BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay or same sex marriages should be legal.

In response to your opinion I would like to add that if marriage is about reproduction and procreation, then why are heterosexuals who cannot have children allowed to marry, heterosexuals who don't want to have children allowed to marry, heterosexuals who don't want to have sex allowed to marry, heterosexuals who can't have sex because one partner is in prison for life allowed to marry? Heterosexual couples are now (because of the increased technology) able to use technical assistance to have children so why is it seen as wrong when same-sex couples have children using the same methods? For a lesbian couple, one woman's egg can be implanted into the female partner's uterus and then fertilized with a known or unknown donor's sperm. Gay couples can also reproduce using one man's sperm and a surrogate mother. In both situations, the couples can raise-children, and fit any criteria of marriage being about reproduction and starting a family. The ability or desire to create offspring has never been a qualification for marriage. Traditional Christian wedding vows read: "[Name], do you take [Name] to be your wedded [husband/wife] to live together in marriage. Do you promise to love, comfort, honor and keep [him/her] For better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health. And forsaking all others, be faithful only to [him/her] so long as you both shall live? " (myweddingvows. com) Civil marriage vows are almost identical in emphasizing love and commitment. These vows are clearly the heart and soul of what marriage is all about and the focus is entirely on love and commitment, not on reproducing and starting a family. Gay couples clearly can qualify for marriage according to these vows, and any definition of marriage made from these vows. Once again I'd like to thank you for your time in discussing this issue with me. I love to see both sides to an argument and respect you for giving your input and opinions on this issue.
Gay or same sex marriages should be legal.

To start off you cannot say anything about "doing unto others as they would do unto you" because heterosexual couples would never be in that position it's just not the way it works. Since the beginning of time there has been right and wrong ways to live and nowhere in the Bible does it state that it is ok to have marriage in the same sex. It even states it is a sin. There is a clear reason as to why it is illegal for the same sex to get married. Understand that for centuries this has been something viewed as completely wrong and unethical. Men and women come together to procreate like God intended, as stated in the Bible. There is a reason two women, or two men, cannot get each other pregnant and procreate. That right there in itself proves it's wrong above all.
Gay or same sex marriages should be legal.

I believe that gay couples should be allowed to marry whoever they want just as heterosexual couples do. Just because of your sexual orientation, you should not be treated differently than the majority of the population. Denying gays the right to legalized marriage is a violation of religious freedom because civil and religious marriages are two separate institutions. In the case of Christianity, the Bible states to "do unto others as you would like done unto you". How would a heterosexual couple feel if they were in the position (as are homosexuals) of such oppression? It is completely unfair to deprive homosexual couples the benefits of marriage. This includes joint ownership rights, medical decision-making rights, taxation and inheritance rights, access to family health coverage, and protection in the event of the relationship ending. A same-sex couple is not allowed to make medical decisions for their partner because they cannot be legally married to them. Therefore, their partner can be on their deathbed and they will not be allowed to make decisions regarding their life until someone in their family arrives. How can this be okay? Homosexuality is much more common and accepted as a lifestyle nowadays, most evidence strongly supporting biological causation. Denying gay legalized marriages is also a form of minority discrimination. Allowing for legalized gay marriages does not hurt society or anyone in particular. It is only allowing others to be happy in their lives. The same financial benefits that apply to heterosexual marriages should apply to same-sex marriages. Another pro that comes from legalizing gay marriages is the increase in child adoptions. Because gay couples cannot pro-create the adoption rate would rise significantly. Children would be put in a loving family rather than a numerous list of foster homes that many times take advantage of children in order to receive a pay check. If I were unable to keep my child, I would feel much better knowing he/she was going to a loving same-sex couple who was going to love and take very good care of him/her rather than 6 different foster homes gain ownership that did not show any appreciation for him/her.
Gay or same sex marriages should be legal.

Homosexuals have the exact same rights as heterosexuals minus the sake that they can say they are married. Civil unions offer the same benefits of traditional marriages, so why is there such a push for legalizing the marriage between same sex couples? Homosexuals are not segregated and neither are they given fewer rights. They can have all the rights of marriage except for the name. A couple does not need to be married to live a happy, comfortable, and free lifestyle.
Gay or same sex marriages should be legal.

Gay marriage should be legalized. If two people want to join hands in marriage and love each other, care about each other, and spend their lives with each other it should not matter what sex they are. Who gets the choice to say whether it is right or wrong? People make "wrong" choices everyday, including heterosexuals, so why is this "wrong" choice so discriminated against? Marriage should be about love and commitment, not the gender you posess.
Is Paris Accord Bad for Nations

For anyone who judges this debate please look at the fact my opponent has not offered any evidence supporting his/her's/its "contentions". The contentions he brought up have been refuted by me... He has offered no sources, evidence, and he/she/it has not refuted any of my cases... Thus, the only decision that can be logically made is a Pro victory. Note- Ignore his final argument, not only is it unsubstantiated, but this is the voters round, no new info can be brought up here.
Is Paris Accord Bad for Nations

Opponent Claim: Saves environment by preventing greenhouse gases. Counter-Claim: Due to the fact that we have not had enough time to examine the effects of the Paris Climate Accord we cannot make this assumption Warrant: Nullifies my opponent's claim Opponent Claim: Everyone will be happy because the atmosphere will be happy! Counter-Claim: An atmosphere cannot be happy, it is inanimate... Counter-Claim 2: The Kurds will not be happy as ISIS slaughters them, The Russians will not be happy because it slowly reduces the price of oil, which is an important part of what alters the value of the Ruble. Warrant: As it will not make everybody happy, and an atmosphere is inanimate this ought to be nullified Contention 1: The Paris Climate Accord does not help the Kurds The Kurds are a nation who do not have a demarcated area... In one battle alone 800 Kurds were killed by ISIS, the Paris Climate Accord does not benefit them, and is bad for them because it wastes time talking about Global Warming, while ISIS continues to slaughter them Contention 2: The Paris Climate Accord will destroy the Russian economy As Russia is a major exporter of oil and has an economy that is dependent on it, any drop in the price of Crude Oil will harm the Russian economy. Thus, as the Paris Climate Accord is designed to slowly reduce the need for oil, the Russian economy will slowly collapse. Thus, the Paris Climate Accord is not beneficial for Russia As, I have refuted my opponent's only argument, we will go into the voters round with only one clear decision... A victory for Pro Source: CNN Source: AEI
Is Paris Accord Bad for Nations

I will be saving my argument for round 2... First: I would like to define some terms as my opponent did not... "Paris Accord"- This I believe is in reference to the "Paris Climate Accord" Bad- not such as to be hoped or desired Nations- plural for nation- a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory Some questions for my opponent: how did it save the environment? Is there any measurable proof of this? What are your grounds for bad? Round 1 topic analysis: While the topic places the BoP on me... The Con put out the first contention this places 2 burdens, I have the BoP but he/she/it also has the "Burden of Clash". So, in simplicity he must prove all of my contentions wrong, or they flow throughout the rounds ending up in my victory... If he does fulfill this "Burden of Clash" he/she/it wins. refuting my opponents 1st claim Opponent's Claim: It saved environment Counter-Claim: There is not been enough time to prove this Counter-Claim 2: This agreement may fail like they have over the last 25 years Counter-Evidence: There has been 25 years of failed climate talks and agreements before this event... There is no proof that this is any different than the previous 25 years Counter-Claim 3: This assumes that climate change is man-made Counter-Claim 4: This agreement assumes that humans can do something about climate change. Counter-Claim 5: This agreement assumes that climate change is occurring So, now using my definitions lets read the topic The Paris Climate Accord was not such as to be hoped or desired for a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory. As my opponent has not determined which "nation's" this topic applies to I will choose... I choose to put this debate in the framework of the Kurds and of the Russians Thus, a fully revised topic reads The Paris Climate Accord was not such as to be hoped or desired for the Kurds and the Russians Source- The oxford dictionary
Insurance makes health care too expensive

Thanks for debating, I wanted to learn more about this issue. So I know you never said this but I am not a single-payer proponent; thought I'd get that out of the way. You and I agree on deregulation and lower taxes, so that's good. I know the "invisible hand" describes better quality and lower prices, and I think that concept could work in a healthcare market without insurance at all. Doctors are forced to lower prices to attract consumers. However, when a doctor is getting paid with insurance money, there seems to be no reason for him/her to create affordable prices for the services they provide, as insurance provides a large pool of money for doctors to tap into. It can also lead to patients becoming less conscientious about their spending, you know the saying "it's easy to be generous with other people's money." So the main question is this: when there is insurance that provides a pool of money for doctors, what is stopping them from raising their prices for goods and services?
Insurance makes health care too expensive

Okay, so the main concerns which are brought up by those who are opposed to private health insurance is that it jacks up prices because of the profit incentive which drives capitalism. Now at face value this argument seems rational, after all we as humans we have a tendency for self advancement even if it is at the cost of others, however once we apply some economics to this issue the case FOR health insurance becomes clear. The main reason why prices wont go up because of you and I- the consumer. If the price they give is too high we will not be able to use their service and provide them with a profit, or worse go to a different health company or insurer who will give us a lower deal. As Adam Smith described the "invisible hand" necessitates an improvement in quality while at the same time guaranteeing affordability for the masses. This means as long as the health insurance remains relatively deregulated and without extortionate taxation companies will be able to provide better services for a lower price. Due to the nature of different people having different incomes there will be a higher end of insurance provided such as the mayo clinic or other top end medical practices however the nature of free market competition means that in time the standard which these institutions provide can be improved upon and made available to the average person.
Free will vs Problem of evil

Quick question. If I lose points for conduct, I can still win right? Second, I will not make any arguments in this round, you may begin in Round 2, thus it is fair for me to submit the final round rebuttal correct? Third - what is "problem of evil/free will" please define in our next submission. Fourth - do i get ground on the existence of god/who god is? As of now it's still rather vague.
Free will vs Problem of evil

My opponent will have to make the case that the problem of evil is refuted by free will, I will take the counter that free will is no an adequate rebuttal to the problem of evil. First we must define the god we are talking about, as right from the beginning the problem of evil is only a problem for specific gods. So lets define god: The all powerful, all good, perfect creator of the universe and heaven. By adequate, I mean that the response makes it possible for this god to exist. My opponent should start his argument in the first round but, not argue in the final round but simply put the word "done." Anything more then that should automatically forfeit the points for conduct.
Resolved: In the United States, churches should be taxed.

1. Tax exemptions for religious institutions are a deep-rooted historical practice. In Coler v. Corn Exchange Bank, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled it requires an extremely strong case to overturn a rooted historical practice. Therefore, the burden of proof is on my opponent to make such a case. 2. The bulk of my opponent's argument focuses on the first amendment, which forbids any law "respecting an establishment of religion." This prohibits direct state aid to religious institutions, but it does not prevent "incidental" aid which is neutral among sects. Thus, in Walz v. Tax Commission, the U.S. Supreme Court reasoned as follows: "The grant of a tax exemption is not sponsorship since the government does not transfer part of its revenue to churches but simply abstains from demanding the church support the state." If churches are taxed, it would actually create an impermissible entanglement between church and state, as it would DEMAND every religious SUPPORT the state. This would be unconstitutional, as it would create a law "respecting an establishment of religion." It would also violate the Free Exercise clause, as it would challenge the religious view that religious institutions have tax-exempt status. The purpose of the first amendment is to establish religious liberty and to maintain neutrality among different (often opposed) religious groups. It is therefore imperative that churches are given tax-exempt status, as a tax on churches would violate the fundamental premises of the first amendment.
Irrationality is no hindrance for something being true

"yes it does but the early formulation of calculus violates the law of non-contradiction "Newton"s formulation of calculus was self-contradictory yet it worked."I have shown you why it actuay doesn't, which is the widely accepted reason for demanding noncontradiction. While the theory can produce true results, the presence of a contradiction mes it can actually prove any result, including wrong ones. This has been known for millenia and I gave you the proof which is included in any basic course on formal logic."wrong to say a thing is both a wave at the same time it is a particle violates Aristotelian logic law of excluded middle and it is a contradiction"No, it is not a logical contradiction but an apparent contradiction, i.e. it contradicts intuition. The claim of quantum mechanics is that certain properties of the particle are best described as wavelike while others are described as particlelike. In quantum field theory there is one unified description that deals only with fields. Apparent paradoxes is what is usually meant when scientists talk of paradoxes. "thus proving my point a thing is simultaneously a wave and particle- paradox irrationality"An apparent paradox is not irrational, it does not break the laws of logic. particle-wave-duality is not a logical paradox. Neither do physicists in general claim that their theories as such are real, only that they are true in the sense of giving correct prediction of the observable results they produce. Instrumentalism is the most widespread view of science in modern physics, since Einstein."I have backed up my question with quote from books and scientists and mathematicians who point out the irrationality of mathematics and science con has given sources but it can also back up my claim- on mathematics"Your quotes do not specify whether the contradictions are apparent or logical. Neither do you seem to acknowledge that apparent paradoxes are not in any way irrational. "con gives an alternative view in physics denying wave-particle duality-paradox but as shown this view is not accepted by the majority of physicists"It is widely accepted that quantum field theory (modern QM that is) has rendered the duality irrelevant by a more stringent mathematical formalism (still QFT is not really mathematically rigorous, but widely believed to be internally consistent). In classical QM the duality is not a logical but an apparent contradiction. The underlying theory is described by a wavefunction evolving a described by the Schrödinger equation. This theory is not contradicting itself. Only when translating it into natural (or classic mechanical) language an apparent contradiction appears.
Irrationality is no hindrance for something being true

you say ", ...I will make some quite informal statements to begin with then let Pro choose which level he wishes to debate on, The examples given in the opening argument and in the text linked to are very vague and some of them seem to be based on misconceptions. Quantum mechanics, which I will assume refers to the standard model, is not known to be either consistent or inconsistent. " ", ...I will make some quite informal statements to begin with then let Pro choose which level he wishes to debate on, " all I have to do is what I have done that is to show at least one or two examples of Irrationality being no hindrance for something being true i gave an example from mathematics which showed calculus was irrational at its conception but produced results ""Newton and Leibniz developed the calculus". Their ideas were attacked for being full of paradoxes." Newton"s formulation of calculus was self-contradictory yet it worked. Newton worked with small increments going of to a zero limit. Berkeley showed that this leads to logical inconsistency. The main problem Bunch notes was "that a quantity was very close to zero, but not zero, during the first part of the operation then it became zero at the end." B, Bunch , Mathematical Fallacies and Paradoxes Dover, 1982, p.192" I gave statements from scientist that quantum mechanics is irrational but produces results thus Irrationality being no hindrance for something being true Wick notes " I believe orthodox quantum theorists [slates] reason, ... The microscopic world exhibits paradoxes or contradictions and this fact is reflected in the best theory describing it." A. Wick, The Infamous Boundary, Birkhauser, Berlin, 1995, p.184" note a whole book has been written on irrationality in quantum mechanics F. Selleri, Quantum Paradoxes and Physical Reality, Kluer Academic Publishers, 1990 one clear example is the dual nature of light ie both wave and particle to which Heisenberg notes that " the strangest experience of those years was that the paradoxes of quantum theory did not disappear during this process of clarification; on the contrary they have become even more marked and exciting."F. Selleri, Quantum Paradoxes and Physical Reality, Kluer Academic Publishers, 1990, p.v111 that is all I have to do what you have to do is argue those example are wrong so go ahead
Irrationality is no hindrance for something being true

This scholar points out Irrationality is no hindrance for something being true http://www.scribd.com... I will give one mathematics and one science example Mathematics For 100 years after its invention calculus was shown to be irrational ie contradictory but it still worked if working is a sign of being true then Irrationality is no hindrance for something being true ""Newton and Leibniz developed the calculus". Their ideas were attacked for being full of paradoxes." Newton"s formulation of calculus was self-contradictory yet it worked. Newton worked with small increments going of to a zero limit. Berkeley showed that this leads to logical inconsistency. The main problem Bunch notes was "that a quantity was very close to zero, but not zero, during the first part of the operation then it became zero at the end." B, Bunch , Mathematical Fallacies and Paradoxes Dover, 1982, p.192. "instead of having demonstrations justify results, results were used to justify demonstrations.I. Gratten-Guinness, From the Calculus to set theory 1630-1910, Duckworth, 1980, p.296. Science Now even though quantum mechanics no experiment has contradicted quantum theory predictions and quantum theory is the most successful that has ever existed in science. but quantum mechanics is irrational yet it works again if working is a sign of being true then Irrationality is no hindrance for something being true "Wick state the orthodox view when he says ", ...The belief concealed is that Nature has been found in a contradiction. But quantum physicists are not simpletons. In their hearts they know such a claim is philosophically unacceptable and would be rejected in other sciences." Wick notes " I believe orthodox quantum theorists [slates] reason, ... The microscopic world exhibits paradoxes or contradictions and this fact is reflected in the best theory describing it." A. Wick, The Infamous Boundary, Birkhauser, Berlin, 1995, p.184
According to basic Christian philosophy, one should take a pacifistic approach towards warfare

I would like to open this debate to prove pacifism to Christians. When I say "basic Christian philosophy, I mean concepts that all Christian religions agree on, such as the factuality of the sayings of Jesus, and the teachings of the bible*. Specific teachings of denomination, such as "infallible" teachings of the Pope, and Mormon doctrine, however, are not to be assumed true. When one is to imagine the idea of pacifism, it should be thought of as an opposition to all forms of killing, but not necessarily all forms of violence. *One must remember that while many churches have separate interpretations of the same writings or information, these can still be legitimately refrenced.