BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Homosexual adoption

For this final round, I hope that neither of us rebuttal. This round is no more than a summary of our previous arguments. (no further arguments) So basically, I have a few main points. First of all, a greater amount of child molesters are homosexual. I am not saying all of them are, I am simply saying that the child would have a greater chance of being molested if adopted by a homosexual. Secondly, homosexuality goes against many religions. In being homosexual, and adopting a kid, you are disrespecting many religions and beliefs. Thirdly, a parent's influence is big on a child. If the child has gay parents, they would have a greater chance of becoming gay. If this continued, than eventually, the biggest amount of population would be homosexual, lowering the population dramatically. Fourthly, homosexuals statistically have a greater chance of diseases, depression and suicide. A child being exposed to this would have a negative impact. Fifthly, the child would have trouble fitting in, and would more likely be bullied. Sixthly, you are preventing the child of a mother or father (depending on sex of the homosexual couple. And lastly, the child would have trouble making relationships for the reason explained earlier, they would have trouble fitting in. I had a lot of fun in this debate. I thank pro for this debate. It was truly enjoyable. Vote in the words of Spock, "KHAAAAAANNNN" (pronounced "con")
Homosexual adoption

First of all, I love star wars to :D And I thank you for not rebutting now that I understand, thank you. REBUTTALS: "Now, you have accused me of having information that is not backed up. However, you do as well." If you properly read my arguments, you would notice I have on-line sources backing up my information. In your later arguments in this round, you also said i was stereotyping. But I'm not. I am simply claiming that a big amount of the children or parents will experience this. "Firstly, you have claimed that homosexuals can be child molesters. That is not really true however. Most child molesters who molest children are not homosexuals in truth. And, some molest children of the same gender due to their deprivation of sexual intercourse with the other gender. But homosexuals are not child molesters. " I did not say homosexuals are child molesters, I claimed that a big part of them are. So in allowing a homosexual to adopt, you are putting that child in greater risk of molestation. "And yes, people do not accidentally adopt. And that is why it is great that homosexuals purposefully do it." Heterosexual couples adopt to, we went over this already. " Homosexual parents, like the Jedi, will be able to tell their children that they can "search their feelings" and do what they know is right, and so, if the child is not a homosexual, they will not become one." If you read your words properly, in this argument once again you agreed with me, and said that being homosexual is wrong. You said that if the kid is not homosexual, he will do what is right and not become one. (paraphrased) ARGUMENTS: The child would have trouble making relationships. Think about it, let's say a gay couple adopts a child of the age of 3. He is at that age capable of making friends, and there is a great possibility he made friends and relationships in his orphanage. Now he lives with gay parents, up to this age, he doesn't even know what a homosexual is. Now he has to be so confused, and frustrated. And let's say you adopt a child as a baby into a gay couple. He may not have made many friends, and he may think everyone is gay, because he may have never met a straight person. So when he goes to kindergarten, when he talks about his parents, he can get in trouble for sharing inappropriate things in class. And because of this, he may have trouble making friends. Also I would once again like to quote: "There are also health concerns. Among homosexuals there is a greater incidence of AIDS and HIV. Suicide rates are higher among homosexuals, men especially (about six times higher). And the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, such as herpes and genital warts, is higher among homosexuals as well. That"s not "hate speech," those are documented facts." [1] So if this happened to a parent, the child would experience it. Especially suicide. If the child saw this, he would go through a state of trauma. He will have many problems. Sorry I didn't give a lot of arguments this round, I don't have enough time :D source: 1.http://www.wnd.com...
Homosexual adoption

Dear, opponent, I purposefully did not rebut any of your points as that would be unfair for you. In the second round, you were only able to state your points, not argue mine. So, to even the score, I simply stated mine. And now, I shall argue against yours. Firstly, you have claimed that homosexuals can be child molesters. That is not really true however. Most child molesters who molest children are not homosexuals in truth. And, some molest children of the same gender due to their deprivation of sexual intercourse with the other gender. But homosexuals are not child molesters. People are. Human beings are. People of all races, genders, sexual preferences, etc. Also, if that is the case, should African Americans not be allowed to have children because they are all murdering drug addicts or drug dealers? Of course not. That, as your point is, is simply a stereotype (which if I recall you have accused me of including in my own arguments.) As for your point that a child may follow in the footsteps of the parent, a homosexual parent would be a perfect person to explain to a child that they have to do what is right for them and be different. Homosexual parents, like the Jedi, will be able to tell their children that they can "search their feelings" and do what they know is right, and so, if the child is not a homosexual, they will not become one. Also, we all know that children do not always follow in the footsteps of their parents. If that were the case, the Empire would not have been crushed, and Luke Skywalker would have become a Sith Lord (another Star Wars reference...I just watched the originals again today, and they are too inspiring not to mention.) Now, you have accused me of having information that is not backed up. However, you do as well. If it cannot be proven that there are parents who accidentally have children, than it cannot be proven that kids who don't have parents will kill themselves. It is also then a stereotype that kids need to fit in. It is also a stereotype that homosexuals are molesters. It's also not true that people with homosexual parents cannot fit in. Also, if a parent can learn how from an accidental birth (that at times is the reason for adoption,) than couldn't a homosexual parent learn to teach their child things about their own gender, or learn how to be a good parent when their child is the opposite gender? And yes, people do not accidentally adopt. And that is why it is great that homosexuals purposefully do it. If a child is put up for adoption, and a homosexual couple WANTS and chooses to adopt a child, they will try their best to be a good parent, where as the heterosexual parents that might have put the child up for adoption failed to do so.
Homosexual adoption

I very much respect your points of view. I thank you for your ideas. You make me think differently about this subject, however since this is still a debate, I still remain against Homosexual adoption. Firstly I would like to point out that pro did not rebut any of my points, but only explained his own arguments. REBUTTALS: " Homosexuals face bullying, and because of this, they may be the masters of dealing with it, and could give great advice for their children." This is only a stereotype backed up by no proof. First of all I would like to quote: "According to the gay bullying statistics from the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community, about one fourth of all students from elementary age through high school are the victims of bullying and harassment while on school property because of their race, ethnicity, gender, disability, religion or sexual orientation. Unfortunately the primary reason for bullying is due to something that may set themselves apart from the norm, and that includes sexual orientation. "[1] As you can see, in their childhood (ages 2-17) bullying is most common. [2] In the quote above, you see that a quarter of students are bullied, not just because they are homosexual, but other reasons to. Sexual orientation is but 1 of the things that people are bullied for. So basically, heterosexual couples would have experienced bullying just as much as homosexual couples, rendering your point invalid. This also goes for the rest of your paragraph. " It's not like most homosexuals are criminals." Child molestation is a crime, rendering some homosexuals criminals. "Heterosexuals sometimes accidentally have children." Once again, a hasty generalization. Now let us assume that indeed, some heterosexual couples have children by accident, it can also be a good thing. It would also be good, because not only is a child going to learn lessons, but the parent would learn just as much. Also, people don't just "accidentally" adopt. Now for my arguments: ARGUMENTS: Main thing is bullying. You said it yourself: "Homosexuals face bullying". And as we all may know, a parent gives a huge influence on the child. [3] So if this child were influenced by his or her parents, they would become homosexual, and possibly get bullied. Bullying can build character, but it can also destroy it. Bullying can lead to depression. [4] Also, we need to consider others, not just the family. There are plenty of religions against homosexuality. Take Christianity, Islam, Judaism and much, much more for example. [5] In adopting a child into a homosexual family, you are disrespecting others beliefs. A third of the world alone is already Christian. [6] I await my opponents response. sources: 1.http://www.bullyingstatistics.org... 2.http://www.bullyingstatistics.org... 3.http://www.cbn.com... 4.http://www.bullyingstatistics.org... 5.http://www.princeton.edu... 6.http://www.adherents.com...
Homosexual adoption

My argument simply is, that a homosexual couple deserves to adopt a child. Firstly, homosexuals could be great parents. Homosexuals face bullying, and because of this, they may be the masters of dealing with it, and could give great advice for their children. I mean these are people who were probably bullied and were able to deal with it somehow in a way that others could not. They were able to survive, and still do what they knew was right. They did not conform to society and marry heterosexually. With that, they could also give advice on how to avoid peer pressure. And of course, homosexuals can be great teachers of acceptance, as many people fail to accept groups of people because it's different. For example, when there are few black people in a community, or black people are just looked down at, children might not be able to see black people as equals. Same with homosexuals. It's considered strange because most children see heterosexual marriages. But, if a homosexual marriage is placed in their sight, they will learn to accept homosexuality. And, because heterosexuality is popular in society, the children would still learn to accept heterosexuals, thus accepting both. Also, homosexuals don't really have any reason not to adopt. There is nothing that homosexuals do more than any other group of people as parents. It's not like most homosexuals are criminals. Also, it's not like most homosexuals turn out to be awful parents. In fact, homosexuals who adopt, I would think, would be great parents (I don't know because that's an opinion thing and I don't have homosexual parents). Homosexuals who adopt clearly have chosen to be parents, and so they want to have children. Heterosexuals sometimes accidentally have children. But homosexuals who adopt choose to have children, which is a step in the right direction of being good parents. I believe that is all.
Homosexual adoption

Let the debate begin! Homosexuality is quite a big issue affecting today's society. It is also referred to as words or slang such as "gay" or "lesbian". What is homosexuality you ask? Well homosexuality is "sexual desire or behavior directed toward a person or persons of one's own sex. " [1] So basically when 2 people of the same sexual orientation desire one another. And in some countries such as Brazil and Argentina, same sex marriage is allowed. [2] And what comes after marriage? Children. A married couple wants to have children. But this same sex, or homosexual couple can't biologically conceive a child. So they adopt. There are many reasons why this is wrong, and can negatively affect people. First of all, fitting it. Many teenagers and children nowadays need to "fit in". It's already hard as it is, now try adding a gay family into the equation. Not only with the trouble that every kid already has, but also with gay parents, it's practically impossible to fit in. This can make the child left out, and lead the child to depression, and possibly suicide. Secondly, child molestation. Quite a big amount of child molestation to this day is committed by homosexuals. Especially men. [3] So if you are to put a innocent child into a house with a gay couple, you are putting him in risk of child molestation. That child could be in a house and raised by 2 molesters. Thirdly, you are preventing the child of a mother or father, depending on which sex is the couple. The child could have been adopted by a normal family, with a father or a mother, but now you are preventing such. For example, imagine there is a gay couple including 2 men. They adopt a daughter. Many years drift away, and all of the sudden, she is 14. And this teenager is having puberty issues. Now you can give her a book, or explain what you have read, but you have never experienced it, because you are a man. If she was adopted by a normal family, she would have a mother to explain things to her, and guide her, from personal experience. But you are preventing the child from having that. Also think about it, because of the influence parents give, the child would follow in their footprints. So you are bringing more and more homosexuals to this world. So if the number increases dramatically, eventually the world will be filled with nothing but homosexuals, and there would be no babies, and the human race would perish :D. I await my opponent's response. sources: 1. . http://dictionary.reference.com... 2. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. . http://www.frc.org... Good luck :D
The 16-bit wars (Super Nintendo vs. Sega Genesis vs. Turbografx-16) in the USA were won by Nintendo

LOL- WTF dude! I personally think MEAN GENDER was a turning point in the 32-bit/64-bit war when many gamers were trying to decide whether Lara Croft was good for gaming. On one hand it was awesome to see a dominant female character in the limelight with a fantastic new game. However, on the other hand many believed she was just a sex object intended to sell copies of Tomb Raider. Regardless, Super Nintendo didn't win the 16-bit war. Prove me wrong. :P
The 16-bit wars (Super Nintendo vs. Sega Genesis vs. Turbografx-16) in the USA were won by Nintendo

Many believe that Nintendo won the 16-bit wars or "4th generation" of the video game console wars, simply because in worldwide sales the Super Nintendo sold more units than the Sega Genesis and the Turbografx. However, I believe that there simply were no real winners in this console war because everyone won (Except NEC in the US)!! Sega went on to create the Sega Saturn, Nintendo with their N64 and NEC (in Japan) went on to create the PC-FX. Each company continued on with their momentum giving video game fans everywhere what they wanted; MORE GAMES! The real winners of the 16-bit wars wasn't Nintendo, as Sega in the US and EUR along with NEC in Japan showed other companies that they could stand toe to toe with the big N. If it weren't for the challenges the PC Engine and Sega Genesis put forth we may have never seen Xbox, Playstation or even the CDi!! The world of console gaming would be in rubble!! Thoughts?
exploding car and peeps dieing

Ok, well let"s start this *interesting* topic right off. Without further ado: REBUTTAL: "is this ok" I assume you are talking about the resolution. I am here to debate whether it is ok or not. You, as side Pro, should be saying that it is and why, not just simply ask the question "is it ok?" As side con, I am going to do what my opponent failed to do: Give support and essentially answer his question. ARGUMENT 1: Exploding cars endanger lives. Imagine this: You"re an innocent father/mother taking your child for a stroll when a maniac decides to blow up a car bomb. You are seriously injured and your child is dead. You did nothing wrong. Your child did nothing wrong. But now you have life-threatening injuries and what should be one of the most if not the most important people in your life is gone. The death of innocents is not okay, especially for an unjustified car bombing. As another example, let me draw your attention to the Omagh Bombings of 1998. 29 people died and 220 people were injured {3}. Did those people do anything wrong? NO! They were just there in Northern Ireland. They died for one reason. Because they were THERE. You may say "So what? It"s just 29 people. More people are born in a minute, so what is the big deal?" The big deal is that they shouldn"t have died. Would it be a big deal if someone close to you died? ARGUMENT 2: Waste of money. The average car is around $31K to buy. {1} Imagine what a waste of money that would be to explode such an expensive thing. 31 thousand dollars is something that takes most families months, even years to make enough money to buy this. Is it OK for something this expensive to explode. NO!. Let me give you an example: You are a hardworking person, who isn"t earning very much, but are saving up to buy a car. In fact you are the average american making just over 50 thousand per year {2}. You can"t afford to have something that you spent the majority of your annual money on to be blown up? Exploded? Thanks, DDD References: {1} http://www.usatoday.com... {2} http://www.mybudget360.com... {3} http://en.wikipedia.org...
Nihilism is Pointless

Well, "society" is a broad term. If you mean the continued "normal" social order, I would hardly say nihilism is beneficial, Yes. You're clearly correct there. But if you mean it's not useful at all in a functioning society, I'd disagree. Certainly counterproductive, But not pointless. I'm going to briefly skim through all the forms of nihilism I'm aware of and I am knowledgeable enough to talk about. Metaphysical and Mereological Nihilism are going to sit this one out. Existential Nihilism is pretty obvious. Epistemological Nihilism is extreme skepticism in which no piece of knowledge can be fully accepted as true. An example I myself have is Solipsism; the idea that only my own mind is sure to exist. Regularly I am suspicious that every person is monitoring me and has the ability to read my own thoughts. Moral Nihilism is the view that morality is a social construct, And thus, Relative. Now, I'm not going to argue in favor of Nihilism; at least not in this debate. I am going to argue in favor of thinkers. Believing and identifying with something gets the mind going, Nihilism or no. I'm not religious, But I wouldn't call Christianity, Or Islam, Or Buddhism pointless. I don't believe in Astrology, But I wouldn't call it pointless. I don't believe in the inherent successful future of our species, Either, But I certainly wouldn't call us pointless. People take a look at these ideas, And they choose to adopt them or not. It keeps us thinking. I'd say that nihilism is probably one of the most controversial, Yet most important ideologies to take a look at. It makes you question you, The people you know, And the human race as a whole. TL;DR, Nothing is pointless. It just depends on how positively or negatively you believe that point was.
Nihilism is Pointless

Hello, I'm guessing what you mean by "pointless" is that it adds nothing to our society. If that's the case, I can argue for any forms of nihilism, Or anything at all, Really. That last part is where my argument lies. You may not personally agree with nihilism, But nothing can be pointless. Nihilism may increase depression and perhaps even cause suicide, But that doesn't make it pointless. Harmful, Maybe. Abnormal, Absolutely. But not pointless.
Nihilism is Pointless

"It seems as if by pointless you mean illogical, " I actually pointed out in previous comments that it means impractical, This usually also means illogical, But not necessarily. There could be times that one is forced to make a survival decision and doesn't have time to employ logic. So in this case the "practical" thing to do is also the "illogical" thing to do. This is a subtle but notable difference. "But you're not answering my overall message. I'm not sure what else to say. Back to you. " My main point is that nihilism has no practical use. It doesn't add anything to your epistemology that wouldn't already be there without it. Your definition of existential nihilism, For instance, Is a good example of this. "Existential Nihilism is the notion that life has no intrinsic value or meaning" So value is something that humans place on things. Claiming there is no intrinsic value to life is a useless statement. All the emotions inside you are for survival one way or another. Emotions are for empathy or apathy when necessary. Morals are a product of us being a social species and is a further extension of our emotions. Love allows us to pick and choose certain members of our species, Usually direct family, With which to share our personal survival instinct. It's the furthest extension of our emotions. These things are objective. Which is just as good as intrinsic since the word intrinsic is more or less useless, Since, By definition, It is neither qualified nor limited. It's just like saying there's no "absolute meaning" or "really real meaning" It's just a tag to denote that it is being expressed without any subsets. Objective is a much better functional term because it denotes that A) We can sense it and B) It has a standard that is separate from our subjective opinions. Humans universally agree that life is good and death is bad. It is built into our DNA. That's about as "intrinsic" as it gets. Your belief has no benefit and it has the potential to harm since someone who thinks life is meaningless might not want to be alive anymore. They might not want to be moral. Now you might say that you can be moral anyways, But you can't say it's because of your nihilism. You behave morally because of evolution, Plain and simple. Even when people do behave immorality, It is generally due to nurture vs nature. I'm talking about indoctrination here of course. I hope I shined some light down on my position a little bit. If you can provide me a practical use for nihilism that I could get without another belief system or at a smaller risk than another belief system, Then I will acknowledge it as not being pointless.
Nihilism is Pointless

Sorry I missed a day, Family emergency. I think you're missing the forest for the trees with this one. It seems as if by pointless you mean illogical, And in response to that I just redirect you to my previous argument. I applaud your deconstruction of any examples I have given, Really I do, But you're not answering my overall message. I'm not sure what else to say. Back to you. P. S. Existential Nihilism is the notion that life has no intrinsic value or meaning.