BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Convince me to become pro

Thank you for accepting my challenge. In the next round, con (as in my opponent) will state their reasoning for being con, and why I should also be against civil unions. I see civil unions as being able to be together when marriage isn't possible, but only when marriage isn't possible. Love should always win against the public's opinion. The Civil union was first created in Vermont, in 2000, to provide some legal protections and responsibilities to gay and lesbian couples at the state level. (Source: http://www.freedomtomarry.org...). Unfortunately, same-sex couples can live together for years as if they were married, but once one of them passes away, their loving partner does not get to stay in the home, or keep anything they have shared together. Persons in same-sex or unmarried relationships are particularly vulnerable to the default laws that determine who can make financial and health care decisions for incapacitated persons and to whom property devolves in the absence of a valid will or revocable trust. Those default laws offer a measure of protection to married couples, but no state other than Massachusetts recognizes or permits marriage between same-sex persons. (Source: http://www.lerchearly.com...)
Convince me to become pro

Okay, as you see this is simply for fun. Here are the rules: try to convice me to become pro something. Take a look at my "big issue" opinions, pick one of my cons or undecideds ("not saying" doesn't count.), then come back here and try to convince me to become pro. Please, do not talk about my religion. Again, this is only for fun. Please use official citations for your statements. The final round will be used as a final conclusion. Pro goes first, be my guest. Now convince me!
Convince me to become pro

Civil unions are the same morally as the idea of "separate but equal" in modern society, they exist to be an alternative to marriages simply because of who they are marrying. We are legally protecting the right to marriage. If people don't allow marriage to exist, they should be punished under the law; having an alternative just because you are afraid of something happening is both irrational (since it won't happen anymore) and not well thought out (you can get ordained, go to a judge, etc for marriage). I am arguing that marriage is the only thing that we should strive for, anything less is an insult to the LGBT community because it is the same as Jim Crow laws that were an insult to African Americans.
Convince me to become pro

Very well. I was stating that until all people can get married without issues such as being refused, I believe that civil unions should be legalized in all 50 US states. A same-sex couple could live together, then however once one is deceased, they cannot keep the things their loved one once owned. Not only is the civil union good for same-sex couples, it also is a good alternative to traditional marriage, there should be many options to agreeing to be together. Under the civil union, a couple is protected from the laws.
Convince me to become pro

I agree that it is unfair to same-sex couples, however, until everything is right in the system, things are made harder for them. We have all heard about Kim Davis, I understand her point of view, as well as the point of view of the couple, Davis is afraid of going to hell, and the poor couple just wanted marriage. Same-sex marriage was supposed to be a settled matter in America -- it's a constitutional right -- but the issue returned to headlines this month after a Kentucky county clerk refused to license those nuptials (Source: http://www.cnn.com...). As we know, same-sex couples are still under a constant struggle of misunderstanding from others. Until people can patch up these cracks, I believe that people within the LBGTQ community need a form of justice, a label that will can them stay together.
Convince me to become pro

The idea of only wanting to have civil unions where gay marriage is not able to be present in and of itself is a flawed concept. Let me explain.After the civil war and the abolishment of slavery, there was a huge amount of "Jim Crow" laws that spread about the nation, all founded around the core concept "seperate but equal" (you have most likely heard of this). The basic idea was that they were going to give white people access to X facilities, and blacks to Y facilities, under the catch that these facilities would be treated equally. But the problem was, even if they were treated equally and maintained equally (as it was promised but never was true), having to differentiate between rights of one person only going to a point simply because of the color of their skin was not a salient distinction (since you are a sociologist, perhaps read Zerubavel's piece on "Grey"), and ultimately was immoral based on what was given at the time. It is only moral, they decided, that whites and blacks should each have equal access to X. The same can be said for gay marriage, in a way. Having to differentiate between two groups of people, gays and straights (the binary which for the purposes of this debate we should enforce), is not a salient ruling principle for classificatory schema. Thus, we should give equal access to the same things to all people, not just something that we consider to be equal; we need to give X to the gay as well as the straight people, not just Y to the gay and X to the straight. I agree that not having protections for gay people is bad, but the main point I was making is that you should ONLY be in favor of gay marriage, because having a different subset that is supposedly equal is comparative to Jim Crow-era laws that promised seperate but equal; the distinctions is not salient enough for us to enforce with the law in mind.
Male child circumcision is as immoral as female child circumcision

As round 3 was forfeited, I will be terse in my closing statements. The recognized authority on pediatric medical care is the American Academy of Pediatrics. As I have quoted them stating: "At this time, there is insufficient data to recommend routine neonatal circumcision." And because the case against male child circumcision based on morality was clearly stated and supported without rebuttal; I urge you to vote Pro thus casting your vote in favor of equal protection under the law and equitable societal morality. Thank you.
Male child circumcision is as immoral as female child circumcision

So, the act of male circumcision is done on young boys, however, it is for their own good. Just take it like this: if a child is suffering from something internal, then he will be forced to take a surgery whether he likes it or not. Because it's for his own good... Now, that's no different to circumsicion on the male. Circumsicion has been proven to reduce the risk of UTI and STDs, it may also reduce the risk of developing cancer on the penis and may reduce the risk of female partners from developing some types of sexually transmitted infections such as Bacterial Vaginosis or Trichomoniasis. About your point 1: Female Genital Mutilation has been outlawed not because of no proper consent, but, because it brings more HARM than good. About your point 2: As I said, there is ALOT of benefit done due to the cause of circumcision. So, if you do, say an eye surgery on a child: "Does it mean that he is denied the right to body integrity?" Good luck on the next round! :)
Male child circumcision is as immoral as female child circumcision

My position: All elective child circumcision is immoral. Foundation: 1. Both acts are done on children. 2. Both acts are done without proper consent from the person the act is performed on. 3. Both acts remove parts of genital anatomy. 4. Both are acts of force perpetrated on an individual incapable of self defense. Point 1) Female circumcision is outlawed in the US. It is seen as genital mutilation and an surgery that is elective. The practice was outlawed because female children are unable to give proper consent to such a procedure, there is no perceived or real medical benefit from doing it, and the practice denies female children the right to body integrity. (1) Point 2) Male circumcision remains legal, thus denying male children the right to body integrity that is granted to female children. I would argue that if female circumcision was outlawed for the reasons illustrated in point 1, it should also be illegal to circumcise male children for the same reasons. If it is immoral to force one child to undergo an elective surgery of the genitalia, then it must also be immoral for all children. The right to body integrity is not a right that can be granted as it is self evident. As such, legislatively protecting that right to only one sex is immoral. (1) . http://www.reproductiverights.org...
Male child circumcision is as immoral as female child circumcision

2nd round is positional argument. 3rd round is rebuttal. 4th round is statement in conclusion. Definitions: 1. Circumcision shall mean the surgical removal of all or part of the clitoris and surgical removal of all or part of the foreskin for reasons other than medical necessity. 2. Morality shall refer to social morality. The same morality that has outlawed female circumcision in the United States of America. Distinct from personal morality. 3. Child shall mean all persons whom are under the age of legal consent. Because age of consent may vary from State to State, we will use the lowest age of consent in the USA; 16 years of age. This is my first debate and I look forward to it. Thank you.
FC Barcelona is better then Manchester United

The proposition has failed to define the motion. Therefore, I shall assume that you are talking about the better overall team-work, skill and wins in all of their history. Now, the propositon say that FC Barcelona has better and more experienced players on their team. I disagree. FC Barcelona's team members are all picked out at a young age, sent to their boarding school (in Barcelona) and taught how to play football in a team, together. It is understandable, therefore, if their team-work appears to be better. They have known each other of more than a decade, of course they'll be able to work together better. Now, lets look at the history of both teams. Barcelona was founded in 1899 by a group of foreigners, a Swiss man from Wintherthur leading them. Manchester was founded 20 years earlier in 1879, making it slightly older and more experienced. Furthermore, FC Barcelona wasn't even founded by the Catalan people. At the end of 2013 it was estimated that Manchester United is worth 3 Billion US Dollars while FC Barcelona is only worth 2.6 Billion US Dollars, making the former the most expensive team in the world and the latter, the third. Furthermore, Manchester United has won several trophies over the years, gradually becoming one of the best teams in the world. Meanwhile, FCB only started to win when Guardiola became the coach. When he left, FCB started losing again. This shows that meanwhile the coach was brilliant, the team was just the tool that he used to become that brilliant. So for these reasons, please oppose the motion. Thank you.
FC Barcelona is better then Manchester United

Once again, my opponent gas failed to respond to my arguments. Therefore, all of my arguments stand and his/hers do not. I don't see the need to add any more arguments and as I have nothing to rebuttal against, I will have to summarize the debate. There isn't much to summarize as there haven't been any points of clash, or even rebuttle. .. So for the arguments stated above, I beg you to oppose the motion. Please vote for the better debater not the better team. Thank you.
Atheist moral judgment on religion have no basis whatsoever.

Thank you for sharing your perspective. I argue against the atheist moral judgment against religion not from a Christian moral superiority standpoint but from one that comes from my own views of the atheist ideology. 1. Many times I find that atheist make claims of a better more just society if religion where to be removed from society as a whole. These statements seem to suggest that the religious moral philosophies are what are keeping society in a worse place than it could be if religion were not to exist. I find such statements to be objectively made seeing as the claims are 'religion object bad for society, No religion objectivity good for society'. 2. Seeing as atheist live in a constantly morally subjective world view, I see that what truly would be determined as good or bad is what the group agrees to be good or bad, I think you suggested something of similar fashion in your argument, As such atheist cannot claim Many, If any, Acts in the religion as bad, Including killing gay people, Seeing as a select group has deemed it moral. 3. So my argument in really comes down to atheist not being philosophically not being consistent. Atheist don't want religions forcing their morality on them because they believe in a subjective world view, But then again claim the wrongness in the beliefs of the religious. I believe the constant thing for an atheist to do would be to not make any judgments at all on the morality of religion, And even morality of the non religious, As they should accept each person action as the result of their individual subjective moral leanings. thank you for your time.
Atheist moral judgment on religion have no basis whatsoever.

Happy to think with you today. Your argument is that no subjective morality can make judgements on Christian Morality because you claim it is objective. Because multiple differing moral systems are created when no objective morality is known to exist, People with certain subjective moralities would judge specific actions of the Christian God as moral, And other moralities would judge the same actions as immoral. Because all of these moralities would be subjective, You claim they are invalid. You make another claim saying that atheists claim that they are correct, Not only stating an opinion. My arguments will be against these claims. My counter-claims are as follows: 1. Christian Morality is not objective, And as such all moral systems are subjective. Even if the Christian God undeniably exists, It does not logically follow that its morality would be objective. 2. Because objective morality either does not exist or is not currently known, All moralities are equally valid, But some are superior to others. The superiority of a moral system can be judged once metrics are agreed upon by all parties. 3. Atheists that are consistent do not state that their opinion or judgement on the Christian God is objectively true. They state that their opinion is based on their reasoned moral system. You can ask what their moral system is and they can analyze it through that system. The argument is then on which moral system is superior, Which can again be determined after metrics are agreed upon. 4. When Christians and Atheists agree upon a set of metrics by which to judge moral systems, The analysis always shows the Christian God and Christian morality to be objectively inferior. If you'd like to supply me a list of metrics by which to judge moralities by, I will prove that Christian morality is subjective in R2, And then I will supply my list and reasoning behind the metrics I choose to analyze moralities by, And will then show how the Christian morality fails these tests in comparison to my, And perhaps other secular moral systems. May your thoughts be clear, -Thoht
Atheist moral judgment on religion have no basis whatsoever.

Atheist should be able to make moral judgments on any religon, No matter how bad, Simply because they have no basis for their morality other than their opinion. Opinions are subjective and as such one atheist can say the Christian God is wrong for doing 'A, B and C' and another athiest can say the Christian God is in the right but neither would be objectively correct. As such any atheist who tries to claim religion is immoral is wrong had no way of knowing what he says is objectively the truth other than his own opinions and subjective moral standings
Jeans should be considered business casual

Welcome to DDO, lolpas. I see this is your first debate, so I hope you have fun. As Pro has not given anything indicating the structure of the debate, I will choose to post my opening arguments in this round. Also, Pro has defined nothing except a “rough definition” of casual (relaxed and unconcerned). I will define some terms that will likely be used by either side.Jeans - “close-fitting trousers made of blue denim or denimlike fabric, having pockets and seams often reinforced with rivets, and worn originally as work pants but now also as casual attire by persons of all ages” (1)Casual - “appropriate for wear or use on informal occasions; not dressy” (1) definition 4Business Casual - “(informal) a style of casual clothing worn by businesspeople at work instead of more formal attire” (1)These terms have been defined and are accepted, as Pro forfeited this right by not defining them in the first round. I will now state my opening arguments.Pro starts out by saying “Jeans are not comfortable to wear, at all.” This, as it stands, is false. I myself enjoy jeans - a good, worn pair can be just as comfortable as a pair of cargo shorts or sweatpants. Levi’s, one of the biggest producers of jeans in the modern world, has an entire page of their website dedicated to men’s jeans, not to mention pages for both women’s and children’s jeans (2). If jeans were as uncomfortable and disliked as Pro has said, Levi’s would not have this page, and would most likely be out of business.Pro goes on to say that “in order to stretch out the elastic” one must “purposefully torture [oneself] several days in a row,” a statement which I find fallacious and possibly offensive. I do not find the process of wearing jeans “torture.” I actually find this process rewarding - once you finally stretch the elastic, jeans are pretty cozy.Pro’s argument has been dismantled for the most part, as he says that they cannot fall under “casual.”BoP is on Pro, as it has been this entire debate. I have successfully proved my point.Sources: www.dictionary.com http://us.levi.com...
Jeans should be considered business casual

Jeans are not comfortable to wear, at all. Unless you purposefully torture yourself several days in a row with the same pair in order to stretch out the elastic just enough that at least you can breathe while sitting, it's no fun at all. Even then, put them through a wash cycle once, and you have to start anew. Now on the basis that casual is roughly defined as relaxed and unconcerned, jeans cannot fall under that definition. Now if jeans cannot be simple casual, it remains the question of where would they be classified? They surely do not fall under formal, or business formal. When examined, there simply is no other place to put them in other than business casual.
Polygamy should be allowed in the United States.

"To many people, possibly a majority, marriage is a religious institution. They believe that the bond they share is spiritual, like God intended for them to be together. I'm not saying religion is right, but I know it's not wrong." You have merely looked at just the Christian belief of marriage and decided that since the majority of people practice it, it must be right and shove that belief on other people. What about people that practice other religions that believe in polygamy? Are you insinuating that all their religion's wrong and yours is right? You yourself said that people "believe" this, so why should everyone to forced to practice this "belief"? Also we must remember a little something called Separation of Church and State. While I believe it's fine to use religion to guide your decision, this is merely a dictation of what it says in the bible clearly violating separation on church and state deeming it unconstitutional. This country was founded on Freedom and as such we should advocate it, not deem it illegal whatever your personal beliefs might be.
Polygamy should be allowed in the United States.

To many people, possibly a majority, marriage is a religious institution. They believe that the bond they share is spiritual, like God intended for them to be together. I'm not saying religion is right, but I know it's not wrong. I know how high the divorce rate is, but a good amount of divorces stem from cheating with another "lover". And as we all know, having multiple lovers is the definition of polygamy. Before all the veiwers make decisions, I want them to realize that polygamy isn't wrong, but it isn't right either...it's a personal choice, but it shouldnt be made legal.
Polygamy should be allowed in the United States.

My opponent argues that there WOULD be massive trust issues in the case of polygamy and also says that marriage is trusting one person. I would like to start off by saying yes there COULD be massive trust issues, but there IS already massive trust issues in marriages today (1 in 2 marriages end in divorce after the first 5 years) so does that mean we should ban those too? My opponent also assumes that there aren't people who can trust more then one person in a relationship. In fact there are many cases where polygamy was practiced peacefully and without problems until the government came in and deemed it as a crime. (See here . http://www.theglobeandmail.com...) My opponents definition of a marriage is between 2 people. This definition is tunnel vision view of marriage. Why can't a marriage be between more then two people? Is it because the bible says so? The Puritans came to this country for religious freedom from the Catholics; right now we are forcing our Christian beliefs against people who practice Polygamy. This is the same reason we got away from Britain, for FREEDOM. This country in founded on Freedom and as I said before, with freedom comes freedom of choice, whether it be picking out what color shirt you want to wear or same many wives you take. Who are you to tell what people do and don't do if it doesn't affect you?
Polygamy should be allowed in the United States.

Thank you for the chance to debate on this topic. Best of luck to you. I don't think that polygamy should be allowed in the United States. There would be a massive trust issue between Husband & Wife or Boyfriend & Girlfriend is there was a law stating that one person could just leave in the middle of the night and go be with his/her other spouse. The backbones of marriage are that you trust this ONE person with your life and you wish to spend the rest of your life with them. This vow cannot be made to two people. One cannot say that they with to be with someone until death do them part when they give the same vow to somebody completely different. I'm not saying it's not possible, but I'm saying there would be great amounts of emotional turmoil between one person and their multiple spouses. It would be almost impossible to keep all these separate lives in check.
Polygamy should be allowed in the United States.

Polygamy - the practice or condition of having more than one spouse, esp. wife, at one time http://dictionary.reference.com... My argument is plain and simple; polygamy should be allowed in the United States. America is based on freedom, and with freedom comes the freedom of choice. You should be allowed to select who you want to marry without the government telling you what you can and can't do with your life.