BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
IVF Debate

Couples with damaged fallopian tubes, male infertility, or a host of other problems conceiving a child, such as premature menopause or old age, will be able to produce viable offspring, regardless of their unfortunate circumstances. This process provides hope to those who have succumb to misfortune, and takes what was once barren waste and bestows upon it a new era of fertility and possibility! For many couples, this can be life changing. Who would want to deny these folks, mired in destitution of spirit, a chance to bring some semblance of happiness to themselves? Surely not I.
Gays should be rounded up and forced into slavery.

I want to bring it back to the topic. The topic is this: "Gay should be rounded up and forced into slavery."So, we are not talking about whether or not it is constitutional or not, we are talking about whether it is right or not. So, do any of your Round 2 arguments support your argument that they should be rounded up? It looks like all of those are talking about how, technically, the U.S. Government could do that if it really wanted to.So, bringing it back to the topic. It comes down to this. Should we round up people because of the way they are (whether they choose to be gay or if they were born that way) and force them into slavery? As I said before, this violates basic human rights. I do not think this is fair to those people because they have done nothing to deserve that. I don't think my opponent has proved why we should do this, only that we could do this.
Gays should be rounded up and forced into slavery.

I would like to thank ironknight47 for accepting this debate and for his considered comments which I would like to address as follows: There is no constitutional reason why slavery could not be reintroduced into the United States: after all, the Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787 but slavery wasn't abolished until 1865. Furthermore, according to Human Rights Watch the United States Government abuse human rights on a wholesale basis, most famously in Guantanamo Bay, but child labor, mistreatment of immigrants and long list other human rights abuses are commonplace in America. [1] Therefore, if a democratically-elected government decides convicted gays should be sentenced to forced labor then there is no reason why it shouldn't be able to do so. Thank you. [1] http://www.hrw.org...
Gays should be rounded up and forced into slavery.

This made me laugh. I'll try to take this seriously. There is a very simple argument to pretty much counter everything you have; doing that violates the Constitution and basic human rights. You are taking rights from innocent people. Even if you said homosexuality is a crime, criminals still have basic human rights. In the U.S, you can't take away peoples' rights. You would need a ridiculously convincing reason to take away the basic rights of anyone, and you lack that reason.
Gays should be rounded up and forced into slavery.

How can countries in the West compete with countries like China, India and Brazil were workers have very few rights and are paid a pittance? The answer is simple, by under-cutting them using slave labour. As the trade in slaves from Africa has dried up now, we are going to have to use home-grown slaves instead. Of course, nobody is going to volunteer to be a slave but if male homosexuality was made illegal again, the punishment for those found guilty could be forced labour. The government could then make money by hiring these effeminate felons out to companies and wealthy individuals, thus paving the way for tax cuts for everybody else. Thank you.
Torture

Torturing a suspect should not be legal, because it is immoral and ineffective. Any form of torture or cruel and unusual punishment should never be legal, in any situation. For one, a suspect is just that: a suspect. A suspect is a person thought to be guilty of a crime or offense, but without certain proof. For all the authorities know, the person being subjected to torture and abuse could very well be innocent. Humans are not infallible and, somewhere down the line, innocent people will be physically and mentally abused, and possibly permanently injured or killed. Even people who have been proven to be guilty of a crime should not be tortured, as it goes against all morals and human rights. When an abuser tortures someone, the abuser becomes a criminal themselves. Even when people call it "enhanced interrogation", this is just the politically correct term for torture. Even if torture was legal, it has been proven that torture is very ineffective in producing information, and often results in suspects making false statements in order to stop their torture. Torture impairs memory and can create false memories. Lets, approach this scientifically and psychologically. To remember information stored in the brain the person must activate the prefrontal cortex ( controls intention), and the hippocampus( long-term memory). When victims are tortured cortisol is released witch impairs the prefrontal cortex and the hippocampus. According to one article there is a more effective method to retrieve information, "Studies in which soldiers were subjected to stress in the form of food and sleep deprivation have found that it impaired their ability to recall personal memories and information, as this 2006 study reported. "Studies of extreme stress with Special Forces Soldiers have found that recall of previously-learned information was impaired after stress occurred," notes O' Mara. "Water-boarding in particular is an extreme stressor and has the potential to elicit widespread stress-induced changes in the brain." http://www.thedailybeast.com... The article goes on further to explain hat stress from torture releases catecholamines such as noradrenaline, witch will enlarge the amygdale impairing memory and the ability to realise if a memory is real or a false memory caused by the torture. As we can clearly see torture is not the best way to get hidden information from a suspect. We torture people for many various reasons. I have provide two. These two alone should be reason enough to reject this resolution.
LA Lakers is the best NBA team in the history.

The rivalry between the Boston Celtics and Los Angeles Lakers involves the two most popular basketball franchises in National Basketball Association (NBA) history. It has been called the best rivalry in the NBA.[221] The two teams have met a record twelve times in the NBA Finals, starting with their first Finals meeting in 1959. They would go on to dominate the league in the 1960s and the 1980s, facing each other six times in the 60s and three times in the 80s. The rivalry had been less intense since the retirements of Magic Johnson and Larry Bird in the early 1990s, but in 2008 it was renewed as the Celtics and Lakers met in the Finals for the first time since 1987, with the Celtics winning the series 4"2. They faced off once again in the 2010 NBA Finals which the Lakers won in 7 games. The two teams have won the two highest numbers of championships, the Celtics 17, the Lakers 16; together, the 33 championships account exactly half of the 66 championships in NBA history. The lakers had one of the best players in NBA History. Example: Magic Johnson, Wilt Chamberlain, Kobe Bryant, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Shaquille O' Neal, etc. As well they also have had Phil Jackson as a coach who led them to 5 championships. The Lakers also holded the record for NBA's longest winning streak (33), set during the 1971"72 season, it is also the longest of any team in American professional sports. Sixteen Hall of Famers have played for Los Angeles, while four have coached the team. Four Lakers"Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Magic Johnson, Shaquille O'Neal and Kobe Bryant"have won the NBA Most Valuable Player Awards for a total of eight awards.
LA Lakers is the best NBA team in the history.

I am aware of the fact the Lakers and Celtics are rivals. There are many reasons why the Celtics are a better team than the L.A. Lakers first off the Celtics have an NBA best 17 NBA finals. 8 of those wins were against the L.A. Lakers and they have beaten the L.A. Lakers 8 out of 11 times in the finals. In the Celtics/Lakers playoff match ups the Celtics hold the advantage 39-31 over the L.A. Lakers. In the regular season the Boston Celtics and the Los Angeles Lakers have played 187 times with the Celtics winning 100 of those match ups and the Lakers winning only 87. The Boston Celtics have a NBA finals record of 17-21 which translates into a (.809) winning percentage. The L.A. Lakers have a NBA finals record of 11-25 which translates into a (.440) winning percentage. The Lakers have won 16 NBA championships but 5 of those are as the Minneapolis Lakers and this debate is about the L.A. Lakers. my sources are: http://www.nbauniverse.com... http://nbauniverse.com...
Prosperity of India.

Firstly no natural resources of significance. Secondly on the topic of innovation even China wouldn't prosper as what world changing innovation has been happening recently none. Oh you gonna make new highways and have a heavy manufacturing output. Mate that don't change the world and put you first. You need either the oil or groundbreaking INVENTION not innovation. What put the west where they are colonialism and the scientific breakthroughs that followed. I know even India is part of the new nuclear fusion reactor project that's going to be run from the south of France. That may change the scape of Earth, then what's even the need for the resources all your really asking for is for Indian economy and people's to have productive lives but it sounds like your swinging more to a comfortable satisfactory way of life rather to an outwardly productive way of life like China. If they can pull "a China", then it's 'will India produce regarding PRODUCTIVITY' not prosperity.
Gay Marriage

PR1- Con misunderstands my point. This is not necessarily suggesting that gay marriage effects the economy. This is showing that it is not enough to harm an economy. There is also no harm to the marriage of those in heterosexual relationships. Massachusetts, one of the earliest states to legalize it, has a very low rate of divorce, the lowest in the country, actually. There is no valid argument against something that isn't harming anybody. Even if it just doesn't help as well as something else, it is still not doing harm. This means to illegalize it is frivolous. Not making frivolous laws is what defines a nation as being free. PR2- An infertile couple is incapable of baring children. Sometimes the parts to do so are literally not there(1). For a woman who has no uterus, should she be allowed to marry? She doesn't have the potential that your conjugal view talks about. She doesn't even have the theoretical potential to carry a child. This completely ruins your line of logic. American law is based upon what can happen, not what looks like it can happen from an outside view. PR3- If both parents are necessary for perfect parenting, then why are single parents allowed to keep their children? The American College of Pediatricians' article is poorly sourced(2), honestly. 43. Bailey, J. M. Commentary: Homosexuality and mental illness. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry. 46. Vickie M. Mays, et al., "Risk of Psychiatric Disorders among Individuals Reporting Same-sex Sexual Partners in the National Comorbidity Survey," American Journal of Public Health, vol. 91 (June 2001): 933-939. Those are some of the sources for the article. Homosexuality as a sign or illness itself has been long refuted by the psychological community(3). In conclusion of this segment of the argument, Con has given a list of poor excuses and already refuted arguments. 1: http://youngwomenshealth.org... 2: http://www.acpeds.org... 3: http://psychology.ucdavis.edu...
Gay Marriage

PR1- "The Revisionist View" vs "The Conjugal View" This idea that marriage has always been between one man and one woman is also a revision of world history. The idea that marriage cannot exist without the need to produce children is one that is easily refuted. By this argument heterosexual couples without the ability to reproduce should not be allowed to marry. This would mean that 15% of males(1) and 6% of females(2) would be barred from marriage. And if this is just about procreation than all of the legal and economic benefits for married couples are completely unnecessary. There is a very long list of benefits and perks that married couples have that civil unions do not(3). Some of these things like housing benefits make sense for supporting a child, but others are based entirely on the loving bond between the two people involved. PR2- "best manner in which a child can be raised" There are many studies contradicting the one that Con has given. One study with an exceptionally wide scope found that children of same-sex couples were more happy than those with heterosexual parents(4). Boston University says that the sexual orientation of the parents or parent has much less effect on the life of a child than the person's relationship with the children(6). The American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy backs this up(7). Most conservatives turn to one study that I've found by Mark Regnerus. This and others that came after it suffer from flaws and biases(5). Many issues have been found with studies that denounce same-sex parents, even evidence of bribing the people doing the studies(8). And even if homosexual parents were inferior to heterosexual parents, I hope we can all agree that two loving parents are better than letting children be homeless or remain in foster care. Over a fourth of children who go into foster care are abused while in the system(9). This should stand as an excellent reason to allow same-sex coupes to adopt, which the benefits of marriage would allow them to do much easier. In conclusion, all reasons to view homosexuals' relationships as different from those of heterosexuals are irrational and based more upon emotion and preconceived notions than facts or logic. 1: http://www.mayoclinic.org... 2: https://www.asrm.org... 3: http://www.nolo.com... 4: http://www.washingtonpost.com... 5: http://thinkprogress.org... 6: http://www.bu.edu... 7: http://www.aamft.org... 8: http://mic.com... 9: https://www.firststar.org...
Gay Marriage

P1- Same-sex Marriage harms nothing. Same-sex marriage has already been legalized through different means in various states(1). Massachusetts was one of the first states to allow same sex couples to marry. Michigan has put an actual ban on it. One may assume that if same sex marriage is such a bad thing then we could spot a clear difference in favor of Michigan. I will first test this theory with the economy. Michigan has a noticeably higher rate of unemployment(2)(3). Massachusetts outranks Michigan in GDP(4). Michigan has faced a decline in exports, which are a great source of income(5). Mass has seen an increase(6). It is obvious that there are other factors that go to the economy, but according to social conservatives we are better off without same-sex marriage.Michigan has the lowest divorce rate out of any state(7). This suggests very clearly that the integrity of marriage overall hasn't been damaged. Michigan also has a higher rate of violent criminals(8). Though this is a narrow sample, I feel it illustrates my point very well. I invite Con to prove to me that same-sex marriage is causing problems in this country. There are also a myriad of other countries who have legalized these marriages across the world(9). Many of these countries have a higher quality of living than our own in the United States(10). There are also a long list of countries where homosexuality is a crime(11). Countries listed like Pakistan(12), Yemen(13), Uganda(14), Lebanon(15), and many others have a very low quality of life. It seems that acceptance of homosexual relationships correlates to a high standard of life. And that is what is really important when dealing with laws. 1: http://gaymarriage.procon.org... 2: http://www.bls.gov... 3: http://www.bls.gov... 4: http://en.wikipedia.org... 5: https://www.census.gov... 6: https://www.census.gov... 7: http://www.floatingpath.com... 8: http://www.disastercenter.com... 9: http://www.freedomtomarry.org... 10: http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org... 11: http://76crimes.com... 12: http://www.numbeo.com... 13: http://www.numbeo.com... 14: http://www.numbeo.com... 15: http://www.numbeo.com...
Gay Marriage

I will be arguing in favor of same sex marriage being legalized in the United States. These are my only rules: 1: Because this is the United States, where we pride ourselves on a separation of church and state, you cannot use religion in your argument. 2: Round one is for accepting the debate and nothing more. 3: Please refrain from mudslinging of any form. If any of those aren't respected I will ask that you forfeit a turn.
formal instruction on dining etiquette should be mandatory in all US public schools

In her book Domestic Manners of the Americans published in 1832 [1], the English writer Frances Trollope observed: "The total want of all the usual courtesies of the table, the voracious rapidity with which the viands were seized and devoured, the strange uncouth phrases and pronunciation; the loathsome spitting...the frightful manner of feeding with their knives...soon forced us to feel that...the dinner hour was to be anything other than an hour of enjoyment." Americans, she concluded, had a "universal deficiency in good manners and graceful demeanor." Of course, that was written a long time ago. These days, the typical American dining experience is a far less civilised affair with many meals being purchased from mass catering establishments such as McDonald's, KFC and Pizza Hut: which are consumed without the benefit of cutlery, with the food being conveyed from its container (as crockery is not usually provided) by the means of the diners' hands, in the manner of a savage or an ape. Now, I am not suggesting for a moment that American cuisine itself is inferior to that of any other, to do so as an Englishman would be to tread on very thin ice indeed: after all, McDonald's sell hamburgers to Hamburgers and French fries to the French, whereas traditional British favourites such as steak and kidney pudding, brawn, haslett, black pudding, tripe, mushy peas, f#ggots* and haggis are more-or-less unknown beyond these shores. Furthermore, the curious American habit of grasping a fork as one might a gardening tool rather than a pen, and using it with the prongs pointing upwards rather than downwards, is the fault of the British who failed to introduce the fork into America until the 18th Century, and then when we did send them some we neglected to include instructions. This lack of familiarity with forksmay also explain why many Americans, even to this day, will hold their fork in the left hand while using the knife in their right hand to cut their food up before putting their knife down and transferring the fork to their right hand in order to convey their food to their mouths. So, in order to remedy the Americans' relative lack of appreciation of table manners, that we British were partly responsible for, I suggest that formal instruction on dining etiquette should be mandatory in all of the United States' public schools and that proper eating habits should be observed in all school dining halls and refectories. Thank you. * Why is that word considered a profanity? Watch the embedded YouTube clip and tell me what's offensive about f#ggots. http://www.youtube.com... [1] http://books.google.com...
Legalized Prostitution

Note: I'm very sorry that my round is so short; my grandfather was in the hospital and we were in the waiting room for a large portion of the night and day. I'm going to further develop my arguments next round. Prostitution is occurring at a rapid rate in America. Currently, there are 1-2 million prostitutes in the United States. [1] This clearly shows that even if it is always illegal, the law alone will not stop prostitution. Prostitutes are currently suffering brutal money manipulation, physical abuse, and mental abuse. [2] Prostitutes are forced to do their work or face the high risk of being beaten, and when they complete the job they are merely given a fraction of what is earned. Even if they wanted to go through with the act, they risk a chance of having something else happen against their will, as 80% of prostitutes are raped every year. [2] According to various studies, 75-95 percent of prostitutes had been abused when they were children, and they stay with their "pimp" because they fear what he/she would do to them once they left. [2]. However, prostitutes cannot simply go to the police as they will be arrested upon revealing that they are a prostitute. These prostitutes are completely hopeless and are trapped in an endless cycle. No matter what they do, they and their family will suffer as a result. 204 out of every 100,000 prostitutes are murdered because of the lack of regulation. When compared to countries that have regulated prostitution, we note our rates are over 20 times higher. [3]. In addition, 6-8 percent of prostitutes suffer from STDS and HIVs, also as a result of regulation. However, when compared to other countries that have regulated prostitution we observe that it is over 1.5 times the average [3]. Estimates shows that if prostitution was made legal, the total amount of rapes (In America) would be cut by 25% percent, decreasing it to 25,000 rapes per year [4]. Prostitution has already been legalized in areas of Nevada, and since then there has been decreases in violence, diseases, and rapes in the prostitution industry.[5] [6] Economic gains: The prostitution industry generates a staggering 58 million dollars per year, (Even though some of the money is not recorded) and this would increase if we were able to properly regulate it. [3] I'm going to expand on exactly how much money we would save by regulating it next round. It's going to happen anyway, so why not regulate it and actually gain profits, in addition to decreasing the risks our citizens take? Clearly, there are huge benefits to regulating prostitution and terrible downsides to keeping it illegal. I await my opponent's arguments, thank you for reading! [1] http://prostitution.procon.org... [2] http://www.womenslaw.org... [3] http://sex-crimes.laws.com... [4] http://findingjustice.org... [5] http://www.kuro5hin.org... [6] http://prostitution.procon.org...
Legalized Prostitution

Full resolution: "The United States of America should legalize prostitution". Definitions: Legalize: "To make (something) legal : to allow (something) by law" http://www.merriam-webster.com...... Prostitution: "The act of having sex in exchange for money" http://www.merriam-webster.com...... Rules (Made by bsh1 and slightly changed): 1. No forfeits 2. Any citations or sources must be used within the character limit of the debate 3. Plagiarism results in an automatic forfeit 4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere 5. No trolling or semantics 6. No K's of the topic 7. My opponent accepts all of the following definitions and waives his/her right to challenge these definitions 8. The BOP is shared 9. Both debaters must follow this format: R1: Acceptance R2: Arguments (No rebuttals) R3: Rebuttals and arguments R4: Conclusions (No new arguments in this round) 10. Violation of any of these rules results in an automatic forfeit Thank you and good luck.