BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay Marriage

My opponent says he means no disrespect, then again calls me biased and accuses me of fabricting information, then top it off by comparing me with an organization he considers to be a hate group. Very classy.My opponent accuses me of having an agenda. My only agenda was to have a respectful debate. So much for that.I have not argued that ONLY gay men contract these diseases. I have only argued that they are at an increased risk for very deadly deseases and therefore pose a public health hazard. I have used respectable sources, even if my opponent disagrees with their content.
Gay Marriage

"My opponent has called me biased several times now, and it's getting old. If I knew my opponent was going to act like such a child I would not have accepted this debate." I called you biased, because you were being biased. Sorry if that offended you or if I was too aggressive. It wasn't meant to be disrespectful but if you are going to present an argument, don't use biased sources or fabricate information to fit your agenda. That is exactly what the FRC does, and they are known as a hate group because of it. Anal sex does not directly cause anal cancer, however having sex (vaginal AND anal) with many partners, increases your chance of contracting HPV which then causes anal or cervical cancer but this is preventable especially if you receive an HPV vaccine. Escherichia coli is not sexually transmitted. You can get it simply by shaking hands with someone who didn't wash their hands. People don't get it directly from anal sex, they get it from oral-genital contact after anal sex. This is completely preventable with decent hygiene (always wash your hands after using the bathroom, showering, taking a bath, using an enema, douching etc...), routine vaccination to protect against disease and not eating rotting or undercooked foods. You get HIV/AIDS and Hepatitis A and C from having sex with an infected partner just as your would any disease. This has nothing to do with homosexuals or what kind of sexual activities someone prefers. ANYONE can contract disease by having sex, vaginal, anal and oral with someone who has it. All of this can be prevented by always using protection (male or female condom) during sex and limiting how many sexual partners you have. http://www.cdc.gov... http://www.cdc.gov... http://www.cdc.gov... How to prevent disease - http://www.webmd.com... This exactly proves my point... Having any form of sex increases your risk of contracting disease. Anyone with a fifth grade education knows this. What does this have to do with homosexuals getting married? Absolutely nothing. The whole point of this debate was for you to provide some sort of logical argument against legalizing gay marriage but you have not done this. This was a complete waste of my time. However, thank you for taking the time to debate with me anyway.
Gay Marriage

My opponent has called me biased several times now, and it's getting old. If I knew my opponent was going to act like such a child I would not have accepted this debate. An estimated 90% of men who have sex with men and as many as 5% to 10% of sexually active women engage in receptive anal intercourse. The anus is full of bacteria. Even if both partners do not have a sexually-transmitted infection or disease, bacteria normally in the anus can potentially infect the giving partner.[1]Anal sex increases your risk of:[2] HIV/AIDS HPV and Anal Cancer Hepititis A Hepititis C Escherichia coli Sources.1 http://www.webmd.com...2 http://www.netdoctor.co.uk...
Gay Marriage

My third source shows Homosexuals are more likely to carry a bacteria that causes Septicemia and Meningitis. "Helicobacter cinaedi has been most frequently isolated from rectal swabs of homosexual men with proctocolitis."[1] This bacteria is especially dangerous to newborns[2], and therefore creates a public health hazard. My opponent rejects incestuous marriage because it can result in abnormal children. As shown above, homosexual couples are also a danger to children. My opponent says homosexual marriage and pedophilic marriage are different because pedophilia results in a severe trauma to the child, but provides no source evidence that child marriage causes such a trauma. We outlaw these things because the general morals of our society say they are wrong, which is how we get most of our legal code. My opponent feels gay marriage is not wrong, an opinion he has every right to hold and argue. However, until that opinion is held by society as a whole, it will, and should remain illegal. " there are a number of ways someone can develop a bacterial infection, and homosexual behavior is not one of them." This argument falls flat in the face of science. Homosexual men engage in anal sex. The anus is not naturally able to handle such a load (no pun intended). Increased rectal tearing allows more bacteria into the system, and causes infections. Also, inserting anything into what one might deem an "exit only" bodily cavity is likely to introduce more bacteria. My opponent implies I may be biased, but the only evidence he offers is that I make an argument he doesn't like. My opponent implies my source (in this case the National Library of Medicine at the Nation Institutes of Health) may be biased, and then uses the same source for his argument! Sources 1. Helicobacter cinaedi has been most frequently isolated from rectal swabs of homosexual men with proctocolitis. 2. ibid.
Gay Marriage

My opponent seems to be pushing the burden of proof to my side. I would remind him that in a debate, except under certain special circumstances, the BOP lies with the PRO position. However, I will provide an opening here and advise my opponent to introduce some arguments for Gay Marriage in the next round. As a health issue, gay men are at higher risk of many bacterial infections, usually in the colon. [1] [2] [3] Bacterial infections are a major public health concern. As a discrimination issue, banning gay marriage is no different than banning incestuous or pedophilic marriage. My opponent is basically saying (in the case of incest) "but they are related". The argument of the other side is, "but they are both men". This simply demonstrates that my opponent is trying to draw a moral line, just a different one than is generally accepted. Sources 1. http://www.bcmj.org... 2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 3. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Which is better to look at?: The past or the future

In the past , figuratively speaking, Humanity's ego has killed My Son. Why should I forget It and look to the future when, figuratively speaking, Her ego is is refusing to accept the Future has come? When should I, figuratively speaking, let go of the Past and worry only of the Future to come while you, figurative speaking, wait blissfully in the Present? In my humble opinion, I believe that understanding the Past is paramount over knowing it, but knowing the Future is paramount over understanding it. If I figuratively write the future, then how can I not know it? In conclusion, I truly believe that for a person like me, knowing the Future is more important than knowing the past. If you were figuratively in my shoes with knowing who you can be, would you think about the Future or figuratively forever stay to what can be known in the Past? There does come a time when we have to leave the Past behind, the Past of our Sins, the Past of our Despair, the Past of our Anguish and Misery, the Past of our loved ones and hated ones, the Past of the Future that we should already Be. The figurative "Present of you" is all I need to know the Future, Thank you for helping me inflate my Ego. Wisdom is the only way the Ego can flourish without it consuming Oneself. Your arguments were wise and your wisdom teaches mine. I learn the most efficient way by seeing wisdom like yours. Thank you very much.
Which is better to look at?: The past or the future

Yes, you could invoke enough social change to get people together towards a common cause, but then you would be faced with the task of solving the problem. The past can do this as well. Obviously, people have seen what has happened in the past during the industrial revolution and all the events leading up to today. This invokes fear among some people and creates a motivation to fight against climate change. Once you have gathered all the people and energy you need to fight against climate change you need to know how to fight against it. So where do you look? The past, since the best way to learn is from experience and past mistakes. Not only can the past bring people together, but it can also teach and inform those people who want to fight against, how to fight it.
Which is better to look at?: The past or the future

I understand that your argument is that we need to fix the issues of corrupt oil corporations and their affect on climate change, but simply saying "we need to fix these issues" isn't enough. Yes, I agree that we need to fix these issues, but we need to use the past to fix them. You can look at the future all you want, but without knowing how to these fix issues is a problem that can be fixed by looking at the past. My argument is that the past has more to offer when it comes to experience and evidence, and that the problems people want to address in the future will need the aid of the past. The argument all comes down to how people will fix the issues you are talking about, and the answer to that problem is the past. The fear that people will be caught behind if they look at the past is simply wrong. The people who look at the past will be more prepared for the future. The future does address upcoming problems, I will give you that, but it does not address on how the issues will be fixed.
Which is better to look at?: The past or the future

AND MY ARGUMENT IS THAT THESE THINGS AREN"T BEING DONE NOW. WHY CAN'T THE pAST TAKE A BACK SEAT FOR A WHILE AND WE LOOK TO HOW WE NEED TO STEP UP TO THE OIL COMPANIES THAT ARE DESTROYING THIS WORLD? ALL WE NEED TO DO IS BUILD THOSE GIGAFACTORIES IN THE DOCUMENTARY FROM LEONARDO DICAPRIO TO PROVIDE EVERY HOME ON THE PLANET WITH POWER. WHY ARE WE FOCUSING ON SUPPORTING FOSSIL FUEL INTERESTS? HOW IS CHANGING TO ELECTRIC WHICH HELPS THE PLANET SURVIVE LONGER A BAD THING? WHY DO THE CORPORATIONS STILL CONTROL OUR LIVES EVEN THOUGH IN THE pAST, WE PROVED THAT THEY ARE RUINING THE PLANET? WHEN IS IT TIME TO FOCUS SOLEY ON THE fUTURE TO MAYBE SAVE US FROM THE GREED THAT CORPORATIONS AND OIL COMPANIES HAVE? SHOW ME ANYTHING IN THE pAST TO SOLVE THESE QUESTIONS. PERHAPS THE DEMISE WE CAN SEE IN OUR fUTURE WILL PREVENT SUCH OBVIOUS DESTRUCTION OF OUR PLANET.
Which is better to look at?: The past or the future

To fix the future, the past is a necessity. Without observing the past and looking back at examples, scientists would not be able to find out what type of environmental strategies work against climate change. In all types of studies such as Science, Math, History, and even English we take concepts from the past and educate our youth with it. Without the past, scientists today would not be able to research effectively on the concepts you have mentioned such as climate change. We can observe past events such as the industrial revolution to fix today's problems, and create effective manufacturing methods. Even when we look at the people we trust such as scientists, doctors, teachers, and lawyers we judge their performance and qualifications based off of their past experiences.
Which is better to look at?: The past or the future

And what should we do about current future? Climate change is on the horizon and the grocery companies are destroying the land by which our crops grow. Oil Men seem to have this planet hostage with their greed. How does the past help what should already be changed? Would it be so wrong to write the future the way it should be? If not, why would it be wrong, if yes, then wouldn't you need to think more about how the Present can change into the Future? Do you see how the Past affects the Present changing into the Future?
Which is better to look at?: The past or the future

The past is better to look at for multiple reasons. By looking into the future, we cannot learn anything. Looking at the past allows us to fix past mistakes in the future. To look to the future it is necessary to look at the past. We can learn so much from history and the past, and if it wasn't for the past, we would still be making the same mistakes. This is the point of the study of history. History lets us learn from past civilizations like the Roman Empire, Crusades, and the World Wars. Organizations like the U.N were created by looking into the past and seeing the atrocities of World War 2. Without looking into the past we cannot make ourselves better people. Not only does the past help us learn from our mistakes, but it also allows us to cherish and appreciate the good memories we have had. We should not be sad that they are gone, but we should be happy that they happened. Overall without the past, we cannot look into the future and plan ahead.
Resolved: Legalized Abortion is the Greatest Crime against Humanity in the History of Mankind

I thank Chuz for instigating this debate. The majority of the terms have been defined, however, a key term still remains without a definition and that term is "greatest." Obviously, this is very important for this debate. As this term has been undefined, I will take the liberty of defining it. My definition will be used throughout this debate.Greatest - for the purposes of this debate, I will define "greatest" as the crime that mainly deserves more attentionI will be arguing that everything during or part of genocide has always been the greatest crime agaist humanity and the crime of genocide should be given more attention than abortion.Throughout this debate, I will be showing why the issue of abortion truly isn't an issue nor is it murder and thus why it isn't a crime against humanity while providing my own arguments on why genocide is much worse.I look forward to my opponent's arguments!
There is undeniable evidence that God exists

I can only go by what i believe in now. My opponent is a Atheist, it is very hard to prove or show him any undeniable evidence that god exists. To me the evidence i gave that god exists is enough, because i simply cant believe that there isnt a god. For a fact that all this was evolution or some big bang. To him my evidence is clearly not good enough, and no matter what he will deny it seeing as he is a atheist. I am not really going to rebut my opponents points but make new ones. My opponent many times says well "How did you get there", "where did this God come from"? Well all of it is a matter of faith. Second you say that science proves all of these things but in reality how can it. Where did the organisms come from that all of us so happily turned into? How did they get there? Your so busy worrying about well where did god come into the picture that my opponent isnt realizing i can say the same thing to him. To me the bible itself can prove that god exists. To me that is undeniable, to an atheist it is garbage. Its simply a matter of opinion no matter what you throw out there and how you do it. I thank my opponent for this debate. I am going to go play in the snow now =).
All people are born without any talents.

Pro stated: "Of course we all know how making love and of course baby cry when he wants to eat. We all know it and do it without learning how to do it! It is our human instinct. " Skills and talents are required for survival. My opponent has conceded the core of the debate. Namely, that all people have inborn skills and talents. Edison built on the foundations of what came before. Language was a tremendous leap forward for humanity. Then there was writing. Without these two tools, we are reduced to the primal instincts. These primal instincts are the inborn talents that are the core of the debate.
All people are born without any talents.

Yea I see maybe I should not complain about the size! But if to be honest your answer really hard to me to understand, here is written so philosophy and is used many biological words. It would be better and more understandable if you paraphrase it or write using your words! I did not catch your point in your first answer to my challenge! I am not a native speaker and also it is one of my first debates! So sorry writing about the length! However, I can still respond to your arguments: "Every human being is adept at defecating. Making love." And "Hunger. Every baby cries when hungry. This is not a taught skill: it is inborn." Of course we all know how making love and of course baby cry when he wants to eat. We all know it and do it without learning how to do it! It is our human instinct. It is not a talent! Because all people can do it! Talent it is special ability of every person. Exactly this person can do it better than others. This is the meaning of talent! So I want to give one more example about Tomas Edison. There is the one person who claim that he was the most well-known and great inventor due to his innate talent. But I can give another explanation: I have already read a lot about Tomas Edison and learned his biography. So, he was born like "problem child". In the Wikipedia says that Tomas in his childhood had problems with health: problem with hearing, scarlet disease and with education. So he was in school only 3 months. From the Wikipedia: "Edison recalled later, "My mother was the making of me. She was so true, so sure of me; and I felt I had something to live for, someone I must not disappoint." His mother taught him at home. Much of his education came from reading R.G. Parker's School of Natural Philosophy"". It means her mother was for him like a motivation. His mother every time supported and believed him. Also when he had a free time during working like a seller at the station, he went to the library and read a lot, he wanted to read all of these books. Furthermore, his teachers in the school influenced him too. They said that Tomas will not achieve anything. And their words moved him to prove that he can everything. Sometimes it occurs with us. Let"s agree with me! Therefore I want to say that Tomas Edison"s surrounding influenced him to be the great inventor, especially his mother.
All people are born without any talents.

I read the entire 40 page article[1] last year, twice, and recommend anyone with a serious interest in the nature of man to do the same. An article cannot be refuted on its length. In fact, length would imply more thought into the position, thus more credibility.I quoted the article because I thought it unlikely that my opponent would read it. This is proper, and has proven to be a correct assessment of my opponent.It is odd that I am criticized for using the full 5000 words allowed in this debate. If my opponent wants 1000 word arguments, he should in the future restrict his debates to such a level of conversation.***************************My opponent is limiting his definition of "talent" to "learned skill" which is a circular argument. "I am correct because I am correct."In reality, "talent" is aptitude. "A talent is a group of aptitudes useful for some activity, talents may refer to aptitudes themselves[2]"Every human being is adept at defecating. Making love. Expressing hunger.Modern technology prescribes particular structure for doing this: one must use the toilet for defecating. However, it is instinctual for a human being to release the feces in a place that is removed from the general living area. Look at the tribal people. Look at the cat. The perfect example. Making love. The hips move in a primal manner during copulation. This is an inborn talent, aptitude, for placing sperm in the vagina in a manner that it remains. Note the fatigue of specifically the woman after intercourse. She does not get up to walk/run because she is tired. This ingrown talent for retaining the sperm allows maximum benefit for minimal effort in the act of mating.Hunger. Every baby cries when hungry. This is not a taught skill: it is inborn.[1] www.cep.ucsb.edu/primer.html[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
All people are born without any talents.

OMG your answer so long, complicated and force me to confuse. You are really plagiarist! Could not you write with your own words? Additionally, you should reject my arguments, explain me why they not correct or something else! After that you must write your own arguments! Or you cannot explain them? Well you wrote something huge about human brain and abilities of our brain and etc. In what places of your arguments is said that people are born with their special and certain talents? Your response difficult to understand, I cannot find the connection between my position and yours. Ok, can you give at least one example from our life, from real person's experience? And please next time can you write with your own words and do it easier to understand! Anyway I will still support my arguments till you will not reject them.
All people are born without any talents.

Nature or nurture? I know it"s very debatable question among humanity and of course you may don"t agree with me. But I"ll try to prove my position. Everything comes after born. Nobody prescribes your destiny like this future man will have such talent and that man such talent. No! Nobody. So from my point of view, in general, people born in this world similarly like other people: without any talents, without any potential. Everybody formulates yourself since their born. It means that already from your born everything around influence you. You formulate your character, your potentials to something, and your views to the world etc. For instance, our one of the greatest Kazakh writers is Abay Kunanbayev. His talent to writing influenced his grandmother " Zere and mother "Ulzhan. They just read to him every night different interesting books. Moreover they could read stories very interestingly. And it was the reason that Abay started interested in writing. Another example, one of the well-known and talented compositors " Ludwig van Beethoven. His father was compositor too. So Beethoven grew up among musical instrument and in the future becoming a great compositor influence his father. Even people do not born as healer or as a medium. They are becoming like that growing up during their life. The reason becoming a medium can be: apparent death, after kind of catastrophe or accident. Finally, a lot of things formulate from the very beginning, including upbringing and surrounding. The childhood play more huge and important role in becoming talented and great.
Hillary Clinton secretly has gills

Thank you for coming to tonight's debate. Before I launch into my argument, I want to first talk about the meaning of the resolution and what it would take to negate the resolution. In the case of most simple declarative sentences, the negation is another simple declarative sentence. For example, the negation of "My dog barks" is "My dog does not bark." That isn't the case with our resolution, though. It turns out that there are two ways to negate the resolution. The resolution is "Hillary Clinton secretly has gills." The simplest way to negate that statement is to say, "It is not the case that Hillary Clinton secretly has gills." But there are two propositions hidden in the one statement, namely: 1. HIllary Clinton has gills. and 2. It is a secret. So one could negate the resolution in one of two ways. They could either deny that Hillary Clinton has gills, or they could deny that it is a secret. Either way, the resolution is negated. So one could concede that Hillary Clinton has gills and still negate the resolution by denying that it's a secret. That's the route I'm going to take because I suspect Pro has evidence that Hillary Clinton has gills. I am not myself privy to that evidence, so I can't say one way or the other. If my suspicion is correct, that means Pro knows Hillary Clinton has gills, and if Pro knows that Hillary Clinton has gills, then it's not a secret. If it's not a secret, then the resolution for this debate is false. Even if it were a secret, it won't be by the end of this debate because Pro will have made it public knowledge. So one way or the other, that resolution will prove false by the end of this debate. So I should win as soon as Pro makes his case.