BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I believe that logic should trump over feelings.

It's interesting how we can literally throw out any common sense on an issue and resort to irrational feelings to make decisions that could possibly affect millions of other people despite the real world applications of it. As a black male, I can't seem to understand how many of my peers are so easily herded into a liberal mind-set without even thinking on their own accord. In reference to BLM, they continuously destroy their own residential areas despite knowing that these types of misguided protest will never solve anything. Even now on gun violence, we find emotional teenagers piling into the streets without any non-biased guidance. How are we to make legislation on firearm arms when most of the teenagers rallying have never operated with one. The stauch liberals feed these kids what they want to hear and tell them to disregard anyone who disapproves of their cause as hateful or ignorant. These feelings that they have a warranted, however they should be left out of politics, lawmaking, and making any true rational decision.
Extreme danger in legalizing same-sex marriage in society

Did I miss something or did you fail to explain, again, why same sex marriage is a danger to society. You could claim that IVF leads to clone armies but that's not an argument against IVF it's an argument against clone armies. Okay, we keep constant vigilance against man-horse marriage. I'll go ahead and say you've made an argument (though I see no evidence that you even established the point) that man-horse marriage will cause the end of society. Why then should the state deny the rights of marriage to individuals who fully understand what they're doing and love each other? You've never come remotely close to establishing any danger whatsoever here. Marriage is, in fact, a right as noted in the Supreme Court decision of Skinner v. State of Oklahoma. No equality doesn't lead to the downfall of civilization. The same was argued during Loving v. Virgina which struck down interracial marriage. It didn't lead to the downfall of anything.
Extreme danger in legalizing same-sex marriage in society

you literally just wasted 5 minutes of my life reading that garbage. "I do not know of any gene which makes people gay or more likely to be gay. Identical twins are more likely to share sexual orientation than fraternal twins. Fraternal twins are more likely to share sexual orientation than are siblings. Siblings more likely than randomly distributed individuals. Further, the youngest male born seems to have a few extra percent chance of being gay, even if one adjusts for having older males in the family. These are all pretty strong evidence that there are developmental as well as genetic factors." And circle gets the square. "Further, I personally never decided to be straight. I just feel sexually attracted to women. I see no reason to conclude that sexual attraction isn't inborn." hmmmmm maybe that's the way God created us. What a revolutionary thought. "In some areas having a rich uncle who never married could allow for genetically related individuals from the family to succeed." Be honest, were you snorting heroin or tripping on acid when you wrote this? "If you want to marry the person you love, it is not the right of the state to restrict that." Men can't marry boys (yet)...thats a restriction right there. Please tell me you dont think polygamy would be ok in society. "If rights are offered to somebody they must be offered to everybody." Marriage is not a right. What's next? The destruction of the family unit and society as we see it today.
Extreme danger in legalizing same-sex marriage in society

show me a gene in the human body that shows that people are born gay. It's funny because scientists and so many liberals have been trying so hard to prove that humans are born gay, yet they have no definitive answer. If there is a gene that is found that shows gays are born that way, then let's celebrate. I have nothing against gays. They are for the most part nice people. I have a serious problem with gay marriage though. If gay marriage is allowed, what is next? Humans and animals getting married? Triad marriages? Man-boy marriages? And if you think these claims are absurd, that is what everyone 50 years ago was saying about gay marriage and how ridiculous it was. AND LOOK! we now have gay marriages in some states....what's next? By allowing gay marriage, you are saying that marriage is merely about sexual preference. If so, why shouldn't I be allowed to marry a horse or two wives?
Extreme danger in legalizing same-sex marriage in society

You asked in, http://www.debate.org... comments... "do people not see the extreme danger in legalizing same-sex marriage in society?" -- I contend that there is nothing to see. I contend that there is no danger to legalizing same-sex marriage. Further, there is much benefit to giving people equal rights under the law. The danger is in not giving people equal rights: it causes unrest.
HANDICAP DEBATE: Mandatory vaccinations.

I will be brief because I must. (3,000 character limit.) First I will defend, then rebut (space regarding.)Contention 1: The ConstitutionMy opponent has multiple points here. It may infringe, but it is not outside norms.Here my opponent admits that mandatory vaccinations (MV) may infringe upon C. Rights, but claims that this already happens in the status quo. His particular example regards free speech, in which the court ruled that free speech which puts others in eminent danger is not allowed. I will be indirectly refuting this point in my second contention when I prove that we are currently not in clear and present danger from the lack of MV. Next, he mentions social contract theory, but does not provide a substantive argument as to why this affirms the resolution. Yes, social contract theory was an influencing factor in the formation of the C. and it does involve Man giving up certain rights for community protection, but we must look to the Constitution to see the actual limits that must be applied to said government's powers. Lastly, he confuses the First Amendment. Shortly put A1 states that "gov shall make no law respecting freedom of religion or abridging the free practice thereof." The examples he brings up are all examples of people or organizations acting upon their own accord, not laws the government has passed. For instance, there is a clear difference between:1. The gov't allowing stores to be open on Sunday and,2. The gov't forbidding stores from being open on Sunday. In (1), the gov't makes no law abridging rights. In (2), it does. The difference is clear: (1) is constitutional, (2) is not. The only example not following this line of thought regards the legal age of adulthood, which is not based upon any religious ideal, but rather a biological ideal. Thus, MV are not Constitutional if I can demonstrate that there is not a clear and present danger from the lack thereof. Contention 2: The Necessity of MVTo preface, I am not arguing that the US would not be better of with MV. I am arguing that the lack of MV does not present a clear and present danger justifying the breaking of the First Amendment. Regarding Herd protection, the lack of meeting this criteria is fine so long as there is not a significant danger. Regarding the Harm Reduction Ethical Argument -- this may be a well and good idea, but if the gov't uses it to establish laws that violate C. Rights, then it is by definition Unconstitutional. I proved in C1 that it does violate, so it is Unconstitutional regardless of whether society would be better of with it in practice.The government's job is not to protect us from all foreseeable dangers, but rather to provide for our defense and protect us so long as such protections are within the gov'ts rights. Numbers: [1] 9,000 people have died from lack of V since 2007. (About 1,100 / year, or .00035% of the population.) This is clearly not significant, nor does it demonstrate a clear and present danger. Sources:(1) - http://goo.gl...
HANDICAP DEBATE: Mandatory vaccinations.

Reminder to voters -- I'm limited to 3,000 characters.Statement of FactAs my opponent has demonstrated, there is no doubt that vaccines are a boon to society. The advantages of vaccines far outweigh the disadvantages. However, I will be demonstrating that mandatory vaccinations are inconsistent with the Constitution and the American value of "freedom".The ConstitutionThe Bill of Rights, added to the Constitution in 1789, describe certain rights that all citizens of the U.S. shall have. The relevant amendment to my argument is the First, which concerns the right to religious freedom. [1] Specifically, "the government shall impose no law ... prohibiting the exercise [of religion]. To some citizens of the U.S., vaccinations are a violation of their religious faith. Such a violation is prohibited in the First Amendment.While vaccinations may be beneficial to the whole, they discount the freedom of the individual. The Constitution, the document that provides the framework for how our country operates, explicitly holds individual freedoms above utilitarianism. So long as person A's decisions don't directly impact person B's freedoms, then person A's actions are both legal and consistent with the American ideal of freedom. In the case that A's decisions indirectly impact B's health, such actions are not considered illegal or against the Constitutions framework. It is clear that the First Amendment, and by extension the Constitution, is not consistent with the opponent's claim that vaccinations should be mandatory. The Necessity of Mandatory VaccinesMy second point details why mandatory vaccinations are not necessary in the status quo. It might be understandable to curb freedom when the well being of the whole is drastically at stake, however current vaccinations trends demonstrate that the lack of mandatory vaccinations does not present a significant public threat. Vaccination rates worldwide have been on the increase over the past few years. [2] In the U.S., the trend of vaccinations is much higher than the world average. [3] It is clear that despite the lack of mandatory vaccination laws, the U.S. continues to see increased vaccination consumption (approximately 90% of newborn vaccinations.) While the U.S. might technically be better of with mandatory vaccines, the current "lack" of vaccine usage does not pose any significant threat to the well being of the U.S. or its average citizen, therefore radical "Constitution breaking" legislation is not necessary.ConclusionI have demonstrated that the opponent's stance is inconsistent with the Constitution, which is the foundation for American ideals. I have additionally shown that the lack of mandatory vaccinations does not put our country in a dire position, invalidating the idea that the oppponent's stance is important enough to break the ideals of the Constitution. Sources(1) - http://goo.gl... (2) - http://goo.gl...(3) - http://goo.gl...
HANDICAP DEBATE: Mandatory vaccinations.

This debate's resolution is as follows: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should enforce mandatory vaccinations. RulesFirst Round is terms and definitions by Pro and acceptance by Con. Second Round is for Opening arguments, NO rebuttals. Third Round is for Rebuttals. Forth Round is for Rebuttals and conclusion. No semantics, the definitions provided are the ones to be used. No trolling. BOP is shared. Sources may be placed in the comments section if needed. Minimum ELO is 2000. No Profanity. Handicap RulesThis is a handicap debate, so unlike a regular debate this one will be different. Pro- Pro's arguments in every round, except Round 1 must be over 8,000 character and no less. Con- Con's argument in every round must be under 3,000 characters and no more. The only exception, for both debaters, will be of that when the opponent forfeits their round of the debate in general. If violation of Handicap rules occurs then the debate is declared over and the one who violates the rules automatically forfeits the debate. DefinitionsThe United States Federal Government is established by the US Constitution. The Federal Government shares sovereignty over the United Sates with the individual governments of the States of US. The Federal government has three branches: i) the legislature, which is the US Congress, ii) Executive, comprised of the President and Vice president of the US and iii) Judiciary. The US Constitution prescribes a system of separation of powers and ‘checks and balances’ for the smooth functioning of all the three branches of the Federal Government. The US Constitution limits the powers of the Federal Government to the powers assigned to it; all powers not expressly assigned to the Federal Government are reserved to the States or to the people. (. http://definitions.uslegal.com...)Should-must; ought(used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency): (. http://dictionary.reference.com...)Mandatory- permitting no option; not to be disregarded or modified (. http://dictionary.reference.com...) Vaccine-any preparation used as a preventive inoculation to confer immunity against a specific disease, usually employing aninnocuous form of the diseaseagent, as killed or weakened bacteria or viruses, to stimulate antibody production. (. http://dictionary.reference.com...)
You Cannot Objectively Know Which Religion Is True (if any)

Who says that God cannot be physically detectible? Even if he/she/it is transcendent, an omnipotent being is still capable of taking on a physical form. If God exists, nothing is impossible. Also, I would add that not all gods are transcendent (the Greek gods are physical, for instance). True, the Judeo-Christian God is transcendent, but those are far from the only religions. And while it is true (as far as we know) that God has never come into the universe/world, it is still possible that it could happen. If one observes the Big Bang, that alone would not prove or disprove God, but if God takes on a physical or detectible form pre-creation, then it would be possible to achieve this through time travel. Also, my opponent has yet to present any arguments of his own. While he has talked about how almost everyone has the same religion as their parents, this does not really prove anything either way.
You Cannot Objectively Know Which Religion Is True (if any)

It is possible to know (although I myself do not), if one were, for instance, to time travel back to the beginning of the universe and observe creation. Another way would be to access God (if he does exist) and ask him. Neither of these is possible with current technology, but could be possible in the future. Also, even assuming that "people always have the same religion as their parents" (source?), this has nothing to do with our abilities to find the true religion (although I do not believe there is any).
You Cannot Objectively Know Which Religion Is True (if any)

My opponent is expected to prove how we can objectively find out that any particular religion is in fact true, without the need of subjectivity or biases in finding the true religion. If my opponent believes in a 'true religion' which is an objective and universal truth and not that true religion is subjective to each person, then my opponent needs to prove this claim. Hence, arguing a Christian knows their religion is true, is wrong, as clearly biases in upbringing into that religion are present and not all followers of other religions agree. If my opponent chooses a specific religion and argues anyone can objectively find out that specific religion is true, then any person from any other religion should be able to reach the same answer objectively.Isn't it a remarkable coincidence that almost everyone has the same religion as their parents? And it always just happens to be the right religion. Religion runs in families. If we had been born in ancient Greece, we would all be worshipping Zeus and Apollo. If we had been brought up as Vikings, we would be worshipping Thor and Wotan. How does this come about? Through religious childhood indoctrination.So how can we objectively know which religion out of the over 10,000 religions in the world is the right one (if any)? My opening argument is that religious childhood indoctrination is the reason why most people- that is an overwhelming majority- stay in the religion they are born in/religion of their parents. This shows that 'true religion' is subjective to each person being born into different locations and religions in the world. Hence you cannot objectively know which religion is true (if any).
Christian God Paradox

you are correct in saying I got off-topic, which I do apologize for. "His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to his power. If you choose to say 'God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it,' you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words 'God can.'... It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of his creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because his power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God." - C.S. Lewis. In summary, God does not need to follow the human definition of logic. He does not need to make sense to our mere minds which cannot comprehend His mind, or thoughts. This is where Christians bring trust into their faith.
Christian God Paradox

Your claims are not relevant to this debate. You are making a case that God is the source of morality, and that God does indeed exist. Assuming he is omnipotent, God could eliminate evil if he chose to do so. Since evil exists, and he has chosen to allow it, this would mean he is malevolent. I am not claiming that he doesn't exist. I do agree with your statement that morality is important, but it is not on the topic of this quote. I'd very much like to be proved wrong, but these haven't convinced me yet. I hope you can change my mind with some rock-solid logic in the next rounds.
Christian God Paradox

very good points!! however, where do you get your idea that "evil is bad"? If no god existed, morality and the sense of morality would not exist either. Moral values and duties impulse themselves on us. Who do you hold yourself accountable to? Christians hold themselves and those around them accountable to God. If no god existed, why would people get a sick feeling in their stomachs when they tell a lie, for instance? The human conscience points to God. The idea that murder is wrong is a "public truth." How does the public know it is wrong? Sure, killing off one's own race does not seem like a productive thing to do, but that doesn't mean it would be wrong in a world existing with no god. If humans came up with the morals we have today, they would constantly be changing, as human experience would be changing. Nothing would remain stable. Without God, there would be no objective basis for morality, no life, and no reason to live it. But these things to exist, therefore God, who gives these things to us, exists also.
Christian God Paradox

It's fine, this is also my first debate! "God Himself can not associate with evil" I'd like to point out that any claim of 'cannot' proves the absence of omnipotence. Something that is all-powerful can do anything and everything. "God is a God of love, and He will not force us to love him. God is a God of mercy, and this is how we are reconciled when we ask Him for forgiveness." If he is a god of love, and if he is indeed omnipotent, why does he not eliminate evil? I think we can agree that evil is bad, bad things are indeed bad, and fewer bad things is always better, so less evil is always better. ( Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe I've neutralized your two points. Also, thank you for the suggestion, I will research the book, even if I don't decide to read it.
Christian God Paradox

God is all-knowing and all-powerful. He does not tolerate evil, meaning that evil will not go unpunished. God Himself can not associate with evil, because He is separated from it. This is actually a matter of free will. If God wanted to eliminate all evil, where would be our free will? God is a God of love, and He will not force us to love him. God is a God of mercy, and this is how we are reconciled when we ask Him for forgiveness. I suggest reading "The Problem of Pain" by C.S. Lewis. (also, this is my first debate and I don't really know the usual procedure of how these take place, sorry!)
Christian God Paradox

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is not omnipotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him God? " -Epicurus Since I first read this quote, I could not find a fault in it, so I would like "Con" to prove that god is indeed omnipotent and is not malevolent, or to sufficiently disprove another part of the quote. BoP is on Con, he/she must prove a fault in the logic of this quote.
Evolution could not have created man

Logical inconsistencies of my opponent: 1. Accuses me of confirmation bias, but in the first round of the debate it is evident of his bias. 2. Accuses me for not citing my sources properly but uses no sources himself. Full source I referenced: Davis, Percival and Dean H. Kenyon, Of Pandas and People (Dallas: Haughton Publishing Co. 1990). Which was taken from this website http://carm.org... You speak of fossils as being an acceptable source explaining missing links. Where are the bones? Where is the conclusive evidence non-missing link species have? Fossils are very inconclusive evidence to begin with. The point I'm making with morals that can change, is that your morals are not based on any set standard except the survival of the species. If, at some point, mankind determines another person to be a threat, they are morally sound in subduing that person like in my example. Your arguments don't back up your assertions well and you don't have any sources. Also you said that the matter to create the Big Bang "just is" but the concept of God being "just is" is totally fallacious. I don't see the logic in that
Evolution could not have created man

.. and if you didn't want to debate with the premise you shouldn't have accepted. I hadn't even made the argument that I believed they were mutually exclusive either. I'll make two separate arguments. IF God created mankind by unhindered process of evolution1. Probability of enhancing mutations Evolution relies on mutations which enhance the species. The probability of mutations which enhance the animal (or thing) is 1 out of 1000 (Davis 1).2. Missing evidence of "missing links"If there were millions of "missing iinks" or in between species, why is there no significant evidence of their existence? We find dinosaur bones which supposedly existed billions of years ago, but we can't find a conclusive evidence of any missing links in between that time? IF God does not exist3. There is no moral standardThe moral standard becomes to help your fellow man. The problem is changing morals within a society. If society views jews as a hazard to the survival of mankind, then morally it is appropriate for them to subdue them. 4. The origin of the matter used to create "The Big Bang" is still unexplained self-explanatory.