BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay marriage.

Thanks for accepting. It Always Denies a Child Either a Father or a Mother It is in the child"s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many children who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent. The unfortunate situation of these children will be the norm for all children of a same-sex "marriage." A child of a same-sex "marriage" will always be deprived of either his natural mother or father. He will necessarily be raised by one party who has no blood relationship with him. He will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model. Same-sex "marriage" ignores a child"s best interests. And take a look at this http://www.robgagnon.net...
Anthropocentrism vs. Biocentrism

I accept. Humans beings are not superior beings and have no objectively greater value in contrast to other creatures. The notion of superiority itself is an artifice and highly arbitrary. The environment does have resources that we may use, but this is not exclusive to us, and it is highly irresponsible for humans to gratuitously exploit the Earth for our convenience. The logic that superior beings have rights over the weak is along the same logic of "superior" human beings having rights over "weaker" human beings. Imagined superiority does not afford humans with sovereignty over other life forms, especially with wild abandon and gross gratuity.
The rich should be taxed more than the poor.

I believe someone is "rich" if their annual income is equal to or greater than $250,000 and the total value of all their assets exceeds $5 million. Also, I am talking about a percent of income tax as is done in America, the rich already pay more taxes since it is a percentage, not a solid number. So, I don't believe the rich should be taxed any higher of a percentage just because they have a lot of money.
The rich should be taxed more than the poor.

This may seem unorthodox but I agree with your position in a sense. I think taxation is nothing but legalized theft, so to me nobody should be taxed coercively or with the use of violence. If someone supports a particular government program or wants some service the government provides they should be free to whip out their checkbook and send the government a check. In the same way that if you support a charity or an organization or a business you should be free to voluntarily hand over your money to them. All that being said I will play devils advocate and take the position that the rich ought to be taxed more than the poor. Just because it's a good intellectual exercise to try to debate a position antithetical to the position one actually holds from time to time. Anyways here goes.... First of all clarifications needs to be made. What are we considering to be a rich person? How much money does one have to obtain for it to be considered rich? Does this mean their net worth of all their assets, their yearly income, or some other such measure of what makes one rich? Also the clarification needs to be made whether we are talking about taxing the "rich" person more means more of a percentage of their income or more in dollar amount? I assume my opponent means percentage of yearly income. Also a further clarification that may help would be to determine whether we are strictly talking income tax or if perhaps a consumption tax on luxury goods of some sort that would only affect the rich like a 3rd home tax or a yacht tax etc? I ask that my opponent clarifies these issues so that we may be able to proceed more productively. Since my opponent didn't really make any arguments in his original round of arguments I suppose this round for me isn't wasted clarifying what we mean when we say rich and tax. So please clarify your position on what it means to be rich and what form of taxation we are talking about here and make some arguments using logic and reason and we can then more productively continue. I will proceed to debate based on whatever you want to define as rich and what form of taxation we are talking about here. Thanks.
Teenagers need better role models

I accept this challenge. I do not believe this topic needs defining. By the looks of it, neither does pro. I can't really tell if the text presented in round one is an argument or just an introduction. It looks like and introduction but I'll assume 50/50 and provide my case without doing any rebuttals yet. My thanks to Pro if she states her case more clearly with proper reasoning in round 2. The claim that teenagers like us need better role models arises out of the misconception that role-models are a major influence on our behaviour. The biggest influence on teen behaviour is actually parents and family. [1,2] Followed closely by friends. Indisputably, as my opponent suggests in the opening post, the media is a major player when it comes to factors that shape our living. The media presents a social stereotype and advances it as the way of the majority. Individuals think that the image presented by the media is what everyone else is doing and thus feel inclined to copy it, in order to blend in with society. In fact, if you look at where role-models would rate on a list of factors that influence our behaviour, you will find that they rate close to the bottom, with most teenagers not having a role model. So my question is, what is the point? If role-models are such a minor influence, why go out of our way to improve them for a select minority when we need to focus on improving dozens of other influences which are already far more damaging? State your case. [1]http://phys.org... [2]http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Teenagers need better role models

I am a teen. And seeing it from my point of view, I do believe that we need better influences. There are so many teens out there who are living their lives wrong because they're just doing what they saw on TV and they think it's okay. So many people my age think that they should follow what all the "famous" people are doing and they will be cool. Really though, I think they're going to grow up and regret it. And it's most of the time not even their fault. If someone doesn't have a good stable person in their life then they're going to follow what people on TV are doing.I think that teens have to realize that no matter what we do, there is gonna be somebody watching what you do. There is most of the time gonna be somebody looking up to you and you don't even know it. Young people do need better role models. Celebrities are constantly in our face. They are on the news, all over the internet and in magazines and there always seems to be story about a celebrity taking drugs, checking into rehab, dropping out of rehab etc. There is too much focus on celebrities., It isn't good for teenagers to see pictures of their idols in the newspaper taking drugs and behaving strangely. In my opinion, there should be less focus on celebrities, or at least less focus on the ones who choose to ruin their lives with alcohol and drugs. Perhaps if these celebrities were kept out of the spotlight more, then young teens would find other people to look up to.
Harry Potter Vs. Doctor Who

First of all harry potter is violent In the series, both the good and evil forces use violence against each other. In fact, violence against violence is the primary theme. All of these violent messages sent to the subconscious are constantly repeated and thus leave negative impacts. Moreover, even the fairy used as the symbol of good in such books is portrayed as an evil fairy. It is well known that mental violence is more harmful to one's personality than physical violence.
Harry Potter Vs. Doctor Who

Since you did not say which side you pick, I will. I will argue that Harry Potter is better than Doctor Who. My first reason for this is that Harry Potter has a wide range of readers from children to adults while Doctor Who is more centered around older teens and adults. Another reason is that unlike with a television show you can take and read a book anywhere, unlike with cellphones that can play shows on it, a book never dies, it can be read for hours on end. My last reason is Harry Potter is less violent and therefor better for a younger audience, unlike with Doctor Who where aliens and people are constantly attacking and killing each other.
Same-Sex Couples Ought to Receive the Same Legal Rights Available to Married Heterosexual Couples

"Gay marriage is legal as long as one is a man and one is a woman. What about one straight and one gay of the same sex? Or the other way around? What if three or more people want to all be married to each other? What about mixed marriages, or forced marriages? What about other species? Can other species marry as long as it is to the same species? " The entirety of these arguments are related to gay marriage, not partnerships between same-sex couples. Therefore, each and every one of them is non-resolutional. These do not relate to granting same-sex couples the rights and privileges of marriage, simply about what it means to re-define marriage. Because my opponent does not prove that same-sex couples ought not receive these rights, he has not fulfilled his duty as the Con in this debate, so you already have no way to vote but Pro. Thank you, and I look forward to my opponent's response.
Same-Sex Couples Ought to Receive the Same Legal Rights Available to Married Heterosexual Couples

Here this http://www.debate.org... will save a lot of preliminary work on the subject. Perhaps my opponent can pick up from my first round or any round argument there. Except of course the final round where I concede. What business indeed does the government have? Next they will think the Constitution gives them the right to decide what is and what is not a religion. Oh never mind they already do. If you die for your country and receive the honor of burial in Arlington you are allowed to display a government-approved religious symbol but I believe not including Bahai upon your final resting place. If you want it screwed up badly just let the government to do it.
Abortion Legality

With the rates of at-home abortions at an all-time high, I would deem it unethical to make the abortion process illegal. When an egg is fertilized and turned into a zygote, all it is, is a cell mass that is independent on the mother. A popular argument against abortion is that you are murdering an innocent child. And then an example for this, is the double-murder example. Obviously after the baby is fully developed and actually has sensory organs, this shouldn't be legal for common sense. But as we all know, mistakes happen, and there are so many variables that determine the mother's health. The variable count is too high, with way too many situations to make the entire process illegal. That is why we have trained professionals that know how to do this. Listen, nobody likes abortion. Nobody wants it to happen. But the fact of the matter is that it will happen, even if it is illegal. The process to do so may just be a little bit messier to clean up.
Abortion Legality

You are right on one part. This is a very circumstantial topic. Circumstances happen and there are different ones for every situation. So don't you think that because abortion is also very circumstantial that we shouldn't put them all in a cloud of generalizations and make it all illegal? I also find it very interesting that you ask me for my source on ONE fact I brought up, and then here you are in the last half of your paragraph throwing different numbers, statistics, and facts. I would like a source on every single one of those things you brought up. Until then, your argument is invalid. But because this is a debate, I will still refute it. You say that rape and incest are two totally different topics, but are they really? Do you think that a majority of incestual pregnancies are consensual? How are they different? I think that if a baby is made as a result of incest, that IS rape. In fact, from theatlantic.com as of 2013, one in three-to-four girls, and one in five-to-seven boys are sexually abused before they turn 18, an overwhelming incidence of which happens within the family. These statistics are well known among industry professionals, who are often quick to add, "and this is a notoriously underreported crime." So before you say that incest and rape are "completely different topics", maybe you should consider how similar they really are. Secondly, do you realize how expensive and costing abortions are? Do you think that using abortion as a contraceptive is a popular idea? Do you think that birth control doesn't do the same thing? From goodmorals.org, "With some contraceptives there is not only a link with abortion there is an identity." Some contraceptives are abortifacients; they work by causing early term abortions." The IUD seems to prevent a fertilized egg " a new little human being " from implanting in the uterine wall." The pill does not always stop ovulation but sometimes prevents implantation of the growing embryo." And, of course, the new RU 486 pill works altogether by aborting a new fetus, a new baby." Also, I agree that abortion in itself can be abused and used for selfish reasons, but do you think that gives the government the right to ban them all, because a few people abuse their rights? Because if that was the case, we might as well not have a speed limit, because a few people violate traffic laws. If that is the case, then we might as well not have any laws and live in an anarchist society because people can be selfish with the rights they have.
Abortion Legality

I believe it's circumstantial. Rape and incest are a completely different topics on this issue. That's one illegal thing on top of another. I just believe it should not be used as a contraception for the normal human. If you get pregnant by your significant other and you just weren't ready for it, taking a beating heart away is selfish. Birth control was created so you don't have to take a life of a young child who hasn't gotten to experience a day on this earth. You can't tell me that the 49% of the pregnancies that were unintended were all rape or incest. Only 14,000 women have abortions due to incest or rape out of the 700,000 abortions that happen a year. 1/3 of the abortions after 12 weeks are teenagers who could've prevented it.
Abortion Legality

Evidence from womenscenter.com states that "one woman dies every 7 minutes around the world due to an unsafe illegal abortion. Women who undergo illegal abortions are those who are very poor and do not have access to family planning facilities for education and prevention of unwanted pregnancies". Illegal pregnancies are the at-home or DIY style abortions that are not accompanied by a trained professional. Secondly, do you really think people abort their babies for no reason or probable cause? They don't get pregnant purposely just to "kill" the baby right afterwards. This is a flawed notion that abortion is an evil action done purposely. Like I said before, in a lot of instances, like you are mentioning, abortion is not necessary, but in ways in which the pregnancy could harm the mother, in instances of rape, or incest. Furthermore, from amplifyyourvoice.org, I quote, "70,000 girls aged 15-19 die every single year of pregnancy and childbirth and the babies that do survive have a 60% higher chance of dying as well." On top of those staggering statistics, 1 in every 3 women are raped and sexually assaulted each year. In fact, there is a growing organization called "OneInThreeWomen", that tries to bring to attention this sickening fact. If you really think that the women who non-consensually got impregnated should hold the obligation of carrying out a pregnancy, then you are criminalizing a rape victim. Shouldn't they have the choice? For nine whole months, the rape victim will have to live out the terrifying memories and relive the rape every single day only to send it out for adoption later on. Rather than spending so much time and money on anti-abortion campaigns, don't you think we need to prioritize the 225 million unwanted children (UNICEF 2016) that are already out of the womb? You simply cannot criminalize a rape victim. If you do, then maybe you are the issue.
I would rather draft Ricky Rubio to my team than Kyrie Irving.

My opponent has clearly demonstrated a wealth of basketball knowledge, and for this I thank him. However, his assertion that Ricky Rubio should be drafted over Kyrie Irving is still incorrect. Rubio's court vision was cited as one of his main advantages over Kyrie Irving, but how is this measured? Assuming all players have capable eyesight, all should be able to see the court equally and thus posses equal court vision. Unless my opponent can prove that Rubio's eyesight is significantly better than that of Irving, or cite a statistic that proves that Rubio possesses a greater degree of court vision, I must wholly reject their argument on the grounds that you have failed to offer proper support for it. He also stated that Rubio is more of a complete player than Irving, while Irving is more of a pure scorer. While this may be true, it does not justify drafting him over Irving. The goal of all thirty teams in the NBA is to win as many games as possible during the regular season in order to reach the playoffs. The only way a team can win games is if it can score points. In order to score points, a team must have players that are capable of doing so. My opponent asserts that Minnesota already possessed pure scorers at the time of the Draft and thus valued a more complete player who could assist said scorers, but this does not describe the situation of a typical team that possesses a high pick in the Draft. More often than not, teams are in need of scorers, which is why Irving makes much more sense in the context of the question. Furthermore, I did not suggest that Rubio was acting immature in a J.R. Smith or Metta World Peace type way. What I did assert, however, was that entering the Draft (thus agreeing in principle to play that season for whoever happens to select you) and refusing to sign with Minnesota afterwards exhibited a lack of maturity. If Rubio was not ready to play for the NBA in 2009, he should have a.) avoided the Draft completely or b.) notified teams that he would not be ready for at least a couple of seasons prior to the Draft so that they would have that knowledge beforehand. Rubio did neither of these things, and for that, he acted in an immature manner. Finally, about the injury. It is true that a large number of players have successfully returned from similar injuries, but what about all the ones that didn't? Clearly, the fact that Irving is both a safer and better player than Rubio makes him deserving of being drafted before Rubio.
I would rather draft Ricky Rubio to my team than Kyrie Irving.

If a draft were to be held today, I would take Kyrie Irving over Ricky Rubio because he is both younger and has shown greater signs of potential than Rubio. For starters, it should be noted that Rubio was originally drafted in 2009 but did not play for the Minnesota Timberwolves either that season or the year after. The fact that Rubio did not sign with the team until 2011 shows a lack of maturity and commitment, two marks of a bonafide NBA basketball player. This shows in his stats for his rookie campaign, which saw him play in only forty one games (he started thirty one) while posting a 0.357 FG% while averaging 10.6 PPG. Kyrie Irving, meanwhile, played in fifty one games, all of which he started, and posted a 0.469 FG% while averaging 18.5 PPG. Irving did this on a team that was worse than the one Rubio played on while averaging significantly fewer minutes per game. Irving's superior efforts paid off as he was selected over Rubio as NBA Rookie of the Year last season. Both Ricky Rubio and Kyrie Irving are talented players, but I would rather draft Irving because he has posted superior numbers and is younger and more mature than Rubio, the latter of which is evident by Rubio's negligence of his duties to play in Minnesota for two seasons after he was drafted by the Timberwolves.
Guns are Cool

-People foolishly text and drive then kill there families, would you argue to ban vehicles or cell phones. -Murders NOT LEGAL but people are still going to do it. -You said guns are one of the leading causes of death... There not. -I'm in favor of regulation but to ban them forthright would make sure that only criminals have them. -The 1st thing totalitarian governments do when put into power is criminalize guns. This is done to take power away from the people. So when you take guns away you not only take that right from them, you threaten every right they have. -Guns are cool
Criminal Justice

An attorney in the courtroom is not under oath. An attorney may introduce facts and evidence supporting an verdict he/she knows is wrong. They may not suborn perjury. That is, they may not introduce witness testimony (which is under oath) that they know to be a lie, nor may they introduce doctored evidence. It is the attorney's job to use the evidence, to support a favorable verdict. Our court system was built around the idea that it is better for a guilty man to go free than to allow an innocent man to be punished. There is, in fact, a lot to be corrected in our system to bring us back to that point, as many innocent people have been incarcerated.
Criminal Justice

per"ju"ry (p"rj-r) n. pl. per"ju"ries 1. Law The deliberate, willful giving of false, misleading, or incomplete testimony under oath. 2. The breach of an oath or promise. Attorneys do not have the right to conceal evidence because they commit perjury by being able to leave out truth. Concealment of information usurps the power of court, resulting in miscarriages of justice. Justice, the relative concept of moral rightness, cannot be properly administered if attorneys leave out information, therefore I argue that evidence should take precedence in the court system. Lets say, for example, that a man murders his friend. The man confesses to his attorney that he committed the crime, but the lawyer persuades him to plead not guilty. In this case, the man gets off without any punishment. Was justice properly administered? Sure, you might argue that the constitution guarantees the right to an attorney, but this is debate.org and we can come up with a fake universe. So instead of attorney-client privilege, I propose a factual based court of justice.
Resolved: The death penalty should be abolished.

Greetings! This is a debate about the death penalty. It should be open to Ariesx Please accept as soon as possible.Additional Rules:No vulgarityBoP is sharedNo k's of the topicNo semanticsTrolling results in an automatic lossForfeiture results in an automatic lossThe debate atmosphere should remain courteous and respectfulRound Schedule:Round 1: Rules and AcceptanceRound 2: Presentation of Arguments (Pro) and Arguments and Rebuttals (Con)Round 3: Arguments and Rebuttals (Pro) and Arguments and Rebuttals (Con)Round 4: Closing Arguments/Rebuttals (Pro & Con)Thanks! I'll try to pick someone soon.
Circles can be squares

Hello con, thank you for responding. My opponent has pointed out the definition of troll, but has failed to give any reasoning behind her assertion that I am one. The burden of proof is on you. Furthermore, I would like to contest this idea by saying that in this case, con is the troll rather than I. Not once did I mention the topic of trolling until now, it is con who has brought it up. I do not see the relevance of trolling in this debate. Lastly, con has outright stated that my resolution is obvious. I am looking forward to your response.