BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Keep Gay Marriage Illegal

My opponent has basically stated that Gay uncles are needed as a person to nurture the growth of the nieces and nephews. The only source he has is to defend this is instead about some strange people in American Samoa, where some Gay-like people who consider themselves of a "3rd sex", and they tend to help their newphews and nieces.Furthermore, I have shown why Gay marriage should be legal, because of moral, and ethical reasons, and why marriage is a fundamental Civil Right (I proved these points too).I think it is safe to say that legalizing gay marriage, which would only cause about 0.6% of the population to look for marriage (source in R4), would not be detrimental. I think it is safe to say that most families don't have a Gay uncle who watches the children and helps them.My points were left unrefuted.VOTE CONTRA
Keep Gay Marriage Illegal

"Population is good. Plus, gay marriage legalization would only lead to about 0.6% more marriages in the whole USA" Population is not always "good". There are even concerns now about global overpopulation. Furthermore, it is not just about overall population growth or lackthereof but the dynamics of such growth. People fill many different social roles in society conditioned by evolution.It is important that absent any compelling evidence that the result will be better that humans do NOT interfere with their own natural development by implementing policies that encourage people to stray away from their natural evolutionary function. Scientific evidence as I linked to in above posts clearly shows that human homosexuality is meant to be so that some members of human society can help take care of nieces and nephews, NOT so they can form families of their own.By allowing gay marriage we are encouraging homosexuals to stray away from the natural model that has been given to us by evolution. It is OK that they are gay, but instead of trying to have kids of their own they should seek to be good uncles and aunts.Allowing gay marriage will mean that more and more often gay couples will have kids of their own, spend more time with those kids, and hence less time looking after nieces and nephews. This changes the entire family dynamics. Whereas before their straight siblings and their spouses would get some necessary relief from parenting duties, allowing more investment of their time in productive work and social activities while making sure the kids still had adult supervision and bonding, now parents will increasingly find themselves on their own, their gay siblings preoccupied with their own children. Some of these parents will choose to cut back on work leading to less income, some on social and leisure activities leading to more stress, some will cut back on time with their children which will harm the children.Furthermore as gays are evolutionarily conditioned for the role of supportive extra parent and now society is going to pressure them into becoming actual parents they will be taking on a weight they are not equipped for by nature, and the effects of this shift will likely be seen only later on in society.
Keep Gay Marriage Illegal

Rebuttals"Allowing gay marriage will ultimately lead to more gay couples feeling more "normal" and hence free to use the IVF technology or even just sex for the sole purpose of having babies in order to reproduce."Population is good. Plus, gay marriage legalization would only lead to about 0.6% more marriages in the whole USA [1]"evolution's natural goal for homosexuals is to look after nieces and nephews for their brothers and sisters NOT to have kids of their own."My opponent has failed to provide any evidence or sources of any of his claims. Gay Marriage would not lead to overpopulation, as the actual marriage rate would barely change, but allow social equality. There is no proof that "gay parents act as second parents to nephews and nieces". Denying gay marriage is violating a basic civil right, and my opponent has failed to rebut any of my arguments, while I have refuted my opponents' arguments.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Keep Gay Marriage Illegal

Con is missing the point. Yes it is ultimately decided by your genetics. Not only that but evolution has a naturally prescribed role for homosexuals in nearly every species. For the security and preservation of the human race we have to uphold that. "Social Equality" is not worth the extinction of or any other evolutionary harm to the human race. Allowing gay marriage will ultimately lead to more gay couples feeling more "normal" and hence free to use the IVF technology or even just sex for the sole purpose of having babies in order to reproduce. It's OK to be gay, it's natural, but evolution's natural goal for homosexuals is to look after nieces and nephews for their brothers and sisters NOT to have kids of their own. Parents are already feeling the pinch. With less gay family members to rely on to babysit more and more kids are thrown into day care centers, and families become more and more distanced from each other. By not having their own kids and tending to needs of the greater good of the family as a whole homosexuals serve an honorable and noble social role, one which should be encouraged, not discouraged by encouraging homosexuals to get married.
Keep Gay Marriage Illegal

http://www.psychologicalscience.org...Not only in animals, but humans. Fa'afafine who are men who take on a third gender role in Samoa take on the role of a sort of "superuncle" in relation to their nieces and nephews. They do not have kids of their own.As for evolutionary role, everything in human behavior has roots in evolution. To argue otherwise is to suggest people act in a vacuum. People's decisions are determined by their reaction to the environment surrounding the decision, what the individual has learned, and this is filtered through the individual's biological makeup which determines how the individual responds to that information. While biology is more than just genetics genetics ultimately is what guides the formation of the body through life.Since all human behavior has roots in evolution we all have our own evolutionary role. When there is a group of people who share a behavioral characteristic like homosexuality there is an evolutionary reason for that. Science shows us this reason is to help take care of nieces and nephews rather than having kids of their own. The human population is already growing too fast. We should not promote homosexuals to reproduce through legalizing gay marriage.
Keep Gay Marriage Illegal

I will point out that I currently have no viewpoint on gay marriage, so I am going to see if I can support pro-gay marriage. My opponent has basically a few points that he has made: "The natural function of homosexuality in animals and in the history of human evolutionary development is to provide support for their nieces and nephews by NOT having kids of their own. "He has no proof of this so far. Plus, gay and lesbian parents are just as good as parents as heterosexual parents. "Do we really want to mess with the natural evolutionary role of the homosexual? "What evolutionary role? Besides, how can gays and lesbians reproduce? I ask my opponent to point out how. Plus, I will point out that children thrive equally under both heterosexual and homosexual parents. I await my opponent's response.
Keep Gay Marriage Illegal

Some people claim homosexuality is against evolution because the genes will not pass on. Yet it is precisely because it passes on in genes in a new way that could alter the dynamics of human genetic evolution that gay marriage is a bad idea. Homosexuality in genetics passes on through carriers, which is fine because that has been going on throughout our history.But IVF is new. The genes of homosexuals are different, and now more will pass on to the next generation. This alters the dynamics of genetic inheritance within the human species, and we don't even have an inkling of an idea what the effects of this will be. Since genes that relate to homosexuality show influences on sex hormones this could have a real impact on the future development of new men and women being born. The natural function of homosexuality in animals and in the history of human evolutionary development is to provide support for their nieces and nephews by NOT having kids of their own. It would be ridiculously intrusive for the government to insist homosexuals NOT have their own children and would harm many children if they couldn't adopt but should we really be promoting gay marriage which will necessarily lead to higher rates of homosexual child-raising? Do we really want to mess with the natural evolutionary role of the homosexual? Nature is not equal. Think of all the various functions human beings must fill as a society. To make a human being capable of doing all of that would be impossible. There isn't brain, energy, or muscle space for that. Holding equality up as a sacred ideal is stupid, and would lead to the total breakdown of our ability to survive and continue as a race if followed to its logical extreme. Make it equal, because it's right seems to be the rallying cry these days, but what of the many cases where equality is not the right way? We should be aware of the long-term consequences before we just march forward with new policies like gay marriage. Until we have some solid data showing what sort of changes will occur in human genetic makeup if gays pass on more genes it is reckless to legalize gay marriage.
The GOD debate

Con's "layman examples" are flawed, for the reasons I've already pointed out. The verification principle is self contradictory. Moreover, you can't logically or empirically demonstrate the existence of history or the existence of other minds. I've argued that belief in God can be considered properly basic. That is, much like history and other minds, it is reasonable to believe in God even without a good argument or evidence. Absence of evidence for X only counts against the existence of X if you would expect find more evidence for X if X actually exists. In order to win on the merits of his "absence of evidence" argument, Con will have to make a compelling case that we should expect to find more evidence of God's existence. Until then, the debate goes to Pro by default.
The GOD debate

I find it very hard to debate someone who agrees with me on the hole. Please read my post more carefully and you will find I did address you 2nd and 3rd point in my post overal. I have also given examples as to proof as the why there is no god using layman examples. I am sorry I am not a formal debater, however my points have been made very clearly. I challenge you to review those points and rrbutle them accordingly. Thank you.
The GOD debate

Again, Con has not addressed contentions 2 & 3. Extend these points. Con is basically just repeating himself at this point. All of his analogies are of a similar nature. The simple fact of the matter is this: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I don't have to prove that God does exist, nor do I even believe that God exists. The burden of proof lies on the instigator to demonstrate his claim, and Con's arguments have been woefully inadequate.
The GOD debate

Thank You Once Again. Proof. As with God, proof for the existence of god does not exist. Most people of belief would say that the proof is the fact that we are here. I would say that that only proves you had parents and so on. To say that one must assume that basic fundamental things must be taken as fact and go from there is to say that God is a fact and lets start from there. Thus, what would be the point of the debate? Everything has a point at which it starts and ends. Everything comes from something. To assume that something started our very beginning, God, just because we yet have an answer for what that beginning is, is not an answer based in fact or proof. So, my proof is the sheer lack of proof. The bottom line is, the more science learns and proves the further from God we find ourselves. More to to the point. If we were to look at the proof at hand, everything would point to the fact that man in great science fiction imagined god and made god in his own image more so rather than the other way around. In closing this round, the argument should be based strictly in proof or lack of rather than your or my why or why not. Final thought, I tell you I tied and untied my shoe, I may not be able to prove that in that moment in time I did tie my shoe. You say prove you tied your shoe. Over the next several minutes I repeat the action, you would believe that more than likely I did indeed tie my shoe based on the fact that I continue to do so. However, if I was unable to tie my shoe ever, then you would believe that more than likely I did not tie my shoe in the first place. A better example based on what we know to be fact. If I told you I flapped my arms and could fly, You would know without asking for proof that that is not possible based on the fact that no human in the recorded past or any human you know in the present could do so. So, if you said really, do it again, and I could not, you would not only believe, but you would know I had not in the first place and that more than likely I was delusional. Thank You for reading my layman view! lol
The GOD debate

Con has failed to respond to contentions 2 & 3. Extend these arguments. Additionally, he continues to contradict himself, stating "I can not know that [God] does [not] exist without evidence." I think Con misunderstands my position, and the position of many theists. I'm not claiming, as he seems to think, that because we can't prove that Godzilla and unicorns don't exist, it must be the case that they do exist. Heck, I'm an atheist. I'm just pointing out that lack of evidence for either side is just that: lack of evidence for either side. In other words, agnosticism. Con argues that by employing the same evidential standards as the US court system, we can't demonstrate God's existence. However, the court system intentionally places a heavy burden of proof on the plaintiff to avoid punishing innocent persons. It's not enough for the balance of the evidence to merely suggest that the defendant is probably guilty, this must be demonstrated conclusively. This standard is not regularly employed in philosophy or the natural sciences, nor should it be used in this debate for the reasons I outlined in the first round. As instigator, Con has the burden to proof. Since he hasn't made a single argument against the existence of God, and by his own admission can't disprove God's existence, he's failed to uphold his end and the debate should go Pro by default.
The GOD debate

Thank you for that well thought out rebuttal. I would simply state that even if we use the most basic logic used by every court in the USA, one must provide some tangible proof. The old argument still works in this case. If I say I believe there are unicorns, I need no tangible proof. However, if I state that I know there are unicorns and moreover I expect you believe me just because I say I know, you would require proof. My believing or even knowing carries no weight without tangible proof of which for god there is none. So, even in the absence of knowledge does not imply existence. My not knowing about Godzilla does not mean Godzilla exists. The knowing that godzilla exists in conscious thought does not mean Godzilla exists in reality. However, I will concede one thing based on my own opening statement. No more than one can know god exists without evidence, I can not know he does exist without evidence. I would simply say do to the fact that no evidence can be shown for the evidence for the supernatural, more than likely the supernatural, or god, does not exist. In childish closing, I believe in the mythology of unicorns, but I do not believe in the reality in unicorns. Thank you!
The GOD debate

It is my assertion that God or any other supernatural being does not exist simple due to the inability to prove or disprove existents. If 100 people are placed in a room, and 99 of those people say they believe in Santa and one person says they do not, does that make the 99 people right? Better yet, what if those same people were born in that room having never learned of Santa, if not Santa, then what? One can not know what can not be shown. Because we not yet have an answer for what it is we do not know does not suppose the supernatural. Therefore, one can believe something exist even with a lack of evidence but one can not know something exists without evidence.
Anakin Skywalker was to blame for the demise of the Jedi Order

LAST ROUND, LETS GO. .. I feel I have already provided a sound argument as to why Anakin Skywalker was to blame for the demise of the Jedi Order. So I will use this round to further refute my opponents debate. First: Con has argued that Anakin was not in control of his own fate because he was the one chosen to bring balance to the force. While I feel that George Lucas never fully achieves this, I can not see how destroying the Jedi Order would in any way bring about balance. The prophecy states that he will bring balance, but it never says how. Anakin could easily have allowed Palpatine to be killed, which would bring as much balance to the force as Darth Vader killing Palpatine in ROTJ. If anything you could argue that by allowing Palpatine to live, Anakin was acting against his fate and what the prophecy foretold. My opponent also argues that WIndu has no real reason to arrest Palpatine. He also argues that the Windu is only arresting Palpatine 'on the grounds of a war that ended long ago'. I ould like to remind my opponent that there is a war raging in the galaxy during this time. Windu is not stupid. To infer that he would not have figured out that Palpatine was Dooku's master and hence the most wanted war criminal in the republic as the man behind the separatist movements, would be ridiculous. Next point: Palpatine allowed himself to be defeated by WIndu. Con attempts to prove this by implying that Palpatine defeated Yoda and Yoda is more powerful then Windu. I think Con has overlooked an important distinction here. While Yoda is stronger with the force than Windu, WIndu is stronger in battle, as represented by his purple lightsaber. Con's last point was that Anakin is not to blame for the murder of the younglings at the Jedi Temple, because at that point he was Darth Vader. THis is just plain absurd. He is still the same person, sure he has become very dark and twisted, but he is still Anakin Skywalker, although he is now known as Darth Vader. If Barak Obama decided to change his name to Francis McFluffypants and then dropped a bomb on the middle east, it would still be the same person doing it, just going by a different name. I successfully have rebutted my opponents points and rebuttals. My arguments have held strong.
Anakin Skywalker was to blame for the demise of the Jedi Order

We meet again Costello! This will be a debate about whether or not The demise of the Jedi (not the republic) was due to the actions of Anakin SkywalkerThe majority of the BoP will fall to pro although con must provide arguments proving that it was not Anakin that caused the destruction of the Jedi.Round 1 is for acceptance only. 2-4 are for arguments/rebuttals Definitions: Blame: To hold responsible. Demise: termination of existence or operation May the Force be with you...
Debating has more negative aspects than positive ones

The opposition has stated that debate does not teach us to be polite and calm. However, I would like to point out to the opposition that we are politely discussing this motion whilst basking in the nonexistent intimidation and fear in this debate. He has also stated that the participant must complete the debate in a set amount of time. However, they do have time to prepare for this debate, and by having a time limit, debate teaches participants how to be brief and work with a limit. While I accept that people are born naturally argumentative, the opposition should consider that the environmental effects of a person may not only include debates. Perhaps a child's parents influenced them to become argumentative, and this child would later on join a debate club or tournament. But even if the individual learned how to speak "aggressively" in debate, this is not necessarily a bad thing. "Meek" (as the opponent put it) individuals, should learn to stand up for themselves. Shy people should learn to open up. Is debate such a bad thing to teach them to do such things? Debate allows people to gain confidence in themselves, which can only be beneficial to "meek" and shy individuals. In addition to all these benefits, debate also teaches one to think quickly. In a debate, one must think quickly to come up with rebuttals for the opposing side. In debate, people are not given much time to think, and so must think quickly. Being able to think quickly will benefit the individual in the long run. In addition to normal debates, impromptu debates are also wonderful for causing one to think quickly. I have done many impromptu debates, where your team is given only fifteen minutes to prepare after the resolution is revealed. One must quickly come up with their entire argument, and then successfully present it to a judge and their opponents. Quick thinking is obviously necessary for this. To sum up all the benefits of debate so far: one, debate makes people more open-minded as it forces them to think on both sides of the resolution; two, debate teaches one how to argue politely and calmly; three, debate teaches one to work with a time limit; four, debate can help an individual gain confidence in themselves; and five, debate teaches one to think quickly. These are all clear reasons why debate does not have more negative sides than positive sides.
Debating has more negative aspects than positive ones

I would like to refute some of the points that the opposition mentions. The first is that debate does not teach us to be polite and calm. In fact it only engenders negative feelings such as intimidation, fear, and pressure. I would like to say that in the legitimate form of debate, the participant aside from being assigned to a different topic from which he/she believes in, there is the addition that he/she must complete it within a given time with the adjudicators and audience judging and scoring. This only hints that debate does not instigate the positive attitude of truly assimilating the opposite side. The next point is that, no one is born naturally argumentative. People are only taught to be that way. And while argumentative people are usually seen in debate, the opposition side must consider it could have been the results of joining debate through learning the ways to speak more aggressively. However, please bear in mind the proponent of this argument was not referring to naturally argumentative people in the first place which means inclusive of the meek and innocent.Contrary to popular belief, debate does not make people more open-minded. In fact, it has the dangers of making people more ignorant as people become more unapologetic and not withstanding to another's opinions and beliefs (outside the debating practice). This is in all honesty, a dangerous attitude to possess and once pervaded, hard to return. Due to its obstinate nature, it will cause people to become blind to their own faults or mistakes especially when arguing a case they strongly believe to be correct in. This is how debate has more negative sides than positive ones.