BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should Same-Sex Marriage be legal in The USA

Also a disclaimer, I am Pro for homosexual couples being allowed to marry but I'm looking to see if I can argue the Con side. But now on to my oppopnent's arguments. A1: We are all people in this world. On A1, my opponent argues that because the right is given to a man and a woman who wish to be married, there is no reason why it should not be given to a man and a man or a woman and a woman. He asks, ""what is the difference between a man who is gay, and another man who is straight? "" Well for starters one is straight and the other is gay. This might be the only difference but it is the only one that matters in this debate. The reason that a man and a man to not have the same right to marry as heterosexual couples could best be argued in an analogy. In the United States it is recognized that a woman has a right to an abortion. A woman has this right specifically because the fetus grows insider her body and because she has authority over what is done to her body. In other words, she has the right because she is a woman and her body functions how a woman's typically would. Men consequently, do not have the right to an abortion because the fetus does not grow in their body and so they do not have personal autonomy over it. This simple fact is the very reason that a man is not afforded the right to an abortion. So while technically a man is not given the right to an abortion because of his gender, it is not sexist because the gender is specifically what is taken into account when assigning this specific right. So the context in which an abortion can take place is what assigns who is given that right. We can lookat this example and apply it to marriage to see who has the right to be married. But first we should define what marriage is. Marriage: a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife[1]This is how marriage is defined by the American legal system. So for the same reason that a man does not have the right to an abortion, a homosexual couple does not have the right to become a married couple. A2: Same-Sex Marriage on the U. S. economyThis point is mostly irrelevant. Gay marriage is a moral issue, not an economic one. Just because something could help the economy does not mean that it should be pursued. A3: Reputation of AmericaThe United States should not make public policy decisions purely based on the opinion of other countries. Perhaps legalizing same-sex marriage would our countrie's reputation but it is a moral issue and the United States should make the decision based on rational moral arguments. I have successfully refuted my opponent's three contentions and in doing so have brought up an argumet agaist same-sex marriage. Vote Con! [1] . http://www.law.cornell.edu...
Should Same-Sex Marriage be legal in The USA

Overview If a man and a women can be married, why cant a man and a man? Or a women and a women? We are all equal human beings in this world, right? Didn't we learn from the civil rights movement that everyone, no matter their race, personality, or color of their skin, is equal? Well apparently not since there are still people in the government who think that same-sex marriage is "wrong" and "unholy". In this debate, I plan to state my arguments and show that same-sex marriage is as normal as regular marriage. Arguments A1: We are all people in this world. As stated above in "overview", Why cant a Same-sex relationship be married? If a man and a women can do it, a Same-sex Relationship can do it! what is the difference between a man who is gay, and another man who is straight? we are all men in this world, created by science (or god, depending on your religion). A2: Same-Sex Marriage on the USA economy. Lets take a step off moral for a second and talk about how Same-Sex marriage will effect the economy. If same sex marriage becomes legal, obviously more homosexual couples would get married. Then those couples will bring money back into the economy by paying for weddings! This will also help a states economy because more homosexual couples will move there to get married! (R). http://www.monstersandcritics.com...A3: Reputation of America. America is know for being the land of freedom, we are the most social, racial, ect. country in the world. If we allow all this, but we don't allow same-sex marriage, it makes are government, and are people look bad. But if we do allow it, it show other country's that we don't discriminate people just because they are different! Conclusion If we are so accepting of other religions, races, cultures, ECT. Why aren't we accepting of Same-Sex Marriage? It will help are economy, and make us look more accepting of other people!
People are born gay

(Sources will come next round) Many people don't know this, but homosexuality is in your genes. You must be born with it unordered to be gay. The reason many people believe that it isn't this way is because sometimes it takes awhile to kick in. It's like puberty, you just don't start off life by going through puberty, you must wait for a certain age or in some cases a certain expirance. Like if you're pregnant you can be induced into laborious though it may not be its time yet. Like a car crash.
god is only true to a believer, therfore god is false

Yes, trees do fall but where people usually cut trees are places deep in the forest with no hills. With a flat ground and lots of weight the tree falls and stays put. evidence: https://m.youtube.com... Okay, back to belief. While belief is known for being something that's just purely emotional and an opinion I think it is broader than that. It is possible to only believe in a statement after it is proved true. It is possible to believe something because it has sufficient proof.
Pop Music is Promoting Violence in Young People

Music is defined as an art of sound, silence and rhythm. Music is categorized as pop, jazz, classical and many more based on certain elements of music such as pitch,intensity ,quality and etc. Choice of music depends on mood, age and generation, it doesn't purely portray the culture of a society or generation. It speaks of the abstract ideas and skills of an individual. Therefore, one can't solely blame a style of music named POP MUSIC to be promoting violence. If violence is to be eradicated an individual needs to follow a disciplined living rather blaming pop songs and hard rock. It is to be noted that music turns out to noise when it exceeds 100 decibel or less. A pop music if maintained within the soothing range can't promote violence
Pop Music is Promoting Violence in Young People

Well I agree to the fact that POP MUSIC is the beat of the youth. Redefining the term POP MUSIC, it is basically a commercially recorded music using latest technologies to get variations in existing as well as new themes. So the question that lies underneath is Is it Technology and Development that is to be blamed? I guess it's obviously No. So why consider pop music to be a weapon of violence rather probe deeper into the real cause of violence. If pop music is to be considered as a prime root cause of violence among the younger generation then its a myth. The reality behind violence is far more serious and complicated which can't be defined by negative impacts of music alone. Pop music is not deleterious. It has detrimental effects on society in terms of health if ethics and instructions are violated. Otherwise pop music is the soul of a stressless living.
Pop Music is Promoting Violence in Young People

While you are correct, in terms of a definition, there is no denying that pop music has become edgier in the past decade or so. Additionally, the reason that this style of music is called POP MUSIC is because it is popular. It permeates society on all fronts. When a radio is turned on, much of the time it is turned to a pop station. This is not to say that there are not people who may choose to listen to classical or rap, but the grand majority of the population is listening to pop music. Studies have also shown that music CAN affect behavior. A study performed by Rubin, West, and Mitchell proved that youth who listened to more violent music were more likely to engage in violent behaviors. As is common knowledge, youth and adolescents are incredibly impressionable. This means that subconscious cues, even in song lyrics, can prompt various behaviors. Finally, the pop artists are regarded by many to be modern idols. Their every action is observed and recorded by photographers and interviewers for all to see. In a recent survey, 12% of children between 5 and 11 wanted to be a pop star. This result was second only to being a sports star. This means that pop stars are gaining more recognition and younger followers. Song lyrics are expressions of what a pop star and idol thinks "should be."
Christianity should be held responsible for Hitler's actions

Let us look over the core arguments of this debate, on both sides of the resolution. Pro has provided evidence from Hitler himself where he states that Christianity has not only inspired him to "work against" the Jewish people, but inspired other Nazis as well. If, for instance, a man is influenced by his teacher to steal one million dollars, shouldn't the teacher be held responsible to some extent for the man's actions? Had it not been for the teacher, then the man would not have stolen the money. The same applies here; Christianity directly influenced Hitler and the Nazis to commit their horrific acts, so it is only rational to hold Christianity accountable. Now, let's take a look at Con's arguments. Con's main argument--"All religions have hypocrites"--does not excuse Hitler or Christianity in this matter. If, for instance, every person in a city robbed from a bank, does that mean that robbing from a bank in that city is okay? Pro asks the judge to truly consider this. In the mind of Pro, everyone doing a bad action or having a bad apple does not make that allowable. Keep in mind, Con's entire argument hinges on this; "All religions have hypocrites; a religion should not be held accountable for hypocrites. Therefore, vote Con. " If the judge, like Pro, decides that everyone doing a wrongful action or bad apple does not make that okay, the judge must vote for Pro. To recap this debate, Pro has presented conclusive evidence through speeches and photographs that Hitler was Christian and was influenced by Christianity to do his infamous actions; it's only rational that Christianity is then held accountable. Con's arguments center around "All religions have hypocrites" which, as I've previously demonstrated, cannot be rationally used in this debate. Thus, all of Con's arguments have fallen. Pro strongly urges a ballot in affirmation of the resolution. Thank you.
Christianity should be held responsible for Hitler's actions

I never knew about those speeches. I don't know a lot of German, so I can't read Mein Komph. Now, for my closing arguments. I admit that all religions have had hypocrites. Not all of them are as extreme as Hitler, but that doesn't change the fact that all religions have hypocrites. I don't think Christianity should be held accountable for Hitler's actions because I don't hold a religion accountable for the actions of hypocrites. For example, I don't blame Muslims for the actions of Osama bin Laden. Hitler claimed to be working for Christianity in propaganda pictures, however, I think he wanted to abolish the church after the war. I don't think any person's actions should be held against a religion no matter how extreme his/her actions are. I have presented my case.
Christianity should be held responsible for Hitler's actions

Sorry. I forgot to add definitions. Hitler= Chancellor of Germany and man responsible for holocaust. Christianity= The religion based on the teachings of Jesus. We will also assume Hitler claimed to be a Christian. Now, why should Christianity not be held responsible for Hitler's crimes? All religions have hypocrites. Islam has terrorists, Christianity has the Crusaders, etc. Should a religion be held responsible for the actions of a hypocrite? Jesus Himself was Jewish, so why would He WANT Hitler to try to wipe out the Jews? I don't blame the Koran for Osama bin Laden's terrorist attacks, so by the same token, I don't blame Jesus' teachings for Hitler's actions. The teachings of Jesus tell us to turn the other cheek when someone insults us, not to kill them for no reason.
Abortion Should Be Illegal

I think abortion should be illegal for these because: The human zygote (fertilized egg) is biologically a human being. The definition of person is "a human being regarded as an individual. " Therefore, The human zygote is a person. The 14th amendment of the U. S. Constitution states that ". . . Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, Liberty, Or property, Without due process of law. " Since we know that a human zygote is a person and since we know that abortions kill human zygotes (and/or fetuses), Then it is reasonable to conclude that abortions kill people (the human zygote/fetus). This means that an abortion deprives a person of his/her life without due process of law. It is now evident and backed with scientific data that abortions are contradictory to the 14th amendment, Making the act of performing an abortion unconstitutional. Unconstitutional acts in the United States are often, If not always illegalized. . https://www. Princeton. Edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.
Abortion Should Be Illegal

I disagree with the first assertion. A fertilized egg is certainly an example of "life", Thereby being biological, However to refer to it as a human being is somewhat inaccurate. It is of human origin of course, A part of a pregnant women"s body, But if you are equating the fact that it is of humans and therefore possesses personhood" well, It's a bit of a non sequitur. If the term "person" is defined as "a human being regarded as an individual", Then already this assertion breaks down: the keyword here is "regarded", Which is defined as "considered or thought of in a specified way". By using this definition, You acknowledge that the recognition of personhood in this scenario is subjective. It is not a scientific question, But a personal one, Dictated by one"s own experiences and religious beliefs. An abortion is certainly a termination of life, But not a termination of a person"s life: it is about as morally abhorrent as picking a flower or stepping on an ant. Of course, Situations which may require an abortion should not be treated with such callousness, As the results of either decision can be drastically life-altering: do you choose to have a child, Regardless of whatever circumstances you find yourself in, And tie yourself to another human being for the rest of your life? Or do you go through with the abortion, And live with the stigma of being promiscuous, Irresponsible, And even to some, A cold-blooded killer for the rest of your life? It will always be a difficult choice, But I believe that people have the right to make that choice. If anything, Preventing them from doing so would be overreaching the bindings of the Constitution, Which was written with the intent of preserving autonomy: if abortions were made illegal, You would stripping that autonomy away from women all across the country. I will not bother to list a long series of scenarios in which an abortion may be deemed necessary, Because whether or not it is necessary to us is not the point. We have absolutely no right in dictating whether or not a woman was in the right. We can have our opinions, We can share our advice and even our faith, But to fight to legally usurp their ability to choose would be going entirely against the spirit of democracy. To summarize, A fertilized egg is a form of life, But cannot be objectively (or biologically, As you said) defined as a person, Since personhood is completely arbitrary. Secondly, Choosing whether or not to get an abortion can be a very daunting prospect, But preserving a woman"s right to do so is not a violation of the Constitution but rather a law that seeks to maintain the liberty and equality that the Constitution was written to protect. Thank you.
Purple is better than pink

Alright, as the final rebbuttal in this round I am going to go over the arguments you made in your last round and offer a conclusion. Starting out I would like to point out that my opponent has not only dropped all my arguments on his color purple but also on my caller pink. Thus all the negative implications of purple stand and all the positive of pink. Onto my opponents arguments, "Purple is the better color because it is a universal color. True, it does not represent any particular gender, but that's why it is better. Both females and males can enjoy the color purple. Guys are often made fun of if they like the color pink." >>You say that guys cannot enjoy the color pink but this is simply not true. As I said in my last round pink represents girls and since most guys enjoy girls they thereby enjoy pink to some small extent. You also say that guys are made fun of if they enjoy pink however this is only true if they admit that they enjoy pink and even then not guaranteed. Guys can enjoy pink just as much as girls, the fact that they might be made fun of doesn't detract from their ability to enjoy. "Purple is also the better color because it is a calming color, such as blue or green. If someone needs to relax, many relaxation techniques using colors recommend PURPLE." >>I have already offered you a definition of pink that includes the color purple. You have not attempted to refute my definition therefor pink can also be a soothing color through its ability to be light purple. I would also like to point out that Pink is a romantic color, another point you allowed to go un-refuted. All in all Pink has the benefit of being both romantic and soothing. In summary: I have already shown how being the color of royalty makes purple a bad color indeed. My opponent did not refute such. I also added benefits to pink that included: 1. Color of girls. 2. Pretty. Studies show. 3. Romantic. 4. The color of health. 5. It is included in positive phrases. 6. It has relaxing properties of purple. 7. Can be enjoyed by everyone. With such points standing in round I can see nothing but a vote for pink. Thank you. =)
Purple is better than pink

Nay, I find myself in firm negation of your resolution as it stand. That being "Purple is better than pink". I will begin by throwing out a definition or two. Better: Of superior quality or excellence. Pink: A color varying from light crimson to pale reddish purple. Purple: Any color having components of both red and blue, such as lavender, esp. one deep in tone. (All definitions are the first ones from Dictionary.com) Thus I will now negate your resolution beginning with your three points. 1). You say purple is the color of royalty however this is not a good thing at all. Think of all the Kings and Queens who were corrupt indeed. We have out grown such horrifying monarchies in todays world and replaced them with democracies and other such systems. Second point on this scenario. Prom King? Prom Queen? High school royalty? Remember those people? Enough said. 2). Being that pink is the stereotypical girl color. It may well be such a color but you act as if pink is somehow worse because it is a girl color. This a clearly a fallacious point of view. Girls are truly a mystical beast. Sensitive, sweet, beautiful, thoughtful, and kind all in one. Yet just as capable as any guy, powerful, intelligent, wise, and remarkable. This viewpoint can only be used to help my own case. Once again, a second point. Your color doesn't bother representing any sex. It clearly cannot stand up to the color pink. 3). Its pretty. Ah but let us re-examine the definitions. Purple is defined as any color with components of both red and blue. Thus I will agree that it is a pretty color. However Pink is defined as: A color varying from light crimson to pale reddish purple. Thus Pink includes purple in its definition and thereby is just as pretty. However pink can also vary to include light crimson which puts pink on a larger variation scale than purple and makes it prettier. Having covered your three points of defense I will now state my own case for why pink is obviously better. 1. Pink is the color of girls. It represents sugar and spice and everything nice. 2. Its pretty, obviously little girls think so. However here is a poll that shows pink is more often a favorite color than purple. http://www.pollwizard.com... Here is a poll where the poll master left out the color pink: http://quibblo.com... The 7th comment quite clearly states, "what ever happened to pink?! i love pink!!!" Thus pink is quite obviously a favorite color more often than purple. 3. Pink is romantic. http://desktoppub.about.com... quite clearly states, "pink is romantic and charming. Use pink to convey playfulness (hot pink flamingoes) and tenderness (pastel pinks)." 4. Pink is also the color of health. When one thinks of a healthy person one thinks of someone with a nice tinge of pink to them. Healthy and happy. 5. Pink is included in many positive phrases. Such as these two. >In the pink - healthy >Tickled pink - happy, content I think thats all I have for now. Thanks for the debate.
Taxes are Extortion and Theft

Your body needs food to survive does it not? If you don't eat then you'll die. Is your body extorting money for food from you? Now if we look at the definition you provided for extortion we see that it is the securing of money through means of violence and intimidation. Jail time in response to not paying taxes does not count as violence or intimidation. It is merely the effect of a cause and effect that exists. Cause: you don't pay taxes. Effect: jail. This is a truth and does not count as intimidation. You aren't intimidated into paying taxes but rather suffer a predetermined effect if you don't. This can fall in line with the food example. Cause: you don't eat. Effect: you starve. Your body doesn't intimidate the food out of you but rather you eat to avoid an unwanted effect. Same with taxes. The government doesn't intimidate you but rather you pay to avoid an unwanted effect. You can opt out. You can move. Jump ship. Renounce your citizenship and move somewhere like Sudan or Somalia where there are little or no taxes. It might not be as easy as checking a box saying "No Thanks" for taxes but you can still opt out. Lastly, the definition of theft doesn't truly fit the definition of taxes either. This is because when the government takes money in taxes, they have every intention of using it for the country. While you don't get the same money back you get it back in the form of services (national defense, police, medicine, welfare etc). Depriving you of your money for the sole purpose of lining the pockets of the president for example would be theft because you would never see that money given a back to you. However, the government takes taxes with the intention of using it to give back to the payer and therefore does not fit the definition of permanent deprivation of your property.