BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay marriage or civil unions? There is no difference

I personally believe that marriage is a basic right. However, like most things, there are parameters which define those very rights. Since some people are apt to neglect context, it is important to distinguish parameters. For instance, an 8 year old cannot legally marry because the law has determined that people in that age bracket do not generally have the wherewithal to make a decision of that magnitude. So, then, marriage being a basic right does not license us to marry whomever or whatever one wishes. It is also noted that when asserting that freedom is indispensable, and shall not be infringed upon, what are some of its entailment's? While this statement is wholly factual, it neglects to define what "freedom" actually entails. If we were free to do every single thing that crossed our mind, we would actually be engaging in criminal activity much of the time. Though we are free, we are not free to do every single thing imaginable. There are parameters of freedom, which often are incidentally the very things that protect freedom itself. It is a hedge of protection. To pervert the definition to entail whatever the hell we want, we actually undermine that very freedom we hold up so high. Marriage has always been defined as a union between a man and a woman. I have yet to see any evidence to suggest that it has ever been anything beyond that in any society, even societies generally accepting of homosexuality. Even in contemporary times the dictionary defines it as a union between a man and a woman. Why not then just leave it be? Regardless, I would like to hear compelling arguments on why it should be legal. A very large part of me, the libertarian side of me, says that in a free society a person should be allowed to make choices for themselves so long as it does not immediately impinge upon any one else's will. I for one have no desire to infringe upon the rights of two people who say that they are homosexual to do what they would like in the privacy of their homes. I won't even make any moral judgments on it. This argument is primarily about whether or not it is even necessary. Let me outline a few points to illustrate: Many avowed homosexual couples have posited that they should be entitled to the same legal rights as everyone else. I agree wholeheartedly. However, as we already know, a marriage was defined long ago. If, however, homosexuals want the same protective status for their lovers, I say let them have it. A civil union can be like a marriage in that it legally represents two people who desire to be vowed to one another. All of the same legalities can apply just as they do marriage, but it is done at the behest of protecting the sanctity of marriage, something very important to many people. It seems to me that in order to strike a reasonable compromise, distinguishing between marriage and civil unions is a win/win situation for all parties irrespective of their sexual preferences. What do you think PRO?
Earth is flat (disk or infinite plane?)

Hey ya'll, straight talk ok? There's some flat out things I gotta say. Roundies, please hear me out. Stop bending theories, time to straighten things out. Edging in my bedroom got me thinkin' bout the edge, not the guy from U2. the fudging earth ledge Gotta prove you roundies wrong so I strolled outside, flat cap, flat battery, lets theorize I took a really long stick and put it on the ground, that bich stayed flat cos the earths not round! The earth is flat and i'll prove it in this song, just like my mountain dew that's been out too long My credit card, FLAT My ruler, FLAT This paper, FLAT Where I live? FLAT The tires on my bike? FLAT The soda in my hand? FLAT My singing pitch? FLAT This whole fuking world? FLAT Open your damn eyes - you round earth clown. Take a quick look - the sky is up not down If the earth is round and we're sitting on the top then stuff at the bottom probably fell off. DRAGONS FLY AT THE EDGE OF THE EARTH, BEEN SOARING THROUGH THE SKY SINCE OUR FLAT WORLDS BIRTH. YOU'RE NOT BELIEVING THIS? AND CALLING US SCHMUCKS? I'LL SHOW YOU WHAT'S ROUND, TAKE A LOOK AT DEEZ NUTS! My credit card, FLAT My ruler, FLAT This paper, FLAT Where I live? FLAT The tires on my bike? FLAT The soda in my hand? FLAT My singing pitch? FLAT This whole fufing world? FLAT Clearly the moons flat, there's no dark side. Nobody went there - so NASA fufing lied. Hey roundies, hows that hot core doing? You're filling kids head with the sheet you're spewin' So I took a big boat to the edge of the world, and before my little eyes the truth unfurled, There were dragons, beasts and awful things like that, I sailed right home to tell everyone - the worlds flat. My credit card, FLAT My ruler, FLAT This paper, FLAT Where I live? FLAT The tires on my bike? FLAT The soda in my hand? FLAT My singing pitch? FLAT This whole fuking world? FLAT UH EXCUSE ME SIR I BELIEVE YOUR FACTS AREN'T SOUND, THE CIRCUMFERENCE OF THE EARTH IS 40 MEGA METERS ROUND If the world is flat, which projection is factual? Mercator, Gallpeters, or maybe the sinusoidal? A globe is always right, the flat must be distorted, which clearly means your theory is THWARTED! SO THE EARTH, OUR HOME IS AN OBLATE SPHEROID I'M DROPPING THE TRUTH, YOUR THEORY DESTROYED! You think the earth's flat just like your sister's chest, well THAT makes sense - you haven't seen REAL breasts! Earth is the only planet not named after a Deity It's a place of science, and the home of your VIRGINITY!
Earth is flat (disk or infinite plane?)

Palpatine: I thought not. It's not a story the Jedi would tell you. It's a Sith legend. Darth Plagueis was a Dark Lord of the Sith so powerful and so wise, he could use the Force to influence the midi-chlorians to create...life. He had such a knowledge of the Dark Side, he could even keep the ones he cared about...from dying. Anakin: He could actually...save people from death? Palpatine: The dark side of the Force is a pathway to many abilities some consider to be unnatural. Anakin: What happened to him? Palpatine: He became so powerful, the only thing he was afraid of was losing his power...which, eventually of course, he did. Unfortunately, he taught his apprentice everything he knew. Then his apprentice killed him in his sleep. Ironic. He could save others from death...but not himself. Anakin: Is it possible to learn this power? Palpatine: Not from a Jedi.
Earth is flat (disk or infinite plane?)

My opponent still shows signs of trolling and not giving any sources or valid arguments as to why Earth is flat. Ships: Ships tend to "sink" down when they get further away, this is because Earth is curved, this video zoomed well into the ship from 12 miles away (claimed but not sure as the video was made by a flat earther). The ship looked like it was sinking but no, it's actually going down the imperfect ball shaped Earth. https://www.youtube.com...... https://gyazo.com...... Earth is round as shown by video evidence, it's practically everywhere, also notice the Verrazano Narrow-Bridge, was designed with Earth's roundness in mind, it's 2 towers, seperated by 1300 meters and perfectly vertical are nonetheless 41mm further away at the top than at the bottom, due to Earth's curvature. https://gyazo.com...... https://gyazo.com...... This man went to the stratosphere approximately 30 miles up and the Earth was damn curvy there, therefore it's round. Varying Star Constellations This observation was originally made by Aristotle (384-322 BCE), who declared the Earth was round judging from the different constellations one sees while moving away from the equator. After returning from a trip to Egypt, Aristotle noted that "there are stars seen in Egypt and"Cyprus which are not seen in the northerly regions." This phenomenon can only be explained if humans were viewing the stars from a round surface. Aristotle continued and claimed that the sphere of the Earth is of no great size, for otherwise the effect of so slight a change of place would not be quickly apparent." (De caelo, 298a2-10) The farther you go from the equator, the farther the "known" constellations go towards the horizon, and are replaced by different stars. This would not have happened if the world was flat: https://gyazo.com... https://gyazo.com... See the comparisons My opponent does not do what he is supposed to which is disprove my points and stay on-topic. Sources: {1} {2} http://www.popsci.com... {3} http://www.smarterthanthat.com... {4} http://nerdist.com...
Earth is flat (disk or infinite plane?)

Greetings, thanks for the appalling conduct, now you've lost a few points for appalling conduct, spelling and lack of sources and broke a few rules which was pretty much nearly all of them. Earth is round as shown by video evidence, it's practically everywhere, also notice the Verrazano Narrow-Bridge, was designed with Earth's roundness in mind, it's 2 towers, seperated by 1300 meters and perfectly vertical are nonetheless 41mm further away at the top than at the bottom, due to Earth's curvature. https://gyazo.com... https://gyazo.com... My opponent claims the moon is flat, this is again an easy-to-debunk statement. The moon can do things that a disk can never do, and that's stages of different "shapes" seen from space, exactly what you see during a lunar eclipse. Ships: Ships tend to "sink" down when they get further away, this is because Earth is curved, this video zoomed well into the ship from 12 miles away (claimed but not sure as the video was made by a flat earther). The ship looked like it was sinking but no, it's actually going down the imperfect ball shaped Earth. https://gyazo.com... "You think the earth's flat just like your sister's chest, well THAT makes sense - you haven't seen REAL breasts!" More appalling conduct? Considering that, I don't think it's like my "sister's" breasts, (I have no sister), you're behaving like an utter pillock in this debate, Earth is not a cylinder-like ship or rocket shape or even shrapnel shell shaped like breasts, it's an imperfect sphere like I have said. You've done one appalling comparison. Your tyres are not flat unless they are punctured, the items you compare the earth to were invented by us and man-made and is obviously made to be flat. Your singing pitch is flat? It's not even a solid matter. "SO THE EARTH, OUR HOME IS AN OBLATE SPHEROID I'M DROPPING THE TRUTH, YOUR THEORY DESTROYED!" My opponent appears angry there using caps and an exclamation mark, you're dropping the truth right? Good one, no sources, no evidence, just ad hominem, profanity and trolling. Maybe next argument you won't behave like an utter idiot.
It is preferable to get into a fight and have make-up sex than not to get into a fight.

(the format of my debate includes a HOLD IT! point which starts my argument and possibly an OBJECTION! and TAKE THAT! point in which i feel the strong urge to refute your claim) HOLD IT! REBUTTALs: 1) REBUTTAL: Assert your dominance: Avoiding an argument is still better because it will not include bad/ negative feelings. You can assert your dominance over a whole 'nother set people and make them all make you sanwiches instead of just your Girlfriend/ boyfriend. To craftily avoid an argument demonstrates your stealth at avoiding awkward conversations with you and your partner and would not create the need for make-up sex. when you win over other people it harbors much more satisfication than just winning over in your relationship TAKE THAT! point: When you win over a complete stranger online you can say things like,"OP's a faggot and go make me a sandwich because you've just committed the logical fallacy of challenging me now go an hero." Like a boss. OBJECTION! point: And by proving yourself online or in public is overall more satisfactory than winning over your boy/girlfriend. And the whole freaking world will know not to mess with you and will make you sammiches for ever. Enjoy those PB-J and Ham and Swiss alongside Roast beef because Roast beef is a boss. 2) REBUTTAL against: Make Up Sex is better than Normal Sex: OBJECTION! Point: My crux of the matter is that normal sex is better than make-up sex. After an argument there are some left-over feelings whether you like it or not and therefore make it awkward whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. The crux of my matter is that the ancient ritaul of make-up sex cannot hold up against the ancient ritual of normal sex. Besides, if you accomplish in domineering over multiple people besides your GF or BF then your celebration sex will cause neighbors to burn their whole house down reagrdless of wall thickness.
It is preferable to get into a fight and have make-up sex than not to get into a fight.

1. Assert your dominance!Here at DDO, we all enjoy a good, hearty debate. We thrive off the competition, and we all want to be the very best, like no one ever was. Is it arrogance, or pride, or just sheer awesomeness that makes us such argumentative bastards?Whatever the case may be, getting into a debate with your significant other is a great way to assert your dominance as the superior debater! "What's that, honey? You're in the 80th percentile? Aw, isn't that cute."Once your girlfriend/boyfriend is inevitably destroyed by your bulletproof arguments about whatever it is you're fighting over, be it the mortgage, your in-laws, or just what to eat for dinner, he/she will certainly think twice about disagreeing with you in the future.Then you can say things like, "You just committed the logical fallacy of not-making-me-a-sandwich. Now get back in the kitchen."And he/she won't even want to argue with you, because, hey, you're just going to win again anyway. So enjoy your ham and swiss!2. Make-up Sex!It should come as no surprise, but the crux of my position rests on the fact that you will eventually stop arguing so you can perform the ancient and magical ritual of make-up sex! Anyone who has ever experienced this can tell you it's like the first time all over again (but without any of the awkwardness or premature ejaculations).Make-up sex tends to be much more romantic or more vigorous, or both, than the normal version. Indeed, it'll be so good that you shouldn't be surprised if your neighbors light up a cigarette afterwards (depending on how thin your walls are).
It is preferable to get into a fight and have make-up sex than not to get into a fight.

What the debate is aboutI will be arguing that it is preferable to get into an argument with your significant other and then later have make-up sex. My opponent will be arguing that it is preferable to not get into an argument in the first place (but by extension, have no possibility of make-up sex). Therefore, we will share the burden of proof.Debate structureRound one: Introduction/acceptance onlyRound two: Opening arguments onlyRound three: RebuttalsRound four: Rebuttals/closing statementsThis is an intentionally silly topic, but I still expect the argumentation to be serious (if not a bit humorous).
It is preferable to get into a fight and have make-up sex than not to get into a fight.

1. Assert your Dominance My opponent continues to address the resolution of a separate debate. He states "[...] my point was that asserting your dominance in logic over a whole multitude of people is significantly more satisfying instead, versus, your significant other, which is only one person."That may be the case, but it is irrelevant. I'm not arguing that asserting your dominance over your significant other is more satisfying than asserting your dominance over a multitude of other people. I'm arguing that asserting your dominance over your significant other is more satisfying than not asserting your dominance over your significant other.Most of my opponent's arguments for this point were similarly irrelevant, so I will only directly address his final, unique objection: He says it was never a condition of the debate you had to win the argument, so it may be the case that you'll lose.It's true that it was never a condition of the debate, but c'mon, we're all member of DDO. Of course we'll win against some amateur!2. Make-up Sex!Ah, I did not realize my opponent was referring to celebration sex, not normal sex. But what exactly are you celebrating? Not getting into an argument?This seems to be a red herring, as it was never a condition of the debate that you would have celebration sex for not getting into an argument. The resolution is not "It is preferable to get into an argument and have make-up sex than to not fight and then something great happens like you win the lottery, so you have celebration sex".Naturally, the most you can expect for merely not getting into an argument is normal sex, unless some kind of anomaly occurs.
It is preferable to get into a fight and have make-up sex than not to get into a fight.

*cue hotline of fate (http://www.youtube.com...)*Sorry read wrong and was in a rush T.Tand you're right I am an amateur as these few months are the the few months that I have finally been revisiting DDO1) Objection: Assert Your Dominance:My opponent disagrees with my rebuttal against him about asserting dominance.Also, my point was that asserting your dominance in logic over a whole multitude of people is significantly more satisfying instead, versus, your significant other, which is only one person." I disagree, since random strangers are much less likely to make you sandwiches, but the point is irrelevant anyway. Honestly, it doesn't matter what brings more satisfaction than asserting your dominance over your significant other; the fact remains it is still satisfying." In Round One, My opponent suggested sandwiches be a form of satisfaction. However now it is irrelevant. "The fact remains it is still more satisfying" My opponent has still not proven this.Expressing your overbearing logic-bending skills over a whole population would spread the word and terror of debating over all of DDO and would expand your reputation."Con's "objection" is similar to saying "No way is Smash bro a good fighting game, because Marvel vs Capcom 3 is GREAT". Doesn't matter how great anything else is; it doesn't change the truth of the matter at hand."Pro's argument is not unlike this. Pro's argument is "no way expressing dominance over other people is better, because expressing dominance to your other is GREAT." "And he/she won't even want to argue with you, because, hey, you're just going to win again anyway. So enjoy your ham and swiss!"The "he/she" in this sentence would be boosted significantly by a multitude of times because the "he/she" would be a number of people. Also, I would not enjoy ham and swiss. "Con also says to avoid an argument requires stealth and craftiness. Maybe that's true, but the results are not as satisfying. When you get into an argument with your significant other and inevitably win, you will receive sandwiches on demand and (of course) make-up sex"I disagree as Pro did not specify that in this situation of an argument that you have to win. Maybe you will inevitably lose and suffer an emotional crisis or crises and will maybe result in a break-up and, yes, no sex.2) Objection: Make-up sex: "My opponent says normal sex is actually better than make-up sex."False. I was describing celebration sex not "normal" sex. Having celebration sex would "suddenly have a rejuvenated recollection of why you fell in love in the first place, or deeper understanding of that person in general" without the argument with each other and therefore leaving behind some unwanted feelings.Celebration Sex is a happier and more vigorous sex than make-up sex because one more person instead of you is proud of your accomplishments and is so proud that you two would have sex.
It is preferable to get into a fight and have make-up sex than not to get into a fight.

*cue cornered music*Amateur, Wright, very amateur...My opponent has failed to comply with the terms of the debate (second round is for opening arguments only).1. Assert your dominanceMy opponent says it's much more satisfying and rewarding to assert your dominance over random strangers than someone you actually interact with on a daily basis. I disagree, since random strangers are much less likely to make you sandwiches, but the point is irrelevant anyway. Honestly, it doesn't matter what brings more satisfaction than asserting your dominance over your significant other; the fact remains it is still satisfying.Con's "objection" is similar to saying "No way is Smash bro a good fighting game, because Marvel vs Capcom 3 is GREAT". Doesn't matter how great anything else is; it doesn't change the truth of the matter at hand.Con also says to avoid an argument requires stealth and craftiness. Maybe that's true, but the results are not as satisfying. When you get into an argument with your significant other and inevitably win, you will receive sandwiches on demand and (of course) make-up sex. When you purposely avoid arguments just for the sake of avoiding arguments, you'll gradually build up bitter feelings toward the other person and you can be the one who ends up on a tight leash since you just agree with whatever he/she says to avoid arguing.2. Make-up sexMy opponent says normal sex is actually better than make-up sex. Right. They don't call it "normal" sex for nothing. He seems to have a point about lingering feelings from the prior argument finding their way to bedroom. But this is actually quite rare, if existent at all. The whole reason you and your significant other are having make-up sex is because you... you know, made up. You suddenly have a rejuvenated recollection of why you fell in love in the first place, or deeper understanding of that person in general (some things can only be learned through argumentation). If even the make-up sex is bad with your significant other, then you should, at the very least, suggest an open relationship with him/her.
The United States should adopt a more relaxed immigration policy with Mexico.

I thank you. You thank me. Everybody's a happy family. Round 2 will be for opening arguments. I say a whole lot of stuff to support one side. You say a whole lot of stuff to support the side I'm not supporting. Debate commences. Round 3 will be for refutation and case reconstruction. I tell you what is wrong with your case. You tell me what is wrong with my case. We debate. Clash happens (ideally). Round 4 will be for closing arguments. Some ground rules: 1) I am more a rhetoric guy than a source guy. Your sources don't impress me. Your thoughts do. Sources are a means to an end in argument, not the end themselves. Use them as such. 2) If you use evidence, don't use it as a contention, point, sub-point, etc. Use it to support what you like. 3) This is going to be more a philosophical debate rather than an empirical one. I just like that style more; and it's a great way to avoid a source-war.
The Planet Earth will eventually end

I saw this earlier and found it really interesting, and was hoping someone would challenge my point of view, which is that Earth will end one day.Anyway, first round can be for acceptance or clarifying terms or even your beginning arguments if you wish.Earth - This should be obvious, but we are referring to the planet we currently live on, 3rd rock from the sun.End - Cease to exist. Not just uninhabitable, but completely torn apart into at least chunks of rocks; not resembling Earth or a planet at all.One day - Some people get confused when I say this, and assume I'm talking about next week or in our life times. I'm talking about at least 10^303 in the future. Or before that, it's not like I have a date set for when Earth will cease to exist.Obviously since I cannot prove for 100% fact that something will happen in the future, (just like I can't prove for 100% fact that God does not exist) I would appreciate it if you were open to calculated estimations or predictions. To disregard something because "you can't prove it 100%, let's see some evidence" is just (I hate this word but I have to use it) pure ignorance.My main argument is that the chance of Earth being destroyed ever is so incredibly likely that we might as well say that it will happen.I've been challenged in person before so I'm hoping to at least have a documented debate on this subject.