BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay Marriage

First, I just want to tell you that it is legal for same-sex marriages in all but 5 states, those being Arkansas, Mississippi, Missouri, South Dakota, and Texas. I think that would make it a basic right. Also, I am not saying that it is ok for "two 8 year olds" to get married, that is ridiculous. If two consensual adults of the same sex would like to get married and enjoy the freedoms and responsibilities associated with marriage, then let them. It is none of your business. I understand that marriage is commonly thought of as religious, and it may have been that way in origin. However, times have changed, and religion is not the ruling factor here. It does not matter how important marriage is, if someone wants to get married, than that is their right.
Gay Marriage

In today's society marriage is the least important its ever been. "The marriage rate continues to decline in the United States. In fact, there has been a decline of over 50% from 1970 " 2010 in the annual number of marriages in every 1000 unmarried adult women. (The State of Our Unions 2011, 60)". Marriage has been documented as religious as early as 110 where "bishop Ignatius of Antioch writing to bishop Polycarp of Smyrna exhorts, "[I]t becomes both men and women who marry, to form their union with the approval of the bishop, that their marriage may be according to God, and not after their own lust."[287] In the 12th century[where?], women were obligated to take the name of their husbands and starting in the second half of the 16th century[where?] parental consent along with the church's consent was required for marriage.[288]" (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Even now religion is primary to many marriages. In fact "The rate of satisfaction in marriage is higher for husbands and wives when both regularly maintain religious attendance and feel that God is the center of their marriage. (The State of Our Unions 2011, 31, 33) Also saying that "If we do not let a couple marry simply due to their own sexual preferences, we are denying them a basic" is just as effective as saying that if two 8 year olds would like to get married it is their basic right to do so. Basic rights are not defined by one person. Currently it is still illegal in the United States of America for homosexuals to marry making it not a basic right.
Gay Marriage

I believe that this is normal for two reasons. One, the institution of marriage is something that establishes responsibilities among the wedded and simply makes it easier for them to navigate in today's society, especially concerning money. Two, getting married is not simply a religious thing. There is a reason lots of people get married in courthouses. I would push hard for this because I believe that this is a moral thing, not a necessary thing. If we do not let a couple marry simply due to their own sexual preferences, we are denying them a basic right that they should be expected to have. While marriage is not necessary, it should be something everyone is allowed to partake in.
Donald Trump's child rape case allegations are credible.

I think the new child rape allegations against Donald Trump are not credible and should be thrown away. First, and foremost, there is no mention of camera evidence. Eyewitness accounts are unreliable at best. The fact that the plaintiff claim she had a witness is of little consequence. [0] Since 22 years have gone by, the chances of DNA evidence are minimal. Since people are considered innocent into guilty, if this goes to trial, it will be simply unreliable eyewitness accounts against each other. The fact that the plaintiff alleges that she was threaten shouldn't matter either. Again, because she has no proof that she was threatened, only her word. Finally, we can't even be sure this person exists. "the address listed on the paperwork leads to an abandoned property, and the phone number goes straight to voicemail." [1]"The 8-1 decision came as a disappointment to some criminal law experts who say false identifications by eyewitnesses are a leading cause of wrongful convictions."[2] We cannot put an innocent man through the trouble of a trial based upon eyewitness accounts. There are some who even want to ban eyewitness accounts from courtrooms, due to wrongful convictions. After 22 years, how would she even know if it really was the accused, or somebody else? Given the timing of Trump's presidential election this smells of rotten politics. There is no chance of convicting Trump based upon an eye witness account. Therefore, the only reason somebody would bring this up is to smear Trump's reputation. The accusations are non-credible and should be ignored. Sources0. http://www.scientificamerican.com...1. http://www.snopes.com...2. http://articles.latimes.com...
Torturing Terrorists

Do you really think torturing terrorists is the most efficient way of gaining information? Terrorists are taught to hate Americans, they are brainwashed into thinking that we are evil and we need to die. It would be a very ineffective strategy to torture the terrorist, because that would cause even more hatred toward us. If we torture the terrorist, it will cause the terrorist to feel even more rebellious against us. Why would we want to do that. The right reproach to get information from a terrorist is to be compassionate and loving toward them. Buy them food, ask them questions, and be nice to them. This will cause the brainwashed terrorist to realize we Americans aren't evil, blood hungry, mean people. People have tried this strategy before, and it has been successful. Because it will only make the terrorists more hateful if we attempt to torture them into submission!
Torturing Terrorists

I shall continue. The Geneva conventions allow it: The Geneva Conventions only apply to prisoners of war. They do not apply to spies or terrorists. The Convention Against Torture only applies on a country's own ground, which is why torture of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay is legal. Terrorism has become a greater threat:It is the in the nature of terrorism to be fast, high impact and difficult to detect. International tensions caused by Western involvement in the Middle East and other causes are likely to rise. It is reasonable to assume that terrorist activity will continue or increase as well. Add to this that weapons are easier to acquire, to make for yourself than ever before and these extra measures seem justified in the process to protect a country from terrorism, or trying to eradicate terrorism altogether. Torture acts as a deterrent to others: Physical and painful consequences of one's actions are a larger deterrent than imprisonment, because of the relative safety and well being one can have in prison compared to the pain felt in torture. Fear is often used successfully as a motivator: for example, children were forced to become soldiers for rebel armies in Sierra Leone. If fear is so effective, it can equally be used as a deterrent. Sources: http://securingliberty.idebate.org...
Torturing Terrorists

Yes, however, even then it will most likely cause the terrorist to be opposed to telling the truth. If you really think about it, torturing the victim into submission is only going to make them more hateful and opposed to telling the truth because of what they are brainwashed into thinking. I do not think that torture is ever the right way to make someone tell the truth, if anything, it will cause them to hate even more. It is most likely more efficient to use techniques such as showing how much pain the terrorist causes on the individuals, and how the people he hates is capable of loving and showing compassion. Because remember, terrorists are taught that we are evil people who want to kill them, so they must kill us first. To torture them into submission will only give them evidence of that being true about us, thus making it unlikely for them to give into it. I don't think we are risking innocent lives by not torturing the suspect. For I think it is more likely for terrorists to submit to us if we prove them wrong about us being evil. Some interrogation experts agree that interrogation by means of force and torturing does not work. http://www.washingtonsblog.com...
Torturing Terrorists

Here are my arguments for round one: To ensure the safety of the public: If say the government have discovered the location of a bomb which will go off in a public area in a matter of hours and also have captured a suspect that they have significant evidence against, they will interrogate him, however if this does not work then they may have to resort to torture as a means of getting evidence from the suspect, if they refuse to use torture as a means of interrogation then they would be putting innocent lives in danger. In a bomb scare scenario the benefits of torturing him would out-weight the costs of it. It would reveal more terror operations sooner: If all other means of interrogation have failed, then torture could be the only way to gain information on future terror attacks, and by gaining more information the government could stop future attacks and detain more suspects. Torture would be a quicker way to gain this information as opposed to fair treatment. Sources: http://securingliberty.idebate.org...
teenagers spend most of their time on entertainment

Nobody vote on this debate, please! But the opposition might say that lots of teenagers don't care about their grades, but you can say that you don't know for sure what teenagers are doing. Everyone's always like "Ohmygod, teenagers are so irresponsible and stupid and untrustworthy and blah blah blah." But there are lots of good teenagers out there! And I'm one of them! ;)
teenagers spend most of their time on entertainment

I'm sorry I'm sorry I'm sorry I'm sorry I'm sorry! I didn't mean to accept this debate! I meant to click the no button, but then I saw my mom in the hallway and for a second I thought she was a murderer(no joke)so I quickly clicked the submit button! And then I realized what I'd just done. I'm not going to debate here, because I'd obviously lose, so yeah. I'M SO SORRY! :(
The option to abort should be the mother's choice

For the resolution "The option to abort should be the mother's choice" I will be arguing the Neg position (against). In the first round, both participants will begin with Constructing Arguments Since challenger will be taking the Affirmative position, they will start the first round and will include: 1) Thesis statement and its relevance 2) Definition of terms 3) Present at least 3 constructing arguments, each with a reason and sited evidence to support it 4) Summary First Neg Con response will include the same and also include responses to Aff arguments. Second round will be 2nd Constructing argument round (following format of 1st) Third Round will be 1st rebuttal round. NO NEW ARGUMENTS MAY BE INTRODUCED Forth Round will be 2nd rebuttal round and will end with overall summary conclusion Crossex questions that are relevant can be asked at end of body of two Con rounds only, no crossex questions allowed during two rebuttal rounds. Crossex questions can only be non-rhetorical questions no statements permitted. Crossex questions are for clarity, expanding scope, exploring nuances etc. Answers to previous crossex questions need to be posted as first item on next reply before beginning the body of response. Conduct Rules: No ad hominem, abusive, or otherwise inappropriate language Argue the points concisely and avoid tangential responses Responses must clash with previous arguments made, Any responses not addressing previous opponents arguments will be considered conceded Conceded points will NOT be allowed to be mentioned again in later responses No trolling All supporting evidence need citations in the form of a hyperlink
Would the world be a much better place without religion

Thanks for accepting. I am arguing that most wars including most of the top ten deadliest wars {and the Crusades are not one of them based on death-toll} would still have occurred without religion and the majority of all wars would still have occurred. Of course the death and suffering from religious wars was and is bad. No doubt the Middle-East is an example of the bad religion can do. It should be noted that the reason the conflicts have not be solved may be more political rather than religious in the Middle-East. An argument made by Tony Blair. The Congo crisis which has resulted in more deaths than from ISIS was not caused by religion. So it is not all about religious wars in Africa. Religious people selling slaves is not good but slavery would have existed without religion. There are more slaves today than there has ever been in history and the biggest drivers of that are not religious but things like poverty and lack of economic opportunity. According to the United Nations. It should also be noted that Christians supported slavery but there were Christians that also used religion to argue against slavery during the trans-Atlantic slave trade. There are examples throughout history of slavery unrelated to religion included in your link. Just so we are clear. My position is that the argument the world would be a much better place {much less suffering, etc} without religion is factually incorrect. The claim {from others} that most wars are religious suggests that without religion there would have been much more peace in the world and that is just not the case. I am sorry if I misunderstood your slavery reference but I argue that religion {and the Biblical texts that support it} are not the main reasons we have slavery today and were not the only reasons we had slavery in the past.
Choose The Topic

First off, I would like to point out that Pro made an error. Forever said Round 5 would include summaries even though there are only 4 rounds. My opponent can sort this out, as they created this debate. Topic 1: Marijuana should not be legal (Since I am Pro, I decided to do a double negative so I could argue for Marijuana) Topic 2: We should not have gun rights Topic 3: War on Afghanistan should not happen Topic 4: We shouldn't have animal rights
Deaf vs. Blind

COMMUNICATIONIf you are deaf, you can communicate directly in two different ways: Sign language Talking Sign language is the common way to communicate in between deaf people. Knowing sign language is a benifit because when two or more deaf people are talking to each other in a public place, probably nobody will understand them. They could be talking about anything, while nobody understands. This is a way to keep things private. When you are blind, you probably use verbal comunication, so anyone could eavesdrop on anything you are saying, and you won't be able to see if the are there.Talking could also be an option to communicate. It is true that deaf people can't hear themselves, so there is no way that they can make sure they are talking right. But if they get help from a hearing person, get oral therapy or get a hearing aid, they can learn. That makes them open to two ways of communication; a private way of communicating and a public way. What I'm trying to say here is that deaf people have two ways of communicating directly, while blind only have one.COMMUNITYIn the US, there are 38,225,590 deaf people. That means deaf people have plenty to relate to and socialize with. Blind people have 23.7 million. Yes, they have a lot of people, but deaf have more. SOURCES:http://libguides.gallaudet.edu...http://www.afb.org...
Deaf vs. Blind

Hello! For this debate there will be a few rules set out. If you break one these rules, the judges will have to remove a point from the "conduct" section of the vote. Here are the rules:FORMATFirst round - Pro: Rules, acceptanceFirst round - Con: AcceptanceSecond round - Pro: ArgumentSecond round - Con: Rebuttals, argumentThird round - Pro: Rebuttals, (optional) argumentThird round - Con: Rebuttals (only if Pro decided to make an argument last round), (optional) last argument POSITIONIf you accept this debate, you will be in the blind position. In other words, you think being blind is better than being deaf.I am in the deaf position. In other words, I think being deaf is better that being blind.SOURCESEvery source you use must be listed down. If something is an opinion, there won't be any need for that.JUDGESI have nominated these people to judge this debate:-Hayd-Blade-of-Truth-CapitalistslaveHere are the nominated judge's accounts:Hayd:http://www.debate.org...Blade-of-Truth:http://www.debate.org...Capitalistslave:http://www.debate.org...If my opponent suggests another judge, please list it on your acceptance round. If my opponent wants one judge removed, I will also do that. Good luck Con, I hope we have a nice and fair debate. :)
Religion should not be enshrined in the law.

A belief that only the State can only justify a law on the grounds that it can be seen rationally and objectively to advance the general good is a fallacy whereas what counts as rational, objective and publicly beneficial is not at all self-evident but deeply contested and without religion this determination relies on subjectivity.Religious claims about universal moral values are capable of successful communication to and critical assessment by others and thus are appropriate and successful as being "enshrined" in the law.The law recognizing, protecting, and respecting religion, thus enshrining it, is a fundamental human right. This fundamental right is the foundation for a society that believes in individual liberty and free agency - without this foundation the law ceases to function as a social utility and becomes a tool of oppression.
Religion should not be enshrined in the law.

Religion is a man made concept which goes against logic, scientific evidence, proof and a lot of times... Morality. It contradicts a lot of stae laws I.e. The several wives of prophets in the Christian Bible - I'm don't have a law degree but I'm sure that's illegal. The stonning of innocent women in the new testament - Illegal thanks to productive work done by the state without much colaboration from the Church. In Genesis, God committs mass genecide - Ermm is that against the law now ? As you can see the state and Religion aren't exactly compatible. Not mentioning the fact that saying "God told me to" has never explained someones action. In addition, to justify wethear or not someone has broken the law, evidence is needed, usually an account from a real physical living person, motives, alibis or some sort of forensics result. NOT a quotation from the Bible, or any sort of spiritual being. +There is NOOOO God - just saying, there have been other debates on this matter so I won't go into it.
Religion should not be enshrined in the law.

1.) A belief that only the State can only justify a law on the grounds that it can be seen rationally and objectively to advance the general good is a fallacy whereas what counts as rational, objective and publicly beneficial is not at all self-evident but deeply contested and without religion this determination relies on subjectivity. 2.) Religious claims about universal moral values are capable of successful communication to and critical assessment by others and thus are appropriate and successful as being "enshrined" in the law. 3.) The law recognizing, protecting, and respecting religion, thus enshrining it, is a fundamental human right. This fundamental right is the foundation for a society that believes in individual liberty and free agency - without this foundation the law ceases to function as a social utility and becomes a tool of oppression. "Although freedom of conscience and the freedom to believe are absolute, the freedom to act is not." - Roger J. Traynor, Chief Justice of California
War of 1812

I will not try to say my opponent dropped any of my contentions due to the time he was forced not to give a rebuttal. The rest of my case will be a rebuttal on this Con case. First I would like to say yes correct is interchangeable with justified. Now my opponenets 1rst contention C1. ï¿½€œThe War Hawks were a coterie of about twenty Democratic Republicans who persuaded Congress into supporting a declaration of war against Britain. These young, vocal members from the South and the western U.S. were voted into the House during mid-term congressional elections in 1810. They were united by outrage regarding the British practice of impressment (or abduction) of American sailors, and the British Orders in Council which were crippling the American economy. The War Hawks were fed up with the plodding diplomatic tactics of Presidents Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. They were convinced that a declaration of war was the only honourable response to these repeated violations.ï¿½€ï¿½ [1] The war hawks believed they were justified and working for the countrys needs. treaty was negotiated in England, but it was not ratified in the United States because it did not address this issue of impressment. In 1807, the British ship HMS Leopard fired upon and then boarded the American ship Chesapeake, carrying off four seamen. Though the incident itself was minor, the American public was outraged at the slight, and many called for war. 2[] the treaty did not deal with impressments thus Americans were not happy and see it as justified. C2 Though the incident itself was minor, the American public was outraged at the slight, and many called for war. 2[] This source accepted proves American s wanted war. Secondly to have a correct state One must first have a state Thus in order to have a state that state must protect life liberty and property b4 worrying about what its people want. C3 Just because another nation is justified does not matte r we ar arguing that the US was justified not Britain. Secondly impressments was of all men not just British they did not care who they took that is all i can put becaus eof time restrains voters 1.) i have proven all 3 contentions wrong since 1.) The war hawks wer acting with the nTation in mind and the treaty did not adress impressment 2 the people wanted war 3 america wa scorrect why should america cr about another nations justification. also impressment wa sindiscriminant. My time is up http://www.galafilm.com... [1] http://www.warof1812-history.com... [2]
War of 1812

America was justified in its actions for two reasons 1.Social contract theory (locke) A. British ships impressed sailors from American ships thus violating America's social contract with its citizens. "Impressment, colloquially, "the Press", refers to the act of taking men into a navy by force and without notice" wikipedia.org Because the social contract was violated America had to reply with force so future sailors were not impressed. Warrant: Impressing sailors violated the sailor's liberties thus America had to reply with force. Impact: why this matters Protecting citizen's right to liberty is one of the greatest demands of a correct country. Thus it was correct to assume war. B. Britain's blockade of U.S. ports ("our commerce has been plundered in every sea");[1] By blockading U.S. ports goods that (because of payment) were owned by Americans could not be attained. Warrant: preventing goods from reaching Americans is devaluing American's cargo, that cargo would be American's property Impact: why this matters Stopping shipments cause financial loss and loss of property Locke's social contract state that countries out to protect property. Thus America going to war with Britain was correct due to social contract. http://www.warof1812-history.com... [1]