BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay Marriage Should Be Legal in the U.S.

Great point. The major thing I want to say is that people find same sex marriage to be socially awkward. People just cannot accept this fact of seeing two people of the same sex together. As I am not a Christian I do not know this fact for sure but from what I have heard, I understand that the Bible supposedly says things against gay marriage? I may be incorrect on that statement since I am a Hindu and not a Christian but from what you can take from it is that many religions also have a thing or two to say about gay marriage, meaning it is "unethical." I do know that in Hinduism gay marriage and same sex marriage is strictly not allowed and rather we have forced marriages. I, luckily, have parents that have let me have a normal marriage and due to that I have met my fiancee and now planning for a marriage. But instead of digressing let me get back on topic. Same sex marriage is not legal because it is not what we are taught growing up. We see people every day as a couple. Always a boy and a girl. Now when we bring this same sex marriage it is just awkward to see this. Many people just label these couples to be abnormal. Finally, people also have a fear that they will have to deal with gay people falling for them or so on. It is all just a mental point of view that is unanimous to most of society. So my main argument is that same sex marriage is not legalized due to societies point of views and what all it could do to them.
Gay Marriage Should Be Legal in the U.S.

Thank you for accepting. I hope we can have a good debate. First, I want to start off with what I think to be the definition of marriage: two people who love each other joined to live together until death or until one wants a divorce. There isn't anything biological about marriage. Marriage is something humans created, rather than gender, which was created for us, inside of us. Humans created marriage and therefore, I think, have the right to change the definition as they wish, should they feel that that change is justified. Next, I ask a simple question. Why shouldn't gay marriage be legal? There are obviously people who would benefit from gay marriage being legal. Who exactly would it hurt? There are many people who don't want gay marriage to be equal, but would it hurt them? Would gay marriage make their lives worse? This may seem like a short starting argument, but it's all I need right now. If humans can change their definition of marriage as they please and there is no reason NOT to change it, why should we keep our laws about marriage the same? Thank you. I await your first arguments.
Gay Marriage Should Be Legal in the U.S.

In this debate, I will be arguing on the "pro" side, meaning I support gay marriage in the U.S. There will be four rounds, as follows: 1) Accepting 2) First Arguments 3) Counter-Arguments 4) Counter-Arguments and Closing Statements If you want to present your opening arguments during the first round, that would be fine. Thank you to anyone willing to participate. Remember, you want to show why you oppose gay marriage in the U.S.
Chopsticks vs Forks

Extend all arguments. Conclusion: My opponent's job in this debate was to show that chopsticks are better than forks. He argues this with several minor points, talking about the benifits of using a chopstick. However, he ignores the fact that utensils are used for eating, and therefore should be judged on their use for eating. That's where ALL of my points come in. Since my opponent ignore this, and I refute all his points, I win. Thanks for the debate.
Chopsticks vs Forks

ooopsies lol i am new here and def didn't know about time limit lol sorry about that so imma pretend it didn't happen i guess first ill argue back on mine Health- i do not agree with u on the point that eating with chopsticks at the same speed as a fork if were trying to eat a bowl of rice as fast as u could a fork can easily shovel the rice in but a chopstick can barely get a bite at a time this proves the fork would be much superior which shows in the issue of health, forks being worse for you. Social- as i already proved the speed of can be blamed on the tools they use Price and environment- in my statement i did not state wooden chopsticks had to be used korean style stainless steal chopsticks is much cheaper then a set of forks. now i will correct my opponents arguements 1 i will admit that the fork is much easier to use yes anyone can take a shovel shaped object and shovel food into that gaping hole in their face i would like to tell my opponent that all people in japan have learned to use chopsticks well unless their is something physically wrong with these people you know they must not be trying hard enough to learn but once they do learn the art of a chopstick does undoubtedly increase hand eye coordination and that is yet another contribution on why chopsticks are the better utensil. 2. you limit your social gatherings too much America is not the only country in the world you argue that we often want impress others in countrys such as japan or Korea it is seen that in a ceremonial dinner a fork set at a table would be an insult you would basically be calling your guest a Neanderthal using chopsticks can be seen as an art this art demostrates status in many country's your example does not hold water because if u did not know how to use the chopsticks why would they be the only utensil you could use. 3 yes i do admit it is easier to learn how to use a shovel to eat then a chopstick but i do not agree on the second statement i learned how to use chopsticks on my own with no help i watched them being used a few times and then i tried took me about 10 minutes to get it down now i can easily use my chopsticks. 4 your forth statement holds no water at all it is just repeaing your previous statements while adding in 2 things that chopsticks can to spearing... are u serious what shape is a chopstick scooping is a bit harder but can be done as u see when u see someone eating rice with a chopstick they scoop the rice from the bowl into their mouth but getting less rice then the scooping from the fork which proves my first argument with the issue on health smaller bites are much better for your indigestion. 5 i never said what syle of chopsticks were better i will now put out that korean chopsticks are stainless steel just like forks are made from many different materials so are chopsticks their are plastic metal and wood same as forks a metal chopstick and metal forks both have the same impact on the enviroment
Chopsticks vs Forks

i would like to start by saying i have not read the other chopstick debate because i do not yet want it to influence my ideals this debate i am starting because i like the topic and i am writing a real life dialog essay for a class i have choosen the side of chopsticks i would like an opponent who is on the side of forks please first the health benefit of chopsticks if far greater then that of the fork with a fork u can get the food now eat fast even though it takes ur body 15 minutes to relize that it is full with chopsticks u can only eat so fast so people will relize they are far before they would stuff them selves silly with all that extra fat your body will end up storing speaking of the speed of forks compared to chopsticks ill move on to a social issue family's all around America like to have that family dinner where everyone sits down togather for awhile well kids these days just don't apreciate that time they share and just shovel their food in as fast as they can well with chopsticks you can't use them as a shovel so that forces the children to have more family time that they will indefinably appreciate later in life thirdly lets admit it our economy is getting rough with all the inflation chopsticks are just overall cheaper to produce .
True Communism as defined by Marx's theory can ever exist

You clearly do not understand what Communism is, or what it stands for. Communism is the theory of social organisation in which all property is owned by the community. The Marx Theory of Communism describes Communism as a society where everything must be equal and incentives are scrapped. It is where there is a lack of government entirely. workers being forced to share. The idea also implies that there would be no crime - after-all, crime is an attempt in need to get what they want, but if everyone had everything, it would all be equal. This is impossible - if there was no crime, and everyone had everything they needed - it would be paradise, a utopia. But this can not exist, and is a land of never-never. With this cleared, we can see that no nation can have communism; including China and the Soviet Union which are/were arguably run under socialist ideologies as opposed to communist ideologies. I am by no means saying that Socialism is in anyway bad, nor am I saying that parts of a more center-left Communism cannot exist. But I believe that the theory defined by Karl Marx as wrong.
All Schools Should Be Year Round Schools

I agree with some of what you said but some of them I can't agree too: 1. When a student is in school, it's main purpose is to learn. Students would get distracted from their studies, and can easily take out their phone to check their Twitter or Face book news. Phones also allow cheating to occur more often, especially when technology has advanced so much, that you can now just find the answer to a question with the push of a button. The teachers could take away their cell phones at the beginning of the class so they can learn and when they are taking tests. 2. This is exactly my point, private all year-round schools cost tons of money, and public all year-round schools will just make taxes higher. So either way, they poor families have to pay a lot. There aren't as many private schools than there are public schools.
All Schools Should Be Year Round Schools

While you arguments are reasonable, I still don't find them logical. 1. Teenagers can work during Sundays, Saturdays and during the breaks. They can even work after school. My Argument: children should have breaks other than in school hours, there are many things one wants to do on the internet that you cannot do on a small device. After school work would nor be good because of the homework. Student's should focus on troubling things, that way they can review things they learned maybe an hour before. [this argument is an original idea] 2. I know lots of schools are letting kids use cell phones during school hours. The teachers could let the kids take 5-15 minutes breaks just playing on their phone. [this argument is an original idea] My Argument: when a student is in school, it's main purpose is to learn. Students would get distracted from their studies, and can easily take out their phone to check their Twitter or Face book news. Phones also allow cheating to occur more often, especially when technology has advanced so much, that you can now just find the answer to a question with the push of a button. [1] 3. There are kids who are poor and during Summer vacation they can't review like the rich kids. The rich kids can buy new books, lean more while the poor kids can't do any of that. With year round schooling they both learn the same amount of education. My Argument: This is exactly my point, private all year-round schools cost tons of money, and public all year-round schools will just make taxes higher. So either way, they poor families have to pay a lot. 4. Parents would agree with year round schooling because during the Summer the parents would have to go to work. They would need to find babysitters for their kids. My Argument: I agree with you, and this argument cannot be reviews further. 5. Year round schooling is not a loss of family time, families can still go on vacations for more than 2 weeks (that's normally how long the breaks are). My Argument: Maybe it isn't a loss of family time, but coming back to the original argument: "Lots of kids forget a lot of stuff over the summer." This would be worse if there were several summer vacations a year because the child could forget more because he/she would be missing out on periods of school. Sources: [1] http://cellphones.lovetoknow.com...
All Schools Should Be Year Round Schools

You say that: 1. All year-round school will be harder for families due to finances and is also hard to make schedules for job appointments (etc.), this is because many people will also be busy throughout the whole week and families won't be able to find babysitters. [This opinion is completely made from me] 2. Many families need teenagers to work full time due to financial problems, attending an all year-round school will not be able to let this happen. [1] 3. Students who have a difficult time paying attention would not be ready to attend such a long period school, this would cause trouble in the class making other students unfocused. [2] Here are some more reason's why: 1. Teenagers can work during Sundays, Saturdays and during the breaks. They can even work after school. 2. I know lots of schools are letting kids use cell phones during school hours. The teachers could let the kids take 5-15 minutes breaks just playing on their phone. 3. There are kids who are poor and during Summer vacation they can't review like the rich kids. The rich kids can buy new books, lean more while the poor kids can't do any of that. With year round schooling they both learn the same amount of education. 4. Parents would agree with year round schooling because during the Summer the parents would have to go to work. They would need to find babysitters for their kids. 5. Year round schooling is not a loss of family time, families can still go on vacations for more than 2 weeks (that's normally how long the breaks are). (Can't rlly research cause of something wrong with my laptop) Those are some of my reasons on why we should have year round schooling.
All Schools Should Be Year Round Schools

I accept your challenge and as your opponent, do not agree with you. What is year-round schooling: A school calendar that exchanges a longer summer vacation for several shorter breaks at different times in order to reduce the need for extra review. Educators claim that year-round schooling allows students to remember their studies in school without reviewing them before school. Not all educators believe this, and there are many studies that back them up. While there are cons in year-round schooling, I'll review come pros. 1. Shorter summer breaks mean students are less likely forget what they learned in the school year, which may decrease the number of students being served by intervention programs [1]. The key word in this sentence is may. May define: expressing possibility. This means that there is a 50% chance this will happen, and still, children won't want to go and just ignore most things in the class, making it a 70% chance this will happen. It also means that schools will have to pay more for teachers, electricity, etc. 2. Problems at the school can be addressed more quickly [1]. Yes, this is true. But there is always another side to a problem. And where there is a problem, means there is a cause, and where there is a cause means there is solution (sometimes). Again! Sometimes is the key word! Sometimes definition: occasionally, rather than all of the time. Why would students cause trouble just to get nowhere? 3. "A year-round schedule might make it easier for students to access tutoring, particularly economically disadvantaged students, the California Department of Education reports. Students are also less likely to forget material over a short break than they might be over the traditional summer vacation. However, there is no guarantee of improved academic achievement, as Paul Von Hippel, researcher and sociologist at Ohio State University discovered. Teachers might not have as much time to access continuing education courses in a year-round calendar. Those students who would normally benefit from summer school might miss out on remedial or supplemental classes." This is a paragraph from my number two source. [2] Pro Sources: [1] http://childparenting.about.com... [2] http://education.seattlepi.com... Now I'll review some con's. 1. All year-round school will be harder for families due to finances and is also hard to make schedules for job appointments (etc), this is because many people will also be busy throughout the whole week and families won't be able to find babysitters. [This opinion is completely made from me] 2. Many families need teenagers to work full time due to financial problems, attending an all year-round school will not be able to let this happen. [1] 3. Students who have a difficult time paying attention would not be ready to attend such a long period school, this would cause trouble in the class making other students unfocused. [2] Con's Sources: [1] http://www.scholastic.com... [2] http://childparenting.about.com... Thank you.
All Schools Should Be Year Round Schools

You:1. When a student is in school, it's main purpose is to learn. Students would get distracted from their studies, and can easily take out their phone to check their Twitter or Facebook news. Phones also allow cheating to occur more often, especially when technology has advanced so much, that you can now just find the answer to a question with the push of a button.The teachers could take away their cell phones at the beginning of the class so they can learn and when they are taking tests. My Argument: And my mom forgets to take my tab at night so I won't use it, does this make it more harder to make her forget the next night, no. I researched why people forget things, and I found: "Our brains deliberately make us forget things, to prevent insanity". It's just like my mom, but to the teacher, it is about phones.You:2. This is exactly my point, private all year-round schools cost tons of money, and public all year-round schools will just make taxes higher. So either way, they poor families have to pay a lot.There aren't as many private schools than there are public schools.My Argument: True, but just because there is not a lot of private schools, doesn't mean children don't attend them.Good Luck.
Should People Subscribe to Legendary Clips

While many may argue that kids maybe on their phones too much throughout the day you should subscribe to my youtube channel Legendary Clips. While kids are watching my videos they will be spending their time watching some interesting content which will bring a smile to their face. Also, this allows the kids to be preoccupied with something good rather that going out and doing bad things which can affect their life in the future. Hence, you should subscribe to my youtube because it bring joy form watching my content, allows kids or teens to be preoccupied with something rather that doing something bad
Non-Christians and the laws of logic.

Thank you, Hezekiah_Ahaz, for this stimulating debate. I wish you the best. You make a good point that my abductive argument accounting for the laws of logic is quite bad. That’s actually kind of the point because even though it’s so bad, it’s still better than your abductive argument (and yes, yours is an abductive argument). You see, I’ve shown that even the terrible explanation of “that’s just the way it is” is a better abduction than “the laws of logic are modeled after God.” It is better as judged by the criteria of Simplicity, Testability, Likelihood, and Consistency with previously well-established beliefs, which are the common standards for abductive reasoning. The reader will note that my opponent did not address my account for the laws of logic but only spoke condescendingly toward my superior argument. “You are going to have to show that God can't unite himself with a human body. If you want your argument to hold any weight.” I wouldn’t dare try. We assumed the existence of God, remember? So, I concede that God did become man. But, in doing so he made Jesus’ nature such that he was both mortal and immortal simultaneously. As such, God’s own existence violates the laws of logic, so how could the laws of logic be modeled after God? You say the non-Christian cannot account for the laws of logic, yet you, as a Christian, have quite a bit of work ahead of you to do so yourself. Let’s review: My opponent argues that the laws of logic are based on the Christian God and that non-Christians cannot account for the laws of logic because they do not believe in the Christian God. His evidence and argumentation are minimal. I have shown that the laws of logic cannot be based on the Christian God, because the Christian God’s nature violates the laws of logic. In addition, I have provided one example of an alternative account for the laws of logic. This account, though itself comically terrible, is STILL better than my opponent’s attempt to account for the laws of logic, as determined by widely-accepted standards for judging abductive arguments. My opponent claims that God transcends logic: “I don't reduce God down to human categories and rationality.” “ I don't reduce [God] to mere syllogisms.” Why, then, do you attempt to make arguments about God’s nature in the context of a logical debate? Perhaps your rude, irrational rantings would receive a warmer welcome if delivered from behind a pulpit.
Non-Christians and the laws of logic.

It seems as though you have assumed for the purposes of this argument that the Christian God exists. Okay, let’s roll with that. Pro offers an abductive argument as an explanation of his observation that the laws of logic exist. He seeks to explain that fact by claiming that they are modeled after the Christian God’s character. I will provide a convincing deductive argument showing that my opponent’s claim is false, then I will provide a more convincing abductive argument that accounts for the laws of logic. Why my opponent’s abduction is wrong: Pro claims that the laws of logic are based on the character of the Christian God. Let us examine that claim more closely. Consider the following argument: Jesus is both man and God. All men are mortal. God is immortal. Jesus is mortal and immortal. This argument’s conclusion is a clear violation of the law of non-contradiction, one of the laws that my opponent claims is based on the very character of God. Yet, the premises do not contradict Christian theology regarding the nature of God. Surely my opponent agrees with all three of my premises. Would he deny that Jesus is both man and God, a key profession of every Christian? Would he deny that all men are mortal? Surely not. And by no means can he deny that God is immortal. Accepting these premises, then, means he must accept the conclusion, as the valid form of the argument itself guarantees that if one accepts the premises to be true, then one must also accept the conclusion. The nature of the Christian God, then, does not explain the existence of the laws of logic. In fact, the Christian God’s characteristics violate the laws of logic. It would seem, then, that the non-Christian has an automatic advantage over the Christian when seeking to account for the laws of logic, because at least the non-Christian follows them. A more convincing abduction: “That’s just the way it is. ”[1] That’s right. The laws of logic are the way they are because they are the way they are. This more convincingly accounts for the laws of logic because of the following: It’s simpler. It does it not violate Occam’s razor by assuming unnecessary entities. As opposed to “God exists and the laws are modeled after his character. ” It’s more testable: One can easily test whether or not the laws of logic are indeed the laws of logic. One cannot, however, test whether or not the laws of logic were modeled after God’s character. One can only presupposed His existence and infer. It’s more likely: After all, “that’s just the way it is” has been true every day for as long as anyone can remember. It’s more consistent with previously well-established beliefs. It’s pretty well-established that the laws of logic are the laws of logic. It is not well established that God even exists, let alone that his character was the mold from which the laws of logic were crafted. Tupac agrees. I mean I hate to appeal to authority here but, come on. Right? [1] . http://www.youtube.com...