BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay Marriage

I didn't think it was necessary to bring up sources for my claims, since I thought it was a known thing that there are more orphans in the world than there are adoptive parents. But since you need it, here is a link for you http://www.sos-usa.org... Estimating there are 153 million orphans in the world. In America alone there are 120,000 orphans. And you did not answer my question, you talked yourself out of it. I asked whether you think a child is better off without parents than being adopted by a same sex couple? Your answer was that you think a same sex environment is unsuited for a child - I don't see how that is answer to my question at all. So I give you one more chance to answer, if you wish. Do you think the 153 million orphans are better off without parents, than being adopted by a same sex couple? Here are some facts about adoption - http://www.pbs.org... There you will see that U.S. citizens adopted nearly 13,000 children from 106 different countries in 2009, and about 135,000 children are adopted in the United States each year. Compare those numbers to 153,000,000 - Do you really think we can say no to parents wanting to adopt simply because of their sex? Are you honestly gonna deny a child a home, a family and parents because they do not fit your religious criteria? You said the following ... "no evidence that they would be better off in a home with same sex couples. " No, I have no evidence that they are better off in a home with a same sex couple. Though I am gonna paint you a picture here. Imagine an orphan in let's say Liberia. A child without parents, without a home. A child that in a few years will be forced to carry a gun into a bloody war. Because that is what they do there, in Liberia, they send their children to war (http://www.newsweek.com...) Imagine a child hungry, thirsty and alone, and tell me that you honestly doubt they are better off where they are, than in the home of a same sex couple that has met the criteria from an Adoption Agency?
Gay Marriage

I believe that children should be placed in a home that they'll benefit from, in the long run. I don't believe a same sex environment home is good for a child at all. And to me, that just answered your question. Yet there is no logic behind your question, because there is nothing backing it up, no evidence supporting the number you gave me, and no evidence that they would be better off in a home with same sex couples. There is nothing to argue if you aren't supporting your view and opinions on things. Yes I brought up God, because it was logical in what I was saying. You saying you didn't believe in God, and saying there is no proof that he exists had nothing to do with the argument, making your point invalid.
Gay Marriage

I didn't bring up God, you did. We have a discussion about same sex marriage, and you support your opposing view with religious values. Of course I am critical to this point of view, since I don't have any religious beliefs. I know that you said that a child is best suited with both a mother a father, and as I said in my previous argument, I'm not gonna argue that claim, because I don't know whether that is true or not. I don't believe it, but at is completely irrelevant. However, I asked you whether it was reasonable to let millions of children be parentless, when there are people who would like to adopt them, even though they are not the ideal according to you, do you believe they are better off without them? This was a question I asked, and instead of answering, you became defensive.
Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicavolcaenoconiosis is witchcraft!

Contention One: The Electoral College System protects minorities. The first minority it protects are population minorities. If the direct popular vote system were put into effect, candidates would focus only on winning the votes of large metropolitan areas with their many votes. This would leave small rural areas like Iowa without a say in the election and the new president's policies. Smaller states are given a say by having at least 3 Electoral votes. The second minority it protects are racial minorities. The Electoral College system gives racial minorities a louder voice than their population would provide. This forces candidates to include their views in policies and protects them from racial injustice. Also, the minorities' voices wouldn't be heard over the other majorities. The South has a larger percentage of African Americans than the rest of the United States. This gives them a larger say in the Electoral System than they would get in the Direct Popular Vote System. Contention Two: The Electoral System supports a strong central government by allowing only two political parties. According to William Kimberling, the Electoral System "ensures that the President has both sufficient popular support to govern and that his popular support is sufficiently distributed. If more than two parties existed, then the government would fragment and nothing could be achieved. In the bi-party system, politicians are forced to compromise with the other party because the other party is strong. The bi-party system also limits the number of candidates down to just a few, making it much easier for voters to choose whom to vote for. If there were more candidates, someone could win the election with only 37% of the voters, making him a non-majority winner. Contention Three: The Direct Popular Vote System would be disorganized. If the Direct Popular Vote System were implemented, the number of candidates would skyrocket creating low plurality winners. The votes would also be fractured, leading to lower vote totals per candidate and closer votes that would need a recount. Problems with the system would be more difficult to fix. The Electoral System has 528 voters compared the Direct Popular Vote's 235,809,266. National recounts would be a nightmare. According to Hans von Spa
The United States should increase its military presence in the Pacific-Asia region

Sorry for the late response, I lost track of time. Due to the fact that I rebutted my opponents arguments in my opening argument, I will rebut my opponents 3rd round rebuttals now. I understand my opponents argument that Israel is attacking Hamas to defend their people, and that therefore their actions are justified. However, can it not be said the same thing for the Palestinians? They were forced out of their homes following the creation of the state of Israel in 1948, and ever since have been ruthlessly persecuted by the Israelis. However, this argument has completely strayed away from the original premise at hand, so I will not elaborate my rebuttal any further. Onto the next argument, I see what my opponent is getting at about how the US naval presence would be more for the protection of their allies and not as a aggressive movement against China, North Korea, and Russia. However, the issue with this is that, in politics, intentions are not the deciding factor. What I mean by this is that a person or country may originally have positive intentions in the beginning, however the result will always be determined based on how the opposing group interprets the intentions. Looking at the situation from China and North Korea's point of view, they will not view the American naval presence as a positive force intending to protect innocent people. They will view it as a threat to their safety and therefore will react accordingly. This is similar to my examples of both Pearl Harbor and the Sinking of the RMS Lusitania because the US was not acting aggressively to Japan and Germany, respectively, however the Japanese and Germans interpreted it that way and therefore acted agressively against the US. I would like to thank my opponent for this debate, as it has certainly been a highly informative debate about a relatively unknown issue. On a side note, I would like to end this debate as I started it; with a meme.
The United States should increase its military presence in the Pacific-Asia region

Just wanted to address one little something: Israel is in a "constant state of war" because they are defending their people. Operation Protective Edge (launched earlier this year) was to stop Hamas firing rockets into Israel (which happens on a near daily basis). But I digress (sorry). But the intention of having a US naval presence in the region is not to incense any nation, but rather also to show nations, like Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan that the US is there for them and reassure them that China's designs for more territory will not be allowed. The United States should be committed to her strategic allies in the Pacific-Asia region because Asia is a great place for potential economic and political cooperation & development for the US. I completely understand your arguments and you made very good points. I have nothing further and with that I hand it over to Atheist Independent. It was great to be able to debate a very well learned person like you.
The United States should increase its military presence in the Pacific-Asia region

Thanks for accepting! I hope we have fun with this debate! It's also great to know (if you are true to your age) that I am debating someone around my age. Also for clarity, I am a Chinese-American, just fyi. To start off, I am a firm believer in the idea of "Peace through strength." But let's break up this debate into 2 parts: regarding China and regarding North Korea (which, seeing from your meme is your favorite topic) Regarding China: China in recent years has begun to maneuver for territorial superiority in the Pacific region. In doing so, the PRC has begun to square off with our allies in the region: Japan and Taiwan. China, in vying for the Senkaku/Diayou Islands has used an over excessive amounts of military force to assert its claims in the South China Sea which is cause for concern (Ex: est. of No-Fly Zone and the ramming of Japanese ships with ships flying under the Chinese flag). Furthermore, China, as you probably know, still considers Taiwan a "renegade" province and still considers it a hostile for aligning itself with us, the US. China has made threats in the past to retake Taiwan, militarily if necessary, which is also another cause for concern. China also supports North Korea, which, in and of itself is an argument for increasing our military presence in the region. But hey! This is a perfect segway into North Korea. Regarding North Korea: North Korea, although seemingly erratic is actually quite rational. The only reason they threaten the world nearly every day is to extract food and energy aid from the rest of the world. But however, they have followed through with some of their promises and shelled Yeonpyeong Island (2010), sunk a South Korean Naval Boat (ROKS Cheonan, 2010) . So I believe that to deter NK from killing innocent South Korean civilians and soldiers, we should increase our naval presence in the region. Furthermore, recently Kim Jong Un has been noted to be missing. It is possible, as an article notes on CNN, that a possible coup has occurred, which will lead to more instability in the region.) Source: http://www.cnn.com... Overall, As I said, I believe in "Peace through strength". Increasing our naval presence could help o deter Chinese ambitions for a territorial expansion and NK designs for a united Korean peninsula or just the senseless killing of South Korean citizens and soldiers. Once again, thanks for accepting and I'm really excited for this debate.
Joseph Stalin has made a bigger impact on society as a whole than Oprah

In College, We were assigned to debate whether or not a public figure has made more of an impact on society than another public figure. I was assigned the pro side of Joseph Stalin making more of an impact on society as a whole than Oprah. I went up against an annoying girl who had no idea what she was talking about other than that Oprah was the coolest African American woman and gave away cars. Unfortunately, this wasn't a very advanced class in my opinion and I ended up losing the debate, as the board of judges was composed of the girl's best friends and obvious Oprah fans. (plus one of them had no idea who Joseph Stalin was) Anyways, I was talking with my husband about this event and he claims I am still very held up on this, even years later (he may be right). I would just like to have a fair debate with (for lack of a better term) an actual smart person on this topic so I can let go of this grudge. SO, I argue that Joseph Stalin made a bigger impact on society than Oprah has so far (as of 9/18/2014).
Fire:Friend Or Foe

fire is both friend and foe in our daily life and in our future. The early people of the world has used fire. firstly the early people does not know how the fire is being used. as they dose not know they think that is a destroyer. because in the early times there was no lighter or match boxes to light fire, in early times they clash and rub two stones each other and give the fire into the woods of the tree.tree. but they cannot control the fire and it became big destroyer as it featured into a major fire in which the whole forest got burn up so the early people thinks it is a destroyer or a foe to all animals and humans. but as the time flew off the modern men started using fire for their daily work they started new equipment to control use fire systematically and emergency equipment to stop the fire if the fire is over-controlled. and also they founded new equipment one by one like-burner,lighter,stove,gaseous foil,boiler,heater and for safety fire brigades, gaseous equipment, liquid equipment and other. so the modern people started maintain fire as a boon or friend. so we can say that it is being both foe and friend . when fire is under control then it is friend and when fire is over control then it is a foe.
why are black people better than white people

True Oprah is the first few successful black people out there. It's the fact that not a lot of them are up there with more ideas. It's always about get rich and famous. That is the reason I think not a lot of black people are on the richest list. I know there have been few inventions by black people in the past but it was either some foreign guy like Albert Eisenstein or Bill Gates who chose to rise to the top because they managed to use their intellect better than speed or charisma. As they say Intellect is far superior than brute force. Unless the brute force is the power of atomic bomb.
why are black people better than white people

Yes that does seem very intriguing. If the world was build on who was the fastest and who is the strongest then I would say black people are better. I am not racist by any means but I was given a con side to argue therefore I would say this. Look at the world's richest people. I don't see any black person there. In fact brightest mind of our ages are even black. You can say black people are faster and stronger but look at the minds.
Hitting A Baseball Is The Hardest Thing To Do In Any Sport

Hello let's review the topic "Hitting A Baseball Is The Hardest Thing To Do In Any Sport" What about water polo. Often overlooked in discussions, this Olympic sport is officially the toughest sport in the world. Similar to the land-based handball that was not too far from the list itself, water polo is played, well, in water. With a lot of kicking and grabbing going on under the surface, and all sorts of sly blows in the water, polo is highly ranked in physicality. Like ice hockey did for the fact it was on ice, polo receives a boost to skill level, as the game itself is supplemented by the need to not drown during it. Often overlooked are the speed and strength needed by players as they move through the water, and more importantly the fact that players are not permitted to touch the floor. Try going to your local pool and treading water for more than 30 minutes, then imagine playing an intense contact sport in that time, and you will realize why water polo scored so well for endurance. Often seen as a minority sport, it is hugely popular in eastern Europe, and truly is the toughest sport in the world. Scoring Attribute Rating Endurance 9 Speed 7 Strength 7 Agility 7 Skill 6 Physicality 8 Total Score - 44Surely this is harder than Hitting a ball with a stick. Sources.http://bleacherreport.com...;
Bee enslavement is immoral.

Con was incorrect in his definition of self-aware and was associating self-awareness with the human ability of utilizing abstract thinking, complex reasoning, using tools etc. "Bees have the ability to learn." A large amount of animals are capable of learning. I don't believe that because they are capable of learning simple tasks that bee keeping is immoral. "Bees can learn simple patterns. Therefore, its not much of a stretch to realize they are being cheated." Realizing they are being cheated is a trait that can be attributed to complex thinking. Bees are not capable of realizing their honey is being used for commercial benefit. "Alternatively humans could discontinue the practice of enslaving bees. Pro doubts bees would want compensation, instead bees want honey and freedom." This is pure speculation. There is no way to determine what a bee would want. Furthermore, bees operate around the queen of the hive. If the queen leaves the hive, the bees will follow. How can you speculate that bees would prefer "freedom" when they blindly follow their absolute monarch anywhere she goes? "Bees are aware, bees seem to prefer honey and freedom to compensation, and finally bees need to be smoked in order to get near the honey without being stung. Bees swarming a person and stinging their captor when they try to steal the honey is the bees' way of objecting. Also, try sticking your hand in a bee's nest without smoking the bees nor protection and see what happens." Bees are territorial, they attack out of instinct, not out of objection to captivity. If I tried to steal honey from a wild hive, I would get stung as well. It has nothing to do with captivity and more about territorial defense. Once the honey is gone, I doubt the bees sit around singing slave songs wishing for freedom. They go get more and repeat the cycle.
Bee enslavement is immoral.

"Bees are not self-aware" Con The majority of scientific evidence supports the contrary claim that bees are sentient, also know as self-aware. 2,500 studies showing animal sentience. [1]. Bees have a brain. "On its head, a bee has two sensory antennae. It also has five eyes" [2]. Bees have the ability to learn. "The team then tested whether the bees could apply what they had learned to a new situation. Blue and yellow patches were replaced with black and white patterns of vertical and horizontal bars. The bees passed with flying colors, heading straight for the pattern that matched what they saw at the entrance. " [3]. "But they are capable of a surprising degree of higher cognitive function, including the ability to cope with the concept of 'sameness' previously thought likely to be the preserve of primates. Having learnt to associate a set of black and white patterns with reward or absence of reward, honeybees can transfer that learning to a new set of patterns, or even to another sense, a set of odours. " [4]. Bees have sensory organs, a brain, a nervous system, and the ability to learn. Bees are certainly sentient. "they are not capable of abstract thinking and therefore don't realize that they are working for human benefit. " Con Pro begs to differ. Bees can learn simple patterns. Therefore, its not much of a stretch to realize they are being cheated. "As bees do not posses a monetary system, it would be impossible to compensate them for their work." Con Alternatively humans could discontinue the practice of enslaving bees. Pro doubts bees would want compensation, instead bees want honey and freedom. "So we have a creature that is not aware of what it is doing, cannot be compensated, and does not object nor is it able to object to it's human captivity. I do not believe using bees for their honey is immoral." Con Bees are aware, bees seem to prefer honey and freedom to compensation, and finally bees need to be smoked in order to get near the honey without being stung. Bees swarming a person and stinging their captor when they try to steal the honey is the bees' way of objecting. Also, try sticking your hand in a bee's nest without smoking the bees nor protection and see what happens. [1](http://www.livescience.com...) [2](http://animals.howstuffworks.com...) [3](http://www.scientificamerican.com...) [4](http://www.nature.com...)
Bee enslavement is immoral.

Bees are not self-aware, therefore they are not aware that they are working for human benefit. In their eyes, they are living a normal life. Although bees have been documented as having an emotional response, they are not capable of abstract thinking and therefore don't realize that they are working for human benefit. Slaves work for no payment. As bees do not posses a monetary system, it would be impossible to compensate them for their work. So we have a creature that is not aware of what it is doing, cannot be compensated, and does not object nor is it able to object to it's human captivity. I do not believe using bees for their honey is immoral.
Smoking Really Kills

If we didn't make alarm clocks, then there would be one less thing to be thrown at your head in a fight. SAME AS if we didn't make cigarettes, there would be one less health hazard to you. However, this is irrelevant since the topic is that smoking kills. And you will see that it is the PEOPLE that smoke who ACTUALLY kill. I assume you have been around cigarettes all of your life, but it isn't until you've been around ppl. that smoke that you were harmed. Plus smoking is good for the economy
Smoking Really Kills

It isn't the smoking that kills, rather, the people that kill. If people stopped making cigarettes, people wouldn't die from them… ok… but that is the same for cars, alarm clocks, houses, and even pens and pencils. Do you want to stop making them too? In the end it is the person that decides what they do and how they do it, not the inanimate object. And although there is a temptation, it is ultimately the person that kills the person. Thanks for the challenge and good luck!
Smoking Really Kills

Lung cancer kills over 1 million people a year and people still smoke.If the cigerette company would stop making cigerettes then maybe the world would be a better place.No nasty smoke to get in little kids lungs and have them die from second hand smoke.No one wants there kid to die and if kids die they cant grow up and live there life.Think of all the lifes you could save if the world would stop smoking.