BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay marriage should be legal in all 50 states.

Thanks for responding this will be the argument section. Now your saying that it will offend some people who are religious but Catholics are against abortion but abortion is legal. Why would gay marriage offend them? Catholic and very conservative Ireland voted in favor of gay marriage, Catholics are changing their mind on this topic they now realize that it was different back then look at how many celebrities are gay. Anderson Cooper, Ellen. As far as I know this doesn't offend anyone. I think it should put in law because you have the freedom to think what you want to think and make your own sexual decisions. Not legalizing gay marriage takes away these rights. And the government and religion shouldn't intertwine. We have the choice sure it may offend some people but we should give the LGBT community a chance. We shouldn't just leave them take a walk in there shoes and you will know what I am talking about. Think about how it feels for them always getting teased abused. Everyone deserves their right to try to make there life the best it can be. Why do we make the choice its their body.
Gay marriage should be legal in all 50 states.

I'm equally excited, I think this is an important issue; now to the debate. You're right in saying gay marriage tends to be unjustly prejudiced over poor moral awareness, but the law isn't based off of morals alone, it's meant to be as fair as possible to the most people. No law has ever been unanimously agreed on by every single American ever. It's truly unfortunate, but the morality of gay marriage is often frowned upon by several religions. Again, please do not misinterpret my statements here, I am not under any circumstance agreeing with these views. The fact is, the Catholic and many Protestant religions, however divided, have a large portion believing that gay marriage is a sin. If gay marriage were made legal, the constitutional rights of these members would be widely considered violated as it would be seen as prejudice based off of religion. The gay community; however, could counter argue denial of marriage rights is a violation of their constitutional rights. The law cannot satisfy both of these communities, so it must do one of two things, side with the larger community (the religious one) or reach a compromise. I believe in compromise. While gay marriage would not be able to be reached fairly, I believe a very good deal of the religious community could be satisfied if the rights of marriage were granted upon a gay couple if not officially married. The religious community that is against gay marriage has a very large portion against the act of marriage, not the lawful rights granted. A gay couple could be happy together and live a life identical to married life while not offending most of the anti-homosexual religious community. There will of course, be those who want he entire law to lean towards his/her side but this kind of compromise could very easily satisfy the most people. I also believe this to be very fair to both parties. So gay marriage should not be legalized, rather a compromise should be reached to be fair and satisfy the most people of America.
Gay marriage should be legal in all 50 states.

Thank you very much for joining my debate. Sorry my post is so late but this is a holiday weekend. I think Gay marriage should be a right for everyone I think you should live your life how you want to live it as long as it doesn't harm anybody. How does somebody Else's marriage affect you? Back then almost everybody didn't accept gay marriage it has changed today. People are realizing that gay couples are doing no harm and deserve the right to be married. If you love someone don't you have the right to marry them? Many people think that gay marriage is untraditional but actually in the B.C era gay marriages would sometimes happen. Why have we grown into this nature? What is bothering you about these marriages a growing number of Americans are accepting it. Even some people who are religious are realizing today is different then back then everybody has their different likes and beliefs if someone's sexuality bothers you then you have a problem. Why do we keep these people from not having the chance to marry? We were born on this earth in control of our own bodies we can live our life how we think its the right way. For some its different than others. I am excited to continue this debate this round is opening arguments.
Minimum wage laws are inherently self-defeating and should be eliminated immediately

This debate will focus on the social and economic ramifications of minimum wage laws. My position is essentially that it (a) is self-defeating, (b) causes social deterioration, and (c) makes all of society poorer. Additionally, empirical studies have shown mixed results: Neumark and Wascher's study concluded that minimum wage laws yield negative results, while and Card and Krueger's study concluded that minimum wage laws actually elevate employment. The mixed results are to be expected considering the inherent difficulty in statistically measuring and analyzing economic phenomena (cannot hold the ceteris paribus condition). Thus, the question must be approached from a purely logical point of view, that is, if you accept deductive reasoning as a reliable method towards the acquisition of truth. 1)The market attempts to establish equilibrium or market clearing prices, that is, prices which allocate resources towards their most urgent uses and maximize social benefit. 2)When prices are arbitrarily set above this "equilibrium position" you have surpluses, and when it is arbitrarily set below this position, you have shortages. People tend to purchase less of a product when it is more expensive and vice versa (all other things equal). 3)When you arbitrarily elevate wages above the equilibrium position you must necessarily diminish the (quantity) demand for labor, yielding unemployment. When the productivity of a laborer is not high enough to warrant such a wage then that laborer becomes a burden upon his employer and must be terminated. 4)Minimum wage laws hurt those who they are intended to aid (the least productive members of society), namely minorities, young adults, and immigrants. 5)Thus, minimum wage laws are inherently self-defeating. Furthermore, the macroeconomic and social ramifications are severe: unemployment lowers total national output/income, lowers tax revenues, it creates a demand for costly social services which must be financed through government debt, which, in turn, leads to debt monetization and inflation. And finally, teenagers, that are trapped in urban areas, who attend poor public schools with unmotivated teachers, are unable to find work and therefore turn to the streets. This leads to a perpetual and self-reinforcing cycle of violence and criminality. NOTE: We can trade statistical studies all day, and I can cite countless examples of the horrific outcomes caused by price ceiling and price floors, but I would much rather debate the logical consistency of my argument. Thank you and good luck!
planets and stars are the opposite of outer space

Here is an excellent resource addressing the layers of the atmosphere: http://futurism.com... Unfortunately, there is no measurable single barrier between the atmosphere and the vacuum of space. If we define the atmosphere as the portion hospitable to humans, then the viability of atmospheric conditions is contingent on the condition of the individual. Most orbital telescopes actually orbit within the observable atmosphere - the exosphere. Ultimately, the burden of proof for identifying the precise end of the atmosphere falls to the instigator. I am sorry if my explanation has proven inadequate. Please refer to the sources I have provided in this and subsequent posts. To address the concept of the earth accumulating enough mass to become a star; the primary elements of the mantle and core are not conducive to producing a star no matter the pressure or temperature. I included additional information regarding this topic in the comment section. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to discuss this topic. I hope that this debate has been both entertaining and helpful for all participants.
planets and stars are the opposite of outer space

im not saying gravity is energy though, more like water droplets seeking to merge if you put them close to each other.. gravity is matter as i see it.. unlike magnetism which is stored electrical interference hmm, helium, cool hadnt thought of that.. but, put helium into the air and it mixes, so i dont think it escapes.. as i see it, there is a "distinct barrier" between the atmosphere and outer space, because air is an absolute value.. if you poor to much water in a glass it will overflow for sure, its an absolute value.. in the same way, i see outer space a bit like a vacuum in comparison as a barrier between earths atmosphere and outer space im not sure how you disagree with the my hypothesis?
planets and stars are the opposite of outer space

Thank you again for the opportunity to participate in this discussion! I would like to address a couple points: 1) "Matter stays on earth, as matter attracts matter...gravity." You are correct that the gravitational energy of the earth prevents the escape of most atmospheric gasses! I was alluding a phenomenon known as "atmospheric escape". Extremely light gasses (hydrogen and helium) have relatively small mass values comparable to the cumulative atmosphere. These light gasses rise to the edges of the atmosphere while heavier gasses (oxygen or carbon) remain closer to the earth. Think of a balloon filled with helium rising because it is comparatively lighter than the surrounding air. These light gasses can escape the atmosphere when excited by solar winds or other energies. When these molecules become excited, they achieve enough energy to escape the atmosphere. I will include a citation with more information regarding this topic here: https://en.wikipedia.org... 2) "There is no air in outer space." Although there does not exist a breathable "atmosphere" in outer space, there do exist individual particles of gasses and other elements. We actually observe a "partial vacuum" within the context of outer space - not a "perfect vacuum". The free particles in outer space actually include those escaped molecules mentioned in the previous paragraph! I will include another reference for information on vacuums: https://en.wikipedia.org... You are correct in asserting that the atmosphere of the earth decreases in density as we rise further from the surface! Remember that there is no distinct barrier between the "atmosphere" and" space". Gasses rise along a continuum of decreasing pressure rates approaching the vacuum of space. As gasses move further from the surface of the earth, the influence of gravity diminishes. I hope that this has been helpful!
planets and stars are the opposite of outer space

I will be arguing against the statement "planets and stars are the opposite of outer space". Thank you for the opportunity to engage in this debate. The term "outer space" is generally defined as "space beyond the atmosphere of the earth". Within the context of this definition, the presence physical matter (i.e. stars, planets, and other astrological bodies) does not impact whether or not a location beyond the atmosphere of the earth may still be considered space. Hence planets are considered a component of "outer space" because they occupy a space beyond the atmosphere of the earth. To address the formation of stars: stars form from superheated clouds of interstellar gas. Gravity causes the gas to condense and increase in temperature. The earth has not acquired more mass over time - the total mass on the planet is decreasing. This is because of gasses, such as hydrogen, escaping the outer atmosphere of the earth and entering outer space. The net mass of escaping gas exceeds the net mass of added matter (such as asteroids). Thank you. I hope that his information has been helpful. For more information on the formation of stars I suggest the following link: http://science.howstuffworks.com...
planets and stars are the opposite of outer space

it is not what it is limited by.. earth is what outer space is not.. like flowers are limited by outer space side note, hypothetical thinking.. i think, that earth is bound to become a star, as compression is heat, and gravity on earth increases the more mass earth gains.. which goes to explain what a black hole also that it is not destruction as that would imply earth or planets are creations.. matter can at best transform not be destroyed.. so the end of the star earth might become is a black hole and a black hole if its not just a myth is transformation from energy of a start to outer spacenot sure how stars form or if they become black holes when they die out or end.. hypothetical stuff i would just like to hear where there might be disagreement on these things and we can debate it i am not my mind but my mind is mine to have..
Zoos are morally wrong

Zoos are not usually meant for entertainment most of the time. They are meant as a place to have kids learn about animals they may have not seen before. Kids can more easily learn about something if they see it up close. Opening arguments. 1: Zoos keep endangered animals, like Asian elephants, and the giant panda. A variety of international and U.S. laws offer protection to endangered species. Depending on the law, it may be a crime to capture or kill listed species, fail to act to recover them, or harm their habitat or range. The Endangered Species Act lists more than 1,200 U.S. plant and animal species as endangered or threatened with the possibility of becoming endangered. The law requires recovery plans to ultimately delist species. The IUCN-World Conservation Union maintains a record"the Red List"of the world's species that are threatened with extinction. The Red List now includes 16,928 species"more than 8,400 animals and more than 8,400 plants"that are critically endangered, endangered, or vulnerable. Signed by more than 160 countries, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) is an agreement to restrict trade of more than 30,000 species of animals and plants, including live and dead specimens (such as marmosets) and parts (such as ivory). Other laws and treaties"such as the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles"have a narrower focus. 2: Like I said before, A new international study of zoos and aquariums shows that these family attractions do teach the public about the delicate balance between animal species and their habitats. Sociologist Eric Jensen from the University of Warwick worked with Andy Moss from Chester Zoo and the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA) on the largest study of its kind to assess if these facilities did achieve their public education goals. information from: 1: http://nationalzoo.si.edu... 2: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk...
THBT important decisions about children"s health should be made by medical professionals and not by

You are correct in saying i did continually use the word "usually" as I try to refrain from bold blanket statements such as " Parents are unable to look far into the future concerning the children's healthcare." simply untrue. You continue to assert a sort of undertone, that all parents are completely incompetent. Another example of this being "In many cases, parents enter a state of denial, and refuse to accept their childrens' ailments, which will lead to harm, and possible death." This is a very bold and foolish guess, and I am sure you would agree. It would take a parent with a serious mental condition to just deny that their bedridden child coughing blood is completely fine. You go on to say that "a child diagnosed with lung cancer would send parents into a frenzy due to their emotional attachment, while a doctor could detatchedly make the most efficient choice" So the point that you are making is that when a child is diagnosed with a sort of terminal illness, their parents are so distraught that they transform into a primal idiot incapable of making rational decisions. If not I don't see why a parent would not go to extreme lengths to get their child help. It is a very rare occurrence, if at all, that parents whose children are diagnosed with cancer simply ignore it and refuse them treatment, and that seems to be one of the main points of your last round. "you admit that there is room for error." Yes I do admit that there is an insignificant fraction of parents who make ridiculous medical decisions, however the mistakes of such a small number of incompetent people is not enough basis for a national policy that forces parents to listen to doctors. Not anywhere near it. This is a matter of simply weighing the pros and cons. In all honesty the pro's are extremely scarce while it seems the cons have broken the scale.
THBT important decisions about children"s health should be made by medical professionals and not by

Yes, I assumed that the reason why you claimed that doctors prescribe unnecessary drugs is for their own benefit, yet if you intend to say that they just prescribe these drugs in general, then I apologize. Yet this enforces my case, for if a medical professional with at least 8 years of schooling on his practice fails to correctly diagnosis the patient, then the parents certainly will not! You use terms like "usually," yet this means that you admit that there is room for error. In many cases, parents enter a state of denial, and refuse to accept their childrens' ailments, which will lead to harm, and possible death. You also say that when a parent rejects a doctor's prescription, it is "usually" justified. Again, there is an admission to error. Remember the case of denial brought up in the previous paragraph. What if parents disagree over a medical decission? what of children in an orphanage with no real mother or father (orphanages may skimp on operations or procedures due to lack of connection) ? And what of parents who have in the past abused their children and are afraid of this discovery? These are just some cases in which a stalemate occurs, and the child in question suffers unnessesarily. Also, remember my argument about an ou-of-practice doctor. You claim that parents who reject doctor's advice are "usually justified." Therefore, any doctor giving quack advice would be put out of business and otherwise gain a bad reputation for parents' tendencies to make the right decision about their children. One last thing. Parents are unable to look far into the future concerning the children's healthcare (unless they themselves are trained professionals), and would therefore want the least painful, least intrusive, and consequently, not always the most affective decision. An example: a child diagnosed with lung cancer would send parents into a frenzy due to their emotional attatchment, while a doctor could detatchedly make the most efficient choice.-
THBT important decisions about children"s health should be made by medical professionals and not by

It seems that your entire post revolves around me apparently saying that doctors are only interested in monetary gain. NOT ONCE did i say that, or even imply that. I'm assuming, however, that you must be referring to "doctors would prefer more often than not to prescribe medication for ailments witch don't necessarily require them" This is not in anyway saying doctors are "interested only in monetary gain", but rather pointing out that doctors very commonly refer patients medication for problems such as depression, ADD, ADHD, or anxiety, that while in some cases are necessary, in many they are not. And because of this, the idea of forcing parents to listen to doctors is absurd. I would never try to imply that all doctors are malicious money hungry liars. "but when their child's condition becomes serious, a bowl of chicken soup may not be enough." You seem to be relying on an all or noting basis, as if this argument is a choice between forcing obedience to doctors, or not having doctors. You are right, bowl of soup wont always be enough. And when it isn't, parents in almost all cases take there kids to the doctor. I understand that in some cases it would be better to force parents to listen to their doctor, however you must admit that the majority of parents do listen to the doctor, and when they don't their reasons are usually justified. While i do see whee you are coming from, the benefits of this medical dictatorship, if you will, are far outweighed by the number of problems and the sheer amount outrage it would certainly cause.
THBT important decisions about children"s health should be made by medical professionals and not by

First, I will refute my opponent's argument before continuing on to state my contentions. The opposition claims that because doctors are interested only in monetary gain, decisions made by doctors would be inferior to the parents'. First of all, the opposition makes the assumption that all doctors are only interested in money. Although this may be true in some circumstances, doctors rely on patients for business. If parents did not agree with the doctors' diagnosis, the patients would not be patronizing with that doctor, in effect putting that doctor out of business. Also, remember that the doctor must take the Hippocratic oath. Doctor's sole intentions are NOT to create a profit by giving their patients treatments, nor to extort them. Doctors are sworn to an oath in which they dedicate themselves to saving lives. Sexual intercourse does not require a such oath is the only requirement to be a parent. Despite this, not all parents lack qualifications. Some are indeed loving, caring, and tried for many years to conceive. This may seem like benefit to their children's health, but when their child's condition becomes serious, a bowl of chicken soup may not be enough. No parent wishes for their child to undergo invasive surgery even though, without it their child will not survive. Doctors may seem to be cold professionals, and that is exactly what they are, for better and for worse.
THBT important decisions about children"s health should be made by medical professionals and not by

At first glance your proposal appeared reasonable enough as there are plenty of incompetent parents. Take for example, Christian Scientists, who refuse medical treatment in hopes that a being in the sky should will away any ailments or trauma. Taking this into account, it seems that having licensed professionals making the most educated decisions for our youth would be a great idea, and in a perfect world it is. Unfortunately this is not a perfect world. It is a world where many people cant afford, or get time off of work, for certain procedures or treatments. It is a world where doctors would prefer more often than not to prescribe medication for ailments witch don't necessarily require them. Its rare to find any behind the counter medication without a newspaper sized list of possible side affects and complications. It isn't hard to see why some people would prefer less "mainstream" treatments. Do I really need to stuff adderall down little Billy's throat because hes dozing off in class? No. Many "professionals" however, would disagree. While there are plenty of idiots raising their children, there are plenty more parents doing a perfectly fine job. And while doctors do have a far greater knowledge in medicine, they do not necessarily know what is best for the worlds kids.