BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
same sex marriage should be legalised in the countries where it is not

"pursuit of happiness" is in the declaration of independence, not the constitution "why should other people be able to choose who marries who?" because we all have a stake in how our units of society are structure. they should be prone to kids and hetero familes. with noting all the stuff I said about infertile couple above. church and state mainly means there can be no state or otherwise government religion. and it doesn't preclude structuring laws according to morality. that it has been hetero marriage for so long is proof enough of that. that every state in the union had anti sodomy laws shows that there's something to enforcing morality. I personally wouldn't go that far, banning sodomy, just gay marriage. but the proof is that the authorotity to do this stuff is there.
same sex marriage should be legalised in the countries where it is not

This is first and foremost a state issue. As to my state, gay marriage should not be legal - okay to civil unions. we should recognize that the natural world creates natural distinctions between male and female, and their cohabitation etc is what produces offspring. they are a natural unit for the purposes of kids, and a natural unit for the purposes of simply recognizing nature. we can have civil unions or something to respect others, perhaps, but that doesn't mean we have to give the same value to something that is fundamentally different, by calling it marriage. also, as far as procreation goes... we're simply recognizing that procreation would ever only occur with a male and a female... even if they are infertile, we're recognizing the inherent value that only a male and a female can procreate. we could look atgranting marriage to an infertile couple as simply a nice gesture that recnogizes their born potential, even if it's no longer effectively there. this is a separate debate, but touches on it. we should only allow males and females to have offspring.it's the natural order, and to allow otherwise would be to pervert how things ought to be for the child.
Was God flooding the earth justified

'Even if there was chaos throughout the earth and destruction would you still defend God's actions of killing everyone?' Yes I would for the simple reason that he is the God that he created everything and knows what is best. 'I'll argue that a decent God would do anything in their power to make a happy and successful society.' True,but we do not know how many chances he gave the people at that time or how many times he warned them. 'What about the animals of the world? Did they warrant to be wiped off the earth? Animals aren't make to many moral decisions, so why did God see fit to wipe them out?' God did save at least two of every species and the reason God allowed the rest to be wiped out could be do to the lack of their moral decisions and the fact that they can not think and feel like us. 'In my opinion I would never kill an animal and I would even debate about killing one in a self-defense situation because they do more for the world than I do.' This is a topic for a whole other debate. 'And as for the "Day of Judgement" isn't God sending all those people to hell by killing them? I don't think he had some special exception for those before us. Therefore it would only make sense if those people died, they went to hell.' Yes,they will be judged at the end of time,but if I were God I could not just stand by and watch as humanity slowly and painfully destroys itself. In conclusion I find that the flood was justified. Thank you for this debate I really enjoyed it.
Was God flooding the earth justified

Before I begin my argument in the 3rd round I would like to say thank you for bringing certain information to my attention such as rules that God had in place before the flood. Although I don't believe that warranted killing almost every person on the planet, it has made me think about the subject from a different perspective. Even if there was chaos throughout the earth and destruction would you still defend God's actions of killing everyone? If he was powerful and truly wanted good throughout the land why didn't he isolate the people in a way so that destruction could not occur. Why didn't he simply take away man's tools for wrong doing? You will probably answer because God wants free will in all humans. The ability to make their own decisions. I'll argue that a decent God would do anything in their power to make a happy and successful society. Let's argue that all humans were evil, destructive and there was no way God could separate them, change them, or make them change their mind. What about the animals of the world? Did they warrant to be wiped off the earth? Animals aren't make to many moral decisions, so why did God see fit to wipe them out? In my opinion I would never kill an animal and I would even debate about killing one in a self-defense situation because they do more for the world than I do. And as for the "Day of Judgement" isn't God sending all those people to hell by killing them? I don't think he had some special exception for those before us. Therefore it would only make sense if those people died, they went to hell.
Was God flooding the earth justified

'You claim that because people disobey God's rules that they warranted being killed. I must ask what rules God enforced during that period of time. When I learned about the Old Testament in school I was taught that no rules God created existed at that point.' Some rules that applied were... 1. God condemned murder and he punished Cain for killing Abel. 2. God condemned humans from eating animals until after the flood. Genesis 3 Adam and Eve were cast outside of the Garden of Eden, God said: "And you shall eat the herb of the field. In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground.' 'Three times in the first three chapters of the Bible, God instructed man regarding his diet. Each time, the Bible records only where God permitted man to eat vegetation.' The bible never says that humans are aloud to eat animals until after the flood Also,if God said that people were sinning than that means some law was set in place to define sin. 'Instead from my research and indoctrination I learned that God wiped the slate clean because all people in the world forgot about his presence with the exception of Noah.' Genesis 6:5 'And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.' God wiped out humanity for their sins. I can not say for sure what sins they commuted because the bible does not specify. 'I am also unfamiliar with what destruction was to come upon the earth if God didn't start the flood.' I take it that you are referring to when I said... 'God also has a plan for humanity and he was saving the old world from destruction.' I am talking about two things when I said that. 1. If Gods aloud them to continue in sin than humanity would eventually have destroyed themselves. 2. Also I am referring to them being sentenced to death on the day of judgment (talked about in Revelation) and being cast into the lake of fire. Now I also think that their were many other reasons for God's flood,but since I wasn't their and I do not want to speak for God I cannot say my reasoning is 100% accurate. If the people were constantly sinning and only a few good people were left,than they would either eventually die, be killed, or fall away from God. All that would be left is a world in chaos and without God.
Was God flooding the earth justified

You claim that because people disobey God's rules that they warranted being killed. I must ask what rules God enforced during that period of time. When I learned about the Old Testament in school I was taught that no rules God created existed at that point. Instead from my research and indoctrination I learned that God wiped the slate clean because all people in the world forgot about his presence with the exception of Noah. I am also unfamiliar with what destruction was to come upon the earth if God didn't start the flood.
Was God flooding the earth justified

Let me preface this argument by saying that I am an atheist. I was raised to believe in Christianity and I have learned most of the stories that the bible teaches. I was also taught that the Old Testament section of the bible shouldn't be taken literally but as an interpretation of what happened in the beginning. When I look at that passage in the old testament I cannot see what the bible is interpreting. Therefore I am going to assume for the sake of argument that God (according to the bible) did in fact flood the earth. Good luck contender and I hope we both learn something :) I do not believe that God could justifiably flood the earth even if he created life. When I look at God's actions I think of a mother giving birth to a child and why we have laws in the US that prevent mothers from killing their children. I also think of my personal ant colony I keep in my home away from the harsh climates outside. In a sense if I let my colony go, most will die from cold weather or rain. No matter how many ants I keep I could never warrant taking their lives because they didn't recognize my actions of "saving" them in a sense from those climates. I am not ignorant enough to say that technically it's not me giving them life it's the queen of the ant colony however in a sense I am preventing unnecessary death. I do not see a difference with the Christian god. If I was God I wouldn't care if anyone worshiped me or even acknowledged my presence. I was just like the life I am caring for to be happy.
The UN and other countries should interfere militarily in Libya.

With the recent violent occurrences in Libya (http://www.monstersandcritics.com...) it is pretty obvious that international military interference is necessary. 1. Several international human rights were broken in Libya. The first law that was broken was for the Libyan people to be able to protest for the removal of their leader (http://www.hrweb.org... 21) . Most importantly Gaddafi broke international terms on genocide (http://www.hrweb.org...). He had mercenaries kill several of the anti-government protests going directly against Article I. This requires that the international community take direct authority and punish him and his supporters for the crimes they committed. 2. The international community has before intervened on several similar cases. Other than the UN, one other semi-international party that takes action is NATO. NATO is involved in Afghanistan and the situation there. In these times the situation in Libya is way more urgent and requires military help. So if you can do it in Aghanistan, why not do it in the even more needy Libya?
Violence can be prevented

2nd and 3rd will be for the arguments and rebuttals. 4th round will be for the conclusion. Next, violence must be defined. ``Violence is defined by the World Health Organization as the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likehood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation. ``(. http://en.wikipedia.org...) When we think of violence in international dimention, war and regional conflicts come to our minds. They are caused by the difference of religion, way of thinking, and cultural background. Moreover, cognitive imbalance, status difference and coercive state power can be added to trigger them. ( Understanding conflicts and war, by R. J. Rummel, . http://www.hawaii.edu....) However, in this debate I focus on the domestic violence.
Violence can be prevented

This round will be for the concluding part of this debate. Realistically saying, violence can never be prevented because of the overwhelming factors that contribute to it. Yes, there are many precautions and safety measures that a person can follow to avoid domestic violence but it is practically impossible to achieve all of this. It seems to me my opponent is trying to claim that violence can be prevented if we all follow all of these precautions: A.) Avoid eating foods that may have something to do with violence B.) Move to a place where violence is less seen C.) Black people causes more violence, so avoid them D.) Research more about violence Anger also plays a big role to the development of violence and we all know that anger can never be taken away from us. We can try to avoid it but we don't know when to avoid it because like what I've said, anger is unpredictable. Now I shall finally end this round by thanking my opponent for a good debate, Thank you. May the best debater win.
Violence can be prevented

This round is my conclusion for the debate. It seems to me that it is very difficult to eradicate violence completly from a society, schools and families. The reason is that human being has emotion and faces anger. As Con points out that anger is unpredictable and we can not predict when and where it will take place. Therefore, we must explore many causes of violence to prevent and to eliminate it. Our patience and efforts are required for the prevention of violence. We must keep in mind that in general a person who commits violent behavior faces mental stress or has serious problems in his or her life. Therefore, it is difficult for them to find a purpose and a meaning in their life. The University of Colorado presents measures and programs for them. And the university contributes to the prevention of violence. For example, ``Blueprints for Violence Prevention, a project of the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence at the University of Colorado, provide answers to that question. The Blueprints mission is to identify truely outstanding violence and drug prevention programs that meet a high scientific standard of effectiveness. In doing so, Blueprints serves as a resource for governments, foundations, businesses,and other organizations trying to make informed judgements about their investments in violence and drug prevention programs.``(http://www.colorado.edu....) And ``Blueprints has designated 22 promising programs that have shown good results but require either replication in another community or additional time to demonstrate their effectiveness and sustainability.``(http://www.colorado.edu....) The important thing is that the prevention of violence is a precondition for building a sound and civilized society with low crime rate. We must have a strong will that we can prevent violence in every situation in our everyday life. I could learn a lot about violence from this debate. I thank Con for your contribution.
Violence can be prevented

This round for me will be divided in 2 parts. First, I shall justify my arguments, and then I'll proceed to the rebuttals. Like what I've said, there are many emotions that can be tough to handle, like anger. There are two types of anger, passive anger and aggressive anger. Passive anger is more of an anger given to your own self, e.g hitting the wall, destroying something which is important to you, biting your nails; it can also be a way of intentionally "getting back" at someone while superficially appearing not to be angry, e.g giving someone the cold shoulder. The second type of anger is aggressive anger which is more of a violent type of anger; this kind of anger is directly made to purposely harm someone. When angered, many people will try to remove the anger out of them by placing more blame on another person, which can be conceptually called as a defense mechanism. Many people choose to release their anger aggressively because of one reason; aggressive anger can give an immediate vengeance while passive anger takes more time. The second thing that I would like to discuss about anger is its unpredictability. We don't know when will anger strike, even the happiest person in the world can get angry easily due many things like continuous irritations and/or frustration. Your expectations about the way things should be or ought to be can also lead to anger. When expectations of yourself or others are set very high or are unrealistic, you set yourself up for anger experiences. (http://www.cragface.co.uk...) There are many things that can go wrong, we can ignore it and move on but as it inevitably continue throughout the day there will come a time where anger can no longer be contained so I firmly believe that anger is uncontrollable and it is a big factor in violence. I will not justify my second argument from the second round because realistically speaking, it seems to me it is something that we can all agree on. Moving on to my rebuttals, it has come to my attention that you have made 3 measures that are critical to the prevention of domestic violence. I've also realized that 2 out of these 3 measures are all about research. Let me tell you a thing about research, RESEARCHES ARE NOT ENOUGH. They're just proposals or hypothesis that may or may not even help solve any problem. We cannot heavily rely on research; we need immediate and effective options. I've also realized that you've now added race and job status to the factors of domestic violence. Well, two more reasons why domestic violence is impossible to solve.
Violence can be prevented

This round is devided into two parts. First part is my arguments which are continued from round 2. Second part is rebuttals to Con`s arguments for round 2. Arguments: The second factor of sociological causes is economic factor. In general people who do not have jobs or get fewer wages tend to commit violence or illegal action. The third factor is related to the race problem. For example, in the U.S. many African American are involved in violent crimes than whites. The arrest rate for them is now about six times higher than for whites.(http://www.sodahead.com....) The last cause which triggers violence is psychological problem. Human being has emotion and anger. When he or she dislikes the behavior and action of their family members, friends and peers in their office, those feelings emerge. And if they can not put up with them, they might commit violent behavior. The important thing is that research and exploration of causes of violence contribute to preventing violence. For example, in the U.S. ``the Federal Government spends a total of 20million dollars a year on violence research.``(http://www.sodahead.com....) I believe violence is preventable. Three measures are needed.(http://www.sodahead.com....) (1) Long-term national investment in research and development by the central government is required. (2) The central government and local government must implement a comprehensive and inclusive violence research agenda. (3) They must introduce a program to prevent or to reduce violence among younger generation by creating a committee which consists of teachers and parents. Rebuttals: Firstly, I present my rebuttals concerning Con`s first arguments. According to his opinion, anger is uncontrollable and it triggers violent action. However, I disagree with him. We must think why anger emerges. Mental stress and lack of communication contribute to fueling anger between parents and son or daughter or between friends. Dialog plays an important role in coping with them. The meaning of dialog is to discuss areas of disagreement frankly in order to resolve them.(http://dictionary.reference.com....) Therefore, I believe anger of human being can be controlled and eliminated before it reach a certain point where it is unpreventable. Secondly, I present my rebuttals concerning Con`s second arguments. As Con says, in the family father tends to force his son or daughter to obey his opinion or order. It is a fact that he has the absolute power. However, he must try to listen to what they have to say. This attitude taken by him contributes to preventing and to detering violence between them. Therefore, I understand that the dialog in the family is urgently required. I am looking forward to reading Con`s arguments for round 3.
Violence can be prevented

So first I’m going to present my arguments then I’ll proceed to the rebuttals. My first argument in this debate will be all about Anger. Anger is one of the basic emotions of a human being. All of us get angry at a certain point of time in our life. We can never avoid anger because if we try to hold it inside, it will continue to pile up and may reach a certain point where we can no longer hold it. Anger is also a big factor in domestic violence and it is also one of the reasons why domestic violence can’t be prevented. Like all the other emotions in the world, anger is uncontrollable and also our actions. When in a fit of rage, man tends to lose control of his own body, due to anger; man unwarily begins to do things which are violent especially in the comforts of our own houses. Why? Because when we are inside our house, we can do whatever we want, we have this kind of feeling of freedom. But if we are outside, our actions are limited because we know that people are watching us. Acts of a violent behavior are more seen inside our house that in public places. My second argument will be about dominance and control. Dominance and control has been a part of humanity and history. In a family, the father is commonly considered to be the “leader of the pack”. Men need to feel in charge of their family or relationship. Realistically speaking, certain members of the family, especially the father, tend to force the other members of the family to obey what he/she says. The abusers will try to take control of their family and will enforce certain rules that we must obey even though if it’s against our will. Normally, the other members of the family will try to act defiantly but as they do, the abuser will also try to contain his/her authority by trying to threaten or hurt those who doesn’t obey his/her rules which makes them more violent. Moving on to my rebuttals. As you have said, there are many factors that contribute to violence. And due to the overwhelming amount of factors and options that you have presented, it seems to me that violence can never be prevented. Not all of the precautions said in your argument can be attained by all people in the world. If you’re trying to propose that all people suffering from domestic violence should travel and move to small communities then it’s practically impossible. Not all people have the money to either change the kind of food that they eat everyday or to leave their home and travel to the other side of the country where violence is less seen.