BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay marriage shouldn't be legalized at this point in time

Gay people should be able to do whatever they want, so long as they're not hurting anyone. Why would you want to control what another person can or cannot do? If two gay people get married, how does that impact in your life in any way? It's like saying a black and a white person cannot get married. It's wrong to prohibit interracial marriage and it's wrong to prohibit gay marriage. Marriage is really just a symbolic arrangement. It doesn't change anything. A gay couple who can't get married aren't just going to give up on homosexuality and start having sex with people of the opposite gender. That's not how the world works. They're just going to live together and feel slighted that they cannot experience what people of the opposite gender can experience. Personally I will never get married. I don't need the church or the state to approve of my love. But if someone wants to get married, if there's a priest that will marry them, more power to ya. It's none of my business. And it's none of your business.
Gay marriage shouldn't be legalized at this point in time

Under different circumstances it would be just to let people have their freedom. However, at this point it shouldn't be done. Too many things have changed through influences of the past and because of that a few definitions adapted with it. The natural order is that men should engage with women. In the past that was no problem because things like large societies and media weren't there to alter things. Over time it slowly started to change and the characters of both parties were altered in becoming what they are now. Men and women aren't compatible anymore, both are just fundamentally different. Through that the definition of relationship was shattered for those parties because it couldn't withstand that difference. It created a diffidence and because we are beings that seek others we started to look elsewhere. Intimate relationships work under a setting of understanding one and other and having an attraction based on personal interest. This personal interest is mostly formed by the ideology of what that current society has placed to be the factors of that interest. Side example the increase of sexual allowance has created men to be more sexual active. This created a problem for the increase of children in the world and because the responsibility decreases since the definition of sex is not for creating life, but pleasure a lot of children grow up unwanted. Stated to show my opponent the result of the past that cause certain chain reactions in today's society. Now back to our case if we allow gay marriage in spite of these differences men and women will seek within the same sex sector more often. Both parties will see that the love will be redirected at same sex individuals because they are similar in interest and because of that the relationship is more likely to succeed. In closing I do not appose to gay marriage under different circumstances, but at this point it would create a huge increase if publicly allowed. That will create ultimately the change in definition that would allow it and it will grow even more in the future because we are beings of adaptability and whatever environment we grow up is the form we will take through that nature. As we all know that human life cannot proceed without people having sex between men and women, so by that I disapprove the legalization of gay marriage in this era.
Gay marriage shouldn't be legalized at this point in time

Gay marriage should be legal. Anyone dumb enough to want to get married should be free to do so. The government shouldn't be telling people they can't get married. That's ridiculous. All tax breaks available to straight couple should be available to gay couples. Same with parental rights, medical rights, etc. People who oppose gay marriage are secretly homosexual and ashamed of this fact and so they lash out at those unrepressed homosexuals who are not ashamed of their sexuality.
This house supports the use of drones by the military

I accept, with a redefinition of Drones:Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVS), also known as drones, are aircraft either controlled by ‘pilots’ from the ground or increasingly, autonomously following a pre-programmed mission. (While there are dozens of different types of drones, they basically fall into two categories: those that are used for reconnaissance and surveillance purposes and those that are armed with missiles and bombs.[1]http://dronewarsuk.wordpress.com... from http://peacenews.info...;
This house supports the use of drones by the military

The following debate will examine the use of drones in military action. Both sides will share the burden of proof for their respective arguments.Definitions:drone: an unmanned vehicle remotely controlled by a human operatorRules (borrowed and modified from another debate)This opening round is for definitions and acceptance only. The Pro case will be presented at the start of the 2nd round.Standard debate conventions apply. Both sides agree to the following rules, and that violating the rules is a conduct violation, with anything contrary to the rules to be ignored by readers judging the debate:DR 1. All arguments must be made in the debate. Evidence may be cited or linked to the debate, but only in support of arguments made in the debate. Arguments made in Comments are to be ignored.DR 2. Source links or references must be included within the 8000 characters per round limit of the debate. No links or sources are permitted in comments.DR 3. Any term not specifically defined before use is to be taken with the ordinary dictionary definition of the term that best fits the context of the debate.DR 4. No new arguments shall be made in Round 4. Pro may rebut previous arguments using new evidence solely for that purpose, but no new arguments are allowed. Con may not present any new evidence in R4.DR 5. DDO site rules always apply, unless superseded by debate rules. Neither side may add or modify rules for the debate once the challenge is accepted.DR 6. Both sides share the burden of proof for their respective arguments.
Geocentrism

"The following are experiments that prove the constancy of the speed of light"This is not proof lightspeed is always c, since the Wang experiment I described in my previous round shows two light beams, one traveling faster than and one traveling slower than c."There are also many experiments that prove relativity, most important of which being the prediction of the changes in Mercury's orbit."The formula in General Relativity that predicted the change in Mercury's orbit was actually created before General Relativity by a man named Gerber. Einstein admitted this: "Gerber ... already gave the right formula for the Perihelion shift of Mercury before me." (1) Since the formula has been used successfully without General Relativity, it can't be used as proof of General Relativity."The Wang, or rather Sagnac, experiment, was quite an intriguing case. The problem with this experiment is, it is conducted on a rotating system, which is considered a non-inertial frame."Wrong! The Wang experiment is called the Generalized Sagnac Effect because the original Sagnac Effect is considered a special case of it. They are not the same thing. The observer in the original Sagnac Effect was rotating, but not in the Wang experiment. In the Wang experiment, the observer is in an inertial frame. So your objection fails and my argument stands that light has been proven to travel at speeds different than c."Your analogy is irrelevant because, as said before, you presented motion ruled by quantum physics to happen in the same way as motion in the Newtonian physics."Your only evidence so far to support the idea that quantum-scale motion is different than normal, everyday motion is that light always travels at c, but as I've shown, this is wrong therefore you have no proof at all. So my analogy still applies."I find it funny how you debunked your own claim that the earth does not spin."I did no such thing."To explain myself, to say that the universe rotates around a stationary earth in a certain direction is exactly the same as saying that the earth spins relative to the stationary universe towards the opposite direction."Yes. If Earth is spinning counterclockwise relative to the universe, then the universe is spinning clockwise relative to Earth. But that doesn't necessarily mean Earth is spinning in an absolute sense."By looking at the second image you sent me, one can tell that it depicts the solar system of the heliocentric model, viewing it relatively to the earth, making the latter seem stationary."Glad we could agree on that."it is probably safe to assume that the Sun's mass and size are the same in both models"I'm fine with the sun's mass and size being the same in both models. You use this to argue that, according to our current models of gravity, this would mean the sun would make Earth move towards it. I agree on this point. However since the Michelson-Morley experiment proved Earth is not moving, there must be something preventing the sun from making Earth move, even though I don't know what this something is.(1) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Gerber
The Swearing Filter on DDO Should be Removed.

Hello all, this debate will be between Zaradi and I. This wont be opened until next week.Resolution: "The Swearing Filter on DDO Should be Removed."Rules:1. No forfeits2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. No trolling5. No semantics abuse6. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add definitions7. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss.Structure:First round is for acceptance. No new arguments in the final round (rebuttals that follow from the previous round are allowed). Otherwise, arguments and counter-arguments are free to be used the discretion of the debater.Definitions:Swearing Filter:A swear filter, also known as a profanity filter or language filter is a software subsystem which modifies text to remove words deemed offensive by the administrator or community of an online forum. Swear filters are common in custom-programmed chat rooms and online video games, primarily MMORPGs. (https://www.google.com...)Removed:eliminate or get rid of. (https://www.google.com...)
The Swearing Filter on DDO Should be Removed.

Thank you to Zaradi for a great debate. Before I conclude, it should be made clear that I'm not trying to impress Zaradi in anyway. He simply says that I'm trying to be fancy with my arguments because I'm debating him of all people. Honestly, I don't care who I debate. Whatever I debate, and whomever I'm debating, I put my all in it. You're no special than anyone else. I'm going to keep this short, because the conclusion is pretty obvious. Conclusion: As provided by the swearing definition ":A swear filter, also known as a profanity filter or language filter is a software subsystem which modifies text to remove words deemed offensive by the administrator or community of an online forum. Swear filters are common in custom-programmed chat rooms and online video games, primarily MMORPGs" I simply distinguished the difference between a "Slur" and a "Profane" word. I argued and proved how a "Slur" is more offensive than a "Profane" word because a "slur" refers to a group of people in a negative way. Whilst a "Profane" word is referring to its self, and it does not describe someone. My religious argument suggested that people whom are religious may fine words to be more profane than others. Thus, we should have an option to whether or not one decided to turn on the filter, or not. The member has the option to remove the filter if they are fine with profane words. But the member should also have the option to turn it off. So, if they did decide to turn it off, the filter is removed--off on that particular account. Let's note that my opponents counter plans wouldn't work. He simply states that "What she doesn't realize is that my advocacy of an optional filter solves for this problem by removing the incentive that people have to actually try to bypass the filter" There would STILL be the issue of members coming up with combinations such as: F*ck Fvck Sh! it My opponent seems to think that members won't use cuss words, or different combinations because "no one is actually going to need to, hence no one will try" And do we know this for a fact? Members STILL use symbols in order to bypass the filter. So, his plan wouldn't work. Let's also note that my opponent dropped my language argument. That some members are able to speak another language, and cuss. They can easily bypass the filter using bad words in French, Spanish. .etc. Let's ALSO be aware, that there are many free downloadable programs tha allow members of sites to bypass any filter. I will not provide these links because it would be disrespectful. But, you can do your re-shearch if you wish. So, in conclusion, there is NO point of the filter. Members can easily bypass it, use symbols, different combinations, and still get their point across. The only thing the filer DOES do, is take away one's free will.
Communism works if applied correctly

I am unable to continue this debate. I'm here just to clear things up. I'll gonna be gone in abit! TO PRO: I'm terribly sorry. A wedge has been put on me; I'm currently trying to lift it. It's impossible. It's like an anvil. However, down with communism! Glory to the national struggle! The class struggle will fail, because it doesn't understand human nature. Human nature is based rightly upon the creation of social classes, and we shall respect that. In the creation of the communist society, we must suffer equally! Our national pride? Lost! Our liberties? Taken in the name of the proletariat! We will run out of food to feed our comrades under the communist way of life, under the system which promised me all the food I would need. "Well, then if communism puts an end to many good things, such as family attachments and national sentiment; if it provides neither bread nor freedom and makes us subservient to a foreign country, what is to be done? " Jose Antonio Primero De Rivera"No matter how mistaken Communist ideas may be, the experience and knowledge gained by trying them out have given a tremendous impetus to thought and imagination. " Anne SullivanThe principles of the communist revolution is based on obsolete principles; to abolish money in the name of what? Of the proletariat? How about the bourgeiosie? Are they not people too? Why wage war upon people? Why turn the guns of "the people's revolution" on the people? I agree, that the capitalist system has been exploitation for the proleteriat. And I agree, that time for the exploitation of the proletariat must end. But we must not turn into the spoils of communism; keep the foundations of capitalism! Work, tears and sweat for bread! This is my last stand against communism on this website, for a while. But it proves one thing; we anti-communists, whether you come from a conservative, liberal, or nationalistic persuasion, will resist to the very last breathe an ideology that doesn't understand humans! We, anti-communists, stand here, so that there can be bread for the future! We, anti-communists, stand here so that justice may be served! We anti-communists will stand here, and will always do so as long as humans have the strength to resist! Resist my Anti-Communist comrades, RESIST! Down to the last breathe! Spit on this communism! If I die from any other causes other than natural ones, I would be resisting the forces that would destroy humanity. *ends little rant*Sorry that got out of hand. I needed an epic speech for my farewell to DDo. TO VOTERS: Vote Pro. It's fair for him. It's fair for me too. I have been stupid to accept this debate from the beginning. I didn't know that I was going to need a break from this website until the anvil really hit hard. But the anti-communist cause lives forever! Consult the Young Conservatives on this website for more consultation. And lastly, but not least, farewell DDo! I don't know when I'll be back. But I'll be back.
Mortal Kombat

Yes, Mortal Kombat is an entertaining game that many gamers play. However, it is one of the most violent games out there. It is so violent that it was also banned in some countries and had to addend to many court cases. The very first game was also the first game to receive a mature ESRB rating. Because of these issues, it is one of the most controversial video games in this world. So tell me, would you play something that is controversial or play something that isn't?
Mortal Kombat

Now, I believe that we should limit the amount of play time on the violent video games because they can cause brain damage and a different way of thinking. For example there are many instances of school shooting, and most of these people who were in charge of the shooting were motivated by these violent video games. No wonder some countries have banned Mortal Kombat, because it has a bad influence on teenagers and video gamers. And because of these shootings, I can conclude that it was heavily influenced by these violent games, such as Mortal Kombat.
IF there IS NO GOD HOW DO YOU TELL RIGHT FROM WRONG

You're right if we cannot find common ground we would get no where that's why there is a God who loves us inspired over 7 people to write a book called the bible which is historically correct scientifically accurate and morally correct word for word chapter for chapter because if he leaves us to judge right from wrong then its chaos for example Hitler and the Nazis by the way I don't need to say what they did I hope you know your history more examples Joseph stalin, Pol Pot, Isis, slavery and many more and there might be more in the future but if we obey what God says maybe we would have a better society. WOAHHHH...... I never said without God you would eat babies or anyone eating babies so don't go down that route go to Specsavers and learn how to my point was that if we feel like doing something no matter how bad it affects someone in the long run do it because there is o God and there is nobody who is better than you to tell you what to do with your life and the choices you make (Do you see how things can quickly get out of hand) if there is no God why aren't thing even worse than it is now. You haven't showed me how the Bible isn't a good source of morality, you haven't showed me where in the it say that we can own another human being as property, or to force a woman to marry the man who raped her, or murder your child for being unruly show me where in the BIBLE God commanding us to do that, we also read the Bible to understand God a little bit more, learning how to live a good life AND answering the 4 fundamental questions of life. 1. Who am I 2.What am I worth 3.Why am I here 4,And where do I go when I die atheist would answer 1. (His or her name) 2. What's in my pocket 3.? 4. nowhere that's it A Christian would answer 1. A child of the living God 2.Everything to him you're are worth more than the rarest piece of Diamond or Gold in the whole universe!!! 3.To love God and Love everyone as he loves us obey his laws and live in peace. 4.If you are a born again Christian Go to heaven and live in paradise no more pain no more suffering no more tears just happiness. (P'S reply) God created us he loves us but if we want to disobey him he will allow us but one day we will be punished for our wrong doings that's justice P'S if you don't want to be punished I suggest you give your heart to God the Bible says Romans 10:13 King James Version For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. there are no magic words Gods looking at your heart. p's how do you tell right from wrong if there is no God and how is the Holy Bible immoral.
IF there IS NO GOD HOW DO YOU TELL RIGHT FROM WRONG

The superiority of secular morality! I will need to defend that statement. By doing so I will also be analyzing the Bible as a source for morality! What is morality? Is it simply drawing a line in the sand over right and wrong? Is it an agreement that "subject A" is either good or bad? Ultimately morality is about well being. Whenever you come to a moral dilemma. It means that in order for someone to be well off, someone else needs to make a sacrifice! I feel as though I need to make this clear! If we cannot find common ground on how right and wrong are determined we will be talking past each other and get nowhere! Your example: Without god I would eat babies.. why not? First off I switched to eating babies instead of slitting the strangers throat! They pretty much come to the same conclusion.. Without God and the bible we would all be baby eating monsters.. Why wouldn't we be? If you were to argue that I am civil and do not eat babies because of God's law! I would have to assure you that I reject the bible and any concept of God as my authority.. Yet I do not eat babies! Where does my morality come from? Why do you need to be commanded to be "Good or bad"? I follow no commandment and somehow maintain a moral lifestyle! You wanted me to show where the bible is not a good source for morality! First off I would like to hear from you that it is "Good" to own a human being as property? Is it "Good" to force a woman to marry the man who raped her? Is it justified to murder your child for being unruly? These are commandments.. Orders to follow! They are immoral! IF you are not trying to determine the best outcome for a situation and just following a Dictator you are amoral or without morality By evaluating any given situation we can maximize our well being while knowing that the well being of others benefits us all! Add a little empathy and compassion.. Bamm!! You have your system of morality that is completely independent from ever needing to be told to be "Good" The fact that you think you would slit someone's throat means you do not understand morality or that you should definitely keep reading your bible if that helps you keep the demons at bay! I will be over here.. being a good person without anyone forcing me! If I'm a violent person I should expect to get hurt! If I am disrespectful to others they will be disrespectful to me! This is just an example of natural systems working to help me make a better judgement when evaluation a situation! Oh.. They also have a law and justice system to deter you from your Xbox rage stabbings! P.S. How does God's Morality account for Hell?
IF there IS NO GOD HOW DO YOU TELL RIGHT FROM WRONG

Well if there is no God why don't we do what ever we want (EXAMPLE) I'm really angry I lost a game of fifa on my xbox I am going to take my anger out on a random stranger on the street by stabbing him in the throat or a different scenario I want a new xbox 1 so I am gonna rob that elderly man outside, now you can see how things can really get out of hand but because I believe that there is a God who loves us and wants us to live in peace he inspired Man to write a book called the bible with rules showing us how to live and showing us his great Love for us and if there is anything in the bible that you think is wrong please do say on your reply