BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay Marriage

Well, I'd like to inform you that what I talked to you about, has already happened. Korean man marries a body pillow: http://www.huffingtonpost.com... Japanese man marries a videogame character: http://www.cnn.com... Australian man marries his dog: http://www.huffingtonpost.com... So even though you have stated that "They would be unable to wed even if some schizophrenic wanted to. " it is possible. Do you know why it is possible for things as such to happen? It is because the boundary has been pushed. When it was originally that men should marry women, this was not a problem. As soon as gay marriage is seen as okay, then why should bestiality marriage be bad? or why should marriage to a pillow be bad? Let me give you an example. You tell a kid to not go into your bedroom. If when they go into your bedroom, you punish them, and they are never allowed in, they will eventually give up. They know it is bad. However, if you allow one time for them to enter you bedroom, what will they do? Never give up on trying to enter the bedroom. Then they might go further and try to hang out in the bedroom often, or play in there. As soon as you let it happen once, it opens up them the possibility to disobey other rules. The logic is this, "If they said that entering the bedroom was bad and they allowed me to do it, then what about jumping on the bed? They said it was bad, but they also said that entering the bedroom was bad...". All it does is open up a Pandora's box so to speak. You make a very good point bringing up infertility. However, that is still natural. My main point earlier was how, from a biological perspective, we were designed to be men with women. Sex's main purpose is for child birth, but also for pleasure. So I disagree pertaining to infertile women being unable to marry. However, I will admit, that was a good question and I should have thought of addressing that previously. As for what sex is used for, leaving it up to people, correlates with my previous topic. If people have sex in whatever way that want, and there is no boundary, then when does it end? Well, there is now BDSM, there is people who Rape or watch Rape porn just because they like it, there's pedophilia, there's adultery [basically, people who commit adultery for the fun of it], etc. etc. There is no boundary anymore. What I want to know from you is, would you think it's okay to have sex with a brick? Or a video game character? Also, what is the limit? Can we have sex with insects too or is that too far? Or is it too far for people to be raping others, or not? See, when there is no boundary, no set limits, people will keep pushing and pushing. And why are the orphanages full? Is it because of the drastic rise in fornication and teen pregnancy? Lastly, what if they all liked to have sex with dead bodies for example. The mother and father did it, and their children like it too. Does that make it right? No. Just because they love something, doesn't make it okay. Pedophiles really love young children, but it doesn't mean it's a good thing. There has to be moral standards.
Gay Marriage

Second, allowing two people of the same sex to get married will probably have no effect on someone wishing to marry an animal or inanimate object. However, if it did, animals and objects don't have a legal standing. They don't count for anything, really (sorry, Ruby! Ruby is my dog). And even if they had the rights to get married, no other animals (maybe excepting monkeys), and definitely no object can sign a marriage contract. They would be unable to wed even if some schizophrenic wanted to. I understand you may have different values because of your religion, but we do not live in a theocracy and there are religions that support being whoever you are. I feel it a personal choice what a couple uses sex for, but it is unnecessary for marriages to produce children. If it were, we would have to make it illegal for couples who were infertile or old to marry. Also, we have lots of children here as it is. Our orphanages are very full, and they can adopt a child. And think about it like this: say you were in love with someone, and your parents and all your friends also liked and accepted that person. You'd be pretty sad if you couldn't legally marry them, right? If all people are equal in this country, all people should be able to marry whomever they love. -Lena
Gay Marriage

I'd first like to say the obvious. I am a Christian. So you can understand that I obviously am against homosexual marriage. In addition, I would like to add that I was not raised Christian, but became one as I grew up. Just a bit of background history. Now to my disagreement. Basically, the reason Christians are against gay marriage is because GOD says so, but I am willing to provide an additional argument as to why homosexual marriage is bad. First off, the Christian perspective which is very easy to understand. GOD calls it an abomination, and is against it. It's that simple. Now for a perspective that is more understanding as to why GOD calls it an abomination from my understanding, and as well as to a non-religious understanding as to why homosexual marriage is bad. First off, I would like to ask you a question. Are you against people marrying animals? Or are you against people marrying pillows? [I am indeed being serious here]. The reason I post this question, is on the perspective of boundaries. Should there be any boundaries in regards to human marriage, let alone human nature? Keep your answer in mind as we continue. Secondly, what is your belief on sexual relationships? Basically, do you think sex is for procreation or just for self enjoyment? As a Christian, I am going to say procreation obviously. In addition, if I take my cats for example who are in heat, they had sex when I wasn't paying attention and my female cat Smokey is now pregnant. Did they have sex just for enjoyment, or to procreate? Both. But when we look at a homosexual marriage, it is only taking the enjoyment factor into consideration. The same can be said for bestiality, or sex with a pillow, or even masturbation. So why is homosexuality bad? Well, if we look at nature or just ourselves, the main way cat's have sex, or that most creatures have sex, causes procreation. Homosexual relationships do not cause any procreation whatsoever. The same is involved when there is other forms of sex [which GOD is also against to add]. Also, in addition, what is the limit? Should we allow humans to marry pigs, or inanimate objects? There has to be a moral boundary in which we set ourselves to as GOD has instructed, or even if you are a non-believer you have to give yourself a measure of moral standards. In addition, if even some animals did masturbate or etc., why shall we lower ourselves to their standards? Animals themselves also kill each other, but don't we find cannibalism wrong? To sum up my argument, there are a few key reasons why homosexual marriage is wrong: 1) Homosexual relationships never produce any offspring and an unnatural way to have a sexual relationship 2) If we do not set a moral boundary for ourselves, then how far will we allow ourselves to change? Lastly, I would like to thank my opponent for allowing me to participate in this debate, I also thank GOD for allowing me to be able to accept this challenge [especially after reading when others couldn't join in, kind of interesting - I don't believe in coincidences]. Anyways, I will promptly be awaiting your next argument. - David
Cigarettes should be illegal

Thanks to my opponent for presenting his case! (Freedom of choice) Pro contends that in this case, the governments responsibility to protect its citizens outweighs its responsibility to protect their freedom of choice. He gives three reasons to support this conclusion: 1. Cigarettes have warning labels and affect health negatively. 2. Cigarette companies are too powerful. 3. We invest a great deal of time and money into warning our children of the dangers of smoking. As to the first, there are obvious parallels with other products - unhealthy foods and alcohol being the most obvious. Before we go any further, does pro think we should also make these illegal? Should we live in a sterile society where people are only allowed to buy what does not affect them adversely? What does he say to America's disastrous alcohol prohibition? Regardless, Pro would present this as an easy way out of the problems of smoking. He says it is a problem that could simply be eliminated. This is not even close to the truth. The fact is, a great deal of people are addicted to cigarettes, and do not see why the government has the right to interfere with their own personal choice. If smoking were eliminated, they would likely continue buying cigarettes from the black market in protest or simply because they don't want to give up the habit. This would funnel huge amounts of money in criminal organisations instead of to the government. The third point is simply stupid - we also invest time and money into warning children about drugs, which are ILLEGAL. Why would things change if cigarettes were made illegal? (Past lessons) Pro concedes that a black market would simply replace the current drug companies, but contend that it would be better! This opinion is beyond belief. Drug companies are restricted by regulations and laws. They are taxed for the good of society. Black markets would not, and are extremely delirious to society. And what makes Pro think that Black market goods would not be addictive? If anything, criminals would work to make their drugs MORE addictive so they could continue selling their product at ever increasing prices. If that makes them more dangerous, they would not care- at least drug companies have a public reputation to keep. Criminals certainly have no trouble making illicit drugs addictive, so why would they have any trouble keeping cigarettes? (Peer pressure) Advertising of cigarettes has already been crippled by the government - it is simply no longer true that cigarette companies can promote smoking as cool. All cigarette packets must be covered in warning signs, smoking adverts are not allowed on television or other popular media outlets. Where is this advertising coming from, may I ask? If it is from films, for instance, these have age limits. Besides, the few outlets available to children where cigarettes are promoted generally promote drugs too, so, again, how would making smoking illegal achieve anything in this regard?
Cigarettes should be illegal

I thank you charizard for debating with me. I shall now refute your points and extend my argument. On the issue of choice, the governments responsibility to protect it's citizens outweighs its responsibility to protect freedom in this case. Yes, people can inform themselves about the dangers of smoking yet the mere fact that this education is necessary... The fact that there exists a product that effects health so negatively that it requires a warning label should be a screamingly red flag to legislators/the american people. The sad fact is that cigarette companies are too powerful. So powerful that even our schools can't fight them. Most children are taught at a young age that smoking is bad for them ( you do not see anti-rockclimbing or parachuting organizations) I wonder why we must invest so much time and energy and MONEY into warning children about a problem that could simply be eliminated. To address the blackmarket issue I will begin by agreeing with you. A blackmarket will undoubtably crop up. But since it is the cigarette companies who add addictive and dangerous chemicals to their tabacco (since they are huge and have the money, power & resources to do so) blackmarket tabacco would actually be cleaner/safer than the tabacco produced by companies. As for peer pressure, we must remember that it is media and ADVERTISING that first influence the peers. I would underline advertising if I could. Cigarette companies finance the idea that smoking is "cool". If cigarette companies were eliminated we can assume that the media portrayal of smoking would be very different. Not just the illegal status would effect film-makers but social opinion as well. And even if it were the case that cigarettes maintained their "cool" status, the illegal product (as mentioned before) would undoubtably be safer. Cigarettes are also completely useless to society.
Cigarettes should be illegal

Thanks to Soubdboat for presenting this topic. I shall present three arguments against the resolution, which will also encompass his (brief) round. (Freedom of choice) The government does have a responsibility to protect its citizens. However, it also has a responsibility to protect their freedom of choice. The risks of smoking are well documented and publicised to anyone who looks into it, so the vast majority of people who smoke are well aware of the risks. The government does not ban rock-climbing or parachuting. It does not ban unhealthy foods, taking no exercise or alcohol. Why? Because these are personal choices by people aware of the risks and the government has no right to infringe on them. (Past lessons) Exactly the same proposal was made in the 1920's in America - the alcohol prohibition. The disastrous consequences of limiting a recreational drug used by a large percent of the population became vividly apparent then. All banning smoking would do would be lead to crime and contraband, and likely not decrease the amount of smoking at all. Also, the government earns a major source of income from tax revenue from tobacco sales - eliminating it would take away a major source of income for national health and other resources. (Forbidden fruit) What would making smoking illegal actually achieve? Drugs are illegal and they are still widely used. People start smoking through peer pressure, and the more risky an action is the more exciting it becomes. Making smoking illegal would make them more attractive if anything. All making smoking illegal would do is increase crime, infringe on peoples freedom and would likely not even decrease the number of people who smoke.
3% annual economic growth in unsustainable

I would like to start by pointing out that in his rebuttal Con made several arguments against mine that were fact instead of logic based without citing sources. (Other than a Wikipedia biography-essentially pointless.) 1. Con asserts that globalization has helped the economy, while dropping my actual case. To assert that globalization can't hurt a nations economy is absurd. Has con never heard of tariffs? The problem of course with tariffs as a solution to this problem is that if the tariffs are low consumers will continue to buy the better product, and if tariffs are high people get angry. (http://www.britannica.com...) 2. "There are several simple, uncontroversial solutions to this probelm. Government can encourage competition (through legislation, primarily the Sherman and Clayton acts in the US). Companies that have failed to be innovative, like Apple, recently, have been punished by the market." Okay. Why then does the U.S. not have a GDP growth of 3% each year? This argument was highlighting the fact that you have not explained a single measure that can be taken to ensure growth. If you can't show me what can be done differently, why should I expect wildly different results in this country than any other? 3. My opponent claims that because of technology we have exponential growth. He then fails to elaborate why improving productivity or making new inventions causes this. As far as I was aware that is not how supply and demand works. The real reason that growth began in the industrial revolution was the formation of the middle class. This meant that not only the extremely wealthy could buy superfluous products. (http://www.bbc.co.uk...) The middle class may have been formed by the industrial revolution, but continuing this trend does not necessarily mean that he middle class will grow or become more wealthy. Just look at the U.S. (http://money.usnews.com...) The very country that you used as an example for making laws that encourage innovation has a struggling middle class-the backbone of growth. Conclusion: My opponent focused to much on rebuttals of my arguments and those of others, and therefore failed to deliver any methods of this becoming achievable. You simply can't cite failed attempts as evidence that something can be achieved. He also failed to cite sources, whereas I did not. Finally, his rebuttals were just nonsense that focused solely on a "nuh-uh" attitude rather than bringing up anything new, whereas, again, mine were not. For this reason I urge a Pro vote. P.S. I really enjoyed this debate. It's by far the best I've had on this site, and I wish it could go on a round or two more. I sorely want to attack the rant that is your round 4.
3% annual economic growth in unsustainable

Rebuttal:To 1aThis is an absurd argument. Of course the world will face wars and terrorism and immigration, and of course these are not good for growth. But despite wars, and terrorism, and immigration, the developed world grew at a relatively consistent pace for the 20th century, if you ignore the 1930s and 1970s (which were abnormal by any standard). In other words, all of your scenerios (yes all) are ephemeral, and the exception, not the norm.To 1bI never advocated a purely internet based economy. My point was that rapid growth in several sectors is possible without a proportionate amount of resource consumption. To 2If what is ethical vs. sustainable? Economic growth? I don't understand this argument.To 3 This equation explains that without technology, population times per capita consumtion (essentially GDP), but with technological innovation, population times per capita consumption can increase. Overall, as long as technology advances, GDP can advance. Job loss from more technology is temporary. Honestly, I really don't see what is so hard to understand about this equation.Your dismissal of all arguments was rather (c)rude, and didn't make sense anyways (neither did your rebuttals). You failed to adequately adress the environmental and technological sustainability of 3% growth. We can, as I have shown, grow as we have been, without increasing our population, the amount of resources we use, and the amount we damage the environment.You have, I will grant, been markedly successful in delivering an impressive quantity of meaningless soundbites. Bravo. Conclusion:Sectors of the economy can grow rapidly, while consuming few non-renewable resources. Environmental concerns can be mitigated through processes such as carbon sequestration. And technology increases potential GDP growth, almost by definition. As long as technology increases, so will potential GDP.I would like to thank my opponent for this debate. I learned a lot while defending my arguments. Thank you.
3% annual economic growth in unsustainable

The problem with a constant growth in GDP is that in such a globalized world you can't just expect other countries to let your country grow. As an example let's say a technology based company, like Japan or Germany, could create a true artificial photosynthesis. Now you don't need coal or gas etc. to run your house at night. This could devastate the economies of energy based countries/states. With any sustainability question one can not just assume that it will be a perfect, no outside effect economy forever and ever. It is also important to realize that just relying on companies to make or spend 3% more on average each year. It's just not all that likely that companies will constantly be innovative. (and lucky when they are.) There has to be some form of government interaction to make sure that there will be constant growth. This may include things like raising minimum wage, but you can't just raise minimum wage over and over again. What can be done to make sure that their is constant economic growth in a country of at least 3%? Finally, it must be understood that each time an economy goes up by 3% it is going up slightly more than last time. 100% 103%, 106.09%, 109.18027% 112.2754081% etc. This may not seem like much at first but it's going to add up eventually you're going to have to be adding 4 or 5 percent of what the income started out as. There has to be exponential growth.
3% annual economic growth in unsustainable

The burden of proof is on you, because you are proving that economic growth is unsustainable. I must prove that an economy can grow indefinitely (within reason). I have three main arguments: 1. More population and/or resources are not necessary to increase GDP Rising population is not necessary to maintain growth. Japan has a stagnant population, and still grows (albeit with torpor). Increased utilization of natural resources is not necessary to maintain growth. Now I'm not saying that non-renewable resources do not contribute to growth (just look at any OPEC nation). But GDP growth can easily occur without using non-renewable resources. Let's examine the internet/digital economy. It uses few resources other than servers, and labor, which is renewable. According to McKinsey, a global consulting firm (source: http://www.mckinsey.com...), in a study of 13 countries, the internet economy makes up 3.4% of GDP. Without depleting natural resources. In addition, the growth rate of the internet economy is growing at 17%! This means that without using any natural resources, an internet-based economy could grow by up to 17%! Common objections to the sustainability of 3% growth include that natural resources cannot be endlessly extracted. But they don't need to be! 2. We can grow without killing the environment Other questions about the sustainability of endless economic growth are environmental. But according to this Department of Energy Paper (source: http://www.netl.doe.gov...), carbon dioxide can be extracted from the air. This process, known as carbon sequestration, is not only possible, but also a feasible alternative to redesigning CO2 emitting vehicles. Also, green energy is a viable industry. Essentially, this means that economic activity does not have to destroy our environment. In fact, privatizing carbon sequestration means that protecting the environment could be its own industry. 3. As long as technology improves, GDP can also increase Let me also address a mathematical model of GDP, and technology. Here is an equation proposed by economist Thomas Malthus: C>=P*R*T where C is the capacity of the earth, P is population, R is the amount of resources allowed to each person, and T is technology, or how efficiently resources are used. Better technology means that T is lowered. If GDP is as defined, is equal to P*R (total income). By continuing technological innovations, we can increase the potential for GDP to grow. Essentially, as long as technology improves, GDP can increase. Good luck.
3% annual economic growth in unsustainable

Definitions: X% economic growth is an increase in GDP by X/100 for a given time period GDP is equal to: all money earned by people and businesses OR all money spent by people or businesses OR the nominal value of all goods produced in an economy. Unsustainable means cannot continue indefinitely (or for a very long time) First round: acceptance only. Second: openings, no rebuttals. Third: rebuttals (new arguments acceptable). Fourth: closing, final rebuttals permitted.