BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Homosexual adoption

It seems I have eaten more than I could chew. Great points there, here is my rebuttal 1. Right to adoption At law Adoption refers to the act by which an adult formally becomes the guardian of a child and incurs the rights and responsibilities of a parent. -So legally speaking any person irregardless of sexual orientation has the right to adopt, provided they meet the legal requirements. Denying a person based on sexual orientation or giving preference to others based on sexual orientation is a form of discrimination which is against the UN Universal Bill of Rights. Thats my reasoning on how it is the right of a gay couple to adopt. In society we cannot choose our parents, so in effect a child has no right to choose their parents since there are no legal provisions to make this possible. 2. Environment There is no scientific proof to prove that there is any negative effect on a child if they are raised in a gay family, there is evidence to support the fact that a gay family setup will result in all children being gay, since the very essence of sexual orientation is the fact that a person is born as is. Until the day there is peer reviewed research that proves that there is a problem with a child being raised in a same sex marriage then we should not discriminate, which beings my next point. 3. Fairness/Level playing field/Discrimination What I am saying we should level the playing, a qualifying same sex married couple should have the same chance of adopting a child as a mixed sex couple. 4. Rights of a child As I mentioned earlier on a child cannot choose its parents, so it follows that in any setting such a right to choose what environment they grow up in is not enforceable as it does not and cannot exist. 5. Moral issues When you say natural family, you imply that being gay is unnatural which is unfounded except in religious jargon. Morality is subjective, which is why we cannot create laws based on moral standards. I hope I have addressed you points adequately, thank you
Homosexual adoption

Firstly, thank you for your challenge I look forward to a productive debate for us both. I will attempt to address all your points. Your first point that their right to marriage means they should have the right to adopt I do no fully agree with. This is because it is just the individual rights of the two people that are getting married, that are being 'freed'. The two individuals have the right to partake in the societies 'partnering up' ceremony and conditions, regardless of their partner choice. However the decision to adopt a child involves the child's rights and this makes it slightly different than the rights of an individual to marry. You say if their brought up in a loving environment there is no good reason to deny gay people adoption. It is debatable that there are some reasons why two fathers/no mother, or two mothers/no farther can have some negative effects on a child's upbringing. But this debate is not about whether gay couples should be banned from adopting, it is suggesting that mother-father families should be chosen over father/father or mother/mother households in the adoption agency. You say that gay people have a 'right' to adopt children. 'Rights' don't include powers over others; the 'rights' of one person are questionable and not necessarily 'given' when they apply to others. Does the baby have the 'right' to have a choice in the decision to be raised in a homosexual household, if he can just as easily be raised in a natural family? (Assuming he/she has that opportunity) I hope I have addressed you points adequately, thank you
Homosexual adoption

If gay marriage is legal, then there should be no reason why they cant adopt children, if they meet the adoption guidelines because legally they are a married couple. is their right to be able to adopt as much as it is the right of a single parent to adopt children. A long as there is an assessment that the child will be brought up in a loving environment there is no good reason to deny gay people this right to adoption. So my basic argument is on two points 1. It is their right as gay people to adopt children 2. As long as they can provide a loving environment for the child they should be allowed to adopt
The United States should construct a wall on the Southern Border.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) estimates that immigrants (legal and illegal) comprise 20 percent of inmates in prisons and jails, despite being only 15.4% of the adult population. According to a Pew study, non-citizen Hispanics made up 25% of all federal drug offenders, even though they are far under 25% of America's population. The Cato Institute study failed to distinguish between legal and illegal immigration, and obviously they have an agenda, being a strong advocate of open borders and amnesty. Even if they were correct, one American killed by someone who walked across our border is too much - and there has been far more than one American killed at the hands of illegal immigrants. Illegal immigration is not only connected to crime, illegal immigration IS crime. Every illegal resident of the US has committed at least one crime, entering the US illegally. By doing so, they steal billions of dollars in benefits intended for citizens, and compete for jobs in an already tight labor market, squeezing out especially low-skilled American workers. Illegal immigrants in many states receive in-state tuition and scholarships which are intended for American students, and clog up American schools and hospitals, the use of which they often obtain for free. The Wall would not harm the environment as much as illegal immigration already has. See the pictures of pristine desert now littered with trash in areas of the border with heavy illegal traffic.(at the bottom of my argument)If you really think that a 20-foot wall equipped with anti-tunneling equipment and razor wire would be "rendered obsolete" by tools, then go to the border where there already is a wall and try to cross it yourself without being captured by Border Patrol agents. The Wall would not be in isolation, but would be protected by personnel as well. Across the world, for example in Israel and Hungary, walls and fences have stopped more than 99 percent of illegal traffic. Finally, the 99 billion dollar cost was actually taken from the Politifact article, and was after factoring in the taxes paid by illegal immigrants. ANother group had claimed a higher cost which they claimed was onlu 99 billion. Regardless of the merits of that, 99 billion is still well more than the cost of the wall - and that's only in a single year. https://www.reuters.com...https://www.tucsonweekly.com...
The United States should construct a wall on the Southern Border.

There is a massive amount of evidence to suggest that illegal immigration does not affect the crime rate at any capacity. The libertarian Cato Institute, renowned criminologist Michael Light, all the nonpartisan, peer-reviewed Criminology journal have concluded identical statistics, and have both concluded zero correlation between illegal immigration and crime. In fact, rates of crime perputrated by llegal citizens are astronomicallt hogher than by illegal ones. (Politifact) But whether or not you are keen to deporting them, it is very clear that a wall is not the best way of going about that. It would be a complete waste of money time and resources. You would be a great waste of tax dollars, essentially a scam.The number of people entering the country illegally has been plummeting for several years, and the Wildwood be incredibly inefficient and a hazard to the environment into the economy. Firstly, it would distrupt thousands of miles of ecosystems and life, squeeze the arms pipeline from U.S. gun manufacturers to Mexican and Central American cartels. (LA times), and be deemed useless with technology and tools, like for example a ladder or crane. The best way to stop illegal immigration is to do it from the inside. This way, good people who desperately needed Sanctuary immediately won't be shut at the gates, and those who have no right to be here will be deported. It also saves 18 billion and tax dollars that would go toward and useless cause. The 99 billion dollar cost is actually untrue, because it factors out the contributions to the economy that undocumented immigrants actually make, which is significantly more than 99 billion. (Politifact) and yes, the USA has an obligation to protect its people and prevent crime. What we already have so much many obstacles in place to prevent illegal immigration, the number has dwindled significantly. We don't need anymore.
The Ontological Argument is a Failure

This is my first attempt doing so, and the debate should prove both exciting and educational. Pro defines "God" broadly. This definition includes the following: God is the greatest being that we can fathom. As such, no being greater than God is imaginable or conceivable. Given that definition of God, if the Ontological Argument is correct, then God exists. The Ontological Argument presented by my opponent basically boils down to the following: 1) We cannot imagine a greater being than God because nothing greater can possibly be conceived. 2) If God does not exist, then something greater can be conceived. 3) Therefore, God must exist. The logic is relatively simple, and if the two premises are accepted, the conclusion necessarily follows. Because both premises are true -- the first one is an obvious a priori truth, the second is based on the argument that existence is greater than non-existence -- therefore, the conclusion is true. The Ontological Argument proves that God exists. The resolution is negated.
The Ontological Argument is a Failure

Resolved: The ontological argument fails to prove the existence of God.Ontological argument:1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.For the purposes of this debate, the term "God" will be defined broadly as to include the general attributes (ie: omnipotence, omniscience) commonly associated with Judeo-Christian monotheism.Clarification This debate is not about the existence of God; rather, this debate focuses on the ontological argument.Rules1) Round structure1. Con's opening arguments.2. Rebuttals3. Rebuttals.4. Rebuttals.5. Closing arguments; no arguments from con.2) No forfeiting3) Plagarism is an automatic forfeit. 4) Trolling will get you blocked.Good luck:-)
The Ontological Argument is a Failure

=====> Introduction <======I must say, you have been a formidable opponent throughout this debate. This round is for closing statements (see r.1) =====> Closing Statements <======The only thing I criticize my partner for doing is that he did not defend the ontological argument placed in round 1. In round 1, I defined the OI as followed:1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.Therefore, my partner needed to defend this formation of the ontological argument, which he did not; therefore, it is my opinion that he did not meet his burden of proof. May the best arguments win.
The Ontological Argument is a Failure

Thank you for your reply. Let's jump right into the debate.God has both negative and positive properties My partner concedes that one can take a positive property and turn it into a negative property. take away from the greatness of its possessor, but whose negation does take away from the greatness of its possessor. I failed to understand what the definition of "positive property" was; thank you for clarifying. However, now we must ask ourselves if God does have negative properties which takes away from his greatness; and the answer is yes. Let's take two of God's properties for an example: All-knowing Free will According to the standard attributes of God, God is both all-knowing and has free will. However, this leads to a contradiction because if you know everything, then you cannot have a period of uncertainty. Consider this argument by Dan Barker [1]: God is a being who allegedly has free will and is all-knowing. In order to have free will, you must have more than one option, each of which is avoidable. This means that before you make a choice, there must be a state of uncertainty during a period of potential: you cannot know the future. Even if you think you can predict your decision, if you claim to have free will, you must admit the potential (if not the desire) to change your mind before the decision is final. A being who knows everything can have no "state of uncertainty." It knows its choices in advance. This means that it has no potential to avoid its choices, and therefore lacks free will. Since a being that lacks free will is not a personal being, a personal being who knows everything cannot exist. Therefore, God does not exist.So, you see, the problem with God is that his attributes are self contradictory which takes away from his greatness. There is yet again another example: God cannot change the future because he already knows what the future is; therefore, praying is pointless because it is not going to affect anything. Defining a being into existenceMy partner concedes that the version of the OA I brought forth commits this fallacy of circular reasoning; however, he justifies the error by showing that the argument makes God a necessary being; yet under what circumstances do we make a being "necessary"? Why not take God and replace it with the Invisible Pink Unicorn?Conclusion I have shown that the standard definition of God does contain properties which takes away with God's greatness. God's attributes are contradictory which often conflict with his greatness. Therefore, I believe that the OA is a failure. Affirmed. ______________Sources1. http://ffrf.org...
National stereotypes are a thing of the past

Stereotypes are still apparent everywhere, take a look at the LGBT+ community for instance. If someone is to express themselves more than others choose to then they are categorized as "Gay". If a person is to cut their hair short it is considered to be a "Lesbian" haircut. Looking at the way someone expresses themselves, as a human, it is natural to think of where in the social atmosphere they would fall. Someone with dyed hair and a band shirt on would be thought of as "emo" where as someone who has blond hair, blue eyes, and wears top brands would be though of as "popular". Yes, stereotypes have died down a bit but they are still there as people unknowingly stereotype people upon first meeting the said person. If stereotypes were not a thing then there wouldn't be such thing as a "Stereotypical ____ family". When thinking of a female baby being born what do you associate with this birth? The colour pink and cute dresses? That is what a stereotypical female baby gets given for the first few years of her life. Now think of a male baby, usually people associate this gender with baby blue and toy trucks. From birth there are colors and interests forced upon a child due to gender, anything outside of the "Normal" makes them a target as they are not "Stereotypical". This issue happens daily and as much as it has faded it is still a current issue. I will leave you with the question of, if there were not stereotypes why would there be "Typical" things such as 'stereotypical ______ girl/guy/human' with that please think about all of the stereotypes there still are around you.
Scientific Evidence does not support a Great Flood

Copied from your previous debate with Ron-Paul.Full Resolution: The great flood was an actual historical event that is supported by scientific evidence.Definitions:The Great Flood: "Noah's flood - (Biblical) the great deluge that is said in the Book of Genesis to have occurred in the time of Noah; it was brought by God upon the earth because of the wickedness of human beings."Historical Event: "Based on or concerned with events in history."Scientific evidence - Scientific theories are validated by empirical testing against physical observations. Theories are not judged simply by their logical compatibility with the available data. Independent empirical testability is the hallmark of science—in science, an explanation must not only be compatible with the observed data, it must also be testable. By "testable" we mean that the hypothesis makes predictions about what observable evidence would be consistent and what would be incompatible with the hypothesis. Simple compatibility, in itself, is insufficient as scientific evidence, because all physical observations are consistent with an infinite number of unscientific conjectures. Furthermore, a scientific explanation must make risky predictions— the predictions should be necessary if the theory is correct, and few other theories should make the same necessary predictions. We can formulate this logic by the following:Premise 1: Theory T predicts Observation OPremise 2: Observation O is not observedConclusion: Therefore, theory T is probably false.Or converselyPremise 1: Theory T predicts Observation OPremise 2: Observation O is observedConclusion: Therefore, Theory T is given added support. Rules:1. The first round is for acceptance.2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed.3. No semantics, trolling, or lawyering.4. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed from all moments after the debate has been formalized. 5. BOP is sharedVoters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person.Debate Structure:Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by con)Round 3: Refutation of opponent's arguments (A few new arguments may be brought up, but nothing out of the blue)Round 4: Defending your original arguments and conclusion (no new arguments). Round 5: Closing statements - 1,000 characters maximum.
High School / Secondary school Students should be required to wear a uniform

My opponent has not provided a single compelling argument for instituting a compulsory, required by law uniform policy in all high schools and secondary schools. What my opponent does do is say that a uniform policy MIGHT enhance the quality of education. But as I pointed out, there is no study done in a controlled setting that says that uniforms will actually increase quality of education. Which means that the evidence supporting uniform policies are bogus. My opponent did not deny this claim, therefore my arguments are sustained. My opponent kept bringing up claims that uniform policies would do 'this' or do 'that', would provide 'this' kind of benefit, but NONE of the information my opponent cited actually had anything to do with supporting a uniform policy. My opponent brings up sources that say that greater focus needs to be placed on academics and then uses that as leverage for a uniform policy. But how the heck does a uniform policy have anything to do with increasing academic focus? My opponent makes no such argument. The most obvious way to improve academics is to improve the quality of education, not to enforce silly uniform policies.
High School / Secondary school Students should be required to wear a uniform

Thank you for your rebuttal. I'd like to point out that having a school uniform contributes to keeping kids focused on what is really important at school, the academics. With marks slipping in the UK and USA, [1] it is crucial to keep as much focus on academics as possible. As the famous quote goes, "In 30 years from now, it won't matter what clothes you wore, what jeans you bough or how your hair looked. What will matter is what you learnt and how you used it." This just goes to show that putting the emphasis on learning at school, really can benefit kids later in life. [2] I'd just like to let you know that I believe that tutoring and attention is the best way to increase marks obviously, but school uniform could just be a contributing factor. In connection with the last point, school uniforms will encourage students to take school more seriously, and make a distinguished difference between fun time and school time. As I mentioned, kids will be less likely to leave school during the day as they may be in fear of being recognized and having their school called (this has happened multiple times at my school). 1. http://news.google.com... 2. http://www.the-ibenefits.com...
High School / Secondary school Students should be required to wear a uniform

In my opponent's 1st paragraph of arguments made in round 2, she makes arguments that school uniforms are correlated with decreased truancy and better behavior. But correlation does not imply causation. This principle in statistics is stated as 'correlation between two variables does not automatically imply that one causes the other" [2]. Just because a school that wears uniforms has better performance, one cannot immediately jump to conclusions that uniforms are the reason for success and here's why: By law, public schools including highs schools in the United States must accept all children, regardless of intelligence, and must teach these students [3]. The same type of mandatory education is prevalent in other parts of the world as well. But private schools and catholic schools have the ability to select only the best students, students who are intelligent and focused, and students who don't get into trouble. Private schools also have uniforms policies, compared to only 18% of public schools [4]. So when studies are done to raise up the topic over school uniforms, there is a major flaw in that the studies show a positive correlation between uniform policies and increased performance but can't prove that increased performance is a direct result of wearing uniforms. I have affirmed this in my prison example in round 1. Also, my opponent brings up social issues again and cites a source that says low self-esteem is a thinking disorder [5]. In this case, it would be much more beneficial for those students affected to receive psychological treatment rather than to cover up the problem by making school uniforms compulsory. [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.greatschools.org... [4] http://nces.ed.gov... [5] http://www.dosomething.org...