BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Homosexuality is not natural

I must first apologize for not fully understanding Cons wanted structure, I followed it as Acceptance, arguments, rebuttal, then conclusions. Anyways here are my rebuttals to cons arguments in round 2: REBUTTAL C1 - Our physical form I would ask for "natural order" to be defined more clearly, as male and female pairings are not always consistent, clearly illustrated by gay couples. Homosexuality has been consistent for thousands and possibly millions of years, if this is the case, how is it not natural? "It is unnatural because it accomplishes nothing written within our from"Well I am sure a homosexual sure wouldn't agree with that. "Should we overlook our design?" Why not? We cannot see infrared naturally, does that mean we shouldn't use infrared goggles because it isn't part of our design? C2 - natural lawI have never heard of Homosexuality being referred to as "Sodomy and perverse"(ergo contradicting the courts law on sexual acts deemed unnatural) Sodomy can be committed by a man or a woman towards another man or woman. That mean that it is NOT restricted to homosexual acts, this includes heterosexual acts.On the perverseness of it, what is right and what is wrong is guided by religion and morals, not necessarily what is defined by nature. I am failing to see how Natural law actually connects to homosexuality. According to Thomas Hobbes, Natural law is: "a precept, or general rule, found out by reason, by which a man is forbidden to do what is destructive of his life, or takes away the means of preserving the same; and to omit that by which he thinks it may be best reserved."-Hobbes, Leviathan, pt. 1, ch. 14 (p. 64) Clearly this does not apply at all to homosexuality, but instead applies to all men and those who live. Homosexuality is not in contradiction to natural law.C3 - Mental illness"it is said that homosexuality is accepted because it has no stress over the person over their sexual orientation"I am not even sure what to make of this. How can they not have "stress"? Homosexuals are constantly berated by society based on their sexual orientation, do you not think that creates stress? I fail to see how homosexuality is at all any more ego-syntonic than heterosexuality. A persons ego is personal, just like their sexual orientation. A heterosexual and a homosexual have an equal chance of being considered egosyntonic. On the idea of frotteurism and voyeurism, heterosexuals can most definitely engage in those as heterosexual acts just as much as homosexuals. Homosexuality is not a mental disorder.
Homosexuality is not natural

And now here is my side: (C1) - It is not only found in humansTo state the obvious; humans are not the only aspect of nature. I argue that homosexuality is natural, ergo covering all forms of nature. I would like to talk about the research of Bruce Bagemihil. Bruce is a Canadian biologist and published the book Biological exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity. I have cited below the list of all animals noted to have homosexual or bisexual behaviors. There is an extensive list of birds and mammals that show homosexual behavior. If homosexuality is not natural, then how can hundreds of types of species reflect homosexual behaviors?(C2) - The mass populations and testimonies of homosexuals would lean towards the idea that it is not a choice and is integrated into their genetic code at birth. I do realize that the idea of a "gay gene" is still under testing by scientists for now. However Richard Dawkings explains how something like the "gay gene" might have survived through history, even though logically, it should have died out millions of years ago due to the fact that homosexuality does not produce offspring. Attached video below. He explains how society would "protect" homosexuals by the trust of others under their care and how it would carry on. Logically homosexuality would have died out a long time ago if it served no purpose. Sort of like our appendix, as it has been growing smaller over many generations with its lack of purpose. Those are the two points I could come up with, assuming the next round is for rebuttal. links: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.youtube.com...
Homosexuality is not natural

Thanks to anyone who reads and accepts. I am currently looking for interest in this debate and will choose who really wants to debate this. Please post a short reason why you want to debate this and I will choose one by the end of the day. Thanks. Resolution: Homosexuality is not natural! BOF: Burden of proof is upon both. Pro must show that homosexuality is not natural. Con must show that homosexuality is natural. Winner will be the debater who provides the most convincing argument. Definition of Natural- based on the state of things in nature; constituted by nature: existing in or formed by nature (opposed to artificial). Round 1 is for acceptance. Last round is for conclusions primarily, no new arguments permitted but rebuttals allowed. Rules are no plagiarizing or trolling. Also Be respectful. GL and thanks.
Minimum Wage Should Be Abolished

In closing, I'd like to say that while people should have the right to pay people what they want and demand the wage the want, people should be have the right to take advantage of people through this. Minimum wage protects the unskilled laborer, no matter what his age is or how "good" he is (at being unskilled). It deters the "race to the bottom" for labor, and it prevents businesses from monopolizing on low wages. There will always be unemployment, but it just means that those who are employed are better off, and the barriers to unskilled employment are not too great anyhow. The effects minimum wage has on businesses are very small, unless you are talking about an extremely small business that doesn't make more than 100K a year in revenue. These small businesses ONLY are hurt by this. The rest can handle minimum wage.
Minimum Wage Should Be Abolished

People can NOT protect themselves by simply quitting and choosing jobs. Minimum wage ONLY affects certain jobs like fast-food, mall stores, etc etc. There is a HUGE competition for those jobs and without Minimum wage, everyone would be FORCED to lower their pay standards because there is always somebody who will ask for less. With Minimum wage, competition for the job will be about SKILLS and not the LOWEST BIDDER. I am a college student and A. I have no trouble finding work B. I CAN'T work for lower than minimum wage because I have BASIC LIVING EXPENSES such as gas to get to work, books for classes, and food. C. I don't have time to work for 1$ an hour. Without minimum wage, I would have to work for MUCH LESS than 6.50$ an hour or else I won't be hired. And even if I was, I still wouldn't be able to buy books or drive my car. Minimum wage is not INTRUSIVE. It is SUPPORTIVE. People who work for 1$ an hour say that their work is only worth that much, whereas to the Business, it could be worth A LOT MORE. For 1$ an hour, the business could be making $100/hr from that person's work. Businesses can take advantage of people because most unskilled laborers (like teens) have NO CHOICE but to work for that job. Minimum wage protects people from BUSINESS and OTHER PEOPLE. You said: "Minimum wage wastes money that could be spent elsewhere. Also, foreign countries can invest more into what they choose giving them the upper hand. Ive explained why it lowers the global economy, now you actually give a reason why it strengthens it." It WASTES money?? It wastes money on PEOPLE?? People who need food, clothing, and THINGS?? This explanation fails to grasp how an economy works. People spend money and businesses sell things. Everyone invests or saves. If PEOPLE had more money, then PEOPLE could invest or buy things, and THAT strengthens the economy. It all must balance out. You said: "Shouldnt a company be able to decide whether skills or money is more valuable?" I've picked up a common theme in your arguments. You believe that people are invincible, therefore people should be able to do whatever they want. I encourage you to read about the Robber-Baron period in American history. That business mindset did not work out well back then for the country. "PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING PREVIOUS MADE ARGUMENTS AS WELL:" As for all the strict arguments you ask me to answer, I will not. I will not address them until you back them up. As they stand, they are opinions with no credibility and I do not want to touch them.
Minimum Wage Should Be Abolished

Hello, thanks for challenging me to a debate. Minimum wage protects people. Minimum wage ranges from 5-7 dollars an hour depending on what state you're in. Take a 40 hour work week with the average 6 dollars an hour and a 49 week work-year and that is 11,760 dollars a YEAR. That is 1000 dollars above the poverty line in America. Teenagers, workers-in training, interns, and college students are NOT impacted by minimum wage at all. On a whole, college students get paid MORE than minimum wage and interns don't work for MONEY but for EXPERIENCE. Thus, most internships are unpaid. And teenagers are dependent on their parents still, so money is not a necessity for their survival. Not only does it protect people from poverty, but it protects people from businesses and corporations. (The poor from the rich.) Look at the people who work as burger-flippers and cashiers at fast food places. The line for that job to get 6$ an hour goes out the door. McDonalds, if they could, would give the job to the lowest bidder. In reality, the lowest bidder's salary would net him WAY below the cost of bare-essentials living. He could do this because he's probably a teenager living with his parents and just wants money to have - not to survive. The teenager will win where the man who needs to feed his family will lose. Unskilled laborers compete for the lowest wage, and Minimum wage is a way stop that from getting out of hand. Minimum wage does NOT limit our ability to compete globally, but strengthens it. I read a story about a California McDonald's outsourcing the drive-thru speaker to Mexico. While that's a very scary thing globalization and Minimum wage is still beneficial to America. Minimum wage, like globalization, encourages people to compete and thus improve themselves. The fact is, there will ALWAYS be competition for a job. Even with minimum wage, there simply aren't enough jobs to hire everybody. By encouraging entrepreneurship and skill development, Minimum wage and globalization make people better. It's not like the drive-thru window is the only job out there either, it just means unskilled laborers head towards different ones. The justification for Minimum wage is this: There is always someone who will work for less to beat out the next guy. and Businesses want to pay the lowest wage possible to their workers to maximize profit. so Minimum wage exists to create competition based on skills, not wage. It's not like minimum wage is a lot of money (as I said earlier, 11000 a year for one person), so I don't see how it hurts businesses.
Minimum Wage Should Be Abolished

-The vast majority of economists believe the minimum wage law costs the economy thousands of jobs. -Teenagers, workers in training, college students, interns, and part-time workers all have their options and opportunities limited by the minimum wage. -A low-paying job remains an entry point for those with few marketable skills. -Abolishing the minimum wage will allow businesses to achieve greater efficiency and lower prices. -When you force American companies to pay a certain wage, you increase the likelihood that those companies will outsource jobs to foreign workers, where labor is much cheaper. -Non-profit charitable organizations are hurt by the minimum wage. -The minimum wage can drive some small companies out of business. -A minimum wage gives businesses an additional incentive to mechanize duties previously held by humans. -Cost-of-living differences in various areas of the country make a universal minimum wage difficult to set. -The minimum wage creates a competitive advantage for foreign companies, providing yet another obstacle in the ability of American companies to compete globally. -The minimum wage law is just another example of government condescendingly controlling our actions and destroying personal choice. Citizens do have the ability to say no to a lower wage.
Global Warming is Fake News

For the last 30 years the focus on global warming has increased to almost dramatic panic levels. Humans destroying the environment is a true fact, But global warming has been around for millions of years on earth, Yet humans think that their meager existence on this planet is causing it now. I will provide facts that show global warming has always been around and the only reason we see it more now is because of overpopulation and media coverage. But the panic about us creating global warming is FAKE NEWS My opponent Nd2400 will argue that global warming is real Lets begin
First world governments giving financial aid to third world countries.

1. Foreign aid doesn't go directly to the people Foreign aid is given to the governments of these 3rd world countries. It's the governments of these 3rd world nations to decide where the money goes. In 2010 the US government gave 1.3 billion dollars to Eygpt, so they could expand there military. Infact a large number of foreign aid that the US gives goes towards military expansion for other countries. To be specific 1/4 or 5.2 billion dollars and that doesn't even include the amount of money given to military education, anti-terrorism military units and peace keeping operations. Another example is in 2002 the king of Swaziland use the foreign aid that he recieve to buy a royal jet. Swaziland is a country where 65% of the people live in extreme poverty and 1/3 of the population has AIDS/HIV. Yet the government of Swaziland ask for more money and central bank doesn't even question. 2. Foreign aid hasn't changed a countries status. The 10 biggest annual recipients of U. S. aid for the pass year or so are Afghanistan, Israel, Pakistan, Haiti, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Mexico, Kenya and Nigeria. Out of these 10 countries only the two are slightly stable economically are Israel and Egypt, but the rest are still in chaos and if anything the financial aid is causing more chaos. For example most of the Aid given to Mexico goes towards fighting the war on drugs, yet the supply and demand for these illegal drugs hasn't changed and has only resulted to the death of countless innocent lives. Another example is the UN have put 25 Billion dollars to fight AIDS/HIV in Africa, yet AIDS prevalence in Africa has nearly doubled in the pass 10 years and a study in 2000 said that 11,000 people in Africa are being infected by AIDS every day. 3. The system we use now is entirely inefficient As far as the system goes to bring the actual money and health supplies to theses 3rd world countries is entirely inefficient. It is estimated that 40 to 60 percent of medical supplies that are meant to go to clinics in West Africa get stolen of lose before they even reach the clinic and are sold in a black market. Having an over surplus of free foods have led to the bankruptcies of many farmers in southern Africa. Another inefficient thing about the free food market is the idea that the food is shipped on American carriers. Shipping on American carriers is 4 to 5 times more expensive European carriers. In too many cases, especially in Africa, the effect of foreign aid has been to sustain and pop up dictatorships. Foreign aid enables dictators to depend on foreign aid to feed the people, while diverting domestic money to buying weapons and maintaining an army that enhances the dictatorship (This is all happening behind the Central Banks back). SOURCES . http://bigthink.com... . http://www.cato.org... . http://www.google.ca... . http://www.globalissues.org... . http://www.torontosun.com...
First world governments giving financial aid to third world countries.

I noticed a lack of definitions, so I would like to bring forth some definitions to guide this debate. First world governments - the major industrialized non-Communist countries including Western Europe, the United States, Canada, Japan, etc. Third wolrd countries - underdeveloped countries usually especially those suffering from wide spread povertyFinancial aid - the giving of money to developing countries to support the growth of the receiving country [1]I look forward to my opponent's first arguments! SOURCES1. www. dictionary. com
First world governments giving financial aid to third world countries.

This debate is on whether or not foreign aid should be given to third world nations. I would be on the "Against" side of the debate. This is my first debate, so it would be greatly appreciated if people could give advice on how I was. This debate would be made up of 4 rounds, the voting period will last 1 week, the debaters would have 48 hours to accumulate a response, and argument should have a maximum of 6,000 words. Rules are pretty simple, always be respectful to your opponent and a source to your arguments would be appreciated. A little disclaimer is that I type really fast so usually I would miss a spelling mistake. You are allowed to engage in the argument using the comment section.
The ban coffe,tobacco, alcohol, and fast food

You have made a number of assertions here, that I would like to see sources for. But that's rather irrelevant to the point at hand. Let me rebut your opening statement of "I believe these products are not only unsafe, but a detrimental to society" on a point-by-point basis, though not in order. 3) Alcohol Quite frankly, it was tried before. It just made the problem worse. People still acquired alcohol by various means, the government lost all tax revenue relating to the sale of alcohol, and the Prohibition led to all sorts of criminal activity; not just because alcohol was illegal, but activity that was illegal before and after prohibition as well. Crime syndicates rose up to control the legal booze trade. 1, 2) Tobacco and caffeine. As I noted above, this was tried before with alcohol. It didn't work out so well. How much worse would it be if tobacco and caffeine were added into the mix? We already have a problem with modern drug prohibition; it simply does not work. [1] 4) Fast Food This is a red herring. The problem with fast food is not inherent to the food itself but rather the ingredients in the fast food. The Food and Drug Administration already works hard to ban explicitly dangerous substances from food. Specifically targeting fast food itself, as opposed to the ingredients that are harmful, is a waste of time. You also have failed to give a good reason why every harmful thing should be banned. I, personally, disagree with prohibition in all forms. Drug addiction is a disease, and should be treated medically, not legislated against. You can no more legislate away addiction than you can the common cold. What's needed is awareness, and treatment. [1] http://www.independent.org...
The ban coffe,tobacco, alcohol, and fast food

I believe these products are not only unsafe, but a detrimental to society. Ban- Making the possession, sale, cultivation, production, use, and paraphernalia of the said items illegal. All these products are addictive. When combined, they are much more addictive and dangerous. 1) Tobacco is extremely dangerous. It contains nicotine, methane, arsenic, carbon monoxide, methanol, ammonia and over 2000 other chemicals. Keeping tobacco legal tells children it is okay and even cool to destroy their bodies with tobacco. Nicotine is one of the most dangerous substances to humans. Tobacco companies will never tell you nicotine is deadlier than cyanide. That's right. Nicotine is 8 times as deadly as cyanide to a non-smoker and 4 times as deadly to a smoker. About 90% of lung cancer cases are related to smoking. The average smoker smokes 13 to 16 cigarettes. Some smokers spend over $9490 dollars a year on cigarettes. Some people give up their food or their children's food to afford cigarettes. Cigarettes are probably the most widely used addictive substance. 2) Coffee contains over 1000 chemicals. Coffee and all other caffeine containing products should be illegal. Caffeine is a stimulant and an addictive substance. If you advocate keeping caffeine legal, you may as well advocate the legalization of cocaine. I have met plenty of teenagers and adults addicted to caffeine. It's use can induce rage paranoia, nervousness, restlessness, inability to sleep, and even induce heart attacks. When someone tries to quit, they often experience headaches, lack of energy, and mood swings. 3) Alcohol contains acetone, ethanol, and methanol. It is a dangerous substance that causes numerous cancers, including liver cancer. We have no idea how many cases of drunk driving have occurred in the past because most get away with scot-free and others get a slap on the wrist for putting lives at risk. It is addictive and induces violence and rage. People act irrationally when drunk and commit action which they later regret. 4) Fast food encourages unhealthy eating. It makes them people obese and unhealthy. It is a huge factor in heart disease , high blood pressure, and high cholesterol. It does long term damage to individuals leading to countless diseases and it should be banned.
logic is cause and effect

a=b, if b=a That"s the same as saying black=black, if black=black. Based on your conclusion you already decided what is right must therefore be right, not considering any other possibilities, which is of course a logical fallacy. But then again, logical fallacies cannot exist right? So I do not even know why you go through all this trouble to even prove what is logical " sorry, my mistake, logic. "math is accurate or not.. not true" I am learning not to answer generalization like this. What math, in what field, under which circumstances, based on what hypothesis etc? "your oppinion that i contradict myself dosnt make it so" And your opinion that my opinion (that you contradict yourself) does not make it so, does not prove it wrong either. "a first cause is like getting a punch from a non existent puncher.. impossible" Again, the first cause must exist to be able to punch. Your non-existent puncher cannot punch, why? BECAUSE HE DOES NOT EXIST. Therefore, your logic that requires a cause must be something that already exists. You try to base your argument on the necessity of a cause that must exist to prove that the cause cannot exist? The truth is, you only make an exception to your rule when it deals with something you don"t want to exist. Your causality does not prove non-existence; your association is not justified. "logic is true.. logical and illogical are not.. only now is matter" You are contradicting just about any dictionary you can think of. If what is logical agrees with logic then it must also be true. Logical: according to or agreeing with the principles of logic (http://www.dictionary.com...) "there is no logic in fantasy.. there is no, your and my logic" That"s maybe why what you say is not logical or based on logic
logic is cause and effect

a=b, if b=a math is accurate or not.. not true your oppinion that i contradict myself dosnt make it so a first cause is like getting a punch from a non existent puncher.. impossible an effect is caused.. there is no punch to your face without a puncher.. "You cannot say logic is true if logic is the opposite of logical and illogical. The fact that you claim something can be true is contradicting everything you said. You cannot logically say something is true if it is the opposite of logic." logic is true.. logical and illogical are not.. only now is matter lie=reason=thoughts there is no logic in fantasy.. there is no, your and my logic