BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
that music piracy should be legalized

Ok well my definition differs. Definitionof music piracy : Illegal duplication of sound recordings. I don't see why this wouldn't involve counterfeit cd's and the like as they are as just as a much of a problem as programs like limewire etc. So you said in your third point that illegal downloads help artists . You said except for a FEW superstars already established it helped all other artists . Now lets think about this is there only a few established muscians ? I think not there is thousands of well known established artists and your making it out to sound if there is only 2 or 3 . So in fact it hurts those thousands of well known artists. If there was no music piracy then these artists and their producers would be able to claim the profits that are rightfully theirs . With the cd sales being pushed up . You also said that consumers would experiment alot more if cd prices were lowered . I agree with you but lets see why cds actually cost so much . In the cost of a cd the artists and producers have to raise the price to compensate for all the funds they are losing through music piracy . They do this so they can actually make a profit . Worldwide the music industry loses 5 billion dollars per annum . That is a ridiculous number and it starts to show you the extent music piracy impacts upon the music industry . Ok so firstly im going to talk about who gets hurt . Then im going to talk about stealing Ok so who actually gets hurt from music piracy?. Is it just the artists . No its not consumers lose as i said before piracy drives the price of legitimate recordings up . Also artists ,musicians,songwriters, and producers lose . They don't get royalties and fees they have earned . Their reputations also suffer when the fakes are of poor quality. Retailers and distributors lose . Their prices can't compete with those of illegal vendors which means less business and fewer jobs hurting the economy . Record companies lose. 85% of all the recordings issued don't even make back their costs . Which leaves the record companies relying ot the other 15% that are succesful to subsidize less profitable types of music. To cover the costs of devoloping the new artists and to keep their business's operational. Now to my second point . Stealing is stealing. Theres no if or buts about it . Let me give you an example . Ok so you own a record store and somebody walks in and takes cd's off the shelves and walks out without paying for them . Shoplifting was just commited right ?. And isn't shoplifting a form of thievery . Why would piracy of music be any different simply because its digital ? . Does it somehow make it less personal because you aren't physically there ? . Is wire fraud any less criminal than to robbing a business at night .It shouln't be, for the sole point that there revenue is now in your possesion . Stealing is stealing there is no gray line it is the same as robbing a business . So now the golden rule . If you were running a business ,you wouldn't want people to steal from you so why hypocritically would you do it to them ?
Morality does not come from religion

My closing statement will be short and sweet as i believe i can summarize the whole speech planned into 2-3 paragraphs. I would like to thank my opponent for such an interesting topic as this one, and i do hope that the general public viewing this debate learns something new from both sides as that is the true point of debating, to show the world your opinion that they may learn and at the same time taking in your opponents opinion that you may learn from them. I will begin my closing statement now. Pro used the punishment for changing religion for Islamic peoples as an example for his case, he also said that their are ex-muslims living after forsaking their teachings quite happily and because of that it proves that religion was not the source of that change. I can prove that statement wrong with a simple definition. Religion, as defined by the Apple Dictionary is, "a theory or attitude held by a person or organization that acts as a guiding principle for behavior." this same definition is found in the Apple Thesaurus as philosophy. when these people that the pro side mentioned changed their beliefs they did not forsake religion, they created a new one, a new philosophy on how to live their lives to the betterment of themselves and of others. It is impossible to say "i don't practice a religion because i found a better way to live then under religion" and then act on it. By saying that and practicing it, you are not deserting religion your making a personal religion. Along with your own religion or philosophy comes your own moral guidelines, a set that you yourself created, and because of that eternal tie to personal beliefs my case is made. It is impossible for a moral code to be devised without a philosophy or religion because even if you create one out of the blue you are instantly creating a religion along with that code. For my final sentence, Morality and the codes which define go hand in hand with religion and it is impossible to prove otherwise. Thank you for this debate, I enjoyed it very much.
Morality does not come from religion

I am arguing against the statement proposed by the instigator which states "Morality does NOT come from religion. " Since the pro has not said that first round is for acceptance I will begin in this round. Every religion has its code of conduct that was set by a person of recognition within the church, or in some cases by a person who lived thousands of years ago that, according to the churches, reached a point of enlightenment by interaction with God himself or by their own experiences. This is a fact that i'm sure both sides can agree on as it has little effect on the outcome of this case, for now. Now before i continue my case i would like to state that the question was "morality does not come from religion" Not, morality does not come from any ONE religion. Pro stated in his/her case that "humanity's moral framework (i. e. , what is right and what is wrong) is not contingent upon any one religion, but has components that are innate. " he did not answer to the question he proposed, he changed the context of the argument from the original statement. because of that i am going to focus on the original topic which includes religion as a whole, not specific religions targeted as a singular unit. I will leave the rest of my argument to future rounds as It would be wise to take this topic slowly because its volatile nature and high sensitivity. I await my opponents statement now.
Gay marriage should be allowed in a church.

Hello again,Not sure how we all became so confused on the matter, but looking at the comments on this it appears I was not the only one confused by this.Some helpful notes for the future, is that when you begin a debate you should state clearing the format of the debate and what you will be supporting.For example, you could have said, "I will be supporting the Con argument, to contend that Gay Marriage should not be allowed in the Church. And Pro will have to defend the motion that Gay Marriage should in fact be allowed in the Church."This is something I do when I create debates, as it makes it crystal clear to those who are in opposition what stance they will be defending. Ultimately, it was my failure to notice that I was Pro and you were Con at the outset of the debate and take responsibility for that. Sorry for wasting your time, and hope that next time you create this debate you find a worthy advesary who can take up the contrary argument.Kindest Regards,TrueScotsman
Gay marriage should be allowed in a church.

I did not reply to your first posted argument because it was agreeing with my original statements. I am against gay marriage being allowed in the church. The argument you posted supported my opinion on the matter. I believe that you misunderstood my statement as being pro gay marriage in the church. I posted this debate in hopes that someone would post an argument in favor of gay marriage in the church. I believe that this will be an issue in my lifetime and I would like to hear possible arguments in favor of it. I apologize for not making my stance clear in the original statement. -braves
Gay marriage should be allowed in a church.

Hello, Happy Monday! I will have to disagree with you on this one, and though I am not a Roman Catholic I do know quite a bit about it's teachings and therefore will contend that they should not. Here are a few excerpts from the the Catechism of the Catholic Church: Sixth Commandment "Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved." "Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection." Source: http://www.vatican.va... The purposes of these Catechisms is to teach the faith of the Roman Catholic Church. Therefore, based upon these off statements by the Vatican this Church should not be coerced to contradict it's official dogma and concede to allow Homosexual marriage. The RCC's official policy is rather that the individuals use the virtues of "self-mastery" and "prayer and sacramental grace" to overcome their "disordered" condition. Now, if your argument is simply to allow people to be married in the church building, but not actually recognize that marriage then I also have to disagree with you. Churches are private property and based on their historical Christian beliefs should not be obligated to marry anyone, straight or homosexual and if their official doctrine constrains them by their conscience and devotion to abstain then to enforce such a law would be tyranny against the freedom of religion. I also am not homophobic, but I am an Agnostic (in regards to Epistemology) Christian (choose to believe in) of the Protestant variety. I believe that Domestic Partnerships which entail homosexual couples the same rights regarding the law as a married couple to be the proper course of action. It is not the government's responsibility to define marriage, but to recognize equally those couples regardless of life style regarding the law. Welcome to Debate.org and hope you enjoy your time here. :) Kindest Regards, TrueScotsman
Gay marriage should be allowed in a church.

I am writing this debate because I can see this becoming a national debate in the future. 1. By church I am referring to a Roman Catholic church. That is the branch of Christianity I am referring to and all arguments against me should keep that in mind. 2. I believe that gay people should be able to be married in state. 3. I am not gay. 4. I am not homophobic. 5. I am Roman Catholic 6. I have been studying religion for four years, including a class in theology. 7. This is my first debate on this website.
vote stuff

I will be defending the voting rights of the first-party. This should not happen because then people with strong feelings FOR a certain subject will not be able to defend it in the popular vote. That system could be very easily abused. For example, someone hates America and wants America to be banned from the United Nations; and let's say hypothetically this turned to a popular vote in America. Of course the majority of Americans will want America to not be banned, but they won't get a say. This means that the possible ~1-2% of people who hate America will have the power over the ~95% of people who have pride in their country, alongside the 'neutral' ~3-4% of people that I'd assume don't care either way. We need the majority consensus, not the rarity victory.
Is being gay wrong

***Disclaimer: As a straight male, I support gay marriage and those who are homosexual. That being said, As a straight male, my preference is towards women. This would then infer that I think being homosexual, for me, is wrong. I will show these reason why I believe it is wrong for me. (Other than, I do like girls, I do not like boys)My opponent states "We are born this way."Science has only suggested that homoesexuality may start in the womb. "homosexuality might not lie in DNA itself. Instead, as an embryo develops, sex-related genes are turned on and off in response to fluctuating levels of hormones in the womb, produced by both mother and child. This benefits the unborn child, however if these epigenetic changes persist once the child is born, and has children of its own, some of these offspring may be homosexual."[1]"It's not a choice"Are you speaking solely for yourself, or do you believe no gay person has made a concious choice to be gay?I believe there are some people, based partially on their genetics, environment, and upbringing have no choice other than to be homosexual. But I also believe there are others who, later in life, have gone against there heterosexual beliefs and have "turned gay" by choice.My argument to why homosexuality is wrong(aside from my personal preference) is based on the human anatomy.Homosexuality, among men, usually involves anal sex. This goes against the human anatomy and has proven hazardous to the health of the participants. The points made (in the article below are summzarized as follow) [2]The anus lacks the natural lubrication the vagina hasThe anus was designed to hold in fecesThe anus is full of bacteriaThere are few health risks for women who engage in homosexual acts. But, both the male and female reproductive organs are going unused (which does happens in heterosexual relationships) meaning you are wasting a significant portion of your anatomy. One of our instincts, as humans, is sex. "The instinct to have sex is one of the most potent we possess. It’s vital if we are to produce the next generation." [3]Like other animals we crave the ability to reproduce. Our intellgience has made selection of mates increasingly difficult and can hinder our instinct, but the craving still remains.Sex in its natural state is between a man and a woman.[1]http://scitechdaily.com...;[2] http://www.webmd.com...;[3] http://www.bbc.co.uk...
environment friendly cars should not be so expensive.

>>I guess all I am saying though is that why cant a way be found that lowers prices of these hybrids? People all around the world are researching how to do this. >>But the cars I was thinking of were the cars I just seen on the news from the recent car show. But there are cost effective cars that are better for the environment like the Prius. Are you even still debating in this debate? If you aren't you have conceded. If you were just trying to get your opinion out, you could have just put it on your profile.
environment friendly cars should not be so expensive.

I know of economics, and before this begins I will end it. There is no point because this debate could move into situations like the war and other things that really dont need to be funded which could go towards making hybrids and other cars. I guess all I am saying though is that why cant a way be found that lowers prices of these hybrids? But the cars I was thinking of were the cars I just seen on the news from the recent car show. I just didnt understand the point of cars that were good for the air and our health to be expensive if it meant to reduce health and environmental issues.
environment friendly cars should not be so expensive.

I would also like to ask everyone who will vote in this debate to vote based upon the debate, not upon the debaters or your own personal opinions. >>I feel that environment friendly cars should not be only for the wealthy, if it is a good cause, it should be spread worldwide faster not only for the select few. First off, environmentaly friendly cars are not only for the wealthy. They are for anyone who wants to and can buy one. Just thought I would clear that up. Secondly, when you say environmentaly friendly cars, I will assume that you are talking about hybrids like the Toyota Prius. I will center my debate around the Toyota Prius, seeing as it is both a hybrid and environmentally friendly. Also, cars like the Prius are sold all over America. It is not sold to only a select few. The reason that I say that environmentaly friendly cars should be more expensive is because it costs more to make a hybrid than it does a car running on gasoline. If you have taken any classes about economics, then you will have learned that if the cost to make a product goes up, then the final selling cost will go up. Therefore, hybrid cars like the Prius will always be more expensive than cars running on gasoline. On a side note, the Prius only costs around 21,000 dollars, a decent price for a very good car.
Should Marijuana Be legal Nationwide

Contention 1: Ease of AccessIt is truely easy to acquire Medical Marijuana in America. For the number one example I'll give you our Bluest State in California as an example. Journalist Adam Brown reviewed California's law and revealed that in California and several other states, including DC, that you could be prescribed medical marijuana if, "you have a debilitating condition like "general pain" or "mild depression" or "unspecified symptom syndrome." [1] We can see that this isn't a black market issue and it's a sugar coated way of legalization of marijuana for the general public without officially doing it. I mean let's alll be honnest here. We've all suffered from some sort of "general pain" in our life time, does that mean that we should all get Medical Marijuana? It's simply wrong and we can see that this is a close connection to Brave New World's Soma. The fact is that many Medical Marijuana advocates would argue that it's mainly used for cancern, but if we observe Colorado we can see that over the majority of the people perscribed Medical Marijuana isn't cancer related and is something perposterous that wouldn't even get a person any type of perscription medicine. [2]We can plainly see that we cannot continue with further legalization of Medical marijuana until we see major reform here, so that the above attrocities are corrected.Contention 2: Safety ConcernsThere are several safety concerns surrounding Medical Marijuana. Like first one can see that Medical Marijuana involves the chemical THC which has been found due to a recent study to increase the rate of brain tumors. [3] They have found that the THC in Canibas slows the bodies anti-tumor responses to a near stop allowing tumors to increase and become more previlent. Many studies show that THC can slow down tumors, but when it is mixed with cannibas and not soley THC injected into the body we can see that it has the oppoisite effect. UK cancer institute director Lesly Walker has found that contrary to popular belief that "It absolutely isn't the case that men might be able to fight prostate cancer by smoking cannabis," [4]Another study showed that smoking 1 joint increases the percentage that one could get Lung Cancer by 8% and that smoking 3 joints is the equivlence of smoking 20 cigarettes. [5] Other studies have shown to cause many other mental disorders like Skizofrania [6], panic attacks/aniexty [7], and after smoking the joint it increases the rate of a heart attack by 5 times! [8]We can simply see that these risks are way to much and especially for that of Medical Marijuana being used the way that we've seen it be used and the ease of access being way to much we can simply see that these side effects are not worth a tiny bit of being high because of your "pain."Sources1. (http://www.cracked.com...) 2. (http://www.mapinc.org...) 3. (http://www.jimmunol.org...) 4. (http://www.reuters.com...) 5. (http://news.bbc.co.uk...) 6. (http://www.schizophrenia.com...) 7. (http://www.panicattacks.com.au...) 8. (http://www.drugabuse.gov...)
Socialism in America.

Public schooling is good and I think that it is necessary for our society, but I oppose free and paid for college. I don't really think that free health care would be good though. Obamacare was a failure and most people agree that it was. Socialism time and time again has killed millions upon millions of people. It represents the idea that if you work for your things, those things will forcefully be given to lazy people. Health care is not a human right, contrary to what angry lazy people say. Capitalism has been working for America and other countries for a long time. The freer the market, the freer the people. Ask pretty much any economist and they will say that socialism and communism is the worst path for a country to go on. College is also not a human right. You need to work for these things. I believe that we should give more people opportunities to become rich and not just tax the rich because they worked for it. Europe is now experiencing a wealth drain because wealthy people don't want to be taxed for just being rich. Time and time again in history socialism has cause more people to starve and die than capitalism. That is my argument against socialism in America.
Socialism in America.

Freedom and socialism isnt always mutually exclusive...nor is America"s economic system and socialism. As you may already know, socialism is currently practiced, in many forms, in the United States. Socialism can exist within countries as an overall economic system or within factions thereof such as corporations, healthcare, public education, etc. I"m not sure where you stand...if you oppose socialism across the board, or only within specific sectors (ig education). I couldn"t imagine you"d oppose all forms of socialism because virtually all Americans benefit from governmental infrastructure, public education and healthcare. You mention America"s economic system, which is a mixed economy, so I presume you oppose a socialist economy. But since a mixed economy includes some forms of socialism, do you oppose the continuance of America"s preexisting socialist practices? Do you oppose all forms of socialism?
a parent/guardian should be held responsible for their child's actions

I would like to clarify the resolution before we begin, in this case the parent would not be held responsible to the point that they would be put in jail for their child's actions, Rather when people ask 'why would this kid do something like this...' they have someone to point their fingers at. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I stand against the resolution 'a parent/guardian should be held responsible for their child's actions' for one reason, a parent figure is responsible for what that child views, hears, and interacts with all together. I isn't the child's fault that a parent or guardian never took the time to tell the child what is wrong and what is right. A child is a blind without a guide, their parent or guardian should be that guide. because of this, I stand CON. P.S. this Should be fun ;)