BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There is a legitimate, rational reason to prohibit same sex marriage in the United States

If you read the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, you'll notice that the term "African American" is not present. The 14th Amendment is not exclusive to African Americans. You're absolutely correct in saying that the 14th Amendment alone does not give homosexuals the right to marriage. However, this is only true if there is a legitimate, rational reason to pass a law prohibiting same sex marriage (rational basis test). Although this debate centers around the question "is there a legitimate, rational reason to prohibit same sex marriage," you have still failed to propose one to me. If a group of people is being denied access to government benefits for no reason other than their sexual orientation, it is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Voting Rights is an entirely different topic, but if you actually read why the 19th Amendment was ratified, you will find out that it was because of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The reason the 19th Amendment exists is because the 14th Amendment exists. The 19th Amendment overturned the case Minor v. Happersett. If you desire to bring me a whole new discussion on the Constitution, you may want to brush up on your facts. Applying an 1828 definition of marriage to justify your distaste for interracial marriage in modern society is extremely racist. I urge to seriously reevaluate your position. It does not matter whether or not you want to see marriage redefined. The fact of the matter is that a large group of people are being denied access to government benefits for no legitimate, rational reason. You can either remove the benefits or allow all relationships to have equal access to the benefits. That's not a confusing proposition. To borrow an argument from Louis C.K., and I paraphrase: So, just because the parents of these children are incapable of raising their child to be tolerant of all relationships and sexualities, same sex couples should not be allowed to get married? Why should same sex couples take the blame for intolerance of others? They shouldn't have to. People need to be tolerant and express empathy. You do not have to agree with their lifestyle, but you are certainly not entitled to prevent them from the same government benefits you have because of your different lifestyle. I am still waiting for your legitimate, rational argument.
There is a legitimate, rational reason to prohibit same sex marriage in the United States

I'm not placing the homosexuals and African Americans in the same subject. To the Constitution, yes, it is true that it applies to all citizens. But no where does the Constitution does it talk about marriage, and so basing legalized marriage off of the Constitution is invalid in itself. (I can bring you to a whole new discussion about the Constitution, too, if you want.) The Fourteenth Amendment was created to ensure the rights of African American citizens, just recently freed from slavery. I can't see how the Fourteenth Amendment can be coupled with gay marriage, and the sole basis of the Fourteenth Amendment was to protect the rights of African Americans. In fact, if the Fourteenth Amendment was directed to every single citizen, we wouldn't need to have the Nineteenth Amendment (Women's Rights to Vote). But, on regards to the protection of the homosexual individuals, I agree with you on that. Firing someone on their sexuality is like firing someone on their race, I get that. Interracial marriage; in all honesty, I both feel that this is wrong, and yet I feel that it is right. I think what my basis is on this issue, is that, in the Webster's 1828 Dictionary, it defines marriage as: "MAR'RIAGE, n. [L.mas, maris.] The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity,and for securing the maintenance and education of children." Between a man and a woman is what I based my "They got on just fine" sentence. I don't want to see marriage redefined, or family redefined. It would cause confusion. I feel bad for the neighborhood kids sometimes, because they tell me of how their parents are the same sex (either adopted or "married" into the family) and they get picked on because the other kids are confused on how to address "dad" or "mom" around them, and they get picked on because kids get confused when the said kid talks about "mom" or "dad." I'm just concerned on the future confusion. I obviously can't see into the future, so I can't say it will create confusion, but I'm looking at it from the view of a child.
There is a legitimate, rational reason to prohibit same sex marriage in the United States

From what I can dissect from your opening argument, you are saying we should not legalize gay marriage "because they already have enough rights, as American citizens." This is the sort of argument used to discriminate against African Americans before the Civil Rights movement. Marriage is certainly not a birth given right, but to deprive a group of people from laws that provide benefits, rights, and privileges (1,138 of which are attached to marriage) without a legitimate, rational reason violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Constitution of the United States applies to all citizens. Homosexuals are not imposing their view on you, they are simply trying to receive equal access to the laws attached to marriage. Saying the government should not be involved in marriage either means that no government benefits should come with marriage or that the government should not determine who can get married. The only issue regarding sexuality that equally needs addressing is the protection of homosexuals, bisexuals, transgender persons, pansexuals, asexuals, and other disenfranchised groups from being fired for their sexuality. Lots of states allow for companies to fire individuals based on their sexuality and gender identity as if it were a precursor to determine someone's capacity to be successful in a profession. These issues cannot be ignored because a large portion of our country is facing discrimination based on the way they were born. This intolerance is not accepted in regards to race and ethnicity and; therefore, should not accepted for those who are not heterosexual or cisgender. Focusing on marriage issues only causes discord and unhappiness when people are consistently restricted from the institution. Still, homosexuals across the country are fighting for marriage equality and are having rather significant success. If you want to get into the history of marriage, you should recognize that interracial marriage was not legalized in all fifty states until 1967. We had gotten along "just fine" without interracial marriage until 1967. Do you propose we reinstate that policy on the grounds that interracial couples have enough natural rights as American citizens? In closing, and most importantly, banning homosexual marriage because "they already have enough rights" is not legitimate, nor rational. Replace the word "homosexuality" with "African Americans" or "the elderly" and you should understand why. If it is not a legitimate, rational reason for race, age, or any other natural quality, the argument is not rational or legitimate when applied to homosexuality. I hope you put forward a better argument in the next round.
There is a legitimate, rational reason to prohibit same sex marriage in the United States

I accept the challenge. While it is true that homosexuals aren't really any different than heterosexuals, I don't think we should give them the right to marriage, because they already have enough rights, as American citizens. Just because they love the same sex doesn't repress their rights as naturally born American citizens. I'm not even basing my argument off of religious purposes. I'm basing my argument as the average Joe. I may not agree with the homosexuals at times, but I'm not going to impose my views on them, either. And I would hope that their views won't impose on me. The government shouldn't be involved in this, and I think we have much more important things to take care of than legalizing marriage for same-sex couples, especially since the base of the marriage agenda is mainly about money. Benefits, banks, et cetera, et cetera. The happiest homosexuals I know are the ones who don't care about the whole marriage issue; they're happy as is with their partner as they are now. Focusing on marriage issues would only cause discord and unhappiness. Besides, historically, there have always been homosexuals. But the world got on just fine without same-sex marriage.
There is a legitimate, rational reason to prohibit same sex marriage in the United States

Although more than half the states in the United States prohibit homosexual marriage, I disagree that they have a legitimate, rational reason to do so. Pro will have to propose a legitimate, rational reason to prohibit same sex marriage. *DISCLAIMER* Leviticus 18:22 and all other passages from scripture may not be used as legitimate or rational argument. Tautological arguments will not be accepted as rational or legitimate. The purpose of this debate is to find legal or social arguments that show legalizing same sex marriage is irrational. Remember, that what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Debate is 4 rounds: 1. Acceptance and brief opening argument. 2. Short rebuttal to opponent's opening argument and an elaboration on your position. 3. Rebuttals to the elaborated argument, new information can be stated if you wish. 4. Closing statements, no new information. ------------ My opening argument: There is no rational reason to prohibit same sex marriage in the United States. By prohibiting the rights of homosexuals to get married by the same standard as heterosexual couples, homosexuals are be denied the 1,138 statutory provisions, including benefits, rights, and privileges, that are attached to being married. The purpose of marriage in the United States is not procreative. In the United States, marriage is not an institution of love. The "nuclear family" is an outdated model of the typical American family. All forms of sexuality should be respected equally. Homosexuality is not an illness, disease, or disorder.
religion causes problems

God is omnipotent. God is also omnipresent. God is omnipresent which means God lacks the ability to leave a room. If God lacks the ability to leave a room then God doesn't have all powers (omnipotent) and if God is not omnipotent then God, isn't God. Let's say for a second that God isn't omnipresent, and God is omnipotent then that'd make sense. Right? No, because if God has every power, God would be able to create an object that cannot be lifted up, then God cannot lift it. Therefore God cannot be omnipotent, therefore God is not God. But okay, lets say God can lift this object, because God can do anything and everything, then God cannot create an object that cannot be lifted because God can lift it. Therefore God is not omnipotent and if God isn't omnipotent, then God isn't God. Now lets say God isn't omnipotent but God is omnipresent then, other than the fact that God cannot be God without being omnipotent, God would be a proton, a neutron, an electron, God would be a quark and a gluon. God would be all these things. But being all those things just makes God everything. God would have no ability to change what happens, God would lack the ability to see, smell, hear and sense, but, God would affect everyone's lives without being able to do anything, Being moved by others, but God would be everywhere. However, saying that God is what makes up an atom doesn't cover it. If God is everywhere, God should be in a vacuum, but there is nothing in a vacuum and without being omnipotent God cannot be in a vacuum. Therefore God cannot be omnipresent and if God is not omnipresent, then God is not God.
religion causes problems

Gays:What you have said is just one persons interpretation of the bible. Those who favour religion would agree with you however many people perceive it as an insult and many Christians and religious people I know have said that homophobic acts are wrong. Therefore this reiterates the fact that the Bible and Christianity itself is against gays. Also you say the Old Testament has been dramatically altered however those were the words of God and, correct me if I am wrong, the word of God is absolute. Therefore how can God possibly love everyone like every one says he does if he has given the word to stone gays...unless your telling me that the Bible is a contradictory pile of crap that changes according to the change of morals because that's what I think.Slavery:I'm sorry....you quoted "slavery in biblical times was very different from the slavery that was practised in the past few centuries". Firstly I would like you to use the phrase "historical times" because to me biblical times never existed. Secondly, how can you even say that slavery was different during those times, slavery is slavery, there is no good slavery, it's just completely wrong and unjust discriminating against one whose social status in life is lower than yours. The only variation slavery would have from historical times to present day is the methods used to make the slave obey you. In historical times slavery punishment was far more brutal.Orlando attack: Quote " Another witness said Mateen used the Grindr app and Adam4Adam website to communicate with gay men online, and had posted pictures of himself on both sites.[88] A third witness said Mateen would try to pick up men at the nightclub."The guy was clearly messed up." I am pretty sure that is a big homophobic comment here....you have just said that the guy did a bunch of gay stuff and that he is messed up for it. This validates that religious people like you are homophobic and it's not just the people this time, it's the religion itself too.I do not dispute that religion is MAYBE TRYING to encourage peace and prosperity however it is doing the complete opposite, it is creating more trouble than good as a result of a variation in ideologies. Religion is causing conflict as a result of desiring people to follow it. This whole debate is just proof that religion stirs conflict within people as you are trying to prove to me that religion is peaceful. That is what Islamic state are doing (in their eyes)....trying to prove that their religion is the path to peace however by doing so they are the ones causing devastation. Therefore religion has and always will cause problems!
religion causes problems

Ok....you say that religion is beautiful and that it isn't the cause of the worlds problems, however allow me to remind that the bible is the most contradicting rubish I have heard. FACT: In the Old Testament the bible thinks it's ok to enslave others. FACT: In the Old Testament the bible also says that it's ok to stone gays. These are vial acts that clearly go against basic human rights and ones Liberty. By the way.....are you by any chance homophobic? I would love to know what would happen if a Christian turned out to be gay. Anyway to refer back to my point these statements made by the bible have caused discrimination and problems through the whole our time on Earth. Look at the slave trade, look at the recent Orlando attacks. These happened because one person decided to write down that gays should be stoned. Another example would be Hitlers reign, massacring about 6 million Jews. The bible also had a clear impact on this stating that Jesus will cast them off forever. As a result of many people being religious during this time they followed every word of the bible and as such this had a big influence on our the world perceived Jews. WAKE UP MAN, DON'T U THINK GOD WOULD HAVE DONE SOMETHING BY NOW IF HE LOVED US!!!!
religion causes problems

What religion does is encourage peace. We can't blame ones religion for the problems caused by the people themselves, In fact it's about ones mentality. I believe that irrespective of ones religion, they'd always do what they feel is right, not only according to their religion but other aspects as well. It's all about their mentality.Religion is beautiful, it has morals that help one's journey in life. Whether it be Christianity, Islam and Buddhism. It is the people who cause division by wrongly interpreting religion NOT RELIGION ITSELF...
If gays couldve openly served in WW2, Saving Private Ryan wouldve been at least 1.37 hours shorter

This is far fetched even for you Bench. 1. First off, you assume the entire rest of the movie is dedicated to finding Ryan; a lot of the movie is developement and plot leading up to that so the amount of time taken off wouldn't be that much.2. If you want to get technical, that is not Matt Damon; that is Private Ryan. So not as famous.3. Gay guys would constantly be complaining about their broken nails and how drab their uniforms are which is so not fabulous. They would get tired and take breaks so they could gossip about what that one soldier did a week ago. This would distract them from the mission therefore meaning the movie would actually be longer4. There is still no way that they would take exactly that amount of time.My opponent specifcally says 1.37 hours shorter. Well with my obviously logical arguments, the movie would have been at least 1.38 hours longer. Even if somehow my logic was flawed, there is no way Pro's timing is perfect and he has not shown why it is. Thanks :D
If gays couldve openly served in WW2, Saving Private Ryan wouldve been at least 1.37 hours shorter

The battle of Omaha at the start of the movie lasts 27 minutes. After the battle, a group of soldiers led by Tom Hanks are tasked to finding Private Ryan, who is played by Matt Damon. If openly gay men were allowed to serve in WWII and in D-Day, then there would have been gay men in Tom Hank's company who are tasked with finding Private Ryan, aka Matt Damon. If you take away the opening battle scene at Omaha beach on D-Day, the rest of the movie lasts 2 hours and 22 minutes. We all know fairly well though that there is no way in hell it would take a group of gay guys in France more then an hour to find Matt Damon, also in France. So when we subtract 1 hour from the movie minus the opening battle scene: we are left with 1 hour and 22 minutes = 1.37 hours.It can therefore be concluded that Saving Private Ryan would be 1.37 hours shorter if gays had served in WWII because there is no way in hell it would take a group of gay guys in France longer then an hour to find Matt Damon.:D
If gays couldve openly served in WW2, Saving Private Ryan wouldve been at least 1.37 hours shorter

The full resolution is Resolved: If gays could have openly served in WW2, "Saving Private Ryan" would have been at least 1.37 hours shorter. I am pro this resolution, and will argue that if gays could have openly served for the allied forces in WW2 and allowed to serve in the forces that landed in Normandy on D-Day, then the movie 'Saving Private Ryan' would have been at least 1.37 hours shorter. The movie is currently 2 Hours and 49 minutes long, about 170 minutes . http://wiki.answers.com...
Roblox vs Minecraft

-First off, accessories do not just randomly disappear in Roblox. The forum you posted in Roblox went all the way back to 2008. It might have been a problem then, but now after 9 years I'm sure Roblox would've fixed it by now. I've been playing roblox recently and yet what you have described has never happened to me Actually, It happens to me and my friend a couple times a week. They obviously didn’t fix that. -"First of all, the graphics in minecraft fit together much better than the graphics in Roblox. Why do you play as a freaking lego minifigure? I mean, you have a round head and a square body". First of all, the whole entire Minecraft world is composed of nothing but 64-bit blocks. A game made out of nothing but pure blocks is fun and retro style. A game where you build with blocks and a circle is thrown in here and there is redundant. -Second of all, Roblox does not have an "ultra strict" filtering system. The filtering system works based on the age you put on your account. So if you put your were maybe 10 or 11, then you'd probably get a bunch of idiotic filters just as you described. But this can easily be avoided by putting your age as around 30/40. I’m fourteen. Why should I have to say I’m thirty or forty to say “Sh!t” or “Idiot?” That also brings the fact that grown men and pedophiles are playing with little kids. Also, Like I said, they banned me for mentioning the game Minecraft. And yes, I did say it in the actual game chat in the actual game itself. Your most likely just trying to spout propaganda so that you can try and make your points seem more valid. Here’s a quick tip: Don’t talk like that in a debate. It makes you look like a douchebag. Also, It isn’t ‘Propaganda.’ Roblox for Phones I can’t sprint, too much lag, takes up tons of space… OD’s Tons of online daters and guys asking me for my d!ck. Ew. I’m a dude, you know. (DID I MENTION TROLLS EVERYWHERE?!?! Many more than Minecraft!) (This is the only game i was ever hacked in. Not once in minecraft.) UPDATES Roblox: Oooh! They added some hats and quicker sprinting. That makes this game a whole new experience! *sarcasm* Minecraft: New Skins?! New Mobs?! New Blocks?! Fixed Bugs?! Less Lag?! That makes this game a whole new experience!
Roblox vs Minecraft

Ok here are some of my counter arguments to what "NecroKid" has said about Roblox. -First off, accessories do not just randomly disappear in Roblox. The forum you posted in Roblox went all the way back to 2008. It might have been a problem then, but now after 9 years I'm sure Roblox would've fixed it by now. I've been playing roblox recently and yet what you have described has never happened to me -"First of all, the graphics in minecraft fit together much better than the graphics in Roblox. Why do you play as a freaking lego minifigure? I mean, you have a round head and a square body". First of all, the whole entire Minecraft world is composed of nothing but 64-bit blocks. -Second of all, Roblox does not have an "ultra strict" filtering system. The filtering system works based on the age you put on your account. So if you put your were maybe 10 or 11, then you'd probably get a bunch of idiotic filters just as you described. But this can easily be avoided by putting your age as around 30/40. -You can't get banned for "little to no reason." I would say the its the other way around. I've seen people literally say curse words and even hint/say their own sexual innuendos but they still weren't banned even though they may or may not have been reported. I've myself said that one of the games I was in was super bad and that the design, scripting, and everything in general had little to no effort put in but I still never got banned ever. And yes, I did say it in the actual game chat in the actual game itself. Your most likely just trying to spout propaganda so that you can try and make your points seem more valid. -The only valid point that you actually constructed in your argument was that you could play Minecraft ofline. That is actually a pretty valid point I will admit. But then again, your hopefully/most of the time going to have internet access in your house so you should still be able to play Roblox anyways. -Anyways, that's about all of my counter arguments done for this round. In the next round I will be stating all of the reasons why I think Roblox is a better game. Good Luck!