BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Legalizing Gay marriage

I will refute my old way:"OK, there are many sick people in this world who abuse others and harass young children. But is most of them gay? we never know. Not every homosexual is capable of harming any human being on the planet."Yes sick straight people do it too, but I have proven my case that a homosexual is more likely to be odd. I wish this wasn't the case and that it was all lower levels of harassment. But I have proven that homosexuals are more likely to molest children, you have no cunter evidence, hence the point stands. But for fun one more osurce n the issue." the incidence of homosexuals molesting children is up to 40 times greater than heterosexuals, she said." [1]Also the source states just because your gay, =/= molester, but statistics show homosexuals molest a more often. "Denying same-sex couples the right to marry stigmatizes gay and lesbian families as inferior and sends the message that it is acceptable to discriminate against them."Being opponsed, and having SSM bans, are not discrimatory. [2] Here's the logic;"The New York Times sermonizes that denying gays marriage deprives them of equal protection. That argument is erroneous, for when we allow people of differing religion, race, gender or sexual orientation to participate and share in categories defined equally for all, discrimination does not exist. " [2]"Under the legal system prior to the legalization of such unions, anyone was free to marry someone of the opposite gender, no matter your gender, race, religion, economic status, or sexual orientation. You are free to marry someone of the opposite gender, and the law is applied equally to all people, so banning “gay marriage” is not discrimination. " [3]Make sense?"Everyone this this country deserves to be happy, gay or not. What other evidence do I need to prove that."1. Marriage is about procreion, as I have proved and you dropped the argument. 2. They are such a small population it hardly matters. 3. There is no evidence proving marriage helps LGBT people. [4]=conclusion=I have refuted her arguments, whilst she has dopped much of my case, hence I have won the debate. I urge a pro vote.-out of room-sources:http://sbcbaptistpress.org... [1]http://catholiceducation.org... [2]http://www.freerepublic.com... [3]http://www.catholic.com... [4]
Legalizing Gay marriage

OK, there are many sick people in this world who abuse others and harass young children. But is most of them gay? we never know. Not every homosexual is capable of harming any human being on the planet. If a homosexual couple adopts a child, will the adoption agency stop them mainly because they are who they are? There are many types of families in this world and that's one of the many ways this country is diverse. Now, back to Gay marriage: Denying same-sex couples the right to marry stigmatizes gay and lesbian families as inferior and sends the message that it is acceptable to discriminate against them. The last thing our country needs is discrimination. Denying gay marriage can show that his country only has one way of being happily married. Sure there are many victims of abuse, disease etc., but not all homosexual couples are like that. It very stereotypical that others are bashing homosexuals because they believe that all of them are capable of molesting a child or attempting to flirt with someone of the same sex. Everyone this this country deserves to be happy, gay or not. What other evidence do I need to prove that. Sources used http://gaymarriage.procon.org...
Legalizing Gay marriage

Thanks for the response :) Her first argument is a lesbian couple she knew. I never meant every homosexual had problems, not I said on average they had more. Ex: on average Americans are less intelligent then Europeans, yet this doesnt imply all are less intelligent. As this us one couple and a misinterpretation I ask this be cancelled. Then her statistics on adoption. She forgets: this isnt procreation. Adoption is no substitute as they are not adding kids to the workforce, rather moving them. Also she says it may be horrific under heterosexual parents, yes correct, but realize homosexuals have higher abuse rates. Abuse among gay couples: A Canadian study said abuse between partners was 2 times More likely then in a heterosexual relationship. (1) Ex; Steves hitting adams are more likely then Adam hitting eve. An American study also says abuse among gay couples is 2-3 times more common then among heterosexual ones. (2) This study cites male- male relationships are 16 times more likely to abuse eachother then heterosexual ones. (3) Ok stats here done. Abuse towards kids: Gays on average are more attracted to younger people. (4) gays commit 1/3 of child abuse, their 3% of the population, so percentage wise gays are more likely to abuse. (4) Why did this go to adoption? Please continue back to SSM. Also extend arguments as only 1 is being refuted right now. Sources: http://www.statcan.ca... (1) http://www.acpeds.org... (2) http://www.familyresearchinst.org... (3) http://www.frc.org... (4)
Legalizing Gay marriage

I actually know a lesbian couple, who are married and have had children from men before they even knew each other. As I see them everyday, I see how happy they are and how they make society different in a good way. They don't have AIDS, problems at home, or any sign that they are abusing their children. Like my opponent pointed out, studies show that homosexual couples are more likely to have abusive relationships and molest their adoptive children. So does that mean they would eventually get into a violent argument and/or molest their children? NO. Gay & Lesbian couples with adoption: In 1976, there were between 300,000 to 500,000 gay and lesbian biological parents. In 1990, 6 to 14 million children had at least one gay or lesbian parent. Between 8 and 10 million children were being raised in gay and lesbian households. In 1999, approximately 547,000 children in foster care in the US, 117,000 legally free for adoption. There were only qualified adoptive families available for only twenty percent of them. Ten percent of the US population is homosexual, meaning a lot of couples whose biological resources for children are reduced are currently prevented from filling in the adoption gap Latest statistics from the U.S. Census 2000, the National Survey of Family Growth (2002), and the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (2004) include: -An estimated two million GLB people are interested in adopting. -An estimated 65,500 adopted children are living with a lesbian or gay parent. -More than 16,000 adopted children are living with lesbian and gay parents in California, the highest number among the states. -Gay and lesbian parents are raising four percent of all adopted children in the United States. -Adopted children with same-sex parents are younger and more likely to be foreign born. As I mentioned in the previous argument, gay and lesbian couples adopting is not horrific in some cases. Who says only a woman and a man can raise a child? Though it is the "right thing" for society, there are any kinds of family households, and that is one of the many reasons on what makes this country diverse. Sources used..you wanted evidence ;) http://www.loveandpride.com... http://adoption.about.com...
Putin's Russia is not democratic

"Putin's government tampers with regional elections. The Kremlin coerces politicians into switching party lines and pledging loyalty to Putin's government. Local politicians who are afraid of or were bought by the Kremlin then work to sway the voters in the way that Putin wants." This is not an example of an undemocratic state, it is merely an example of elements of coruption that go on in political fields, although a deal more potently in in the Russian Federation than in other countries. "Putin used reforms and arbitrary enforcement of the law to gain support from oligarchs and the economic elite. This amounts to using government power to secure campaign financing." A poltical party letting its campaign finace interests influence the way it governs? Could it be? Are you saying this problem is void in other parts of the liberal-democratic world? Its not like Big Oil or the major Pharmatceticals have any influce in Washington... Your assertions that the election observers didn't bleive it to be an actual democratic contest is one of interest, but subjective. As the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe stated "the elections were generally well administrated and reflected the consistently high public approval rating of the incumbent president" and "The Presidential Election Law and the Basic Guarantees of Electoral Rights Law provided the legal framework for the presidential elections, laying down conditions for the transparency in the organisation and conduct of the election." Another group, PACE backed up the Council's assertions with this relase "credit should be given to the election administration which ensured security and professional conduct of the voting process". Media was not completly restricted to the opposition, although the Kremlin did have a little extra time putting their own views through state-subtized advertising. But Canadian taxpayers paid for anti-sepratist rallies durign the 1995 referendum and Americans launch many PSAs relating to public, interest, and it is not unknown for a partisna slap to come out occasionally.
Putin's Russia is not democratic

Wow... you wrote a lot... I not sure if I should have made this a 3-rounder anymore... sigh... oh well Despite your great mass of words many of your points overlap. One of your most common incorrect assertions is that liberty and democracy are the same thing. They are not. "The democratic method is that institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions which realizes the common good by making the people itself decide issues through the election of individuals who are to assemble in order to carry out its will." (http://economics.about.com...) Democracy is merely a system of government in which the people decide their rulers, and the covenent betweeen the leadership and the citizenry is renewed every few years or so. Russia certainly has passed for that, and there is not a doubt in anyone's mind that any election would show that United Russia has nothing but the utmost confidence of the vast majoirty of Russian centers. It is also well organized, not in any form of sketchy anarchy. You however seem to beleive that elections must competitive for demcracy to be alive. This is untrue, my country during the 90's for example was dominated by vast Liberal governemnts because the right-wing parties were under no common front, thus ensuring a Liberal victory several times with no possible chance for any other party to form a government, yet no one challenges our coutry's allegiegance to democracy because although the elections were not compeititve, they, like Putin's were not rigged. I am not challenging in anyway Freedom House's classification of Russia as a "Not Free" country becuase it isn't free. It is not a free countries, but still has free and relativily fair elections (though the last one some skepticism was suggested, the previous ones have been given good grades by observers). Our western countries are a different type of democracy, called "liberal-democracy" because it enshrines that things such as freedom of speech must be protected, but this is not a fact in Russia. Russia is what one calls an "Absolute Democracy" that is to say, one that listens to its citiznery no matter what, even it means deleting freedom of the press or abrdinging civl liberties. I for one prefer a liberal-democracy over majoratalism any day, but my personal views do not change the Russian constitution. As for censoring the press, even Western democracies have resorted to that in some cases, particualry during war time (like WW2) and communist media outlets have been banned in my country on a few occasions. Just becuase it os wrong doesn't mean its not democratic. Your turn Raisor.
Putin's Russia is not democratic

First of I would like to point out that I am not really a Putin fan. Although lots of his economic polcies have helped his country retain some of its majesty he has many things wrong with him. For one his country's UN delegates have been supporting Iran and Sudan and put their own interest above human rights or international secuirty (though the CIA say that Iran's not as dangerous as was previosuly believed). In addition his country still lacks basic freedoms (like press), but this does not mean it is not democratic. Most election observers agree that electoral fraud was minimal at worst and one can most certainly not refute that he has the support of the Russian populace behind him, with popularity ratings about double Bush's. And isn't that the defintion of democracy? To have elections that accuratly point the people's choice of leadership? Certainly Russia's values are the same as free liberal-democratic states and their constutution differs from ours and they aren't really a free country but that does not mean they are not a democracy.
MMA(Mixed Martial Arts)is the most complete contact sport in the world today.

Many people argue that one of the main features of a sport IS teamwork, and learning to work together to achieve a goal. The main point of a teammate is to work together to take down the opposing team, not so that you have someone to lean on. This is a technicality, but if you do happen to lose, a whole bunch of other people could be blamed. Say, if your theoretical wife had a theoretical baby, which took out of your training time because you're a good theoretical father, you could place blame on others. You could also be injured by another, hampering your display of "extreme athleticism" while competing.
MMA(Mixed Martial Arts)is the most complete contact sport in the world today.

"Many people argue that one of the main features of a sport IS teamwork, and learning to work together to achieve a goal." There are many more individual sports than there are team sports, so those people would be wrong. Look at the olympics. Wrestling, javelin, shot put, gymnastics, discus, not many team sports. Because the purest test of an athlete is one on one against another athlete. Team sports take away from an athlete. There is no "I" in team, because everyone is dependent on each other to win. In football there are 11 men on the field for each team, it doesn't matter if one or two give 110%, if the other 9 guys slack off you lose, and your labeled a loser by association. Don't get me wrong, I love football, but the quality of athlete you have to be in MMA is much higher. You have to be fast, strong, smart, an expert in kickboxing, wrestling, Jui-jitsu, and have miles of heart. You have so much more you have to use to compete with cause there is nobody there to pick up the slack for you, it is just you and your opponent. "Say, if your theoretical wife had a theoretical baby, which took out of your training time because you're a good theoretical father, you could place blame on others. You could also be injured by another, hampering your display of "extreme athleticism" while competing." Injuries happen all the time, no fighter fights at 100%, if they do they aren't training hard enough. That is the difference between normal athletes and fighters, a fighter would never blame anyone else for their loss. You have to have a certain spirit to get into the ring, or octagon, or cage. A warrior spirit won't blame their wife, baby, or injury. That is just ridiculous. I challenge you to name a contact sport that requires more athleticism.
Tobacco smoking should be banned to a necessary extent

Since we were separated at birth and have many of the same opinions, I have the feeling that this will be a fun and productive debate. My resolution is simple and easy to understand. I believe that tobacco rights are justifiable and necessary. However, there should be public regulations since it affects everyone's health who is the same vicinity of the smoker. But on private property, it's at the owner's discretion of who can and cannot smoke. The law that you have to be over 18 to buy cigarettes should still be enforced. There should also be designated "smoking areas" to minimize exposure to second-hand smoke. But to make it illegal to smoke around those who don't want to smell/inhale second-hand smoke is nearly impossible to enforce so other ways of regulation (like designated areas to smoke) would be more useful. I agree with the rules put forward. Let's begin!
Tobacco smoking should be banned to a necessary extent

I believe tobacco smoking should be banned to whatever extent is necessary. This would not include a person smoking in the privacy of their own home and not in the presence of children or anyone not wishing to be exposed to the smoke. Simply put, the ban I propose makes tobacco smoking illegal around children or anyone who does not wish to be smoked around. Con's argument may focus on particulars, I don't require that she argue for 100% legalization including around infants or anything. So long as, by and large, tobacco legalization is being argued for. Rules: 1. The first round will be used to agree to the rules and definitions. If there are any disagreements on either, they can be discussed in the Comments section before Con agrees to the debate, so they can be changed. 2. The remaining rounds will be used to debate. 3. Excessively semantic arguments should be avoided.
Universities prefer Liberal arts programs over special professional degree programs in undergrad ed.

since my opponent has failed to post an argument there is nothing for me to refute so I will just make a few points on the matter observation1- what do you mean by Universities? is it all universities? or specific universities? or private universities? observation2- since my opponent made relative the word "universities" then it must be all university's can you say what universitys actually want does the university at Montepellier prefer the same programs as the Texas lutheran university and if they don't then wouldn't that make whoever's for this resolution by default wrong observation3- since "universities" is relative and the resolution is subjective this begs the question how should this resolution be debated? contention 1- The liberal arts cover a wide range of academic disciplines: art, classics, language, literature, philosophy and much more. Completing a Doctorate in Liberal Arts generally prepares you to become a university professor, but certain concentrations can lead you into nonacademic fields. this is very interesting if you learn about everything you can become a professor, but who is actually or who in general wants to become a professor nowadays and if a doctors gets you to become a professor imagine what a masters does a teacer at some praised private school and then it probably goes down hill from there
Universities prefer Liberal arts programs over special professional degree programs in undergrad ed.

since my opponent has let me go or be first I will set the standards and definitions for the debate liberal arts will be studies intended to provide general knowledge and intellectual skills rather than occupational or professional skills and professional degree a field of study to make a living such as law witch u graduated from a university or college to show you're qualified and program will be a class and I think we all know what undergrad is but I'll define it as a university or college student who has not yet refused his first degree and any arguments that are in contradiction to the standards set should be disregarded no matter how good they may be since you allowed me the courtesy of beginning I'll set the rules now "special" will be above or in higher value of so for example a class of law that is higher than those of regular law classes now on to the debate universities do not prefer students who are learning in a relative realm they prefer students who study in a subjective better put universities don't want to invest into students who are learning in the general unless it is political science they want students who are going to "contribute to society" students for example that are in law will change the world one case at a time the resolution placed above is trying to make a statement but what if you were to place a do in front of it ( the resolution) it would have completely changed the debate any whom I do not believe in placing one's profession above the other but here in these circumstances and the circumstances being that in the resolution anyone who goes into liberal arts will only be in classes and not get a degree contrary to those in "special" professional programs who will get a degree so universities are not going to prefer liberal arts when all the students who want a degree are going to professional degree programs so now I ask my opponent if he would go to liberal arts program or special professional degree programs plural since there are many professions and I do not believe the word programs after liberal arts should be plural since taking a program is basically a general knowledge of everything no one wants to be a lawyers clerk when they can be the actual lawyer
A Resolution To Eliminate Texas Top 10% Admittance Rule

Hello this is my first online debate. I wish luck to whomever my opponent is, let's begin shall we. I am here to speak in negation for eliminating the top 10% admittance rule which is a rule that allows the top 10% of a class to get admittance into any College or university of their choice. The rule was passed in 1997 to make sure that there was no discrimination against races when it came to admittance in colleges and universities. The top 10% rule has shown some positive benefits such as 1. students admitted under the rule get better grades then other students and graduate at higher rates, 2. Racial diversity has improved in some colleges, and 3. Economic and geographic diversity have improved as well. The rule is also positive because it gives students at school something to strive for and therefore encourages them to try better. Many people claim the rule is unfair because one school's top 10% could be another school's top 40% and they claim it's unfair as well because there may be hidden talent at the top 20% but the rule is only to the top 10%. Senator Royce west said in a meeting discussing this topic "They are students from every walk of life in the state of Texas- Urban, Rural, Black, White, Hispanic" and as senator west asked I to ask "what is wrong with that" why is this rule so bad? someone awnser me that. references: http://blogs.usatoday.com... http://www.citytowninfo.com... http://www.chron.com...