BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The U.S.F.G. should withhold revenue from states unless they legalize same-sex marriage

Same-sex marriage should be recognized as a federal right, applicable in all 5 U.S. states and D.C., as opposed to its current legality in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, Iowa, and D.C. 1. The federal government has the constitutional authority to enact a law withholding revenue from the states in certain areas, under the equal protection clause and substantive due process. Federal laws, such as the as the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984, which required states to raise their drinking ages to 21 or risk losing substantial portions of federal funding for highways, as part of the Federal Highway Act do occur and are legal. 2. Because same-sex civil marriage is currently treated as a civil issue and contains over 1000 responsibilities including, but not limited to joint tax filing, housing assistance, Medicaid, education loans, inheritance, hospital visitation rights, and social security pensions, a federal law allowing same-sex couples these rights promotes fairness and equality. State decisions of which benefits to grant to homosexuals becomes clouded and ultimately changes what a civil partnerships means as well as opens the all types of corruption for denying rights. 3. President Obama's recent decision not to enforce DOMA, and his following by the Justice Department due to is unconstitutionality under the third act makes 2011 the perfect time for a law to pass. Although Republicans control the House, Democrats still control the Senate, and the President has the ability to issue an executive order, making a federal guarantee that states who refuse to recognize same-sex marriage would be denied funding likely. 4. Other nations which have passed similar laws have seen many benefits. Canada's government has legalized same-sex marriage nationwide through the Civil Marriage Act in 2005, having stripped its provinces the discriminate against same-sex couples. This has increased the acceptance of homosexuals in Canada, and polls indicate higher support for same-sex rights after the federal government instituted the law, rather than individuals provinces, as public perception of authority is a factor in societal attitudes. 5. The issue of fairness played into this debate as well. If states, motivated by religious belief, particularly in the Deep South, much of the Midwest, and non-Pacific West, hold anti-homosexual views, the federal governments has the responsibility to foresee that the U.S. does not turn into a theocracy. If citizens want a theocracy, they can move to Iran or Vatican City. If states withhold rights to some of its citizens, the federal government is justified in withholding funds from the states.
Games do not cause people to become violent.

I agree with you that there is influence involving games, but unfortunately even that can be easily avoided through use of reasoning skills. Some people already have violence in them, from family issues, ect. Like the shooter that killed innocents at Sandy Hook. He played violent games, but he already had violence in him in the first place. Many kids and teens know the difference between fantasy and reality, and will not be easily influenced by violent games, nor they will commit acts of violence. I understand your use of analogies, but some analogies do not agree or fit in with the subject. I will stand by my point. Games don't cause or influence violence. Past events or influence by other factors cause violence.
Games do not cause people to become violent.

Yes games don't directly cause you to commit a violent action but they can motivate or influence you into doing it. For example if someone watches a lot of moves with sexual content they will be more persuaded to do sexual activities. If you are around friends that smoke all the time it could result in you smoking as well and it has resulted in some smoking. Another example is that if someone is around people who cus they will be influenced to cus.. Games do cause some people do become violent just not everyone. Any object influences someone in a way anything influences some in a way. I am just saying that games can cause violence since they expose people and kids to violence. They let them know what it is and inform them on what it looks like. A good analogy for this is if someone watches porn. Yes porn doesn't always cause rape and sexual activities it doesn't influence some people to do it, same logic can be applied to video games.
Minecraft vs. Terraria

We'll what's the fun of playing if you don't have to work for any of your supplies? And while I must acknowledge the comment of the skin creator, I can't say I advocate the crits comment. It was a nerve meant to be a high resolution game or to display things in the open. Minecraft was designed to make you search for your supplies and to build up your knowledge of the game. I can agree that on some terms fan base does have a link to age of the game, but that doesn't mean every single fan would switch from one game to the other in a heart beat. The high technology of games like Terraria undermine simpler and more caustic games like minecraft. I'm afraid I'm going to have to fight a little dirty here, and (after a moment of looking up player reviews and statistics) about 34% of anyone who played Terraria said they didn't like the game or that the controls had bugs in them, while even though minecraft can run slow or spaz out occasionally only 19% of minecraft player were inclined to give it a bad review. Plus about 57% of gaming 'rages', which often end with something of value to be broken, are caused by more violent games or newer games, such as Terraria. I beg you, display an argument.
Minecraft vs. Terraria

In terraria, you get access to unlimited weapons, unlimited boss fights, and unlimited crafting. The "enchanting" is better, as in you actually use stuff you farm from mobs. And besides, terraria was designed to have endless fun, and it does. It was also designed when made to be a multiplayer game. There is a lot more costumization in it, because you can dye any of your armor, not just leather. You make your own character, making you you. You don't have to buy a skin maker to do so. Popularity has nothing to do with quality. Minecraft has been around a couple years more, so it's fan base is obviously going to be bigger. And head shots, really? It is almost impossible to get crits in minecraft. Terraria displays crits way better.
Minecraft vs. Terraria

....wow...you're talking like a hipster....just no. Alright, true that there are more monsters to battle in terraria, but don't say you don't enjoy making impossible creations on minecraft. I also find it quite idiotic you say technology will ever out rule creativity. Technology is materialistic and bugged, but the human imagination is infinite . Anyway, minecraft also has mods and applications on which you can build fun team games and interact with others. I myself always find it amusing when I stumble over an NPC village....(and maybe burn it to the ground) ...but in this game you can also be a bad guy if you want. Either way you swing it minecraft may be low-Rez and simplistic but that's the best, so goes with the gaming rules if the world.
Minecraft vs. Terraria

I prefer minecraft because it not only involves creating your own world but controlling everything, and quite frankly I don't think terrier was all that fun. I'll isn't just about killing things and as much fun as that is (BOOM! Head shots!) creativity is more applicable in the real world, plus minecraft is nearly twice as popular even if the pixelation is a little weird. Creepers, spiders, and skeletons will always be one of the first things to come to mind who video gaming is mentioned.
God can exist even though there is suffering

Do i get a point for you spelling my name incorrectly? If so, I guess i'm one up huh? Hey man, I think you missed the point about what I am offering to debate about. If I was able to convince you of the existence of God through this debate, then I better get on the phone to Bill Johnson or Billy Graham because I'd make one helluva preacher. Unfortunately though, even then I would have an even bigger problem of you basing that belief on me rather than God speaking into your life in a much more direct and real way than I ever could. Simply put, my argument is not on the existence of God, the miracle of the virgin conception/birth, the Mosaic laws that you have used out of contexts, or pretty much anything in the above that you have listed. My debate topic was merely that God 'CAN' exist even in a world of suffering. The only way this topic could get anywhere, is by making the assumption (even if for you it is hypothetical) that God is real. The concept on his existence should remain out of the question as that would take up the entirety of 4 rounds plus more, and quite frankly is too large and comprehensive to motivate myself to write about in this forum. Hence, if you are sincerely interested in debating this topic, then I would advise to refrain from entering from that angle as I doubt we will get anywhere. If you need help, and are unfamiliar with religious or philosophical arguments of classic nature such as St Thomas Aquinas etc, I encourage you to enter this debate from the angles such as attributes assigned to God such as his Omnipotence, Omniscience, and his Omnibenevolent (or am i setting you into a trap ?? :p). This would result in a much more productive debate that would not only be of considerable challenge to defend and be more enjoyable to try. This is fun. Over to you.
Citizens should be allowed to purchase and own firearms

You didn't exactly argue anything in your first post, so i suppose i shall start the debate. Guns are bad, mmkay? Here's why. We all know the old saying "oh guns dont kill people, people kill people." While this is true, guns do make it EASIER to kill people. Guns literally put a person's (or multiple people's) life/lives into the palm of one's hand. They make murder possible with simply the pull of a trigger. I've held a gun, I've shot a gun. And I'm gonna be honest, they're pretty freaking cool. But the problem is, they make you want to shoot things! Not because you're a bad person, but because with a gun, you can. Giving someone a gun and saying "don't shoot this!" is like giving a teenager a bottle of alchohol and saying "don't drink this". A gun is for shooting! Why wouldn't you wanna shoot it?! Guns simply make murder much easier and quicker, and they're simply destructive and pointless. There's no reason to own a gun, that's that. If you like to shoot, go to the shooting range! that's perfectly fine. But there's no reason why one should be up in your house, just waiting to accidentally go off and hurt someone (trust me, I know someone that happened to). I just don't see the need for the right to bear arms. Anyone who says "i just like to shoot for sport", again, go to the range. If you STILL want a gun after being given that choice, then you clearly want it for other reasons. Now, people do argue guns are good as a defensive tool. However, if guns are banned, there wouldn't be any reason to have a gun as defense! No one's gonna shoot you, and we can get back to the old baseball bat next to the bed to handle burglars, cuz worst case scenario you'll just have to have a baseball bat duel. This is all the I can think of off the top of my head, I'd love to hear some other points though, because I'm probably missing a lot.
Citizens should be allowed to purchase and own firearms

A firearm is defined as: a weapon that launches one or more projectile(s) at high velocity through confinedburning of a propellant.[1] The resolution applies generally across all human societies, not US specific, however since most raw data available is from the United States it's likely that the debate will center mostly around this country. The first round is for acceptance and clarification of terms only. Advocating silly or semantic arguments like "there is no good way to measure "should"" or "the resolution means only citizens can own guns not the military..", makes you lose all 7 points automatically.1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
The Modern Indian Women - No longer a captive of traditions

The modern Indian woman is described as one who is free of all inhibitions - she rides to work on her Scoot Pep, wears western clothes like jeans. Now, taking the example of the character Esha from the book, One Night @ the Call Centre, by Chetan Bhagat, the protagonist described her as one of those kind of women who slogged all night yet was rebuked by her mother-in-law. She works and yet, she has to do all the household chores. Is this your definition of the Modern Indian Woman? This brings us to today's topic - Is the Modern Indian Women no longer captive of Traditions. In my view, no matter how much we say that The Indian Woman is no longer captive of traditions, the fact remains that there will always be the elders who will always want their bahu to be the perfect submissive Indian woman. It is only because of this that Indian women will never be free of traditions. Moreover, India is a large country with many regions not very public, there a re still villages that are practicing Sati and unfortunately, we can do nothing about it. Almost 80% of the households in this country are run by women all the earning is done by the men. Almost 60% of the married women in cities are working as well as doing their household chores as well. Do we call this free of tradition? Many households in our country have elders asking their bahus to give up their jobs once they are married so as to look after them, their son and their grandchildren. Is that free of tradition? I don't think so. Moreover, there also quite a large percentage of women upon whom the traditions are thrust/forced upon. Such women just accept it as their fate and do nothing about it. I think that, in a country like India which is predominantly a patriarchal society, women can never be free of traditions. We in India have such a large percentage of men who are male chauvinists that we can never hope to be as free as the modern Woman in the United States Of America. It is simply impossible for us to have men accept the fact that we are just as good as they are. Thank You.
The Modern Indian Women - No longer a captive of traditions

(I request my opponent to check the comments section after the debate) Firstly, as far as Sati is concerned, it has been abolished by the government and is strongly and vehemently opposed by the citizens. The attack in mangalore was illegal. This cannot be taken into account for this is same as asking why a man was murdered? The attack in Mangalore was not supported by any other individual or party except the Sri Ram Sena. During these 62 years, the evils of the Indian society have reduced a lot. One cannot just cut down the old traditions and make new ones in one go. This process needs time. 62 years have not been enough. But certainly, there will be a time when the old traditions are completely cut down. The modern woman is as safe as men to work. This includes educated individuals. There is no discrimination between their education and job opportunities. I would again say that all are treated equal before the law. This has been mentioned in our constitution and is being followed in the right spirit. I would like to thank my opponent for starting this debate. I certainly enjoyed it a lot. I trust the voters know the right choice to make.
The Modern Indian Women - No longer a captive of traditions

I would like to point out to my opponent that percentages don't mean much but the fact remains that despite of so many years of Independence and western influences on our society, the Indian woman has not managed to break through the shackles of tradition. As far as the reduction in practice of Sati is concerned, I would like to point out that the movement was started by Raja Ram Mohun Roy in the 18th century. It's now the 21st century. Is 300 years not enough time to have abolished a practice as cruel as Sati? I think not. In response to my worthy opponent's points 1."Women are no longer considered inferior to men." 2."They are treated equally before the law." I would like to point out that if women are treated equally before law and are no longer considered inferior to men, then why is it that it was the women dancing in pubs in Mangalore that were attacked upon? Why was it that the Sri Ram Sena claimed that these women were violating "traditional Indian values". (1) In my argument stating the percentage of working women, I'd like to point out that considering the fact that our country India has been free for almost 65 years now, isn't it time that we cut down on the "traditions" and make new ones that are practical in the modern world. Though I'm all for a balance between traditions and modernism, I feel that ancient ones (traditions) are pointless for the modern day Indian woman To counter my opponent's view that 1.The number of women in jobs has seen tremendous growth. I would like to ask her how safe it is for women to work as much as men do. In a country like India where women are held in such low, for the lack of a better word, standards I personally think that it is extremely difficult for women to be as safe as men are. Thank You
The Modern Indian Women - No longer a captive of traditions

First my case, then refutations. India a developing country, is not only progressing in the scientific and economic fields, it is also developing socially. The following facts are enough proof to support the motion: 1. Female foeticide and infanticide have been banned. Henceforth, it has declined rapidly. 2. Women are no longer considered inferior to men. 3. They are treated equally before the law. 4. Women actively participate in politics. 5. The number of women in jobs has seen tremendous growth. 6. Almost all the fields have seen an active participation by women. Hence, it would be absolutely correct to say that modern Indian women are no longer captive of traditions. To refute: "India is a large country with many regions not very public, there a re still villages that are practicing Sati and unfortunately, we can do nothing about it." I would like to raise two topics against this. First of all, my opponent says that we can do nothing about it. Does this mean that the rate of sati has not gone down? that sati has been practiced the same way as it was before independence? has there been absolutely no change in the tradition - the practice of sati? The Indian Government enacted the Rajasthan Sati Prevention Ordinance, 1987 on October 1, 1987 and later passed the Commission of Sati (Prevention) Act, 1987. Statistics also show that the number of deaths due to sati has gone down considerably since independence. Also, my opponent says that "unfortunately, we can do nothing about it." This means that she feels it is very unfortunate that we can do nothing about sati. I too feel the same. In fact, a majority of Indians are of the opinion that sati should not prevail in the Indian society. This automatically suggests that there is a wide space for the abolition of sati. 1. "Almost 80% of the households in this country are run by women all the earning is done by the men. Almost 60% of the married women in cities are working as well as doing their household chores as well." 2. "I think that, in a country like India which is predominantly a patriarchal society, women can never be free of traditions. " These are two contradictory points by my opponent. The first one shows that the traditional culture in 20 % of Indian households has reversed. Also, 40% of married women are free of their household chores. This again shows that there a large scope of Indian women being free of traditions. however, she herself says that Indian women can never be free of traditions.
Kindle is superior to books

My opponent is clearly uncommitted to this debate. I beleive that books are superior to the Kindle, as the Kindle is just too easily lost or stolen. Kindles are great for travelling, which means you'll be taking it on planes, trains, ferreys, around foreign cities etc. These are all such easy places to get your device lost or stolen. Imagine how devestating it would be to lose your entire book collection because you left your kindle in a coffee shop. Another argument is that paper books have a much better feel overall, and are more pleasurable to read. On holiday I found a vintage bookstore and managed to buy a few novels from 1910. The books are dusty and smell amazing, and the detailed papery covers with beautiful illustrations could never be replaced by a cold plastic machine. A book is more than just the text. They are all different- different sizes, different fonts, different smells and different colours. eBooks have no identity anymore. They lose their self.
God does not and cannot exist

First of all you are not debating with me, you skipped all the things I have mentioned, and then started some random subject that has to do withnothing. I donï¿½t believe in Zeus, if that's what you want to know. I believe in a God who created the heavens and earth, and has sent his son down to earth, God in human form, to suffer, what we suffer, and paid with a painful death to pay our sin, and trespasses against God. Now if you want to talk about old times. Tell me, does truth ever change? Then why for so many year for as long as the earth hasexisted have people believed in a God. And all other beliefs, in multiple Gods and all sorts of Gods, have come to pass, when the idea, of evolution, has been around for only a short time. I think you just donï¿½t want to believe in a God because, what you do will matter, big time. But the question isnï¿½t if God is existing, that is answered when you open up your eyes. The question is if you are living the life God has planed for you to live. So I can see your point these days, we have science, right, this is what man has made up, but what will you say, when you meet God face to face, and asks you what you have done with the time he has given to you? A few questions (though I am loathe to ask them during a supposed debate): If you believe God is the creator, what created him? Why would you believe God is a male? How can an omnipotent being exist? What makes you sure that there is a God? So your questions I will gladly reply, Who created God? NO one created God he always was, and always will be. But The question is what created you, for you have not always been, but you always will be. A Male God, He is know as our father, and we are his children, he welcomes us into his family. How can an Omnipotent being exist? HOW? It just is. I am sure there is a God, first because of his creation, the earth, and all the living things on it, He has made, It is his handywork. The great works he has done in my life and others through prayer, healing, miracles, cancer cured, doctors have no explanation, a man says are you the Jesus people, and he says he was the dead man that they prayed for. People taken to Heaven, to hell, People that see angels, demons, Jesus. The love, and trust, and friendshipChristians have. The change that comes when people give their lives to God, The chains that are broken such as addictions. To me the question isnï¿½t if I believe there is a God, even the Demons know of God and shudder at his name, the question is what can I do for God, how can I deepen my relationship with him. You need to do some research. There have been much research on the bible, and the resurrection. You are just being ignorant, People have dedicated their lives to search for the truth, if the bible is valid. You are a Fool to say it is false, and has no significance. There are books out there. There are scientist, historians,etc, that believe there is a God.