BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay marraige

"The above sources ought to make the biological causation part of the statement true." Give me a break… "In addition, homosexual relationships are indeed an accepted lifestyle at the present time." As I asked you before, accepted by whom? A minority of kooks and weirdoes? "…why does the ignorance of 70-percent of a voter referendum cause such relations to be unacceptable?" Because most people are more intelligent than you give them credit for. "Why would anyone oppose such relations when they are by no means affected by the decisions of two consenting adults in a committing relationship?" AIDS come to mind? Dysfunctional households are much higher? Child adoption? That's child abuse in my opinion.
Gay marraige

Greetings, To begin, many animals often engage in homosexual activities, and I have added two links that may satisfy your inquiries. http://www.foxnews.com... http://www.news-medical.net... Also, you may find the below sites of interest as well. http://www.cnn.com... http://news.bbc.co.uk... http://serendip.brynmawr.edu... The above sources ought to make the biological causation part of the statement true. In addition, homosexual relationships are indeed an accepted lifestyle at the present time. Why would anyone oppose such relations when they are by no means affected by the decisions of two consenting adults in a committing relationship? "A voter referendum tallied 70-percent against same sex marriage." However, why does the ignorance of 70-percent of a voter referendum cause such relations to be unacceptable? Just because a particular number of people consider homosexual relations unacceptable, it does not mean that they are an unacceptable lifestyle.
Gay marraige

"Homosexuality is an accepted lifestyle nowadays with a proven biological causation. - Denying..." Your statement is false. There are no credible scientific studies that conclude homosexuality is either inherited or springs from one's genetics. If you contend that there are, please cite the study. Secondly, you state that homosexuality is an "accepted lifestyle." By whom? Even in one of the most liberal states in the country, Massachusetts, a voter referendum tallied 70-percent against same sex marriage. The gay marriage law came about by the court, not from a popular vote.
The religion Christianity shows, many flaws, in there bibles, also there own god

Giving my opponent, to show that his religion has no flaws. Now lets think about Flaws for a second; flaws can mean contradictions; lies; imperfection of there god. You see many christains believe there book is the word of gods, so everything, the book speaks according to christains are true. So as the debate progresses, my opponent as he is christain, will agree that many christains say there book are truly of gods word. My opponent, will surely see that what allows this god to exist, what speaks of this god true existance, and thats the book. How do you disprove of something, you attack the roots, if I can show flaws, in the roots of christainity, the book, then that will show there god as a fraud. Now many christains also believes in creation, for then my opponent will then have to explain how this god, also why this god not only if he created, and exist, earth, but also, venus, mars, jupitar, uranis, comets, astroids, stars, black holes, galaxies, many other planets in this universe. Since the Christain faith, in a book shows why, and how this god created earth, and sun, and moon. Then my oponent will be pleased to show us, why if this god truly exist, after giving us some knowledge about the creation of earth, why he created all those I mention. Also many Christians do not believe in evolution, when we are experiencing actual proof of evolution today, actual visual proof, its not from a book. Also my opponent would gladly like to show us how his christian god is not evil also. How if this god is real, how he is pure, how he loves, and how he cares so much about us. How he heals the sick, how he saves his children if he truly exists. My opponent should not find this debate that difficult to win.
PC for gaming are better than a console

My opponent has forfeited this round, and looking at his profile, he has not been on lately. I am assuming that he will not continue to debate. If anybody wishes to debate me on this same topic, feel free to post that you do in the comments and I will start this debate with the first one who asks. As for voting, I urge you not to vote, for this has not been a real debate, with my opponent straying from topic and not completing his rounds. My apologies
PC for gaming are better than a console

Alright then, I wish to clarify some things before continuing, I agree with you when you say there is no master race gaming device, and that this is based on your opinion, but that is the point, if there was a master device, then this debate would not be as easy to execute. Both types of devices are good for different reasons, and the point of this debate is not to point out a winner, rather it is to convince those who are judging that your reasons for liking your device is better than your opponents. And they would judge on who debated better not what they like more for thats not the point of these debates. I would now like to continue by asking you a question. What you had posted was an opinion, and I agree with the fact that trying to argue to find the "master console" is not something that should be done. However I posted this debate with the intention of debating with someone else comparing the consoles and learning new things, and to have a good time. You choose rather to accept my debate, to post about how you disliked the debate topic, and though I don't agree with you on that that's not the point. I wish to ask why you chose to post it in the debate area rather than the comments making it so that if a person did want to debate this topic they would be unable to. What is it that made you feel like this opinion was what I was asking to debate and why should it go into the debate rather than comments. If you still want to debate the real topic and not how much you dislike the topic, I am happy to do that, if so all you need to do is have your next argument tell me that you do and if you feel like telling me that you would only like to argue one console feel free to do so. Remember there is not and will never be a master race console and even if there was one some would still prefer another kind more, the point of the debate is to argue your personal opinion, and then be judged by the impact of your points and refutes and your ability to debate. Also if this debate does continue and you are voting, if you do have an opinion, as I ask to not judge by what you think but rather by who you think executed the argument, you could like a PC more but still think that the person arguing for consoles, had a better argument and in that case vote for him. I will let you continue to debate the actual topic if you wish, if not at least answer why you thought it necessary to post in the actual debate instead of the comments. Thank you.
PC for gaming are better than a console

I believe,that saying that either form of gaming is superior than the other,is idiotic,it's all about preference. PC gaming isn't superior to Console Gaming,it's simply a different form of playing Video Games,engaging in the experience that is Gaming,supporting the art form,and I think having some elitism,over gaming,is moronic,and something that shouldn't even be debated. Let me play Devils Advocate,for a brief moment of time,lets say i am in favor of the "PC Master Race" What exactly is so great about being part of a master race,for gaming,it's stupidity at it's finest,and to think people hold elitism over gaming,is idiotic.
PC for gaming are better than a console

Hello, I wish to explain a bit of info before starting to anyone looking to debate, or simply viewing this debate. The purpose of this debate is to argue wether a pc computer that is geared towards playing video games, is better that a console, or not. I choose this debate, partly because I thought that it had the potential to be a fun debate, plus I don't use consoles that often so I may learn something. IMPORTANT INFO: The first thing I want to clear up, is I am arguing for computers built only or primarily towards being used to play video games. Also the computer includes both the actual cpu and the peripherals like the monitor mouse, etc. If my opponent would like to argue for only one type of console, then they may but they must specify that in their first post. Ex. Xbox, Play station, Wii. When I refer to console I do not include hand held consoles like a DS. Structure of the debate: The first round is acceptance, and in my case providing info, if you have something you want to clarify, Ex. your arguing for one type of console, please state so at this time, but do not start the debate. The second round is providing your opening speech, the opening speech is where you present your points on why your side of the case is better, but IS NOT for countering your opponents speech directly if you have the second speech. The 3-4 speech are about protecting points and attacking your opponents. The final round is a summary of why you believe your side has won, and at this time no new evidence may be brought up and no new attacks may be made. If you use any statistics, I ask you provide a link in your argument so that people can validate what your saying and as a basic way to site your source. You may use personal opinions without citing. If you have any questions, ask in the comments before starting so I can sort that out, and that way we are both fully prepared when the debate starts. Though this debate will be taken semi-seriously, it should not be taken personally, and thus no personal attacks, or bullying. Respect your opponent, and attack their case not them. Finally, if you do not submit your case in the allotted time, you do not instantly loose, but your opponent may still use their time to debate, and this will negatively affect your judging score.
PC for gaming are better than a console

Unfortunately my opponent has chosen not to debate on the previous round, thus we are brought into the final round. Because my opponent has failed to debate the given topic I shall give some info to the readers rather than debate the topic. The first thing I wish to say is to once again tell the reader that if anyone wishes to debate this topic and take the side of console NOT the side of I don't think either should be put above the others, then feel free to say so in the comments and I can start a new debate with you. The second thing I would like to cover is voting, the best option would be to not vote for this debate was not carried out like it was planned. If however you do feel the urge to vote, I ask you to consider a few things. First this debate was created to argue if Pc or Console gaming was "better." There is no set meaning for better, but the one used for this debate it better in the debaters opinion. The voters would have then voted on who they think used more valid facts and had better arguments, not agree with the debater who's opinion matched their own. My opponent chose to disregard what the debate was asking, and post their opinion on how they do not think there should be a "better" gaming device. There is nothing wrong with his opinion and it could have made a great debate if I was asking that we debate wether or not we think there should be a better gaming device, but this is not what I asked to debate, thus my opponent closed the debate to any contenders who actually wanted to debate the topic. My second point is that after my opponents original speech he has forfeited ever following round, thus not showing his respect to the debate. My final point is that by saying "What exactly is so great about being part of a master race,for gaming,it's stupidity at it's finest,and to think people hold elitism over gaming,is idiotic." he has insulted many people who hold the opinion of liking one console more than another, and I wish if this is what he wanted to say he should at least have chosen his words a bit more carefully. If my opponent does decided to post this final argument I wish that you answer my questions in my second argument and do not use a cheap tactic like wait until this round to post your argument so that I have no chance to refute any of your points. With this said I apologize to the viewers for the outcome of this debate, and I hope you understand why if you feel that you need to vote I hope you vote for me, Thank you.
Obvious non sense

It is what it is Id call it brainwashing kids, I don't at all think its healthy for children to grow up with a dream like vision of the future, They will probably end up as crack addicts the more fantasy like it is to them That they might be true is pretty much irrelevant, It might be true that we will be attacked globally by dragons some day, Should we therfore impliment that irrelevant fear and retarded behaviors into out lives? Obviously not, We have no clue if there are dragons, And if you do impliment this into your life, Then you make no more or less sense than any other religious nut in my eyes I think its not right, One thing is watching a movie, Another thing is making that movie your life, And need other people to join in or else they are DEMONS AND THEY WILL EaT YOUR CHILDREN. . Its fuckingg insanity
videos games being good for you

True, but besides the positive effects video games could have. There are also negative effects through the long usage of it. If you play it all the time straight, or even 10 hours straight chances are you will get a headache. From that the body is telling you what you are doing now is damaging. Also, the brain is a very important organ in your body you really don't want something to go wrong with it. The positive effects of video games can be gained in another ways. We exist for quite some time now even before video games. Within that it is perfectly possible to use another source for education that has the same effect as video games.
videos games being good for you

Summary: It depends on a few factors. If we are talking about video games in general and the possibility they have, then I would have to agree with you video games can be good for you. Since you state in general that means both negative and positive. The negative outweigh the positive for this statement though. The games made these days are very violent and given that we humans learn through certain pre-determined ways. I hereby say that it is not good for you. Also, the way it is used though its technological tool is bad for you as well. In far I state that being good for you in terms of education. It can be replaced by other methods for in the past this wasn't present thus indicated not needed.
pacifism is just as bad as warmongering

the main reason pacifism is as bad as warmongering is because being passive or not trying to effectively solve the problem is as bad as instigating an unjust war because letting it happen is unknowingly condoning an atrocity. I also never said that ghandi and MLK were like Hitler im talking about pacifism as an ideology and that pacifist way of thinking is just as extreme as warmongering. like I said before its an extreme and like all extremes its as as bad as the other extreme. that and the consequences of allowing things such as genocide and aggression towards other nations could have disastrous consequences like millions of deaths in a genocide sounds worse than trying to fight it. allot of times non violence is as bad if not worse than the alternative.
pacifism is just as bad as warmongering

Greetings!Let me restate the question at hand to make it clear:Is pacifism morally equivalent to starting an unjust war? I will adopt a consequentialist approach to morality (1). This means that for two actions to be equally bad they should both produce roughly the same balance of negative versus positive consequences.1) Wars of aggression are very, very badIf we look at a few examples of wars of aggression (2), we will quickly see that they cause incredibly large amounts of suffering. A historical example might be the Mongol Invasion of the Song Dynasty in China in which there were 10,000,000 plus Chinese killed (3). A modern example might be the Nazi invasion of Poland (4) in which there were 900,000 casualties. Very few actions can even come close to the suffering caused by wars of aggression.2) There are few, if any, examples of pacifism leading to similar levels of destruction I am unaware of any historical pacifist movement whose existence led to mass death and destruction. If my opponent has an example, I encourage them offer it up. Thus far, my opponent relies on thought experiments alone to support the dangers of pacifism. 3) Pacifism has the potential to be very positive whereas wars of aggression are almost always bad There are several instances of pacifism in which there were positive outcomes. For example, the African-American civil rights movement was largely successful in using a mostly non-violent approach for change (5). It would seem that at least some of the time, pacifism can help achieve political ends while minimizing suffering. Wars of aggression, on the other hand, seem to almost always result in violent means being used for oppressive political ends. An action that is sometimes positive (i.e., pacifism) is morally superior to an action that is almost never positive (i.e., wars of aggression).4) Pacifism does not need to be a good idea to be better than wars of aggression Finally, I am not arguing that pacifism is the ideal strategy for conflict. It is true that pacifism is not helpful with some opponents. However, the debate is not on the merits of pacifism but on whether it is morally equal to wars of aggression. As such the burden of proof is much more severe for my opponent than it is for me. They must show that men like Gandhi and Dr. King are morally equivalent to Hitler and Genghis Khan. All I need show is that this is not the case. It is worse to try to conquer and kill your enemies for your own self-interest than to be dogmatically against violence. I thank my opponent and await his rebuttal.(1) http://plato.stanford.edu...(2) http://en.wikipedia.org...(3) http://en.wikipedia.org...(4) http://en.wikipedia.org...;(5) http://en.wikipedia.org...
pacifism is just as bad as warmongering

pac"i"fism G2;pasəG6;fizəm/Submit noun the belief that any violence, including war, is unjustifiable under any circumstances, and that all disputes should be settled by peaceful means. the idea of pacifism is just another extreme like warmongering. if a genocide is going on in another country should the neighboring country just allow it to happen or what if the country they share a border with invades their country should they let it happen. but thats not the only example what about people oppressed by a dictatorship like Nazi Germany where anyone who speaks out against the government gets killed by the government. these are instances where pacifism cant work. pacifism is just the opposite extreme just like theres far left and far right pacifism is an extreme just like warmongering.
Evolution must be a regular curriculum for Biology classes.

i am a Creationist. Evolution is a theory. By definition a theory is a supposition. A scientific theory is something that can be modified or rejected. Seeing how there are arguments and evidence against evolution, theory of evolution is far from being an universal truth. This means that evolution is something that a person must believe in, despite lack of unanimous evidence pointing towards one conclusion. If evolution is a belief, and creationism is a belief, why should one take precedence over another? I'm not saying that creationism is what should be taught at school, but I'm saying that since evolution is no different from other beliefs about the creation of this biosphere, evolution has no reason to be a part of biology class curriculum. I value your opinions, and would be delighted to hear them.
Women should be allowed to be topless in pools and beaches.

While it is important to consider the rights of both genders equally, it should be understood that anatomically, men and women are different . It is merely a fact of life to understand these differences, not sexist. Furthermore, pools and beaches are public places, where society as a whole may commute to and enjoy, it would be unacceptable to allow little children, and pre-pubescent teens to see a woman's breasts. This would also be detrimental to a woman's self esteem, as they would see other who have much bigger breasts, and would feel ashamed of themselves, through no fault of their own. Additionally, to do so would undermine a parent's ability to raise their kids as they see fit, and force them to give the "talk" much earlier than they would prefer. While yes, gender equality is important in today's society, it must also be within reason of what could be considered acceptable to show to children. What the Instigator has failed to mention in his opening statement, or that title of the debate, is that, there will be limits. What the Instigator is suggesting, would be unacceptable to family life.
Women should be allowed to be topless in pools and beaches.

I feel like i must explain the phrase you quoted, "We live in a society that at times, views women as objects, and by removing this dress barrier, it WILL cause negative repercussions, against those who will try to bravely use their new rights" What I was trying to say was, that with violence against woman, we have a potentially dangerous situation, in which, if we were to alter society too quickly, we would run into dangers of social backlash. Take for instance the civil rights movement, it took place through the 50's and 60's, and it achieved almost all of it's goals, but at a cost. Violence. When society was suddenly forced to grant new rights, that they didn't necessarily agree with, violence broke out against those who sough to secure fundamental rights. The same goes for our debate. History will repeat itself, it always does. Just imagine for example, that we legalized toplessness in pools and beaches, what would happen? Well, historically, when new rights were suddenly given, violence has always broken out, and it has always ended sadly*. What you aim to advance, would be far to much of change, in far too little of a time. In fact, society would react to this change with increased opposition, due to the speed of implementation. What I feel you have neglected in your arguments is, society plays a massive role in social issues, whether we like it or not. I would like to thank you for taking the time to debate with me. *Some of the violence that has historically followed social change includes, just to name a few: shootings, bombings, assault, imprisonment, fines, and beatings
Women should be allowed to be topless in pools and beaches.

We all agree that society is not perfect, but for it to become better we need to stop adding law's that are against human rights. More particularly in this case, women's rights. A lot of women already wish to expose their breasts because they don't like hiding them, it makes them feel weak. Now for the weapon issue, I wish to not elaborate more since it is far off the main question. Legalizing abortion will of course be denied by some people but we should not punish a majority just because of a minority. Just because a few rapists will commit crimes we can't force all women to hide their breasts. I am still not clear on how this law would have bad consequences. You said : 'We live in a society that at times, views women as objects, and by removing this dress barrier, it WILL cause negative repercussions, against those who will try to bravely use their new rights.' I understand that women can be viewed from different angles but I still do not understand what could be so bad about it.