to refuse to recognise same-sex "marriages". This bill has not been found to be unconstitutional, and, therefore, homosexuals have no legal entitlement to nationwide recognition of their "marriage". (1) In addition to the legal points, there are also moral questions surrounding same-sex "marriages". Now, whilst I abhor discrimination and bigotry with a passion, I do not believe that preserving the fundamental concept of marriage as being the legally recognised union of a man and a woman amounts to homophobia. Furthermore, opposition to gay "marriages" cannot be condemned as one of the totems conservative Christians – all major religions worldwide have a tradition of marriage and all of them exclusively between men and women. (2) In certain traditions however, men are allowed to marry pre-pubescent girls or close relatives. Would people from these belief systems be entitled to have their "marriages" legally recognised in the US? If homosexual "marriages" are to receive official recognition, the United Sates must by the same token extend the same "right" to first cousins and paedophiles who wish to have their "wedding ceremonies" legally recognised. For these reasons I would submit that homosexual couples have no legal or moral right to have their "marriages" officially recognised. (1) http://www.allacademic.com... (2) http://www.topics-mag.com...
Homosexual marriage

Hello Ladies and Gentlemen, today I will share with you and my opponent the reasons why I believe homosexual marriage (and all homosexual rights alike) should be allowed. My opponent brian_eggleston , is a good debater whom I respect. Now Ladies and Gentlemen, I will begin debating. 1. Homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexual (straight) Men and women. As the 9th amendment states "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. " So basically although the rights are not stated in the constitution, they still exist, that also means that all traditional rights exist, such as ones stated in the beginning of the Deceleration 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 Happiness." As the declaration states "All men are created equal" so Homosexuals should have the same rights as anyone else. But, Ladies and Gentleman, I am aware of a flaw in that argument. When they wrote that section of the Deceleration of Independence, they stated "all men are created equal". Some believe that the meant only European white men. I will not make a comeback to that belief as I do not know that it wasn't meant that way. 2. Section I of the 14th Amendment states: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. So, basically all U.S. citizens including homosexuals are protected by the same laws as other U.S. citizens. Those laws would include marriage laws Thank you Ladies and Gentlemen. My sources: http://www.ushistory.org... http://www.law.cornell.edu... http://en.wikipedia.org...
Religious texts should NOT be used as a sited source for evidence in an argument.

I think religious texts should not be used to support one's theories or back up one's beliefs, that someone shouldn't be allowed to hold a Bible and scream that what someone else is thinking or doing is wrong simply because the book says so and the book is always right. I know that it's senseless to waste our time and energy bickering what's wrong and what's right based on a specific religious text's syntax.
Moral Objectivism is superior to Moral Skepticism as a moral theory.

Ok let's get right to the point. The only reason for my forfeit the round I did was because something happened when I was trying to post and it did not post. My opponent agreed to forfeit his next round. Now that those things are clear let me get into this debate at hand. Move all of my arguments through to this round. My opponent has clearly felt that he lost the debate and that is why he did not post. I asked him to define a term and he could not even notify me by message or on this debate. It is clear that my opponent had weaknesses in his argumentation, I found them and he realizes that. This match should be given to me because of my opponent not fighting back after my speech. Again flow all of my argument down. The main thing is my opponent did not fight back on my argument. I did when he had posted. Meaning my opponent has forfeited this debate. Good debate I hope to meet again.
Moral Objectivism is superior to Moral Skepticism as a moral theory.

I go to your last thing you said in your second round speech. It says and I quote "therefore, everything must be right or wrong". Now I ask you, who says weather something is right or wrong. I give to you this, in or politics today we see issues being debated constantly. We right now are debating an issue it happens on a daily bases. So your 4th claim number 6 is wrong. What one person might see wrong to somebody else it is right. So any given issue can not just be right or wrong. You can not say that everything is right or wrong. Because not everything is right or wrong. To one person yes, but to everybody no. Also in your claim 1 you say that "consciousness is not possible without the prior existence of something" and that objectivity rejects the fact that one could be consciousness on his own. The only argument I can give is what about the first people who walked this earth. They had no past experiences of the earth, and yet they were conscious. Also there are people who are mentally ill who do not "See" people around them, they live in there own world. Not grasping the people around them. Now you can not say that that person is not living. They do have a consciousness, they are there. On your claim 2 you state that every body is identical to itself. Yes people do have traits however you are not totally your own. Take for example some of the religious groups out there. They are slammed with the same thing every day of there life, no real opportunity to be yourself. Also think of a child they are not themselves, they are still acting like the way there parents teach them. And to say there are no contradictions in reality is just far fetched. Every day we see contradictions, in politics, in law, in our every day lives there are contradictions. Even dealing with other people the way I believe will contradict with the way you believe and really every person in this world you and I will contradict with all of them in some way. And please define your meaning of Existence in claim 3.
Moral Objectivism is superior to Moral Skepticism as a moral theory.

Definitions: 1. Moral Skepticism: First, the dictionary.com definition: "the doctrines or opinions of philosophical Skeptics; universal doubt." Basically, for the context of this debate, I am going to argue that Skepticism is a blanket term that covers the following ideologies; nihilism (an extreme form of skepticism: the denial of all real existence or the possibility of an objective basis for truth), existentialism (a philosophical movement which posits that individuals create the meaning and essence of their lives, as opposed to it being created by the universe or a deity), or any such philosophies. Obviously, we deal with these philosophies only on their impact on morality (i.e. what is moral/immoral, and how we decide/determine morality). 2. Objectivism Again, the dictionary.com version: "The position that certain acts are objectively right or wrong, independent of human opinion." I am going to posit that moral objectivists could be atheistic, monotheistic, or polytheistic; and also that their position may come from divinity, reason, or a combination of both. 3. superior Once again with dictionary.com: "1. or higher grade or quality. 2. showing a consciousness or feeling of being better than or above others." In the context of the resolution, I define "superior" to mean, "more supported by logic, more supported by evidence, and more coherent as a system of morality." I will refrain from presenting my contentions until the next round, giving my opponent opportunity to present any opposing or supplementary definitions.
Morals are determined by external factors

Hi OlaNordmann. Thanks for accepting the debate. Lets analyse the four examples you gave of emotions. Fear. The younger we are, the more fearless we are. Children will climb trees, run into a busy street, play with snakes and spiders, etc. We are taught to fear things. Even the concept of death we learn to fear only because we see adults crying at a funeral and therefore associate it with something bad. We fear what we are taught to fear. Please watch the following clip. Sympathy and empathy are also things we learn. Children who grow up on a farm have no problem with beheading, plucking and cooking a chicken, whereas children who grow up in the city and have pets would be horrified at the idea. Even the sense of justice is something we are taught by being punished for wrongdoing and rewarded for doing well. I agree that some people are more emotional than others and surveys have shown that there is actually a link between when you are born and the characteristics which define your personality. This would affect how badly you are affected but does not alter your morals in any way. What you learn is right, remains right and what you learn is wrong, remains wrong. Humans may share some moral values which we developed to live as a society but these are all learnt, not encoded in our genes.
Morals are determined by external factors

Hey Furyan5, sorry for taking so long to respond.I think you raise a reasonable question, and I agree with your argument too a large extent. I would not dismiss that society and life experiences influence our sense of right and wrong. If you where to make the argument that if you're born into a different part of the world; a different religion; have different parents; etc. that it would impact your morality, I would absolutely 100% agree with you. Where I disagree however, and this might just be a misunderstanding: Is that I believe that certain traits of human evolution, most predominantly our emotions - which are a condition for us to function as a society - are the biggest decider for our morality, and it is mostly predetermined by birth.In certain situations, like the morality of abortion, I would agree a larger degree to your life experiences and how you view the world could shift the perspective one holds. If you personally knew someone, or had experienced an issue first hand, I think it's natural to polarize one way or another. What happens is a little more nuanced though, because what we see is that people who voice their opinion on these matters is usually very emotionally invested.In most other situations though like the value of life, retaining our possessions, our rights, etc; They are much more affected by our own desires, our fears, our sympathy and empathy, and our sense of justice. They are not heavily subjected to logic or what's practical that changes when you look at different societies. They are universal. It hurts when we see someone being harassed who doesn't deserve it, especially if it's someone we care for.
Morals are determined by external factors

First of all, I'm completely puzzled why you want to use the last round to talk about astrology, it's completely irrelevant to your argument.Secondly, you obviously didn't read Mark Hamilton's paper yourself because it says nothing of the sort. It was merely a survey to test the hypothesis that there is a higher correlation of celebrities born at certain astrological signs. The only thing that's relevant is this following vague statement without any actual information to back it up, no source, no data, just a claim. Psychologists have known that certain personality traits tend to be associated with certain birth months. For example, people born in January and February tend to be more creative, and have a higher chance of being diagnosed with schizophrenia, than people born at any other time of year. And people born in odd-numbered months tend to be more extroverted than those born in even-numbered months. Let's use the example above. I'm not even gonna go into how you measure creativity, but how many are diagnosed with schizophrenia is a very simple one to survey. In fact I found one: "The planetary positions and relationships at the dates of birth of a cohort of Nigerian schizophrenics"[1]. The conclusion? Seems to contradict the article. However, the findings give only partial support to key astrological postulates because there was a non-significant trend for more schizophrenics to be born in “water” signs and on full moon dates.” Third, when you compare two data sets together, for instance "Who likes cats" and "Month of birth". Do you think that if there is no causation then it's likely to be completely even across the whole year? Some months will tend to be higher, and some tends to be lower. As long as it isn't statistically significant (meaning that it's statistically reliable, so if repeated under other circumstances then it is very likely to give the same result), or you can test the hypothesis of causation, then there is no reason to assume that if your child will be born in one of those months then there is a higher predisposition for him or her to like cats. It just means that out of the group surveyed, more people born in October liked cats. Fourth, I don't disregard information (even so you haven't even provided any actual information), I disregard the causation of your claim, that: [date of birth causes said personality traits] or [said personality traits causes date of birth] or [date of birth and said personality traits are both caused by something else]. Bring me a decent hypothesis and I will reconsider.[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Morals are determined by external factors

Thanks for the "interesting" pseudoscience articles. I agree that in those cases one could say that "Correlation does not imply causation". They are comparing pairs to apples. But in the article a gave you they compare people born in the same month and see what common personality traits they share. If you find that people born in May are outgoing, talkative and quick witted, while people born in October are brutally honest, goal orientated and love cats, you have to agree that it is more than just coincidence. We may not know what factors linked to the month of our birth determine personality traits, but stats don't lie. The survey proves what many people already know through personal experiences. Just because something does not agree with your way of thinking is no reason to disregard the information as pseudoscience. So yes, new information can alter our beliefs and moral view but this only confirms my original argument that morals are determined by external factors. We may not remember where and when we were taught something is wrong or right, but nothing is ever considered right or wrong unless we are taught that it is wrong.
Morals are determined by external factors

The type of study the article is referencing to is what's called data mining and it's really just misguided information. These studies basically crunch huge amounts of data already available, usually a set of variables from prior studies, compare them together and actively seeking for a notable pattern. This is where the phrase "Correlation does not imply causation" is most fitting. Though these studies may produce the best headlines, they are considered extremely bad science in the academic field. I sincerely hope you don't usually get your information from sources like this one. Here's some interesting pseudoscience for you: http://d.fastcompany.net... http://b.fastcompany.net... http://d.fastcompany.net... I know monsters under the bed was probably not the best example to get my point across, but the point remains valid. Even if the child checks for himself and is reassured that monsters don't exist, the fear can still haunt that child. I see you really haven't addressed my questions so I'll give you a couple more: Don't you agree that people have a predisposition to react differently (and therefore we interpret external stimuli differently)? Isn't morality just a manifestation from instinctively behaving in our own self interest? Do you disregard the implied impact of nature entirely in the discussion of 'nature vs nurture' on all other subjects as well? My argument remains that nurture is undoubtedly a huge factor when deciding our personal morality, but it's not the only one.
Morals are determined by external factors

I apologize in advance for my short response. I'm a bit cramped for time. Monsters under bed? I would be interested in hearing how anyone could be afraid of monsters if they have not been taught what monsters are. https://scienceblog.com... Link to the information you wished to see. And yes, we do at times change or moral view. But it is always due to us learning new things. This proves that our moral views are determined by eternal events. People may have similar experiences which is why they share similar beliefs, but the experiences are never exactly the same. This is why we have different moral beliefs and values.