BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Why people should allow gay marriages.

People should allow gay marriages because they don't do harm to anyone to see a man with another man or a women with another women it really doesn't matter if they are gay people should allow it. It says in an article "Denying some people the option to marry is discriminatory and creates a second class of citizens." it also says "The concept of "traditional marriage" has changed over time, and the definition of marriage as always being between one man and one woman is historically inaccurate. " It also says "Marriage is an internationally recognized human right for all people. " there is a lot more than you think like gay marriages are protected by the government. Also there is another reason " Proponents argue that equal rights must mean equal rights. A civilized society does not discriminate on grounds of race, religion, sex or sexuality and denial of marriage rights is clear discrimination. Gay and heterosexual couples both deserve the legal rights associated with marriage " on taxes, property ownership, inheritance or adoption. No matter how you try to dress it up, denying equal rights to gays and lesbians is homophobia." there are a lot of reasons why there should be gay marriages. Like " The state should have no say on how consenting adults conduct their lives. If two people love each other and want to get married they should be allowed to do so regardless of the color, religion, nationality or sex of their partner. Love and marriage should be a purely personal choice. When governments interfere in the private lives of people, dictating who can marry who, individual freedoms are compromised with potentially dangerous implications." there is also this reason " Homosexuality is a normal variant of adult sexuality; gay men and lesbians possess the same potential and desire for sustained loving and lasting relationships as heterosexuals, including loving and parenting children. This is supported by hard data, not just opinion."
Trump is neither a sexist nor a rascist, But a good president

I would argue that more than likely you nor I have ever met Trump in person and even if either of us have we still wouldn't have gotten to know whether or not he is indeed a racist or a sexist. I'll grant you that he is taken out of context often and given a lot of bad press at least. As for him being the best President or at least one of the best that's entirely subjective. What you define as being the best and what another person defines as being the best are capable of being entirely different. Furthermore he hasn't even completed his first term in office so It's difficult to speculate what he may or may not accomplish next.
Resolved: Public high school students in the United States ought be required to pass standardize

Resolved: Public high school students in the United States ought not be required to pass standardized exit exams to graduate. ----------------- I will be taking CON in this debate and in doing so will let PRO go first. ---------------- I reserve the right to clarify the topic should I deem it necessary. No semantics guys, just a straightforward debate on what is the LD topic this month. I will also answer any lingering questions someone might have in the comments. -------------- Good luck to who ever accepts this debate! ------------- My opponent may propose definitions.
Evolution offers a better explanation than intelligent design for the development of our world

Rebuttal 1:Nope. Wrong again. The plant would die because there would be no complex flying organisms to pollinate it. This is one problem with atheistic evolution. You can not explain that.Rebuttal 2:I'm not arguing for the bible. This is for theistic evolution. I don't see the point in this argument.Rebuttal 3:This does not explain close to anything. You need a female and male sex cell to combine to make an organism that sexually reproduce. If this is true, it is going against everything science has already established. Here is how my answer applies to my side. God made the ancestor. Atheistic evolution offers no explanation for the origin of cells. Also, my opponent must realize that this is not possible. I suggest he has not disproved theistic evolution. I also suggest he has not proved atheistic evolution. Thank you for reading!
Evolution offers a better explanation than intelligent design for the development of our world

I can't see how the bee would evolve to be unable to take nectar from the plants, if it would lead to its own demise? If a bee was unable to make honey, it would die off ,as you said, and therefore wouldn't pass on its ineffective genes, which is how evolution works. There is no reason why a bee would evolve differently, such as evolving to get nectar more effectively, or some other way which would not affect the plants at all. I would agree that in some cases, animals evolve in response to other animals, but this is not always the case, as shown with your example. There are other cases where animals have been unable to adapt, and so have died off, surely showing that the whole process of evolution is chance and not designed. I still can't see how your example would prove theistic evolution. I didn't think I would have to point out the flaws in the "God of the Gaps" reasoning. How many times have religious explanations for things been proved wrong by science? An example would be the heliocentric universe, which went against the church's ideas of the Earth being in the centre of the universe. Yet which idea is right? Every time science can't explain something, God is used in place of understanding. And every time a explanation is uncovered, God is moved to the next unanswered question. I can't see how an answer on the chicken or egg helps your side. I feel a little guilty for not addressing before if you really believed it helped your cause, but I felt it offered very little in the way of evidence, and chose to answer the (slightly) more valid point. Your answer, helped by your belief in God was "God created the ancestor of the chicken, and it evolved into a chicken". I can't see how that helps you, as I would agree that the ancestor of the chicken evolved into a chicken. The fact that the chicken had an ancestor gives us no information of any use to come to a conclusion. The only thing your point states is that God created the ancestor of the chicken. But there is no evidence of this at all, and so falls under faith rather than science, which requires evidence. As for an actual answer, I think it is neither, as you could not point to one egg and say "That egg started the chicken species". Instead, the chicken developed throughout a immensely long period of time, with different eggs adding different characteristics of the chicken thus, the chicken is a result from the development and evolution of many different animals spanning a long period of time. It does not require the existence of God to answer, especially with the reasoning you have put forward.
Evolution offers a better explanation than intelligent design for the development of our world

Rebuttal 1:You fail to see it . A plant cell is less complex than an animal cell. This could make the evolution time span different for the two of them. You are saying that the evolution time span does not happen on a constant rate. This could also mean that the bee could evolve first and, without the nectar to make honey, would cause the species to die off. Everything would have to evolve at just the right time to make a stable earth. Like, shrimp would have to evolve almost the exact same time as fish.Rebuttal 2: Really? Show me. How is it flawed? My opponent fails to answer my question head on. Which came first? The chicken or the egg? Answer and explain it next round or I ask the readers to give me the convincing arguments points.
Evolution offers a better explanation than intelligent design for the development of our world

My debate was more intended towards creationism vs evolution, rather than atheistic evolution against theistic evolution, but never mind. I fail to see the idea behind both of your examples. Taking the second example, you say that normal flowers would've died out because Bees took longer to adapt and evolve than flowers. Firstly, I don't believe this is necessarily true, as evolution doesn't happen at a constant rate. If a flower is able to survive in its environment, then there would be no need for self-pollinating flowers, as the normal flowers would be surviving and passing on lots of offspring anyway.The only reason self-pollinating flowers would be useful would be if the bees evolved not to. There would be no reason for bees not to pollinate, as they require the nectar they gather during pollination. Also, I don't see how the explanation that God created their ancestors is any explanation at all. Creating their ancestors would make no change to your idea of continuous evolution and the conclusion that flowers would "out-strip" bees in evolution. You seem to be subscribing to a "God of the Gaps" theory, simply using God as an explanation for things you don't believe Science can explain. This approach is obviously flawed, as many people have found, using God as the reason for the things which science has now fully explained.
Evolution offers a better explanation than intelligent design for the development of our world

Not such as good topic for your first debate, but i'll roll with it. I will be arguing for theistic evolution. Let's start out with the classic question. Which came first? The chicken or the egg? While regular atheist evolutionist have a lot of trouble answering the question, people who believe in theistic evolution do not. The atheist think life was not created, but knows that you need a male and female sex cell to produce offspring in animals who sexually reproduce. While, people who believe in theistic evolution have not problem answering this. God created the chicken or his ancestor. So they then say god created the ancestor of the chicken, and it evolved into a chicken.My next case is that everything would have to evolve at the same time for an our Eco-system to be the way it is now. Think of the flower bee relationship. Flowers are less complex than bees, and would take a shorter time to evolve. This would mean that all the non self pollinating flowers would die off because the bees did not evolve in time. Atheist also have problems giving a explanation for this. While people who believe in theistic evolution can easily explain it. God created the bees and flowers ancestor, so they were able to survive and evolve.
Evolution offers a better explanation than intelligent design for the development of our world

Having recently watched and analysed the debate between Richard Dawkins and Wendy Wright, I would like to attempt to argue Dawkins point myself, and also explore rebuttals to his view. I believe that intelligent design arguments are flawed because they assume that the universe has a inherent purpose, and that it has been designed to reach that purpose however, I think that the machinations of the universe are entirely down to chance and the laws of physics controlling the consequences to that chance. Evolution shows this random chance in the development of the life forms on Earth. Instead of the idea that each animal has a purpose, all which combine to create a harmonious network, all of which points to a intelligent designer, I believe that Animals simply adapt by chance and the application of fundamental laws that promote animal growth. I would also argue that throughout evolution there are many examples of extinct species that have obviously been ill-designed to survive. Throughout this argument, my main point will be that it is completely legitimate that the universe was created by chance, as demonstrated through evolution, rather than designed by an intelligent being with a purpose in mind.
Homeland Security

homeland security has not prevent nor caught anyone in the act of terrorism. Homeland security did not prevent the terrorist attacks on 9/11/01. Homeland security claims to be able to stop terrorism, however they did not unfortunately stop 9/11/01 and thousands of people died. http://www.washingtonsblog.com... Homeland security is not exactly making our country as safe as possible. "Nine years after the 9/11 Commission made its case, our country is still not as safe as it could and should be." To this day there is still the possible threat of terrorism. Homeland security should not being worrying about what we eat for dinner, instead they should be looking into people who seem "off". In closing Homeland security is hurting our way of life. We are constantly being spied on and it is very wrong!
Homeland Security

The TSA is a government run agency. They use racial discrimination against people who look muslim and look like possible terrorist threats. New documents are allowing the TSA to continue their racial discriminating antics. I think they are wrong and unethical . "That has happened to Abdulla Darrat, an urban planner from Queens who said he was flagged for extra scrutiny all eight times he flew since June. When he tries to check in online, a message tells him to check in at the airport, where he receives a boarding pass marked with "SSSS" indicating that he must undergo enhanced screening. His name has been handwritten on a card at the podium where an agent checks passengers" identification, he said. "They pat me down," Mr. Darrat, 31, said. "Then they pull out every single article of clothing in my bag. They take out every shirt and every pair of pants."This is just one example of the TSA being allowed to pat down anyone who has a muslim like name or anyone who looks muslim.
Homeland Security

Homelamd securtiy is cruel and inhuman to immmigrants. "It is cruel and inhumane to keep prison inmates in solitary confinement for indefinite periods or to put them there for arbitrary reasons. Studies indicate that inmates subjected to prolonged isolation are at risk for mental illness and suicide." Due to the current state of immigration, homeland security has upped their policies that are inhuman and dicriminate against imigrants. Homeland security should not have the right to put immigrants into solitary confindment for and indefinaite amount of time. http://articles.latimes.com...
All things are relative.

'A,' '1,' and so on are symbols. Those are nonexistent in the real world. We make them by transforming experiences. Symbols are promises, so are not truths and absolutes. When we use 'A' in logic, we presuppose that A is A, and contradict with not-A. When we use '1' in mathematics, we presuppose that 1+1=2. Those are humanmade, and abstract promises so are relative. We can only perceive the world, cannot know the world. How can you appreciate that the world is 'same physical world' and 'the object is absolute'? I guess you only have perceived objects differently as other beings. If we rely on logic, arguing by logic symbols is the best choice, but logic cannot express some insights. That is why many thinkers have used everyday words. 'All things are relative' is contradictory in the logical view. However, pondering and debating, we can realize the idea is right.
All things are relative.

The resolution is that all things are relative. This is a universally quantified claim, so it is false if I can identify one counterexample to it (an absolute). First of all, the claim is self refuting, because it is itself an absolute if it is true. If all things are relative, then it is an absolute that all things are relative. On the other hand, if it is not an absolute that all things are relative, then there is something that is absolute, namely the counterexample to the claim that all things are relative that makes that claim not an absolute. So the resolution contains a contradiction and cannot possibly be true. Secondly, there are many absolutes contained within the fields of logic and mathematics. Examples include "A is A," "A is not not-A," "1+1=2," etc. This very debate presupposes that the laws of logic are absolutes, because if they were relative and changing, we could not rely on them to make our arguments. My opponent claims that all things are relative because things are perceived by other things, which are different from each other. But all of the perceivers are perceiving the same physical world, they are just perceiving it in different forms from one another. In other words, we need a distinction between the object of the perception and the form of the perception. The object is absolute and remains the same between perceivers, but they perceive it in different forms. For example, if I perceive a wall by looking at it and a bat perceives the same wall by echolocation, we are both perceiving the same object, but in different forms. To sum up: 1. "All things are relative" is self refuting, because it is an absolute statement. 2. Logical truths like "A is A" and mathematical truths like "1+1=2" are absolute. 3. Reality is not relative between perceivers as my opponent claims, because the object of the perception is absolute. Thank you.
Life has more meaning without god

1) First of all, from a religious point of view the only point in living is to earn salvation. If you believe in god, you believe you are going to exist for eternity, so life means nothing compared to eternity. From a religious point of view, life is just a small period of time when we have to please god so we can be in heaven for eternity. WIthout god, life would be so much more important, because that would be all. We only get 60-70 years to live then it's over. No eternity means life has more importance and therefore more meaning. 2) Since you mentioned it, I would like to talk about crime. The reason most people don't break the law is not because they fear God, it's because they are afraid of prison. There is a very easy way to prove it: - God doesn't punish drug use or dealing, but the law does, so if the only reason people don't commit crimes is because they are afraid of God then everyone would use and deal drugs. The existence of God only makes crime more likely, because God can forgive you when you sin, so for religious people stealing or killing someone is not such a big deal, because you can be forgiven and still spend eternity in heaven, but for an atheist spending years of your life in prison is the worst thing, because you don't believe in an afterlife. The best proof is the very, very small number of atheists in jail right now[1]. Compare the number of atheists in prison with the number of christians in prison. 3) Life is an amazing thing without God. Think about it: if there is a god, life is nothing more than one of his creations, it's just a creation of a supreme being. WIthout god, life is simply amazing, because it isn't the result of divine magic, it's a process that took billions of years and than ultimately allowed you to exist. God makes life seem meaningless, because it's just a minor stage of your eternal life. Without god, life is limited to a few years, so you would obviously want to make the best of it. [1]http://www.patheos.com...
Juvenile curfews should be implemented in all of America

Juvenile curfews should not be implemented in all of Amerika. Because this low is too strikt. This low will force all juvenile curfews to go out not flee. Nowadays, there a lot of juvenile curfews who work and study out. So this low will prevent not only crime but also chance to act forjuvenile. In addition, the purcent of decreasing juvenile crime is less than 30 A285;. This means that the low is has not big impact. Compared this situation, loss of economy and education is more larger.
Juvenile curfews should be implemented in all of America

Juvenile curfews should be implemented in all of America because they keep the streets and teenagers safe, too. (1) Since most violent crimes caused by youths occur between the hours of 3 and 6 PM, these crimes are being prevented with juvenile curfews. With juvenile curfews, youth crime could be lowered and lowered until the fact that youth crime is completely gone! (2) In the year of 2015, law enforcement agencies in the U.S made an estimated 21,600 of persons(people) under the age of 18. Many experts agree that implementing teen curfews push teens back into their classes, keeps them in the school network, and protects them form the street culture of gangs and violence. Juvenile curfews had an impact of many states and cities. For example,(3) Dallas has declared that overall juvenile crime has reduced 21 percent since implementing the law in 1994. Dallas has also declared that violent juvenile crime has decreased 30 percent too. Many communities have turned to this curfew law to drop the increase in juvenile crime. 1. New York Times 2. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 3. New York Times
If the Christian God and his army of angels exists then we should follow the teaching of the bible.

The Atheist now takes a spin in the Theist world.... If The Bible were true: Ok, let's establish some things first: If we had proof in God's existence, and we didn't have to believe, we wouldn't need faith. Main Entry: 1faith Pronunciation: \ˈfāth\ Function: noun Etymology: Middle English feith, from Anglo-French feid, fei, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust — more at bide Date: 13th century 1 a: allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1): fidelity to one's promises (2): sincerity of intentions 2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust 3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs So, if god were to somehow be proven, like black and white, that he is real, could people still get to heaven since they wouldn't need faith but they would have knowledge of him instead? One of the main necessities to get into heaven is faith. The all knowing, all capable god, because he, for this debate's sake, now "exists" must be able to make contradictions true. So, we will just disregard contradictions in the Bible... So -- now that we've established that, I can continue on to my reasons why I, and the rest of the human race, would benefit more by following the bible than going against it. 1. We would survive through the brutal Apocalypse. Jesus Christ descends to Earth and takes the Christians with him, leaving the sinners to rot on the planet with the four horsemen of the Apocalypse (surely not Hitchens, Dennett, Harris, and Dawkins, joke ;D ). All those that did not follow the Bible are stuck in a world of war, famine and disease. Man will be covered with needless sores, fire, and bloody war. There will be lightening and thunder. Those that follow the bible's teachings will be saved and taken to heaven to meet their creator. 2. We wont burn in hell for all of eternity. Only a masochist would choose this, unless my opponent can give me other reasons. 3. You can not kill god. There is no use rising up against god. Satan tried and was defeated. Even if someone would give it another go, it's impossible to kill a god that can do anything (even be unkillable.) 4. Morality would not be relative. If god chooses to make his morals universal and absolute (as he has done in the bible) then we would be on the moral and virtuous side. Anyway... This is all I have until I can see my opponent's angle on this situation.
If the Christian God and his army of angels exists then we should follow the teaching of the bible.

I've been talking to some hardcore religious friends lately and I have come to the conclusion that even if God does exist, is responsible for creating the universe, has an army of angels, and fallen angels, occasionally tests mans faith, etc.(hopefully you get the point).. Then we still should not follow the bible. My other motivation for creating this debate is based on the fact that I have won all my debates against the bible on the basis that god probably doesn't exist. So this time I'm going to concede to god existing and argue against the bible anyways. Can anyone take me? =)