BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
a thought to support gods existence

I have had a thought that I will disclose briefly. But the point of this argument is for me to support the thought that I am presenting. before I disclose this thought I would like to say 2 more things. This is my first debate. And even though whoever debates against me obviously disagrees hope to keep this somewhat friendly. Here is the thought process. Since god created all things that must mean god created evil? Since god cannot have any part of being evil then evil does not exist. which means good does not exist which means god does not exist. Well, does cold exist? technically it does not. Heat exists and cold is merely the absence of heat. Does darkness exist? no it does not. Darkness is merely the absence of light. Does evil exist? no it does not. Evil is merely to absence of goodness. God did not create evil but evil the absence of everything good that god is and o stands for. (I know what I'm about to say is redundant) evil is simply the absence of what is good.
Gay Rights are Essentially a Nonissue in the US

Regardless, they're only hypotheticals. Just as they have potential to help economy and academics, they also have the ability to hurt it. If the latter becomes true, would it then be an issue to let them not be aborted? The fact that it passed in the house (overwhelmingly, in fact) is still something. And even if it wasn't passed in Kansas, it WAS passed in Indiana (1) and Mississippi (2). The fact that 49 out of 50 states consider it a viable defense in court is enough to make it valid. The fact that these murders often go cold, the fact that they even HAPPEN at the frequency they do makes it valid. In conclusion, your argument is that LGBT rights are no longer an issue in this country on the basis that other issues are more important in comparison to other issues, some of which are highly delicate and not likely to be fixed anytime soon regardless of what anyone does. (Referring to national debt. Government is slow; this issue isn't going anywhere for a long time.) However, this disregards the fact that importance of something is subjective and, moreover, not a contest. Importance has more to do with values and beliefs than anything else, so what is important to one person may only be a trivial matter to another. There's enough people to care about all of the issues in this country, and we don't need to stop paying attention to one in order to deal with all of them. In any situation where lives are at risk, it is important and it is an issue. A movement cannot change bias, no, but it can provide awareness. Awareness leads to education, and understanding. The more people understand us, the closer we get to being treated as respected citizens with equal rights. It's not the best, but it's certainly a start. Note: I've read your bio, and I've seen that you're Christian. This isn't an ad hominem or anything but I just want to thank you. Even if your main concern seems to be marriage, I've had my fair share of run-ins with people who are a lot less tolerant. Even though we have different opinions, I appreciate you being one of the good Christians, and I respect you and your right to opinion. Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to debate this topic. (1) Cook, Tony. "Gov. Mike Pence Signs 'religious Freedom' Bill in Private." Indianapolis Star. 27 Mar. 2015. Web. 29 Mar. 2015. . (2) Ford, Zack. "Mississippi Passes 'Religious Liberty' Bill That Legalizes Discrimination Against Gay People." ThinkProgress RSS. 2 Apr. 2014. Web. 29 Mar. 2015. .
Gay Rights are Essentially a Nonissue in the US

Sure they can! They represent economic potential, academic potential, etc. Furthermore, notice that your first source said that the Kansas state house (note it be ONLY THE HOUSE) passed it, and not the senate. And guess what? It didn't pass there. (Stern) Therefore it didn't even make it to the governor's office to pass. I would like a link to the bills that were passed in those states. I looked through all your sources, yet could find no links. I offered to include a rebuttal should you provide the link, but you did not. Furthermore, your second point is invalid because anyone can make any claim they want to in a court of law. It's just that they might get punished for those claims. Also, nothing is certain in a court of law. Anything could have happened, it's just that the dispositions of the jurors and the circumstances of the evidence heavily suggest a certain crime was committed. No one can stop that from occurring. In conclusion, your argument relies solely on unpassed laws and the obvious bias of others in the private sector (although this bias will likely die out over time due to a change in public opinion), and in court, although people will always have biases and no amount of regulation can change that, nor can a movement by trying to do this. Mark Joseph Stern. "Kansas' Anti-Gay Bill may have been a delightfully ironic political ploy." Slate. The Slate Group, 21 Feb. 2014. Web. Mar. 23, 2015. (Please make no more debate points, just final rebuttals.)
Gay Rights are Essentially a Nonissue in the US

Potential people are irrelevant. If they aren't people they technically can't be included in a demographic of people affected. If you look near the top there should be a tab that lets you switch it over to housing. On the contrary, as I showed in my previous argument, there were several other states where similar bills were introduced. And the Kansas bill was passed. (1) ... Except it doesn't. The justice system doesn't always work, and rarely works for minorities such as gay and trans people. In all but one state, people who have assaulted/killed trans people can claim "trans panic defence" as a reason for murder and be set free. In any other crime we'd call that a confession. (2) Besides, justice won't bring back the lives taken. Social stigma is the main reason of hate crimes. My point is, importance is subjective. I was using your opinion on abortion as an example. A difference example would be, a mother who thinks her child is the most important person in the world. Most other people don't care about the child. This isn't Oppression Olympics or anything. Something being "more important" than something else does not make the latter a non-issue or not important. It's happening now. It's here, now. It's relevant. It's important. (1) Brumfield, Brandon, and Dana Ford. "Kansas House OKs Bill Allowing Refusal of Service to Same-sex Couples - CNN.com." CNN. Cable News Network, 13 Feb. 2014. Web. 26 Mar. 2015. (2) Kemnitz, D'Arcy. "The First Step: Ending the Use of Gay and Trans Panic Defenses." The First Step: Ending the Use of Gay and Trans Panic Defenses. Ed. Jaqueline Jones. Jurist, 20 Oct. 2014. Web. 26 Mar. 2015.
Gay Rights are Essentially a Nonissue in the US

It doesn't matter what my opinion on abortion is. The fact is that it still affects us more than gay rights. I was using the idea of potential people, which would be acceptable in use if I was pro-choice. Also, I have further reviewed the website you cited in number 5 and discovered... That the laws mentioned on the site only apply to (drumroll please) the WORKPLACE! (Movement Advancement Project) That's right, it involves employment discrimination alone! So now I'm curious, could you provide me the link to it if you were referring to another article? I'll include it in my conclusion. However, I did find the Kansas bill, (House Committee, 1) but surprise, surprise, it's just a bill. In one state and it didn't pass. (Stern) What else was just a bill, you ask? a bill to make German our official language. About the rapes and beatings, the government will prosecute these people and justice will be served. And about the idea that gay rights may not prevail, the tendency of recent years towards social libertarianism has prevailed. This is shown by the change of public opinion. (I cite wikipedia, because I have found the sources used to be a trustworthy compilation) In 1996, 27% supported gay marriage. Now it's 63%. Note, while this isn't overwhelming, it's an increase by 36 points. (Wikipedia) In 20 years, I'd say it'd be higher given the current trend. I was not using the others as a detriment but as a comparison of pervasiveness and importance. I feel that my opinion on abortion is irrelevant. I therefore conclude that Gay Rights isn't all it's cracked up to be, and while I support and respect supporters of it, it's essentially a nonissue in terms of relevance towards other things. Thus, I (hopefully) rest my case. Citations: "Non-Discrimination Laws." Movement Advancement Project. Web. 23 Mar. 2015. http://www.lgbtmap.org... "House Bill no. 2453." pg. 1 Kansas Committee on Federal and State Affairs. State of Kansas, USA, 2014. Web. Mar. 23 2015. http://www.kslegislature.org... "Same Sex Marriage in the United States." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Mar. 20 2015. Web. Mar. 23, 2015. http://en.m.wikipedia.org... Mark Joseph Stern. "Kansas' Anti-Gay Bill may have been a delightfully ironic political ploy." Slate. The Slate Group, 21 Feb. 2014. Web. Mar. 23, 2015. http://www.slate.com... Note: Though we differ in opinions, I extend my utmost respect and gratitude to you as a fellow debater, and as someone concerned with justice and civil rights.
Gay Rights are Essentially a Nonissue in the US

I don't think you're against gay rights, and that was never what I was trying to imply. But, you admit that the fight for gay rights is important. And while (hopefully " no one knows what could happen with this situation really) gay rights will no longer be an issue in America in the future, it is still an issue at this point in time. And, fair enough, the private sector should be able to deny service to whomever it wants, but as I mentioned these laws also include police service, which is not private. Except you're still making this about marriage. As I said, it's not just marriage. I couldn't care less about marriage and really I'm not sure why that's what the movement has decided to turn its attention to. People are dying. People are being raped, abused, beaten, and shunned. And on the topic of marriage, not letting people get married can make it difficult for them to see their SO in the emergency room if something were to happen to them, for instance. I assume what you're referring to is abortion, and you're pretty obviously pro-life. Great. I don't agree with your stance, but as I said, this isn't a debate about abortion. I don't consider people getting abortions an issue. Evidentially, you do. I think this proves that what is or isn't important really depends on which side you take. It also has a lot to do with values. And if quantity of people is your issue, then that's also subjective. If we use the legal definition of a person (1), suddenly 55 million people affected disappear from the equation, which brings the number down significantly. However, if we use simply what you consider to be a person, it seems to affect a greater number of people. It's subjective, and frankly I think it would be irresponsible to bring new people into the world when there's still mistreatment against the ones we have already. What if abortion was made a priority issue, and then one of the children not aborted turns out to be gay? Is it an issue then? And if abortion is a bigger issue than gay rights, that doesn't mean that gay rights aren't an issue. The importance of one thing doesn't nullify the other. For the moment while there is still inequality, it is still an issue. (1) "1 U.S. Code " 8 - "Person", "human Being", "child", and "individual" as including Born-alive Infant." 1 U.S. Code " 8. Web. 23 Mar. 2015.
Gay Rights are Essentially a Nonissue in the US

I think you are misinterpreting what I am saying. Yes, there is a fight for gay rights, and it is important, but not nearly as important as the other 2 issues I mentioned! I do not deny any of the facts you have presented about that bit. The states will likely start facing disapproval from their constituents and change their policies. While it is horrible that that happens, it happens (in the private sector, any discrimination should be allowed, imho, just 'cause laissez-faire. Their loss in profits.), and eventually the movement will have achieved its goal. And very little of the population will be affected. You're acting like I'm against gay rights. It kinda does. 6 million people isn't the entire nation and shouldn't receive nearly the amount of limelight it does. Let me give an example: let's say Minnesotans were all affected by a relatively minor legal thing that denied them a few tax returns and the right to adopt. It would get solved and it wouldn't likely be a constantly-covered story. Why? Simple, because Minnesota isn't all of America. No one died, no one got injured. A few rights were bent, but the issue was solved. (Freedom to Marry) Now, let's say that in the past 40 years, 55 million people randomly died, all because their situation was inconvenient. Now, pray tell, which is more important? The latter. Why? Answer: because in the previous one, it was easy to solve and it affected only one demographic. It affected less people and affected them less severely. That's what how it is. So why is it made an issue? If you really want a couple, no government can give or take that away from you. The only difference between an unofficially married couple and an official one is the above mentioned rights and the fact that if you aren't married you don't get tax returns. (TurboTax) The thing is, Abortion is a more important issue in terms of both quality and quantity. And it's a relatively minor one. I get you don't have choose between them, I'm saying that Gay Rights is relatively a non-issue that's about tax returns and rules that will soon be overturned because of public opinion. I've been saying this whole time that compared to the other issues, it's relatively unimportant. "Marriage vs. Civil Union or Domestic Partnership". Freedom to Marry. Web. Mar. 22 2015 "7 Advantages of Getting Married". TurboTax. Intuit, 2014. Web. Mar. 22 2015.
Gay Rights are Essentially a Nonissue in the US

I define Gay Rights as marriage equality and the fight against homophobia. That was also defined in my previous argument. I admit I omitted one point in there, which is gay adoption. Once that and marriage are legalized, the legal side if it will be accomplished. So then, pray tell, how is that equally important? I don't see how it affects more of the population or economy. To prove my point, let's say that every gay couple married, or 1.6% of the population. (Ward 1) Now, let's say they adopted 2 children each, essentially doubling that number at 3.2% of the population. Now, that's still less than 10 million people! To compare, it's estimated that over 55 million fetuses (numberofabortions.com) have been aborted, and with them producing 1 child per baby had they not been aborted (at least for the earlier ones), plus the mothers, that's likely to be over 100 million people affected in 42 years, compared to (assuming the same statistics as earlier start this year with the gay marriages), that's 1.6%+(1.6%*e^007*42) (World Bank), at its most generous, which, in proportion with what the projected 2057 US population is, is actually much lower, due to other demographics increasing as well. So, at its most generous, what does that amount of people directly affected by the movement in the 2057 population amount to? Assuming the current population is 318 million (World Bank) (Assuming the growth rate is constant), 318 million*.016(e^(.007*42))+.016*318 million, which is approximately 6.82 million. And that's generous. So then, I think that The National Debt (which affects all of us), and abortion are more important than gay rights in terms of both qualitative and quantitative measures, making it comparatively a nonissue. Citations: Ward, Brian; et. al. "Sexual Orientation and Health Among U.S. Adults." Nation Health Reports. Number 77. Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 15 Jul 2014. Web. 22 Mar. 2015. http://www.cdc.gov... "Population Growth (Annual %)."; "Population Total" World Bank. World Bank. Web. 22 Mar. 2015. data.worldbank.org "Number of Abortions-Abortion Counters" numberofabortions.com. Web. 22 Mar. 2015. http://www.numberofabortions.com...
Gay Rights are Essentially a Nonissue in the US

I accept the rules of this debate, and will follow them to the best of my ability. They seem fairly simple, anyway. Opening statement: In the title of the debate, it says "Gay Rights are Essentially a Non-issue in the US." However, in Pro's opening statement, the only gay right addressed is marriage equality. While I agree that marriage equality is not an issue in the US, LGBT rights as a whole are still a very big issue. Pro states that things like abortion and federal debt are more important than gay marriage. The former is debatable -- though I'd rather not get in a debate about abortion, so I'll leave it at that -- but, in all, yes. Gay rights as a whole, however, are arguably as important. Definitions: Gay rights - equal civil and social rights for homosexuals compared with heterosexuals. ( http://dictionary.reference.com...)
Gay Rights are Essentially a Nonissue in the US

Welcome to my Debate. Should you accept, here are the terms: A. You must define all major words in your argument B. No argument is to be left unrebutted. C. Use occam's razor, please. (I don't know how many times I've had to ask this of someone) D. No Ad Hominem arguments, and please do not violate Godwin's law E. This is a debate. Do not flaunt your opinions as facts. If something is a fact, back it up with a source in MLA format. F. Don't rile up the comments. Neither of us are allowed to comment until post-voting. G. Use CER format to change your opinions to facts. (Aka Conclusion, Evidence, Reasoning) And here is the debate format: Round One: Formalities and Opening Statements Rounds Two-Four: Arguments Round Five: Conclusion Without Further Ado, here is my opening statement: I believe that while gay marriage should exist, it is a relative nonissue in terms of the other more important issues that affect more people in more extreme ways. Since homosexuals account for less than a twenty-fifth of the population (Ward 1), and yet the multi-trillion dollar debt affects us all, and among other things abortion, because of which over million fetuses will be aborted this year (Operation Rescue), both of these things are and will continue to be more important than gay marriage. Definitions: Abortion- Forced killing of a human fetus Fetus- Human young in its mother's womb Gay Rights- The support of gay marriage and against homophobia Nonissue: Relatively unimportant, solved, or irrelevant issue Citations: Ward, Brian; et. al. "Sexual Orientation and Health Among U.S. Adults." Nation Health Reports. Number 77. Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 15 Jul 2014. Web. 22 Mar. 2015. http://www.cdc.gov... "Abortions in America." Operation Rescue. Operation Rescue. Web. 22 Mar 2015. http://www.operationrescue.org...
Dogs are Better than Cats

1) Dogs come when you call them - Cats come when they are good and ready 2) Dogs will bark to wake you up if the house is on fire - Cats will quietly sneak out the back door. 3) Dogs will play with you all afternoon - Cats sleep all day 4) Dogs will greet you when you come home - Cats just continue their day 5) Dogs will obey you - Cats will smirk and walk away 6) Dogs will tilt their heads and listen whenever you talk - Cats will yawn and close their eyes. From: http://media.www.cm-life.com... DID YOU KNOW dogs were the first domesticated animal? Let's stick with what we know! I don't see why we have to break from tradition. Cats are new and scary, and I'm afraid of change. THEY SAY cats are better than dogs because cats are supposedly the more "intelligent" animal. Why is this? Because they hide behind furniture? Because they can poop in a box? Because they proudly and frequently show off their buttholes? If humans were called "intelligent" for doing these things, then I'd be president of MENSA. And probably NASA. And RUSSIA. Vote PRO! Dogs are better than Cats! whoot!:]]
Dogs are Better than Cats

Thanks for the debate! To sum up for the voters, vote con for three reasons: 1) You can vote con if you believe that you can't compare dogs and cats in value. Furthermore we agreed to not view the debate with stereotypical dogs, and cats: which makes it harder for pro to prove their burden since dogs have different personalities, and its mostly subjective unless its true for the whole species. The fact that you can't compare goes uncontested throughout the round, and should be the first reason you vote con. 2) If you don't buy my first voting issue then you can vote con because I systematically dismantled the points in my opponents case, either by proving it was a stereotype, proving it false, or using logic to debunk it. Since the pro doesn't successfully extend arguments that prove dogs are better than cats you can vote con becuase there is insufficient offense coming off the pro. This is the second reason to vote con 3) Even if you do think that all the pro's points still stand, you can still look to the con case. In it I prove that cats are better in intelligence, and this doesn't deal with stereotypes since it applies to the whole species. I also prove that dogs require more commitment, which makes cats more valuable since they require less commitment. This proves that cats are in fact better than dogs. Vote con! *I'm actually allergic to cats, and I love dogs so much! Thanks for the debate!
Technology in Education

Well, since my opponent didn't offer any of her own arguments, I have nothing to rebut. I was supposed to debate her, not the author of the blog she posted. Having said that... Argument: Technology in the Classroom is a distraction and impedes the learning process. Students who have access to laptops have a tendency to become more distracted, and therefore learn less than their counterparts that don't have the same internet access. [1] Therefore, we should reduce the amount of technology in our classrooms. Sources: 1. http://www.nytimes.com...
Gun/bully control

My opponent was not able to defend any of his arguments. He was not able to defend every time of gun control, which his burden was, and he wasn't able to show why no gun control laws shouldn't be put into place. My opponent wasn't able to defend his second-amendment/natural rights argument, because he said that "you can't control/take away someone's natural rights given to you by being born in this country." Sure, but, the second amendment gives us the right to bear arms. Like my undisputed argument showed, the government has the obligation to protect its citizens, so it will control weapons to the point where we won't be equipping fully-auto machine guns on our backs. My opponent's defense on this made no sense, and you cannot look to it. My opponent also doesn't seem to have any knowledge of American history, "You clam that people would walk around with machine guns and RPGS why didn't this happen in the past?" Well, see, in the past, RPGs didn't exist. Then, the second amendment was put into place. They didn't exist. These are obviously not weapons needed by citizens. These are military-grade weapons, so my opponent seems to think it's wise for these types of weapons to be used in public. My opponent's bullying argument shouldn't be considered because he spent almost no time showing what he meant. I urged a Pro Vote for these reasons, thank you.