BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay Marriage Legalization

For example, racism against blacks has diminished since the 1950's. The meaning of black changed from "second-class citizens" to "people just like us".I'd like to state, meaning of 'second class citizen' was against the constitution in the first place. Something that should've been a right was a privilage. But in this case, marriage is not something thats necessarily a right. That would mean children can have the right to marry also. Marriage is something that is a privilage. Racism is intolerable even at a young age, when otherwise marriage is intolerable at a young age. I don't think the comparison is valid. However, since singles can adopt, gays should be legally be allowed to adopt, too.Not really an argument since they can. I wish to question why my opponent is stating something that has "a lack of evidence", and therefore cannot be totally claimed as a fact. Because of the possibility. I am just suggesting there may be. In the face of uncertainty, careful progression must be made for laws, since laws are bound absolute to all men. And in order for it to be absolute, there shouldn't be uncertainty. It makes it a good burden of proof for the lawmaker to pass the law. Also, I would like to question why 25% of children raised by gay couples becoming gay is a bad thing.Agreed. But there are people who may say it is a bad thing. But that wasn't the point in the matter. It was about the possibility a gay person may affect a child and to a certain effect, there may be bad influence. I wish to refute the idea that a child raised by a gay couple will be bullied or pressured by society. If gay marriage is legalized, homophobia will eventually diminishWhich essentially means that a child raised by a gay couple will be bullied and pressured. and only 3 years later, Thurgood Marshall became the first African-American justice in the Supreme CourtAnd even yet, racism persists even until today. That doesn't say how a couple million blacks weren't pressured and bullied by society.Still in 1957, there were many cases of racist behavior left in people. But that was mostly due to prejudice. Frankly speaking, I don't think expanding the analogy of race and sexual identity is the same. For most heterosexuals, being gay is unnatural and revulsion a natural reaction. Last, but not least, I would like to point out that although many Americans have various religions, this does not prevent the majority of people accepting the legalization of Gay Marriage. According to a Gallup Politics poll, 52% of people are in favor of gay marriage, while only 43% are not.Which usually means there is enough margin for error to discredit the poll as a valid citation. A gallup poll usually samples a couple thousand at most through phones- which usually further discredits gallup's validity. I do know that what people identify themselves as is sometimes misleading toward what they actually believe in. But still, it would be unwise to discredit demographics which is a complete survey, while a gallup poll is a partial survey in the fractions of population.
Gay Marriage Legalization

I would like to protest my opponent's idea that marriage is only about procreation. What about infertile couples? What about couples who wish to remain childfree? If they can marry, why not the LGBT community, too? My oppeonent states "Marriage in essence was an institution to support procreation of that couple 'exculsively'. " The key word in this statement is "was". Marriage predates recorded history, when many unacceptable ideas for that time period were now social norms. For example, racism against blacks has diminished since the 1950's. The meaning of black changed from "second-class citizens" to "people just like us". So the meaning of marriage can just as easily change from "This thing that allows people to make babies" to "A bondage between a loving couple, regardless of gender or ability to procreate". I beg to differ my opponent's position that gay couples cannot raise a child properly. If they can not, then by this logic, single people should not be allowed to adopt, because children cannot succeed if raised by only one gender. However, since singles can adopt, gays should be legally be allowed to adopt, too. I wish to question why my opponent is stating something that has "a lack of evidence", and therefore cannot be totally claimed as a fact. Also, I would like to question why 25% of children raised by gay couples becoming gay is a bad thing. I wish to refute the idea that a child raised by a gay couple will be bullied or pressured by society. If gay marriage is legalized, homophobia will eventually diminish, just as racism lowered since segregation ended in 1954 with the Civil Rights Act, and only 3 years later, Thurgood Marshall became the first African-American justice in the Supreme Court. If homophobia takes We must start the end of prejudice against the LGBT community now so gays are not pressured and bullied by society, and legalizing Gay Marriage will make a huge impact on this. Last, but not least, I would like to point out that although many Americans have various religions, this does not prevent the majority of people accepting the legalization of Gay Marriage. According to a Gallup Politics poll, 52% of people are in favor of gay marriage, while only 43% are not. Since more Americans want gay marriage to be legalized than not, this definitely points out that gay marriage should be legal. Again, I would like to thank my opponent for joining this debate. Sources: . http://www.xtimeline.com... . http://www.huffingtonpost.com... . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://www.fasttopten.com... . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Peter Griffin is an inferior character to Homer Simpson

To paraphrase my opponents main arguments: Peter is fatter than Homer Brian Griffin is superior to Santa's Little Helper Cleveland, Quagmire and Joe are more developed than Lenny and Carl Peter is a better fighter than Homer Stewie is a superior baby to Maggie I believe in posing these arguments, he actually proves my point. Only two of these arguments actually relate to Peter himself, that Peter is fatter and that Peter is a better fighter. Only one of these fact can actually be proven; that Peter is fatter and I have already agreed that it is true. However, Homer doesn't need to be fatter. His weight has been at the core of a thousand jokes over the 20 years the show has been running. In the two episodes where Homer did became fatter (that I can think of anyway) it was only used as a tool for even greater jokes, but he returned to his original weight because it is already perfect. As for the fighting skills, my opponent is incorrect. Put two fighters together, in the UFC for example, one is fitter, has nearly triple the experience and a proven extreme tolerance to pain and injury against someone fatter with less experience who was also mildly retarded. The latter obviously has the odds stacked against him. The rest of my opponents points show that Family Guy has developed certain other characters in the show far more than the Simpsons has, even though the show has been running half the time. This shows that even the creators of Family Guy realise that Peter will always be inferior to Homer. Everything that can be done with a fat, blue collar American cartoon character, has already been done by Homer. Only by taking the character into more adult situations can new jokes be found. This doesn't illustrate that Peter is better, but that Homer is more family friendly. While only older people can enjoy Family Guy, both children and adults can enjoy The Simpsons. In conclusion, Homer is very clearly better than Peter in everyway. Homer Simpson beat hundreds of cartoon characters who were significantly older than him to take the second spot in the greatest cartoon characters of all time list. He is a cultural icon who is recognised by people of all ages, all around the world. No matter how much time passes, Peter will never overtake Homer in global appeal. That is why Peter is inferior to Homer.
Peter Griffin is an inferior character to Homer Simpson

Peter Griffin is arguably more obese. Peter Griffin also has a talking dog, that writes books, bangs real woman, and drive. Homer has a mutt. Peter befriends a man with a speaking disorder, a crippled cop, and a perverted pedophile. He has more varied and interesting friends than Homer. Peter's wife does not have 5 foot clown hair. Peter arguably has better fighting skills, if you recall his fights with the chicken. Peter has an evil genius talking baby, while Homer has a mute baby. I believe Peter is superior in many ways.
Peter Griffin is an inferior character to Homer Simpson

Hello. I grew up on The Simpsons and find Homer Simpson an endearing and lovable character. I have watched a lot of Family Guy and while I do enjoy the hijinks of Brian and Stewie and the sometimes hilarious trademark cutaway segments, I cannot stand Peter Griffin and thus my enjoyment of the show is affected. Although they are in essence very similar characters, I believe Peter lacks a lot of the redeeming traits that Homer has. Let the debate begin!
why are you so perfict

I Will Wait a Lifetime for You You hide behind your feelings and keep the truth locked away, but there is so much said in the things you don"t say You innocently tell me our time has come and gone and that we can"t go back but I don"t believe it and this time you"re wrong The distance you put between us is nothing more than time lost; a place for your feelings to hide, yet I can hear the love in your voice each time we talk My patience has no end when it comes to loving you and I will wait a lifetime for you to see the truth Real love doesn"t go away it doesn"t fade into the past, it goes on forever and always finds its way back I will wait a lifetime for you because you are my soul, and behind all of your doubt I know you can"t let go You are my soul, and I am yours, too. If two people were ever meant to be, it"s me and you.
why are you so perfict

to me my darling you are abcdefghi amazing beautiful cute delightful elegant fashionable gorgeous hot and indescribable because no words can explain how amazing you are i am happy that i found my one true girl and one day i will come to your home state and ask you a very important question because i want to spend the rest of my life with you every night i think about you and thinking what i would do when i see you in person i dont know only time will tell until that day babe if i ask you a question what would you say oh text me or call me tomorrow if you can babe i love you and i hope i get to hear your voice soon because i believe tat you have a voice of an angel
The Kalam cosmological argument is sound

PassageThe illusion of passage is a consequence of Minkowski spacetime.In this spacetime geometry, there are differences between space and time. But a difference that somehow captures the passage of time is not to be found. There is no passage of time. There are temporal orderings. We can identify earlier and later stages of temporal processes and everything in between. What we cannot find is a passing of those stages that recapitulates the presentation of the successive moments to our consciousness, all centered on the one preferred moment of "now."(1)KnowledgeI answered this last round.Special RelativityMy opponent accuses me of commiting an argumentum ad populum. But this is ridiculus.Appealing to scientific consensus is not a fallacy.Cross-Time RelationsPro claims "1939 a WW started" refers to the memories of those present a the time. This still misses the point of presentism, there are no past people, they do not exist, I canoot refer to their memories as there are no such memories.Unfortunately the rest of this section is unintelligible.Cross-Time Spatial RelationsAgain, appealing to the scientific consensus is not a fallacy.BGV TheoremThe intention I had behind the quote was merely to say that the theorem is not invalid as is, you just cannot get to the universe being created with it.I still got Vilenkin on my side and Pro does not contest his claims.Vote Con(1) http://www.pitt.edu...
The Kalam cosmological argument is sound

Passage and KnowledgeThe passage of time is an illusion? Why believe that B-theory boy? Yeah we cant see the whole universe but we can observe time! I feel the present ergo i can feel time. Why only the present huh?Special Relativity1) Voting doesnt make something true or false. The voters probably didnt understand the arguments. Saying the voting makes it false is an appeal to majority thats what you said I was doing wtf? 2) Above and the voters probably voted for him because everyone worships the user ron-paul because he goes with the DDO Hivemind3) APpeal to scientific majority fallacy. Cross-Time Relationswhen you say in 1939 WWII started you are refering to your memory of history that refers to the memories of those who were there. I cant refer to something that doesnt exist? why cant nothing cant have properties eh b theory boy? No defense for that.Cross Time Spatial RelationsIt DOES discredit it. It shows the type of people it attracts. It attracts that kind of people because the book is written by stoners FOR stoners. Took it for a given? If its in school its automatically true? Whats next taking atheism for a given? ALl you need to do is say the KCA is wrong because of atheism! Appeal to majority fallacy. GVB TheroWtf. B theory boy said"Furthermore it relies on classical physics and as such does not take into account quantum mechanics."Do you have retrograde anmesia or something? I extend my argues cuz B theory boy dont address sh1t.
The Kalam cosmological argument is sound

Presentism and why its the sh1tPresentism explains why we onlt experience the present. You cant see the past you cant taste the future. the present is all. Time includes passage. B theory dont got passage making b in B theory stand for bullsh1t. And the a in a theory stand for awesome!Eternalism and why it eats sh1tSpecial relativity. If you think special relativity proves eternalism, then your special in the head relative to us smart people!One, relativity might not exist. Look at my famous refutation of relativity http://www.debate.org... Anti-atheist doesnt believe in realtivity and he has a BA in physicshttp://www.debate.org...He stomped now liberal "Ron-paul" in that debate!Two, relativty works without simultaneity http://scholar.google.com... Cross-Time RelationsThis is a real objection? When the presentos are talking about past objects they are refering to what use to be the present. The present is moving and we say oh where the present once was we like that. and maybe it refers to our mental state of time.I think Marlyn manroe was a hot b1tch refers to me temporal memory of history. Our minds dont make sh1t about the real past.Cross-Time Spatial RelationsRussellian theory of motion? Like from bertrand russel? The same russel that kids like to get high and read?http://www.debate.org...Full bodied laughCon gives no reason to believe in this pot headed theory of russelian motion. His argument is nil and invalidGVB theoremVGB theorem says the past is finite there are ways around it but the atheist will be f*cking himself in the a if he uses themClassical mechanics invalidats it? Heh no! BVG dont give a sh1t about the quantuos“A remarkable thing about this theorem is its sweeping generality. . . . We did not even assume that gravity is described by Einstein’s equations. So, if Einstein’s gravity requires some modification, our conclusion will still hold. The only assumption that we made was that the expansion rate of the universe never gets below some nonzero value” [Vilenkin,Many Worlds in One pg 175]Logic= invalid.My logic=soundM"fkkize=logically dead.Ownage
The Kalam cosmological argument is sound

Praise the black jesusm' FkkizeP1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause. P2) The universe began to exist. P3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.Pee 1:Look around yourself. You see money coming out of nowhere? You think Bill gates got to be a rich a$$hole because he sat around while money was coming into existence by virtual particles? Nope, he uitilized premise one to become rich in 7 simple steps. Do good whores come out of nowhere? Nope! They must be birthed and trained. They all must have causes.Assuming something began without a cause. X cause was uncasued. Uncaused is the same thing as saying nothng cause it. QED Nothing was the cause. X began to exist and was caused by nothing.P1 Is true boo.Pee 2:By universe I mean this sh1t We know it begans because if it didn't the second law of thermodynamics would f*ck everything up. Entropy increases the universe would be dead by now. Science like BVG theorem and the big bang theory tells us the uni began 13.6 billion years ago with a bang that was big.Infinitey dont make sense. If I promised to give you a kiss when you take an infinite amount of bites out of an ice cream (a chocolate cherry one) would you ever feel my soft suclent manly lips? Nope How the f*ck do you expect to get to the present then? Y'dont. Pee 3Look above sh1ts transitive.ConclusionGod exists. Because the thing that caused all this sh1t must be above this sh1t. It cannot be physical or natural it must be superphysical/supernatural to cause thems universe. It gots to be powerful and intelligent to know how to cause this sh1t.That's God bro, case closed. Proof in the pudding. Salute to mien furer. Mul#5;umesc, Cu plăcere Sunt Jedi4!Design your universe b1tches
2 has the same value as the value of 1.

Let a = b. Then a^2 = ab. Subtract b^2 from both sides. Then a^2-b^2=ab-b^2. Use difference of squares. (a+b)(a-b)=b(a-b) Divide both sides by (a-b). Then a+b=b. Now let a=1, then b=1. Substitute a=1 and b=1 into a+b=b. Thus 2=1.
Voting Racism

As Dr. King stated, a man should be judge by his character, not the color of his skin. This involves the jug=dgement one makes when one enters the voting booth. When a person votes for (or against) a person based on ethnicity, it reals the bigotry in their own soul. Those who say they want to give a person a "break", or they want to see a different ethnicity in a political office denigrates that ethnicity by saying their race is reason in itself to vote for that person. Are there any inferior races? If so, then out of humanity give that race a grade curve. If one race is as good, or intellient, or honorable as another: then don't demean the person by patrinizing them with some kind of pity-vote. If a person votes against a person based on ethnicity, they demean themself, and illustrate to the world that they are an ignoramous who can't get past appearance. Vote; but vote intelligently. Vote on facts, beliefs, convictions; but never vote based on a persons race. It's the difference between being a Dr. King or an Archie Bunker or George Jefferson.
Voting Racism

As I read Robert Novaks article today, he said: "Clearly, Obama has not yet convinced the people to accept a young, inexperienced African American as their president. Obama had virtually clinched the nomination when white working men in Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia poured out to vote and comfortably delivered their states to Hillary Clinton. This was not because of unalterable affection for her. Obama's difficulty in reaching the 50 percent mark reflects an overwhelmingly white undecided vote of 10 to 15 percent." While I aquiese there's truth to this statement, I detest the fact that race is an issue; pro or con.
Voting Racism

>i noticed your opening statement was chastising the media for discussing how black people would be excited to vote for obama. Im merely disagreeing with the fact that your so opposed to that. > Race does matter in this and is something to consider when voting and when covering (media wise). I don't understand. We just agreed that voting for someone based on their race is an exersise in bigotry. Are you now proposing that a small amount of bigotry is acceptable? There is no doubt that this election is historical because of Obamas' race. It's just as historical as Geraldine Ferraros' nomination for Vice President back in the 1980's. On this we disagree. But again, the proposition is to vote for a person because of their ethnic backsground is just as racist as refusing to vote for a person because of that ethnicity. Personally, I think the pride of the nation is anyone can run for any office, and win, in America, their ethnicity not becoming a factor. That will be the true social victory. We almost had that in this election until the current nominee said "their going to make you afraid of me,. . . did I mention he was black?" Because our nation has decided, and taught our children that race isn't an issue if you're intelligent, that what makes a person viable for your friendship, is "the content of his character". This is the dream of the great American Martin Luther King. >Having a black guy who is smart, articulate and friendly to diplomacy changes the face of our nation in contrast to the last 8 years. Getting another white guy makes a different effect. Race does matter in this Again, I would rather have someone articulate a different view on national policy, but to claim because a "black guy" (your verbiage, not mine) makes it more impressive, illustrates the proosition. It's racist, it's bigotry, it's wrong. I don't deny this is the situation, but the exersize of considering race while in the voting booth is, as we've already agreed: morally wrong. it's apartheid.
Voting Racism

Well when i picked up this debate, i noticed your opening statement was chastising the media for discussing how black people would be excited to vote for obama. Im merely disagreeing with the fact that your so opposed to that. Nobody's advocating voting for someone cause theyre black or white, im only advocating acknowledgment of how a perosn represents your nation as a part of the decision making process of voting. Each individual needs to ask themselves how someone represents their nation on a grand scale. Having a black guy who is smart, articulate and friendly to diplomacy changes the face of our nation in contrast to the last 8 years. Getting another white guy makes a different effect. Race does matter in this and is something to consider when voting and when covering (media wise).
Voting Racism

>To act like Obama's race has nothing to do with this election is just plain naive. I would agree with this statement. The contention comes from voting FOR(and conversely AGAINST ) a person BECAUSE of their race. I would rather see an exchange of ideas and their expected results than using race as an advantage or detriment. Having said that, I return to my proposition that doing either is an exersize in bigotry. >Im also not saying that you should necessarily stand at the voting booth thinking about the color of the candidates' skin. Then we agree. Am I proud that a Black man can run for office and concievably win? Absolutely. But win or lose on his merits, not his race. I remember 1970 in Tampa Florida being bussed to an inner-city school. The parents weren't happy, but we were 12 year olds and becoming very social oriented. What we learned was what should've been known: people are people based on their merits. We were (are) the generation that repudiated the old traditions (especially here in the south east)of racism. That's why we taught or children that "nigger" and "cracker" aren't words a polite person would say. We think, and taught our children that race isn't supposed to be an issue; then lived our lives by that rule. Bottom Line: voting according to race is, well: racism. >If Barack Obama isnt elected, America looks like a racist country to the world. The rest of the world castigates us anyway. Their opinion are more of a social concern than a political liability. Otherwise, they're guilty of bigotry.