BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay Marriage Should Be Legal

In this debate I will defend the view that marriage is between a man and a woman. 1.> Marriage is a designed by God and henceforth is subject to God's guidelines. a.> Marriage is designed to reflect Christ and his Church. b.> Marriage is between a man and a woman. 2.> The U.S. Government shall make no law governing religion a.> Marriage is a holy union. The issuance of licenses to perform religious rites violates the constitution. b.> Marriage should not be governed by any authority except God and the church. c.> If non-believers wish to live together and receive the fiscal benefits of marriage, it SHALL NOT be sanctioned by the church and should thusly not be called marriage. (Civil union is fine, it's not ordaned by the Church) Marriage is religious in Nature. Civil union is the jurisdiction of the Government. The two are seperate and should not be confused. Members of the gay community that wish to live together and reap the benefits offered to married couples can do so under civil union, yet make no mistake about it. It shall not be blessed by the Church. Keep gay marriage out of the Christian Church. To add, if a temple of Islam, Hindu, Buddihst, etc wishes to ordane gay marriage, I have no basis to argue for or against that.
Gay Marriage Should Be Legal

In my belief, everyone is equal and therefore they should be treated equally no matter what their are and what they stand for. I believe in Same Sex Marriages and the right for Equality for the whole LGBT community. When two people get married, it signifies their unconditional love and commitment to each other. A member of the LGBT community, primarily a homosexual human being, is still a human being regardless of which gender they prefer to be with. The support for gay marriage is so very little, it is sickening. The battle for same-sex marriages has been very heated since 1993 (1). Many people, especially heterosexuals, do not understand the need and want of this battle. Not only have homosexuals fought for equality, but mankind as a whole has fought for equality and rights. Therefore, the first amendment was created allowing freedom of expression and freedom of religion. The law banning Same-Sex Marriage goes against the "Freedom Of Expression" by limiting human beings to who they can and can not marry. Many people try to use the fight of Religion and God against Same-Sex Marriages, although I am no expert when it comes to the Bible, but in the book of Leviticus Chapter 18 verse 22 it says; "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination" (Leviticus 18:22, King James). No where in the Bible does it specifically say Homosexuality is wrong and/or against God and Religion. However, this does go against the belief that we, as human beings, should not judge other human beings. The meaning of "democracy" is a type of government which is heavily ruled by the people in efforts to create equality for everyone. This "equality for everyone" should include Homosexual Human Beings. Even though, Democracy is supposed to the type of government ran in American, same-sex marriage is still a reoccurring "issue". To get married is simply a choice. Therefore, this choice should even be available to two men, two women, or a man and a women. Claire Snyder states that marriage is "the personal bond, the community-recognized relationship, the religious right, and the civil contract" (2). These words "marriage", "husband", and "wife" are thought of as "titles" so therefore, why is it that Homosexuals can not choose to obtain these titles for themselves and the one they love? Out of fifty "free" states in America, only six allow Same-Sex Marriage. The six allowing states are New York, Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire, Connecticut, and Massachusetts. Some other Same-Sex Couples flee to Canada where is it legal to get married regardless of the genders. I believe solely in equality, regardless of anything such as a person's age, gender, race, political party, social status, and most importantly- sexual orientation. Everyone should be treated equally. At the end of the day, what does a Homosexual couple's relationship, or any couple's relationship in that matter, have anything to do with anyone else? 1- A Brief History of: Gay Marriage. (2008). Time, 171(22), 16. 2- Snyder, C. (2006). Gay Marriage and Democracy: Equality for All. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.,
Veganism

1. I just showed that plants have "analogous" structures to nerves, and therefore can indeed feel. Yes, perhaps they don't have the emotions that we do, but it is completely invalid of my opponent to say that plants can't suffer, as they indeed can. Read the source provided, maybe it'll clear some things up. 2. I provided a source, rather credible source that clearly said that using vitamins as supplements is not recommended. Here is another source that shows some of downsides of vitamin supplements, such as increased risk of cancer and higher mortality. . http://greatist.com... ". .. just like any drug, vitamins can and should be prescribed for special cases. " I've now provided two sources claiming that vitamin supplements indeed shouldn't be used as replacements for proper nutrition. In reference to my opponent's examples of plants that provide the necessary nutrients, it should be noted that back in my first source in Round 2, it was acknowledged that yes plants have these nutrients but they are often in forms that are not directly usable by the body. 3. I think my opponent has failed to prove that animals' lives are more important than those of plants, and I think I've provided sufficient evidence that plants DO perceive and respond to their environment chemically just like we do. Therefore, one can't make the claim that "plants don't suffer". Of course we can't even imagine what it could "feel" like to a plant, obviously, but indeed plants do feel. Absolutely not, a decreasing population has always been a negative for any society.
Veganism

I'm sorry I missed the deadline, I had some urgent personal issues to deal with. 1. (by feel I meant feel emotion just btw) They react to their environment, yes, but they don't have conscious thought. They can't think, feel emotion, or hope. The fact remains, they can't suffer. Animals with brains can. 2. You failed to say why artificial substitutes are not adequate. "They're supplements, not replacements." I'm not sure what this quote proves. Is there data that says that many vegetarians still lack these vitamins? And as for your point about vitamins K2, A, and D, well you can eat mushrooms for D, and for A you can eat carrot , butternut squash, sweet potato, pumpkin, spinach, cantaloupe, kale, etc. For http://www.veganhealth.org... http://www.todaysdietitian.com... 3. "At this point, this begins to turn into an Animal Rights debate, rather than about Veganism." Considering the fact that not being vegan means billions of animals slaughtered a year, I think has always been an animal rights debate. And considering the amount of people on this Earth, a lower fertility rate is not necessarily a bad thing.
Veganism

1. "Plants can't feel pain." They don't feel pain in the same way we do, as they don't have neurons, but research has shown that plants have analogous structures. They also respond to their environment, they "'...have ways of taking all the sensory data they gather in their everyday lives ... integrate it and then behave in an appropriate way in response. And they do this without brains, which, in a way, is what's incredible about it, because we automatically assume you need a brain to process information." http://www.pri.org... We have chemical responses to physical damage, so do plants. It is wrong to say that plants "don't feel" just because they don't have neurons. I'd like to note that my opponent said that plants don't feel pain, but didn't actually answer the question of why the life of an animal is more important than the life of an animal. The answer is, it's not. And it seems that plants also "feel" in ways we never thought they did. Taking both things into account, I think the veganist argument here falls apart. 2. So basically what you're saying here is that it's very difficult (near impossible) to maintain a balanced vegan diet without use of artificial supplements. This doesn't seem like a good solution to me. The points my opponent brings up against a meat diet may be valid, but slightly misleading because it seems that such issues stem more from fast-food than the fact that meat is being eaten. I'd like to point out that you ignored my point 3 about artificial substitutes, as well as point 1 and 2. Points 1 and 2 (about Vitamin K2 and Vitamins A and D) were mildly addressed by you saying that we can just buy vitamin supplements, but as mentioned, this can be problematic. Heart.org mentions that "...they"re taken in addition to healthy diet choices and nutrient-dense foods. They"re supplements, not replacements." Overall the source suggests to avoid supplements unless recommended by a doctor. http://www.heart.org... 3. Considering what has been said, I think the poor treatment of animals is essentially all my opponent has left on the table for veganism. We have seen that plants DO respond to their environment and "feel" in ways that we thought they didn't. We've seen that a vegan diet struggles to supply necessary nutrients to the body, unlike a balanced omnivorous diet. And so what remains is the poor treatment of animals. I completely agree with the quote that my opponent brings up, but I'd like to say that (again), it seems to be a better solution to prevent the poor treatment, but maintain an omnivorous diet. Indeed, this way we can still stay healthy. At this point, this begins to turn into an Animal Rights debate, rather than about Veganism. On a side note, there has been research that suggests that vegetarian males have significantly lower fertility than their omnivorous counterparts. http://www.telegraph.co.uk... I await your response.
Veganism

1. "Why is the life of an animal more valuable than the life of a plant?" Plants can't feel pain. Yes, we do produce animals that are in turn killed, but those animals can still suffer. We breed them, torture them, and then slaughter them. Sounds pretty inhumane to me. 2. Being vegan is healthier because vegans have much lower rates of obesity, and cardiovascular disease. Which are two common causes of death in the U.S. today. Vegan diets are only deficient in vitamins and minerals if you do not work to maintain a healthy diet. Vegans can get their vitamins/minerals from cruelty-free produce, it is just harder to maintain this intricate diet. And in fact, if a vegan is having trouble maintaining a healthy diet, they can buy vitamin supplements. 'vitamin B12' Vegans can eat fortified nutritional yeast to keep up this vitamin level. And iron is found in many vegetables. http://www.rd.com... 3. This horrible animal treatment isn't being stopped, and the only sure way to stop it is to stop giving the factory food industry our money and support. As one documentary noted, "When you spend your money, you cast a vote." (Can't find link because it was taken off of youtube for copyright reasons, sorry)
Veganism

I appreciate the little intro there, giving me some context. Alright, well let's get started then shall we? "1. Being vegan saves the lives of countless animals." I agree, it could save the lives of many animals (though it depends, cause with no meat industry the animals wouldn't be produced in the first place), but I think we can say that it would cause less animal DEATHS. But, a vegan diet assumes a largely vegetarian cuisine yes? So we'd get virtually all of our calories from plants, which means more plants would have to be farmed to be eaten. And so my question is, why is the life of an animal more valuable than the life of a plant? "2. Being vegan is healthier for your body." I was actually going to say the exact opposite! 1. Vegan diets do not provide fat-soluble vitamins A and D 2. Vegan diets do not provide vitamin K2 3. Many "vegan products"(such as milk and cheese substitutes) involve intensive use of artificial ingredients to compensate for lack of nutritional value 4. Vegan diets are deficient in vitamin B12 and iron http://empoweredsustenance.com... It seems that a balanced, omnivorous diet is a much healthier option than veganism. We are biologically made to eat meat, other animals also eat meat, so why shouldn't we? "3. Being vegan is more ethical. Factory farming is horrifying, and the pain and suffering that is inflicted on the animals daily is cruel." I agree with your second sentence there, but then why don't we focus on the actual problem (poor animal treatment) rather than trying to completely remove them from our diet if (we have yet to conclude on this) there are nutritional disadvantages.
Veganism

I'm thankful that this will be a looser debate, I have been in some crazy strict ones recently and they are getting a bit tiring. Just to be clear, I am not a vegan. I really wish I was, but the time and thought that it would require to make sure I was getting the right nutrition is just not available to me at this time in my life, so I have to choose the easy option and eat what the other people in the house I live in eat. I recently signed up on the PETA email list by accident, and they have really opened my eyes to the horrifying meat industry. Arguments: (Evidence will be given next round) 1. Being vegan saves the lives of countless animals. 2. Being vegan is healthier for your body. 3. Being vegan is more ethical. Factory farming is horrifying, and the pain and suffering that is inflicted on the animals daily is cruel.
The brains better than the attaker

Listen there is nothing wrong with being in 5th grade. I actually applaud you for being on a site like this at your age! It shows great things that you have an interest in debates and current events. Let this just be another life lesson that shows you how to be better in the future. Next time you post something, just review it to make sure it makes sense. IF you have to get an adult to help you word it correctly.
Possessing small, compact firearms on school grounds with a license.

First of all, I said absolutely nothing about any psychedelic drugs like Ritalin. Psychedelic drugs aren't substantially shown to provoke violence.They're used to make you forget about something or calm you. Exactly the opposite of what my opponent has said. For example, psychedelics played no role in the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting. There will be a drug test provided for the certification of the licensing process. If you don't pass the drug test at the beginning of the inspection process, you won't be able to obtain the license. This process will be extremely thorough to attempt to ensure the safety of the students.
Possessing small, compact firearms on school grounds with a license.

Ever since prayer was removed from the classroom, violence has skyrocketed. Our school system has been designed by Communists imported from Russia who rejected God and are turning the schools into dictatorships. They are conditioning the children to accept totalitarian government. The violence in the school is a direct relation to government control and no moral foundation. Also every mass school shooting has been the result of a kid taking psychedelic drugs like Ritalin! When I was young it was a shock to see a fence go around a public school. When my mother was young the worst offense was cigarettes or a dress code violation. We keep allowing the left to destroy our culture and our people and they're using the children to do it. At what point do we finally say enough?
Possessing small, compact firearms on school grounds with a license.

There are many, many school shootings nowadays and I believe that students attending these schools should have some sort of protection. Sometimes these shootings are carried out by more than one person and students will need more protection than the helpless, defenseless teachers and faculty. A lot of schools are out of the way and far from the nearest police station. For example, my school is a good 20 minutes away from the nearest station. If someone shot up our school, I'd like to know that there were some students certified and licensed to have a firearm on campus to protect fellow peers. The certification will include a two-week course with local tactical defense specialists (Police). The process will be very thorough and will be tedious, but worth it. The course will be like a CHL Course (Concealed Handgun License) (1). In 31 states, it is legal to carry a concealed handgun on your person. Although, you cannot carry on school grounds. This license will allow students to carry a small HANDGUN on campus, if it is concealed properly. All students in the school (even non-carriers) will have to wear a name badge while on the campus and the licensed kids will have a special "carrier" emblem on the badge. The students will not be allowed to interact with the weapons unless the school goes under actual lock-down. Only then will the students be able to interact with the weapon.
Evolution and the bigbang theory are compatibel with the Bible.

On the contrary, I have previously demonstrated that there are many things written in the Bible which are simply untrue. I shall now list several I have previously mentioned for my opponent's convenience.1. Water existed before light (Genesis 1:1-3)2. Day and night existed (Genesis 1:5) before the sun and moon were created (Genesis 1:16)3. Plants existed (Genesis 1;11) before the sun and moon were created (Genesis 1:16)4. The creation of the universe happened in 6 days (Exodus 20;11) In addition, according to the theory of evolution, death has existed since life has. Every biological organism will eventually die. Yet according to Romans 5:12"Sin came into the world because of what one man did, and with sin came death. This is why everyone must die- because everyone sinned."In the original greek translation, the word "θανατοσ" 'death', which has an entirely physical, not spiritual connotation.However, the most obvious point of inconsistency between the biblical and scientific accounts of the origins of the universe is in pure length of time: according to the Bible, it is 6,000 years old; according to the big bang theory, 13.7 billion.Sources:The Bible (new century version)Oxford Classical Greek dictionaryhttp://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk...; http://www.answersingenesis.org... http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...
Bowser would beat Ash Ketchum's Charizard in a fight

I see your point, but Bowser is smarter and could figure out that he can hunker down in his spikey shell and then Charizard would run right into it and die. Plus he is very heavy, so just by standing his ground forcefully, he could wear down a lot of Charizard's stamina. Bowser also has much more in his arsenal than fire balls. He has an army of koopas, who he could force back into their shells and then throw at Charizard. Because he is very, very strong, he could also make the shells fly like thunder at Charizard and hit his wings, effectively rendering his wings useless knocking him clean out of the sky, thus allowing him to get underneath Charizard and then hunker down in his shell, thereby killing Charizard, or Bowser could also do that attack where he spins in his shell while somewhat ascending, damaging anybody who touches him while he is doing it. Also, one of Charizard's biggest weaknesses is that if the flame on his tail goes out, he is a goner. Bowser could play on this weakness by shrouding himself in smoke from koopas constantly going faster as they knock each other around repeatedly and then sneaking up on Charizard, then dousing the flame by throwing a koopa she at it at thunder-like speed. He is, again, super-strong. The wind would blow the flame right out. Or Bowser could just bite on it and his saliva would douse the flame. Therefore Bowser would win.
RESOLVED: The United States Congress has the Constitutional Authority to Define 'Marriage'

Some have raised the issue in the comments section that Congress may indeed have the power under Article 1, Section 8 to define 'marriage' for the purpose of making rules for naturalization. My opponent has apparently forfeited the debate and I would like to use this round to respond to some of the other comments.The last lines of Article 1, Section 8 say:"Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;[snipped for brevity] To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;[snipped for brevity] To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." http://www.law.cornell.edu...I submit that the Constitution itself calls for uniformity in the laws that Congress makes. That the definition that Congress decides is best for the 'General Welfare' needs of the nation where the rules for naturalization are concerned should be the same (uniformly) in all other areas of law.Note that I have not said that the Congress could not decide that same sex marriages are inline with the 'General Welfare' needs of the nation. That is a completely different debate.This debate is about whether or not the United states Congress has the Constitutional authority to determine for itself what the definition will be.If you agree with me that the United States Constitution grants the U.S. Congress that authority, please vote PRO.
RESOLVED: The United States Congress has the Constitutional Authority to Define 'Marriage'

Con posted; "are you kidding if they (congress) can "define marriage" that is the same thing as arranaged marriage we have first adment rights but just because "get to pick your own husband" is not in there dosent mean it is not a rule that is basic"I understand Cons reaction to the idea that Congress has the authority to 'define marriage. ' I also understand my opponents concern that there could be a slippery slope aspect to a Congress having too much authority. However, the rights of the people are protected by the same Constitution that grants Congress this authority. The people have the right to get 'married' and the Congress (under Article 1, Section 8) has the right define what it will and will not recognize as a 'legal marriage. 'Does my opponent still disagree that Congress has this authority?
RESOLVED: The United States Congress has the Constitutional Authority to Define 'Marriage'

Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution [1] reads; "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States... <>"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization..." [1] http://www.usconstitution.net...I will be arguing as "Pro" as I contend that Article 1, Section 8 is written broadly enough to give Congress the authority to "define" marriage not only for the 'General Welfare' needs of the nation where 'Naturalization' rules are concerned but for other 'General Welfare' needs as well.My opponent will be expected to argue that the Congress does NOT have the power or authority to 'define marriage.'