BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Marriage is strictly religious and is between a man and a woman

The technology that allows individuals to modify their pitch (autotune) was originally intended to monitor depths for oil drilling. Should its use to modify individuals voices be banned since that wasn't its original intention? Marriage developed from nomadic cultures in which a woman was purchased from a father for exclusive sexual access. Women were generally treated as possessions in these nomadic societies and the ritual of marriage had absolutely nothing to do with the church. I agree that the government should not be able to interfere with marriage and thus should give absolutely no privileges to married couples over single individuals and that gay couples should be able to perform whatever ceremonies they wish and call their union whatever they like without government interference. Also the word "faggot" was originally defined as a bundle of wood, but hey you don't see the gays complaining about changing the definition of words.
Marriage is strictly religious and is between a man and a woman

Marriage comes from the church, and the church intended for it to be between a man and a woman. Why should the government be allowed to interfere with religion? People argue separation of church and state, but that's just it, the state is interfering with the church. Marriage should stay between a man and a woman, because that's how it was intended, it isn't fair to go and change original, religious views and beliefs.
Affirmative action is a good idea

Before I begin, I would just like to say that, due to the nature of this debate, there is a distinct possibility for disparaging comments. I stand by my word that I will debate with utmost respect, and I would ask for my opponent and those who comment to do the same. Thank you. According to Merriam-Webster, Affirmative Action is an active effort to improve the employment or educational opportunities of members of minority groups and women. Now, I do happen to be Jewish (to an extent). However, if I applied for the same job as a perhaps more qualified Christian person, I don't feel like I should get that job any more than I would feel someone less qualified than I should. Our economy would do better if companies hired the most qualified person regardless of race, gender, religion, creed, disability, sexual orientation, or anything else other than pure qualification. I live in Lake Oswego, OR, which is roughly .6% black. This could potentially mean that a system of affirmative action would have them all employed easily, even though some may not be qualified at all. I'm sure many of them are extremely qualified, don't get me wrong, but I feel that if they are qualified, they should get the job because they are qualified, not because they're Black. I will allow my opponent to present an argument before I say more.
Affirmative action is a good idea

I forgot there are only three rounds. I was hoping to do a cross examination session during the third round, and answer during the fourth. Round three: [Me]Ask questions for con. [You] Answer questions, ask questions for me. I'll answer your questions in the Comments boxes after the round is over, and people can vote afterward. 1. We can both agree that affirmative action has been around for quite a long time. Do you agree that now, in 2010, the minority is better off than the majority? [meaning, do you think the minority is higher in education now, and employment?] 2. Do you think past discrimination has current effects? 3. You stated "The thirteenth amendment was passed in 1865. There is nobody alive today who was legally kept as a slave. I understand that you're trying to say that they were oppressed, but we can't change how things were 150 years ago, so we need to look at the problems of today." If we're still benefitting from the oppression of the minority now [they are still at a disadvantage, and thus, the majority is at an advantage], should we give something back? If we're still benefitting, are these problems the problems of today?
Affirmative action is a good idea

1. )Affirmative action is created to solve the problems of racial inequality. - It is no secret that an enormous part of inequalities do lie in race. Is it possible to fix these racial problems without addressing these problems? Uhm, NO. We can't wish the problem away. Allow me to point out that race, ethnicity, etc. is not the ONLY deciding factor under affirmative action policies. With affirmative action, if two EQUALLY qualified men apply for a job, special recognition is to be given to the disadvantaged man. If we don't look at race as a deciding factor in hiring, etc. , then we're letting the problem continue to exist and further perpetuate itself. Seeing as this is nonbeneficial to anyone being harmed by these problems, we must recognize that, affirmative action, by addressing the problem, seeks to fix the problem. And that idea under affirmative action is a good one. 2)Affirmative action is beneficial. - It's plain to see that impoverished people of all races, ethnicity, and sexes, are going to have more trouble accessing adequate schooling and employment opportunities. Simply put, they can't really afford to get into higher education as easily as the majority (the wealthy, men, and the white). So there's not problem with providing an advantage to level the playing field. Let's look at an analogy. Think of a classroom. A math class. Say the majority of the students are those who understand a specific function of algebra. We'll label those who are struggling, the minority. So when a student has trouble understanding something, the teacher, Ms. Affirmative Action, steps in with special attention to bring them to the same level as the rest of the class (the majority). I see no harm in this. As I've shown, and will continue to show, affirmative action is only beneficial. :D
Gay Marriage should be legalized

Unfortunately I'm short on time but the fortunate thing is it allows me to hyper focus on the specific points I'd like to outline. P1. My premise is that Heterosexual marriage is subsidized, because it benefits society a great deal to bring up children in the best possible environment so that the country has better citizens as a whole. The government in this system isn't going to determine which specific individuals are going to make the best parents. It just isn't feasible. What they have to do is go with the statistics and the statistics say that kids do better in a traditional family structure. The government has provided incentives to encourage this type of family structure, so that it improves society as a whole. CR 1- "Research shows that marriage benefits the individual and thus society as a whole. Married people are more financially well off, happier and healthier than their single peers" The subsidies I mentioned are an investment in the future. Homosexuals would be happy if they were paid a ton of money for merely being homosexual. Creating public policy merely for the purpose of making a certain demographic happy isn't an investment, it's a pay off. The traditional family structure has been shown to bring up more well adjusted kids, to reduce the overall crime rate and to bring up the average level of education. I'm sorry but making people happy isn't a sufficient reason to change public policy. CR2- "Social sanctioning of the relationship promotes longevity, indicating that the legalization and social acceptance of gay marriage will strengthen gay relationships and contribute to their success [2]." I hate to say it but so what? Gays benefit from gay marriage being legalized. This isn't adequate reason to legalize it. Prisoner would be more productive members of society, be happier if they were just all pardoned for their crimes. The reason we don't just pardon them is that it doesn't make society a better place. It just makes society a better place for them. CR3- "Con must distinguish why the legal institution of marriage is beneficial for only straight couples" Not true. It would be convenient to define the debate around such parameters but what voters need to do is be convinced that Gay marriage is something that should be subsidized. Is subsidizing gay marriage going to make the country stronger or is it just going to make a small demographic b1tch less? Misc.- Fairness doesn't matter in this regard. The debate is about whether the government should subsidize gay marriage and quite frankly not enough evidence exists to show that homosexual relationships will bring about a better environment for children than heterosexual relationships. Danielle sorry about the rushed nature of this but I think I bring up some great points despite the crudeness of them. I look forward to your next round.
Gay Marriage should be legalized

While I usually don't shy from making an affirmative case on this topic, I am far too intrigued by Wylted's upcoming arguments to steal his thunder. Assuming this won't turn into a "legal marriage shouldn't exist in the first place" discussion (which I agree with but am prepared to argue against anyway), I am truly looking forward to what I hope will be an interesting and/or at least humorous dialog on this very important issue. I'm genuinely looking forward to an honest discussion about why a gay couple shouldn't have the same benefits and legal protections that are currently afforded to heterosexual couples in similar relationships. Thus I will allow Wylted to begin this debate and present his highly anticipated arguments first. Ps. This is a cute and shameless appeal to emotion if I've ever seen one: https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net...
Gay Marriage should be legalized

Conclusion Thanks again to my opponent for engaging me in this debate, although I'm sad to see he has forfeited. My last argument reiterates my case, but for a quick re-cap: Both gay individuals, their families (and by extension, society as a whole) benefit from the institution of legalized marriage. I've explained why gay couples and their children deserve equal protection under the law not only as an issue of fairness and decency, but to promote their happiness, success, familial stability, financial security and overall well-being. While Pro's argument is that the state has an incentive to legalize marriage because of the benefits it affords society, he has failed to explain why those same benefits should not be promoted for same-sex couples to increase the scope of marriage benefits for more people. Ergo, I've used Wylted's own reasoning to affirm the resolution.
Policy Space Topic

sigh....... i'm going for the k. first the overview: 1) OUR FIRST PIECE OF CHAIRMAN MAO EVIDENCE INDICATES THAT RELIANCE UPON THE WRITTEN LITERATURE TO RESEARCH THE HARMS OF THE STATUS QUO PREVENTS TRUE CHANGE FROM EVER OCCURING. THERE'S A NUMBER OF WARRANTS THAT SUPPORT THIS - FIRST, THE PERCEPTION THAT BOOKS ARE THE FINAL AUTHORITY ON SUBJECT MATTERS MEANS WE NEVER BOTHER TO ENGAGE IN THE TYPE OF CRITICAL THINKING NEEDED TO FULLY INVESTIGATE PROBLEMS - INSTEAD OF OBSERVING FOR OURSELVES THE HARMS OF [insert an advantage] WE RELY ON COLD FACTS AND OBSERVATIONS FROM A BOOK, WHICH SEPARATES US FROM THE REALITIES OF UNDERSTANDING THAT ARE CRITICAL TO ACCESSING THEIR FRAMEWORK. SECOND IS THAT STUDYING SOCIAL SCIENCES THROUGH BOOKS CREATES A DANGEROUS WORLD WHERE WE HEAD DOWN THE SLIPPERY SLOPE TOWARDS COUNTER-REVOLUTION. THIRD IS THAT BOOKS ARE DIVORCED FROM THE ACTUAL HARMS OF THE CASE – CREATING THREE HUNDRED SIXTY DEGREES OF SUPERFICIAL SEPARATION FROM THE REALITIES OF THE HARMS. 2) OUR SECOND PIECE OF CHAIRMAN MAO EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATES THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FULLY INVESTIGATING PROBLEMS - AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO ALLOWING THE AFFIRMATIVE TO CONTINUE PRESENTING THEIR WARPED VIEW OF THE STATUS QUO, WE ADVOCATE A COMPLETE AND IRREVOCCABLE REMOVAL OF THE AFFIRMATIVE TEAM'S RIGHT TO SPEAK. THAT MEANS AN AUTOMATIC NEGATIVE BALLOT - IF WE WIN THE KRITIK, YOU REJECT THEIR GIBBERISH DISCOURSE WHICH MEANS YOU DON'T ALLOW THEM TO EVEN ACCESS THE CASE - YOU CAN'T VOTE ON THEIR FLAWED ASSUMPTIONS. vote neg to promote actual investigation.
Policy Space Topic

*ps, this is a terrible format due to the character limit and also, he has 44437 characters rather than the allowed 8,000 thus i will be posting my cards like so: tag, cite, first 3 words ... last 3 words. you can go to the website and read them. this is the only fair way otherwise i can't even fit a whole da in* 4 off and on case on nuke war first on the k 1) RELYING ON KNOWLEDGE DERIVED SOLELY FROM WRITTEN LITERATURE WITHOUT ACTUALLY INVESTIGATING PROBLEMS PREVENTS ANY REAL CHANGE FROM OCCURRING Mao Tse-Tung1930 [Tse-tung Chairman of the Communist party of China 1943-1974, Revolutionary], May 1930, "OPPOSE BOOK WORSHIP", http://www.marxists.org...] III. OPPOSE BOOK WORSHIP... the actual situation. 2) FAILURE TO PROBE PROBLEMS BEYOND THE REALM OF PAPER AND COMPUTER SCREENS MEANS THE SYLLABLES THAT FLY OUT OF YOUR MOUTH ARE GIBBERISH. AS AN ALTERNATIVE, YOUR RIGHT TO SPEAK SHOULD BE UNCONDITIONALLY AND FUNDAMENTALLY REVOKED. ONLY BY TRULY INVESTIGATING THINGS CAN WE TRULY CHANGE THE OBJECTS OF OUR ATTENTIONS Mao Tse-Tung 1930 [Tse-tung Chairman of the Communist party of China 1943-1974, Revolutionary], May 1930, "OPPOSE BOOK WORSHIP", http://www.marxists.org...] Unless you have... to solve it. on to the CP: Text: The United States federal government should Develop a Substantial Space Based Missile Defense System beyond Earth's Mesosphere. the net benefit is that the words 'federal government should' should be in lower case and there should be a period at the end. this is the best for education and the plan text is binding. vote neg to better education. on to the other CP: Text: The Private Sector Should Develop a Substantial Space Based Missile Defense System beyond Earth's Mesosphere on to the DA 1: Link-Every dollar for government space policy is coercive HEALY ‘11 (Gene, is a vice president at the Cato Institute, July 11, "Space program was our biggest bridge to nowhere", http://washingtonexaminer.com..., MinR) Outside of avoiding...of the spheres"? 2: Moral obligation to reject coercion Petro, Wake Forest Professor in Toledo Law Review, 1974 (Sylvester, Spring, page 480) However, one may...with undying spirit. onto nuke war 1: Nuclear war has a low chance of causing extinction Nissani 92 (M, prof, http://www.is.wayne.edu..., da: 7-4-2011, lido) VIII Extinction? Extinction...hardships and survive. 2: Nuclear war is survivable Nyquist 99 (JR, writer and expert, http://www.wnd.com..., da: 7-4-2011, dw: 7-5-1999, lido) As I write...Multiple Nuclear Explosions. That should be good.
Maddie Ziegler is a better dancer than Chloe Lukasiak

First let me explain some of the things my opponent has said. Maddie and Chloe's dance teacher ranks her kids on a pyramid, and whichever one is best will end up on top. Now, my opponent has already clearly stated above that Maddie is placed on top more times than Chloe, meaning my opponent already thinks that Maddie is a better dancer. My opponent has also stated that Maddie also wins more competitions than Chloe, again proving which is the better dancer. Points we agree on-Maddie wins more and is on the top of the pyramid more than Chloe. http://en.wikipedia.org... Before "Dance Moms" Before Maddie and Chloe were on the show, Maddie still won more titles. One of the competitions they went to, Nuvo Dance Competition, with Maddie winning first with "over the rainbow," and Chloe winning third with "ma he's makin' eyes at me." Another competition they went to was Dance Educators of America-Las Vegas, with Maddie winning first with "uso show" and Chloe getting second with "ma he's makin' eyes at me," along with many others that Maddie won. http://maddieziegler.com... http://chloelukasiak.net... "Dance Moms" Season 1 During Dance Moms season 1, Maddie was completely undefeated, except for one competition. At iHollywood, Chloe won against Maddie for the first time on Dance Moms. Maddie also went on to win nationals, while Chloe forgot her dance onstage and did not place. http://maddieziegler.com... http://chloelukasiak.net... "Dance Moms" Season 2 In many of the competitions in this season, both Maddie and Chloe got first place (they were in different divisions because of their ages). But when they were against each other, it was Maddie who won, and Chloe who rarely won. Chloe forgot a few more dances, but these times just making up choreography onstage. At a fire and ice competition, Maddie's "I'm already there" solo beat Chloe's "the Raven." But, in one episode, it was Maddie who forgot her solo, giving Chloe a chance to win with "Red Queen." And at the end of the year, it was Chloe who won a national title, with Maddie getting the runner-up, but at least she placed! http://maddieziegler.com... http://chloelukasiak.net... Other factors: 1. Maddie is a year younger than Chloe, which makes it more impressive that she wins so much against someone older. 2. She is Abby's favorite, which has to mean she is a good dancer. Abby once said that Maddie is "the glue that holds her team together." 3. Maddie is a better tumbler than Chloe, which can sometimes mean a lot in dance. Chloe rarely does even side aerials in her dances and Maddie does both side and front aerials.
Maddie Ziegler is a better dancer than Chloe Lukasiak

oh so u think she a better dancer? than chole i disgree Chloe is almost always found in the middle of the pyramid, though there are instances where she is at the top. She usually places high and often wins, but not as much as Maddie. Chloe's genres are usually lyrical or musical theater. that mean she got some wins on danceing the even won her title for her solo she is talented she can dance and all kind of stuff
Maddie Ziegler is a better dancer than Chloe Lukasiak

This is a debate from the television series, Dance Moms. If you have never seen it, do not accept this debate! I will be arguing that Maddie Ziegler is a better dancer in the Abby Lee Dance Company than Chloe Lukasiak, and Con will argue on behalf on Chloe Lukasiak. This is more a fun debate than an intellectual one, however: No semantics No trolling No arguments in the first round This debate includes all the seasons of Dance Moms, which is season 1, 2, and 2.5. Con cannot leave out a season in an attempt to better their argument.
Barack Obama would NOT be the first black president.

First, I'd like to address an issue of semantics. I'm going to assume that "black" in the resolution/topic is interchangable with "African American". Otherwise, this debate would clearly be one-sided because Barack Obama is undoubtedly "black" in the sense of being dark-skinned. I can, I hope, assume that my opponent is referring more to the ethnic terminology, and thus I will present my case as though "African American" is what is meant by "black". Now onto the debate. I'm going to start by addressing my opponent's case directly, and then I'll move on to making points for my own side. My opponent's case, as I understand it, boils down to the two points he made at the end: "1) Barack Obama is of mixed ethnicity, thus he should neither consider himself a black American or a white American. 2) To be politically correct and honorabley ancestrial, Barack Obama should speak of himself as being of mixed ethnicity." I respond to these as follows: 1) Virtually everyone is of mixed ethnicity. My opponent offered no examples of people who are "black" by his definiton, while clearly presupposing that said people must exist, by his contention that he would not be against one of them becomming president. So, RMK, tell me - who is black enough for you to give them the credit of being the first black president if they were elected? 2) When a person describes themselves as "a black American" or "an African American", they are implicitly referring to themselves as being "of mixed ethnicity". What does it mean to be a black, or African, American after all? It means that you have ancestors from Africa, and makes no specifications about where in Africa they are from, when they arrived in America, or how many non-Africans may be in your family tree. As my opponent has said, Barack Obama's father is a first-generation immigrant from Kenya; therefore, Barack Obama has ancestors from Africa, thus fitting well into this definition of what it is to be African, or black, American. Moving onto my own case: People take racial and ethnic considerations way too seriously. Consider, for a moment, exactly what we're debating here. This resolution/topic states that Barack Obama, who is clearly dark-skinned and whose father is a first-generation immigrant from Kenya, isn't black! Now for sure, Obama is not descended from slaves, and his life experience probably doesn't represent very well the experiences of the average African American, but that does not mean he's not one of them. That would be like saying that Einstein wasn't German because his vast intelligence meant that he wasn't average, and because he left Germany at a young age and thus didn't experience what most Germans did. Just because someone is not *average* within their societal subdivision, or doesn't share in all of the experiences that the average person in that subdivision goes through, doesn't mean that they're not part of that group at all.
Barack Obama would NOT be the first black president.

"Barack Obama would be the great black hope in the next presidential race -- if he were actually black." ~Debra J. Dickerson~ Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii to Barack Obama, Sr. (born in Nyanza Province, Kenya)and Ann Dunham, a white American (born in Wichita, Kansas). Now, let me make it clear that I am not opposed to having an African-American president, but I will give credit when credit is due. Being of mixed ethnicity, white mother and black father, Barack Obama is riding the benefits of playing the "race card" through the early rounds of the 2008 presidential campaign trail. Why is it OK when he considers himself black? Is he not also white? Why does he not choose to say he is white? Both would be biologically correct. Elements to dispute: 1) Barack Obama is of mixed ethnicity, thus he should neither consider himself a black American or a white American. 2) To be politically correct and honorabley ancestrial, Barack Obama should speak of himself as being of mixed ethnicity. With these issues in mind, Barack Obama would not be the first black president...he would be the first mixed ethnicity president.
Barack Obama would NOT be the first black president.

1)You define a "black" person as someone who "has a "black" mother AND father". Let's follow this logic forward: A person is black if their parents are both black, which only happens if each parent's parents are black, which only happens if each parent's parent's parents are black, which only happens if...etc, etc, ad nauseum. In other words, a person is only black if they are of 100% "black" heritage, meaning there has never been a single person of any non-African heritage in their family tree. This is clearly an impossible thing to prove, if such a person even exists at all, so by this logic no one is black, which is obviously ridiculous. 2)You missed the premise of my second point. I was saying that by claiming to be an African American, a person is claiming mixed ancestry; and so there is nothing at all dishonest about Barack Obama claiming such. Barack Obama never claimed to be only black, as you said in your last statement. He doesn't stand up at his speeches and go, "Boy, am I ever so black." And I like your statement that "Obama has no connection to Africa, except for the fact that his father was a first-generation immigrant." That's a lot more of a connection to Africa than someone whose ancestors came here a dozen generations ago.