BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Supreme Court Decision On Gay Marriage Was Right

The right to marry whoever one wants is not restricted to a certain pairing of genders. Legally, marriage is not specified to be between a man and a woman, and this is a good thing. Regardless of what gender someone is, the should be able to marry the person they love. If this means a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, the government has no right to restrict it. One of the main principles that America was founded on is "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Happiness if specific to a person, especially when it comes to matters of love. The "pursuit of happiness" should only be restricted by law when the happiness of one person comes at the cost of the unhappiness of many. This does not hold for gay marriage. If two people of the same gender wish to be married, then it doesn't cause unhappiness to many people, and it does bring happiness to two people. While some people may disapprove of people of the same gender being married, the marriage does not, or should not, cause them to be unsafe, harmed, or unhappy. Only when the happiness of one causes pain to many should it be restricted. Gay marriage makes many people happy, by allowing them to be with the people they love. At the same time, those people being married does not cause harm to others. Therefore, gay marriage is completely legal, and the government has no right to restrict it.
Marijuana should be legalized in the United States

I hope we can reach an understanding we have never reached before. Now, onto my main point against the resolution. My opponent has no laid out any definitions, so I shall take it upon myself to define what needs defining. The only thing that really needs to be defined is the word should. The definition is "used in auxiliary function to express futurity from a point of view in the past. " [1]What it implies is that theres a course of action that can be taken which has not yet been taken. So if something should be done, then it cannot have already happened, because the course of action is not something that applies to the future and is not an action that can at present be taken. I'd also like to point out that in the United States just implies that this course of action should happen in the United States of America. Onto my main point: It should not happen, because it already has. Marijuana is completely legal in Colorado and Washington. It's decriminalized in Nebraska, Mississippi, Ohio, and North Carolina. [2]Therefore, it does not apply to the future, since in the United States, Marijuana has been legalized. Thus, the resolution does not stand. Thank you for reading. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------Sources:[1] . http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2] . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Marijuana should be legalized in the United States

I will open my argument with two main contentions. Contention One: The resources used to enforce Marijuana are wasteful. "According to Miron, legalization will reduce the need for prosecutorial, judicial, correctional, and police resource spending by approximately $7.7 billion " $13.7 billion per year." Far too many people go to jail for marijuana possession, a victimless crime. Contention Two: Legalizing marijuana would benefit society. Aside from the money that would be saved, legalizing marijuana could generate 8.7 billion dollars in government revenue. This would also provide jobs, and significantly reduce the amount of people in prison, adding to the workforce. http://www.globaldrugpolicy.org...
It should be illegal for people to use cell phones while driving

Ok here are my arguments: 1. Drivers who use cell phones are four times more likely to be in a crash. 2. Cell phone use contributes to an estimated 6 percent of all crashes, which equates to 636,000 crashes, 330,000 injuries, 12,000 serious injuries and 2,600 deaths each year. 3. 80 percent of crashes are related to driver inattention, and the #1 source of driver inattention is cell phones. 4. The annual cost of crashes caused by cell phone use is estimated to be $43 billion. 5. 5 states have already prohibited drivers from talking on cell phones while driving (California, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Washington). 6.Driving while using a cell phone is as dangerous if not more dangerous than driving intoxicated. Using a cell phone while driving poses an imminent threat not only to the person using it, but also other drivers as well, and that is why a federal law should be made. 1.1997 New England Journal of Medicine examination of hospital records and 2005 Insurance Institute for Highway Safety study linking crashes to cell phone records 2.Harvard Center of Risk Analysis 3.Virginia Tech 100-car study for NHTSA 4.Harvard Center for Risk Analysis 5.http://www.statehighwaysafety.org... 6.http://news.cnet.com...
It should be illegal for people to use cell phones while driving

I do not think that definitions are necessary; we can post some if the need arises. All else being equal, a given action should be legal. So it is up to my opponent to show why cell phone usage should be illegal while driving; if he fails to prove that it should be illegal, the vote goes to Con. I have no possible method of argumentation until he provides evidence; I can then counter that evidence. However, until Pro makes his case, there is nothing that I can do. [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...
The Holy Bible vs. Science

I think this might be a joke. I honestly can't tell. According to Poe's Law, and rightly so, it's nearly impossible to tell without a smiley face or something at the end. http://www.urbandictionary.com...'s+Law I've seen posts nearly this bad in the past but I must say this one is absolutely classic. It strongly reminds me of a fantastic Youtube video. http://www.youtube.com... In case people care, the obvious problem that absolutely nothing in the Bible is proved in the first place is a critical flaw in your argument. You are saying that science is wrong because the Bible says something else and therefore the Bible is right. This is assuming the Bible in order to prove the Bible. You are clearly working without a foundation and the assumption of the Bible doesn't salvage anything. One could accept the Koran and conclude that Jesus isn't God because it says so right there in the Koran. Dinosaurs did live millions of years before man about 64 million years prior to man. We know this because we have fantastic dating methods based on rather basic physics which, using two or three of these different methods to confirm and verify the dates we understand that the last non-avian dinosaurs died out at the P-T transition. The Bible is wrong when it says the universe was created several thousand years after the Assyrians first brewed beer. The flat-Earth views in the Bible are quite amusing, almost as fun as the talk about the firmament of heaven which is like a giant dome over the flat earth which allows rain to fall when the windows of heaven are open. God's feet. Heh. Actually pi is closer to 3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510 (which is all I have memorized of the number). Oddly enough a number of cultures had pi far closer than 3 by the time second Chronicles was written. Science >> Bible.
The Holy Bible vs. Science

So many people are into all this "science" stuff. Which is really unfortunate, because time and time again, the Bible has disproved science. Scientists have tried to convince us of so many silly things over the years and their just wrong, praise the sweet name of Jesus. Scientists have tried to convince us that dinosaurs existed millions of years before man. Yet the Holy Bible tells us that the world only existed for 6000 years. Scientists will try to make you believe that the earth is round, when the Holy Bible clearly proves that the earth is flat and has four corners. (Isaiah 11:12 and Revelation 7:1) Scientists will try to tell you that clouds are formed by this thing they called "Condensation of...moisture" When the Holy Bible clearly proves to us in the first chapter of Nahum that clouds are the dust of God's feet. Scientists will try to tell you that pi is equal to 3.14 When the Holy bible clearly proves to us, in second chronicles, chapter 4 that pi is equal to 3. This has affected me on a very personal level. As a result of this, at my church, we had to ban circles. It's been somewhat difficult to adapt, the pi=3 tires on our cars for instance, don't get the same gas mileage. Scientists will try to get you to believe this nonsense that homersexuality is caused by a persons environment and genetics, this is nonsense, homersexuality is a choice. Sodomites just want to be deviant. You just can't believe the crazy stuff scientists tell you, it's all fuzzy math nonsense! PRAISE THE SWEET NAME OF JESUS! Glory to God!
are cats better than dogs

true 'but when animals like a German Shepard or a Pit bull attacks a person it can cause bones to break or hit a vital organ and make that persons live in a hospital or kill them slowly making the person suffer. with cats if you get attack the only thing they can do would be scratch your skin or bit you its saying that cats are less likely to kill a person than a dog. now cats are loyal animals and can be your best friend. now the "a dog is a man best friend" is hocks pocks cats are a mans best friend a kids best friend and a women's best friend. cats don't makes holes in the yard and eat bones they clean themselves and you don't have to west much water on them they just need to drink water that all. with a dog you have to waste water fill in holes and that gets annoying and walking the dog is another reason. say like its your day off after a long week and your dog wants to be walked then you walk for hours and you want to have friends over. when they get here your dog barks cats don't
Rap Battle

I'm gonna get this newcomer to see He's so square he should be in a pineapple under the sea He can't kick rhymes; he's not lookin' like a punter to me He's anorexic so that expression just looks like hunger to me It's funner to me to lay in to him than to lay off Hassllehoff? No, you're just a pervert who does the babe watch You couldn't make anything flow if you were a swimmer on Bay Watch You should be in jail for your raps like Bernie Madoff Take the day off, kid, I'm took' off the gloves I'll make you blue like you were in a uniform of scrubs Scrub, you're gangsta in no kinda way; raised quite swell And doesn't this kid look like Screech from "Saved by the Bell"?! My lines so hurtful you'll be on a cliff-top, dumbf--k I hope you make like Kris Kross - "Jump! Jump!" The run-up: he didn't like his beef raw so basically I'm roasting dude If he's the bomb than I'm the diffuser so no Exploding...Noob
Rap Battle

Once again we're here with your same old smack and no class How bout i take your sis about and blow my lo4d in her @$$? The space between your sisters legs was cold but the worst part was when i opened em i saw the mold. Quickly after i hand checked for a match take my eyes away from your sis you got your hands in her snatch. With a swing of my wand ill make you a toad then put you on your knees and coax in my l0ad. You're the kid with the rhymes who has experienced loss If you think you're gonna win you must have your mind criss crossed. You asked if i wanted the fightin' gloves off? I got more flow than David Hasselhoff! You think your rap is where music began? I can write better beats with a blindfold and a crayon. Throwin you around like i got nothin better to do its one step up from the b!tches you scr3w. Im wastin my time even talkin this smack. I tell you once and for all. your rhymes? they're whack. CBAKE OUT!
Rap Battle

Steve Urkel? I'll transform into Stefan My delivery is so smooth it'll woo your best Aunt Get stepped on - 'cuz I'm getting into your "Family Matters" After I'm done - you'll disown them - "screw'em like family matters!" Don't EVER hand me platters of rhymes just so I can flip'em and serve you I didn't forget about you sister and aunts - them b!tches get served too Past curfew; talking with your sis; took her out to grab Denny's She told me you rhyme so poor that you don't even have pennies and that you're a post-op - Me: "Surgeries? Woah, THAT MANY?!" I would say I'm kickin' YOUR @ss - but white girls don't have any Talk smack to me - you'll get a chin-check My rhymes are bullets - so invest in vests Explode on whor3s? Must be talking about your sis and that's incest That's pretty gross; didn't you realize you were that sick, Ex That's a sin, Ex....did you really just rap to techno?! I'm here to tell you that's pretty wack; you'd best know that you're weak - you can't rap like Eminem You don't want to hear it; I got this in the bag like M & M's You and "horrible" are synonyms Watch me blow up this noob and that'll be the end of him From the streets? That story better be real Fakes are lame - how mean are the streets be on Beverly Hills?
Rap Battle

Now i will agree, the smile is cheese But with hair like that? Steve Urkel had more steeze I cant even believe you came out with that sh!t Its almost enough to make a mormon take a hit To rid themselves of the pain of the second grade rap I would rather fvck ur ugly @$$ step sis than listen to that crap *throws in a sick techno beat* SPEED RAP TIME! Your flow is wack but heres your plaque For your effort in tryin to send my white @ss back To the streets where i was raised around wannabes like you You got the black heritage but you look like a jew Now you comment about the noobness galore But i blow my explosion all ova tha whores Now dont be offended by the rhymes i spit Cause here pretty soon you'll be suckin tha tit Of the excellence that i create in a world so crazy Your rhymes are just whack and dont even phase me. *Techno beat continues* Now with your incompetence demeaned i hand this battle over To a man with no charisma and the luck of a three leaf clover. Badabing badaboom what did i just do to you...serve? Hope to see you in the next round but i don think you have the nerve. Ill tell you this once..just one time THATS IT The ExplodingNoob lives for this sh!t. blahh. hella lame rap but hey. your turn =) hahaha
Rap Battle

I don't think you want it - usually I hand them noobs mercy Otherwise my murders get criminal - like the rate in Camden, New Jersey Firstly, don't try to con me - no jokes about mommy? I'll win without them; you stole your style from the Fonzi Now that got you angry; seeing more red than a Commie Sorry, it's a habit of mine - I eat noobs like pastrami It's dawning on you that you're full of more garbage than dump trucks I could tell you suck - and you'd just smile and give the 'thumbs up'! Numb-nut - it's a wrap for you and I'm the embalmer You couldn't explode on anyone if you were a suicide bomber You have a little honor and courage - I'm toasting you These raps were landmines - move? - and we'll really seen an exploding noob
Why the Brewers are better than your team.

First, I would say that it doesn't matter if the Milwaukee Brewers is a professional team. It's the playing that counts. First I would start with the stadiums. The Huskies own 3 stadiums. ( Husky Stadium, Century link, and one more I don't know the name of). How many stadiums does your team have? Second, I will say that the Milwaukee Brewers does well against so-so teams. Don't believe me? Go here: http://wsau.com... Also, I would say that the Milwaukee Brewers was established in 1969. Washington Huskies's first game was in 1889. This team was around longer than the Brewers.
Atheists rationally know truth from fiction.

We, ourselves are the librarians. We have books of knowledge stored within us. Some is stored in the truth section, some is stored in the fiction section. As we are all, fundamentally the same. The processes we use to retrieve and assess knowledge is therefore, fundamentally the same. How we consciously choose to utilise knowledge, we must decide for ourselves. If we choose to retrieve knowledge and subsequently use it to label ourselves. For example, "Atheist" or "Theist". We are in fact making an abstract, conceptual choice. It is therefore not sensible to suggest, that labelling ourselves in this way. Will affect our ability in future, to retrieve stored knowledge in a rational way. Con must explain why. Choosing not to accept the tenet of a religion. Would affect a persons, subsequent ability to rationally define knowledge.
The earth is flat.

It really isn't understandable the way you would think the world is flat? There's tonnes of proof and reasons that the world is not "flat". 1. You could see the edges of the world, there is no edges of this world! 2. There is realise pictures takin every second by satellites of our earth which it is round. 3. If you've been in a plane you'd notice the ocean you are looking at and the landmarks are not flat. 4. People have tried to Morse code across the ocean and you have to be on a mountain so you can see the other persons sunlight. 5. Skydiving, people have debated that the lenses in the plane are just making it look like the world is flat, but if you've ever sky dived it's in front of your eyes.
The earth is flat.

The earth is flat. My proofs are empirical and logical. I will show that the heliocentric model of the universe is wrong. First round acceptance. Any media publicly available is presentable until such media is proved to be falsified. No ad hominem. Please omit any theoretical mathematical equations. Good luck and I hope we both gain insight into this fascinating subject. Since I am in effect debating the entire mainstream scientific community, I must use sources outside of this field, mostly user created videos on YouTube. This in no way means the media is falsified, it only means that the information is not bias, that is, government or mainstream sponsored.
Gay Marriage

1. PolygamyCon says: P1: As the polygamy/incest argument proves, we do ban things that there is no reason not to give. The points Pro provided at the end for why polygamy is wrong are outdated reasons that would not exist in today's equal and somewhat paranoid political climate, that can also result from a normal marriage.P2: The reason not to give homosexuals the right to marriage is marriage, created and carried through by the church, is not a governmental right, and could even be called a private institution. The church, and the government at this point, defines marriage as between a man and a woman, and from a legal standpoint, that is their right to define it as such.Con's argument against my first premise can be summarized as follows:(P1) We make things illegal when there is no reason to.(P2) There is no reason to make Gay marriage illegal.(C) Therefore, Gay marriage should be illegal.The problem is that even if we do make things illegal when there's no reason to, I still argue that everything that has no reason to be illegal should be legal. There is no alternative.I think that he may be getting sidetracked from the resolution here. The resolution is "Gay marriage should be legal.", and let's imagine there's this cafe that gives out free massages to black people, but then there's outrage from white people who want 'White massages'. Should White massages be illegal? No, but the cafe here has the right to not give White massages. Since we it's not illegal, it's legal, so Gay marriage, should be legal.2/3. Inequality and BlasphemyI put these two in the same category as Con makes the same argument in both. He says here:" If someone were to start a business banning blacks, there would be outrage, but it would be legal."If this is true, then surely the church not allowing Gay marriage is legal. He also says: " Not only may churches forced by law to give gay marriages be, in their eyes, committing blasphemy, but the members may believe that they will be punished after their death for it. It goes against their religious freedom to ban anything they do that is not illegal."Just because it's legal, it doesn't mean it's required. If, like you've said before, the Church is a private institution, then it does have the right to do that.4. I love my sister!I find it very hard to believe that Con still doesn't undertsand my point, however, I will explain it. If Gay marriage is illegal, then heterosexuals can marry without that marriage conflicting with their sexual orientation, whilst Gays cannot. This is different to marrying a close family member as there is no other group that is allowed to marry their sister. Con claims that there is no group who is allowed to marry the same sex, and that is correct, but it's not the point. The point is that if gay marriage were illegal, then heterosexuals would be able to get married without that marriage conflicting with their sexual orientation, whilst homosexuals would not.I thank Con for a thought-provoking debate.
Gay Marriage

1. Polygamy Pro's premises were: (P1) If we have no reason not to give someone something, we should give them it. (P2) Homosexuals want Gay marriage to be legal, and there's no reason not to give it to them. (C) Therefore, Gay marriage should be legal. P1: As the polygamy/incest argument proves, we do ban things that there is no reason not to give. The points Pro provided at the end for why polygamy is wrong are outdated reasons that would not exist in today's equal and somewhat paranoid political climate, that can also result from a normal marriage. P2: The reason not to give homosexuals the right to marriage is marriage, created and carried through by the church, is not a governmental right, and could even be called a private institution. The church, and the government at this point, defines marriage as between a man and a woman, and from a legal standpoint, that is their right to define it as such. C: See premises 2. Inequality Civil rights equality, as the gay marriage movement calls it, involves discrimination through public or government processes. Marriage is not governmental. Their thinking of letting gays into the Boy Scouts. The reason this hasn't happened yet despite many court challenges is that the Boy Scouts is a private organization, and may discriminate in order not to violate their religious beliefs. Marriage is an institution of the Church, and by law, the Church may discriminate. Unfair? Maybe, but definitely legal. Not allowing gays to marry is not unconstitutional because A. Marriage is not a constitutional right B. Private business is not held to the constitution, just the law 3. Blasphemy If someone were to start a business banning blacks, there would be outrage, but it would be legal. What I'm saying here is that religion and gay marriage, a private institution, can not co-exist. Not only may churches forced by law to give gay marriages be, in their eyes, committing blasphemy, but the members may believe that they will be punished after their death for it. It goes against their religious freedom to ban anything they do that is not illegal. 4. I'm still not sure I understand Pro's point, which is: "Con responds to my point about Gays being second-rate citizens by responding with a point about him not being able to marry his sister. However, he misunderstands my point here. There is no inequality in you not being able to marry your sister because there is no group that is allowed to marry their sisters. My point about Gay marriage being illegal makes Gays second-rate citizens is that heterosexuals can marry without the marriage contradicting their sexual orientation, whilst homosexuals cannot. There is therefore, an inequality when there is no reason why there should be." There is currently no group that is allowed to marry the same sex, either. Incest could include same-sex marriage to a close family member. I still see no difference between claiming there is inequality towards those who wish to marry within the same gender, and those who wish to marry within their family.