BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
These scenarios ought to be treated equally in the eyes of the law.

Let me begin by thanking Ragnar_Rahl for agreeing to debate with me. Case Pro- Rebuttals ========= Contention 1: Pregnancies in school ========= This debate isn't concerned with what laws should be in place to prevent teachers from having sex with students in the future. You are arguing about what laws should be in place to prohibit this kind of behavior. We are debating how the teachers in my situations should be prosecuted after the fact. I made this absolutely clear when I wrote the following. ----> "The resolution states that, "These scenarios ought to be treated equally in the eyes of the law." By this the resolution affirms that these teachers should all be prosecuted to the same extent with no differences in the way they are dealt with." (Case Pro) Round 1 You can't prosecute someone for a crime they haven't committed therefore this contention must be dismissed. This debate clearly assumes that the crimes have already been committed. We are looking at the behavior of four different teachers and examining whether each of them should be punished to the same degree. If the word prosecuted had been replaced with the word prohibited in the guideline then maybe this contention could stand. Again, we are dealing with situations after they have occurred and we are looking at how they should be prosecuted from there. ======== Contention 2: The addition of pregnancies violates the guidelines I set up. ======== ----> "For the purpose of clarity let us assume all four of these events are completely identical apart from the gender of the people involved." (Case Pro) Round 1 This guideline would necessarily entail the view that none of the situations I outlined resulted in a pregnancy because it would be impossible for all four situations to end up in a pregnancy. If one of the teachers in my scenarios got their student pregnant that would make for a very different legal scenario. As you have already pointed out scenarios 2 and 4 are incapable of producing pregnancies. In order for them to all be identical none of could end up in a pregnancy. I did this to avoid the addition of other variables that could be thrown in. ======= Conclusion ======= Since no valid arguments have been put forth defending the position that scenarios 1-4 should be prosecuted differently then I extend my original argument. Furthermore your argument, if I understand it correctly, has the absurd effect of allowing teachers to have sex with their students as long as they could ensure these relationships don't end up in pregnancies. What exactly are you saying; that lesbian teacher should be allowed to have sex with their female students because they can't get each other pregnant. All the best, Freeman
These scenarios ought to be treated equally in the eyes of the law.

Teachers employed by public high schools should be strictly prohibited by a law governing the contracts by which teachers may be signed from options 1 and 3, yet not options 2 and 4 (e.g. it should be illegal to sign a teacher without a clause that prohibits heterosexual student-teacher sex, and, naturally, illegal for them to violate this clause). The reason for this is that they are creating a risk of pregnancy. Teachers impregnating students or being impregnated by students ensures that both ends of the system result in a highly precarious situation-- A pregnancy or an abortion are both rather bad for academic performance, and a teacher is paid to ensure high academic performance of his students. A mere afterglow is nothing compared to the distraction of either of these possibilities, especially when BOTH parties are distracted and so neither can help snap the other out of it.
If We Legalize Gay Marriage, We Must Enact Protection Laws for the Rights of Churches!

Extra legislation most certainly could be harmful. Legislators with backwards agendas and the lobbyists buzzing in the ears of said legislators have a way of working unfair privileges into laws like these. Superfluous legislation is always a bad thing. At the very least, it wastes the money of taxpayers. Until it can be proven that such legislation is needed, it should not be enacted.
If We Legalize Gay Marriage, We Must Enact Protection Laws for the Rights of Churches!

okay well seeing as i am running out of time and I have been unable to locate the article on foxnews I will drop the article and I will attempt to close with this. Because of my inability to locate the article I will for my opponent argue as if such and event has yet to occur. First, I ask this. How long before something like this does happen??? Judges aren't all perfect and it WILL happen. Just the idea brings me to this point... my opponent says the current laws are enough. the fact the we are, in fact debating on it says that there is doubt as to whether that is true. If there is doubt, then why not pass the extra legislation??? Even if there isnt doubt then why not pass the extra legislation just for extra security of the religious. I skate. I can go out with a helmet and Ill be fine. I know this. But shouldnt I wear the extra pads just in case??? Of course i should. Its a safety precaution. The same rule applies to the protection of our churches. The constitution is vague on just where exactly faith and the law create friction. Why not pass the more specific legislation and dispel any confusion? Better safe than sorry. and heck!!! furthermore... it could very well be a catalyst to compromise. The gays get their right to marriage and the churches get their right to have nothing to do with it. No rights are violated and everyone gets at least part of what they want. Compromise is the foundation of our current government. Its how our founding father solved their disputes and it has been behind every successful bit of legislation in our history. Passing this legislation is a key to compromise. So to sum it up. 1. It doesnt hurt us, so what do we have to lose??? Its only extra protection. It would be foolish not to take it! 2. It could the way too cool down the heat on the topic of gay marriage. It would show that the government cares about both parties. Compromise baby... compromise.
If We Legalize Gay Marriage, We Must Enact Protection Laws for the Rights of Churches!

How can you say that the current laws are enough???? It already happened! Clearly the current laws aren't enough! I agree that they should be, but as long as their are "liberal" judges, they wont be. As far as providing the article goes, I am going to have to steal the link from my mother who is currently sleeping, seeing as it is 5:48 in the morning I will provide one as soon as I have one. I have been able to find mention of it a few times if i googled with key words like Homosexual Sueing Church Methodist New Jersey
If We Legalize Gay Marriage, We Must Enact Protection Laws for the Rights of Churches!

I myself am pro gay-marriage. The way I see it, homosexuals have a right to live a homosexual lifestyle if they choose, whether I agree with it or not. Now I am not here to argue whether or not gay marriage should be legal. If my opponent does, I will refrain from posting any further arguments and I would ask the voters to vote PRO. What I am arguing is that if we legalize gay marriage, we must pass legislation protecting the rights of churches to refuse to perform such a marriage. I myself am a religous person. When I read an article about a homosexual couple who sued a church that refused to perform their marriage I was disgusted!!! The church was forced to perform the marraige on the grounds that to refuse based on sexual orientation was discrimination. Now I thought that this was a ridiculous ruling because there was a whole other aspect of this case that was ignored. There was a very clear and blatant violation of the church's freedom of religion! The church was forced to perform a marriage that was against their faith. That is a very clear violation of their religious rights. Now this disturbed me. It was one church, but if we legalize gay marriage, it will be lots of churches. It could very well be my religious leaders that will be forced to violate their religious beliefs because of a court ruling. There are many churches that will perform gay marriages and those that wont should not be governmentally forced to violate their beliefs. Many would see this as being forced to sin against god! Anyway, my point is this... If we legalize gay marriage, a church's or a religious leaders rights to refuse to perform the marriage must be entact! We must pass legislation to protect it!
Americans should stop slacking and work harder.

I am afraid my opponent is being complacent. Merely asserting "We are "Merica" is not enough to stop foreigners eating Americans" lunch. Unless Americans buck their ideas up quickly I forecast it won't be long before hordes of Mexican savages swarm across the border into the United States and, as a result, American fruit-pickers, cleaners and truck drivers will lose their jobs en-masse to these cheap, hard-working Mexicans. Unless something is done quickly there will be a Mexican restaurant in every major city, Mexican waiters will be eyeing-up the womenfolk and Mexican cartels will put traditional, all-American drug dealers out of business. Americans need to act now before it's too late, they need to stop slacking and work harder! Thank you.
Americans should stop slacking and work harder.

Americans only work 1,790 hours a year, even though the USA is the only developed country not to have the right to annual leave enshrined in law meaning that they work more days per year than other Western nations. (1) Compare that to the sombrero and poncho-clad, tequila-slurping, hat-dancing Mexican layabouts south of the border who work 2,226 hours a year. And what about those swarthy, plate-smashing, EU-bailout-grasping, work-shy Greeks? They work 2,034 hours a year. Even the idle, pan-flute-playing, llama-beaters in Chile work 2,029 hours a year. (2) It's time Americans spent less time slobbing about on the sofa scoffing McDonald's and guzzling Coke and more time out at work earning a living, don't you think? (1) http://www.law.harvard.edu... (2) http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org...
Is Dubstep a type of music

OK, my opponent must be a weak minded kid who is probably 8 yrs. old. Drum and Bass is the classic drums. And techno is from the 70's. How could that make it Salsa. Secondly, Dubstep is considered dance music on ITunes. So he is correct in saying it's Dance. However, Dubstep is the music that is sweeping over today's teenagers and young adults. Therefore, Dubstep is a type of music!
Is Dubstep a type of music

My opponent stated that Dubstep is a type of music from the 1970s in america, he also stated that it included some drum and base from cuba. Dubstep as defined by the Apple online dictionary is "fast paced dance music with electronic effects" first i would like to state that the music defined by my opponent is Salsa or Latino, not dubstep. i will wait for the next round to attack the statement "Dubstep is music"
Science and Math Degrees Should be Respected More Than Liberal Arts Degrees

"The majority of the 15 most popular jobs do not require any sort of degree so that is irrelevant" This is another fallacy. You do not understand what the word "useful" means. I will make this word available for people to see: Useful: being of use or service; serving some purpose; advantageous, helpful [1]. Usefulness does not refer to whether or not a degree is required for a job or not. Usefulness refers to something that gives an advantage, is helpful, or otherwise serves some purpose. Of the 15 most popular jobs in America, Liberal Arts degrees would be more useful because the skills and values gained in attaining the degree would have positive effects on applying for more kinds of jobs than a math or science degree could ever provide for. You use reasoning everywhere you go as it is an integral part of critical thinking and decision making. A math or science degree would only be useful to the professions and careers that use those kinds of skills, since those skills are specialized. "Performing arts and many other liberal arts majors are only useful for their particular subject." The same could be said for chemical engineering degrees, marine biology degrees, and many other math & science degrees, since knowing things like organic nomenclature are specific to only chemistry. When are you ever going to use 18-bromo-12-butyl-11-chloro-4,8-diethyl-5-hydroxy-15-methoxytricos-6,13-diene-19-yne-3,9-dione in any other field than chemistry? Liberal arts provides people skills that math and science degrees don't provide [2]. It is also said that people skills come from a well rounded education that "makes you a more interesting person" [2]. "The majority of intelligent and focused college student choose math and science majors." Prove it. You made the statement, you have the burden of proof. In Summary: - Liberal arts degrees are more useful than Math and Science degrees. Employers are looking for skills that can benefit them. A graduate with a well rounded liberal arts education would have more skills when applying for many jobs that science and math degrees don't provide for. - People with liberal arts degrees are usually better thinkers and communicators due to a more well rounded education. Even though science and math degrees require basic English and communication, they lack a more well rounded education, specializing in only one or two areas of science and math. Many more companies would respect more people who have communication skills than people who have skills in naming organic compounds since chemistry is a specific industry. In terms of respect of degrees, my opponent has failed to explain why science and math degrees should be more respected than liberal arts degrees. He gives advantages of math and science degrees, but does not explain why they should be more respected. Sources: [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] http://www.fastweb.com... [3] http://www.bmartin.cc... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Science and Math Degrees Should be Respected More Than Liberal Arts Degrees

I am arguing that math and science degrees should be respected more than liberal arts degrees. Math and science degrees are more useful in today's world. We live in an era of technology. Subjects such as philosophy or english are not respected anymore if a country wants to be competitive with the rest of the world. That is why liberal arts majors have some of the highest unemployment rates. Math and science majors have to know basic psychology, they have to know how to read and write, and they have to be able to think critically. The advantage of a math or science major is that they have the added knowledge of math or science along with the liberal arts stuff. Math and science is important for engineering, medicine, finance, and other fields. Very few liberal arts degrees are as useful and there are limited career options. For example, an english degree is good if you want to be some sort of writer or an english teacher, but otherwise it is useless. Philosophy is basically just a degree in thinking. Everyone should be able to think. You do not need a degree for it. Math and science degrees also earn more respect because they are harder to get. Math and science classes require more intelligence, more focus, more studying, and more effort. Math and science requires you to memorize information and apply it to a problem. I look forward to seeing what you have to say as well. =)
Cats and Dogs are food too

I dont know why you keep puting up sorces. They are not adressing the question that cats and dogs should not be eaten, these sorces of yours are not on topic they are more like random paste of websites. I know you say that human bone structure was made so that we eat eachother, so what. We are talking about animals here! I belive that cats and dogs are not a good source of food that is the only reason I think we shouldnt eat them. They reason cows, and other animals like them are killed is because they have more meat, and better texture. And not to say they dont give people sickness as much as dog and cats would. I think that I won because of pro's lack of staying on topic, and for his non-sence sorces. Thanks to the people that are reading this hope I helped you understand why animals should be loved and petted!!!
Cats and Dogs are food too

This is an insane topic. I accepted beause i kown that people wont agree with the con, i mean just read the topic. No one in there right mind would eat cat, and dog meat. Yes china eats them but look where that got them, they are slowly plumnting to there own great depreasion. And look at africa, they eat dog meat look where that got them at the bottom of the world looking up to all the normal people. Also dogs dont have that much edible meat, that is why people are starving in china and africa. These countries are insane, and look were it got them nowhere.
Cats and Dogs are food too

So the main idea of my debate is "Why not?"People in America are usually disgusted when the topic of slaughter and animal cruelty occcur. They always reject it when people show the pictures of where the beef they consume comes from. (This is an assumption but it is likely)So, I would say that this is an unpopular opinion but I respect the people who eat dogs and cats. They understand that all animals are food, there is no norm of just eating cows or chickensIt is illeagal to sell dog and cat meat at the supermarket but it is ok for your own personal consumption so basically all of this is legal.People need to understand that there can be benifits to eating dog meat.http://www.naturalnews.com...This source has a good article on how eating beef can be even more dangerous than eating dog meatThis is a valid reason for why people should eat dog meat.Now I suspect that you are going to bring up the disadvantages of eating dog meat but here is a quote from wikipedia"For example, in China, local economy revolved around agriculture in ancient times. Dogs didn't play a big role like Europe. On the contrary, every ancient Chinese government instituted some protective policies for farm cattle, even illegal to be slaughtered in some cases. In this way, some Chinese think Westerners are pressing their own values on them. Dogs are not born to be companion friends for them."This explains everything I am debating. I am going to hold for now, I await your reply.
God does not exist.

God does not exist. There is no evidence or proof to back up the belief that he exists. Its exclaimed that there is no proof that he also does not exist but there is one fatal flaw in that belief. He is defined as being omnipotent and omniscient and therefore would have no reason to hide his existence from us. The human mind gave birth to the thought of the all-powerful god to give hope to existence back in times when people were surrounded by despair and destruction.
God does not exist.

You also failed to put the entire definition that is stated. The entire definition is "to have being in a specified place or under certain conditions; be found; occur: Hunger exists in many parts of the world."(1) If it is found or has occured extends only to reality and not conscious thought. The fact that you would let consious thought automatically make something real contradicts your whole religon. If i made up another god then according to your point that makes it exist and according to the monothelistic religon there is only one god. This entire argument was based on contradicting me. Next time i would like an argument against an opponent that actually has some opinions and doesn't just put the quickest thought that comes to his mind to counterpoint what i state. Thank you.
God does not exist.

I negate the resolution, "God does not exist. " Although my opponent defines "God" in his first round argumentation, he failed to define "exist. " Thus, the definition of "exist" for this debate shall be: exist - to have being in a specified place or under certain conditions; be found; occur [1] My opponent quotes: "The human mind gave birth to the thought of the all-powerful god to give hope to existence back in times when people were surrounded by despair and destruction. " My opponent states that the human mind gave birth to the thought of the all-powerful God back in old times. However, merely giving thought of God recognizes His being in a specified place and under certain conditions. The condition would limit oneself to being a Christian, and the being in a specified place would account for the Christians' mindset and thoughts of God having being. Thus, my opponent has already contradicted himself, for his argument supports God's existence. The resolution is negated. Thank you. [1] . http://dictionary.reference.com...
Resolved: Year Round School Is Good

In conclusion, more research would be beneficial on this topic but as the number of school districts adopting year round school is increasing, it would be fair to say many school districts are finding academic and economic benefits of year round school to outweigh any negatives that can and no doubt, do...arise. Year round school appears to be a concept who's time has come. American society has evolved from its agrarian roots and systems based upon a now archaic way of life need to evolve as well. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to debate this topic.