BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay Marriage should be Illegal

ResolutionGay Marriage should be IllegalBurden of ProofPro will affirm the resolutionCon will oppose the resolutionDebate details4 Rounds8,000 Character limit72 Hours to respond1 Month voting periodNO VIDEO LINKSPROBLEMS ?If you have any problem with the debate please post in the comments section first so we can try to come to an agreement before starting.EXPECTATIONSIt is expected that both parties act in good faith, eg no semantics, no cheap shots.Round 4Round 4 is the last round, no new arguments are to be made in round 4. Only rebuttals, counter arguments of the previous arguments, and summaries.Definitions:Words used in the resolution are what one would find and understand in normal everyday language, in other words no semantic tricks.Opening Comments..... Although the issue of gay marriage has died down a bit, I never had a debate on this topic so I am going to have one now.Contention 1) Freedom is our default We could make lots of things illegal, like for instance the wearing of red hats. But we don't do so, because we operate on the axiom that all things being equal freedom should reign. I doubt that Pro will object to this.Contention 2) You need a good reason to make something IllegalIf Pro agrees with Contention 1, but still wants to make the case that gay marriage should be Illegal, then pro will have to provide good reason for this limitation on freedom. Now rather than try and second guess what Pros reason will be, I will leave it to them to make their case.Conclusion: With freedom our default position, and absent any good reason that gay marriage should be illegal, the resolution is not affirmed.I look forward to Pros opening argument.
Gay Marriage Should be Legalized

Civil Rights First, discrimination is defined as "the practice of unfairly treating a person or group of people differently from other people or groups of people" [1]. Second, there is no right to marry who ever you want. Further, my opponent put right in quotation marks which used in this case shows sarcasm. For example, someone saying Homosexual "marriage" doesn't believe that it is really a marriage just like someone saying "right" to marry doesn't believe it is a right [2]. So, it would only be discrimination if treatment was unfair and there was a civil right denied; However, the treatment is not unfair because traditional marriage is based on the biological fact of only a pair of one man and women can have a child. If this is discrimination then separation of boys and girl sports is too even though boys have different body's which are usually stronger than girls. This is biology no bigotry.2. Declaration of IndependenceFunny my opponent mentions the declaration of independence. It makes for a very ironic source. Firstly, it says these rights are endowed by their creator, God, and every major religion such as Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Christianity all disapprove of Homosexuality. Second, the phrase all men are created equal was inspired by John Locke which believe in something called Tabula Rasa. This means "individuals are born without built-in mental content and that their knowledge comes from experience and perception. Generally proponents of the tabula rasa thesis favour the "nurture" side of the nature versus nurture debate, when it comes to aspects of one's personality, social and emotional behaviour, and intelligence" [3]. However, if my opponent believes people are born with certain dispositions like favorite color, music taste, mental disorders, or sexual preference. Then the idea behinds all men are created equal is wrong. Hopefully, my opponent will not hold a clearly contradictory view.3. Religious Liberty This will be affected no matter what my opponent says because it already has happened. There is a website dedicated to sharing stories of people affected because they didn't agree with homosexuality/homosexual "marriage" [4]. Further, it is not cruel or heartless is a private, devout charity wants to adopt children out to what they believe will be a harmful environment for the child. In fact the only cruel or heartless thing would be to force them to do so. Sources[1] . http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2] . http://grammar.yourdictionary.com...[3] . https://www.princeton.edu...[4] . http://marriageada.org...
Gay Marriage Should be Legalized

Homosexual marriage is a civil right, as I will repeat again. A civil right is an enforceable right or privilege, which if interfered with by another gives rise to an action for injury. Examples of civil rights are freedom of speech, press, and assembly; the right to vote; freedom from involuntary servitude; and the right to equality in public places. Discrimination occurs when the civil rights of an individual are denied or interfered with because of their membership in a particular group or class. Various jurisdictions have enacted statutes to prevent discrimination based on a person's race, sex, religion, age, previous condition of servitude, physical limitation, national origin, and in some instances sexual orientation. I apologize for not explaining, I'd thought the definition would be enough, but you can't read my thoughts. Homosexuals have been discriminated against for centuries, and have been denied the "right" to marry. We must realize that we are talking about people here, not mindless animals. If for centuries heterosexuals had been denied the right to marry, been shunned by society, and discriminated against, and were suddenly accepted by more than half the American public, wouldn't you want the right to marry?In the Declaration of Independence, it says "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." You can say it's unconstitutional to keep people from having equal rights and banning them from the pursuit of happiness. Freedom of conscience and religious liberty would NOT be threatened in the slightest. If I get married, I am not affecting what you believe. I am not affecting you in any way. The Catholic Charities in Boston that refused to place children up for adoption with same sex parents is heartless and cruel towards both the child and potential parents. What they did was prejudicial and, in my opinion, hateful towards homosexuals.I thank my opponent for their statements.Sources:http://www.archives.gov...http://www.law.cornell.edu...
Gay Marriage Should be Legalized

RedefinedFirst, science has never been redefined. Science's job is to explore the natural world. That has always been the definition of science. Also, change the definition of science won't help pollution or global warming any more than redefining doctor will make people healthier. Second, dealing with the Bible. I want my opponent to look up where it says those thing that they mention and read it in context. This will clear a lot of things up.2. Slippery SlopeNow dealing with the slippery slope. It is important to note people in polygamous marriages or incestuous marriages could also "being faithful, respecting each other, and hearing each other out on disagreements. " Which only proves my point that it will lead to further re-definitions.3. Civil RightsMy opponent claims that Homosexual marriage is a civil right; however, they do not explain their reasoning. However, I have explained why it is not like other similar civil rights such as race based discrimination in the 60s. By using the 1964 civil rights act we can see that sexual preference does not meet all, if any, of the requirements.4. Affecting HeterosexualsActually, everyone is affected by Homosexual marriage. First, "Taxpayers, consumers, and businesses would be forced to subsidize homosexual relationships. " "On Dec. 17, 2009, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the cost to the federal government of extending employment benefits to same-sex domestic partners of certain federal employees (making no mention of additional costs such as Social Security and inheritance taxes) would be $596 million in mandatory spending and $302 million in discretionary spending between 2010 and 2019. [1]" Also, "Freedom of conscience and religious liberty would be threatened. " "So, for example, when Catholic Charities in Boston insisted that they would stay true to principle and refuse to place children for adoption with same-sex couples, they were told by the state that they could no longer do adoptions at all. [2]"Sources[1] . http://gaymarriage.procon.org...[2] . http://downloads.frc.org...
Gay Marriage Should be Legalized

"Concluding, marriage should not be redefined because it isn't what marriage was intended for." I'm a liberal, hence, I'm all about change and seeing what happens. I think when you define something as old as marriage, it must be redefined to fit the values of the society practicing it. Science has been changed and redefined countless times, and look where we are now. We still have problems like pollution, global warming, and cancer, but we've come a long way with exploration, technology, and knowledge. Another thing I think should be redefined is the Bible. I know this isn't a religious debate, but the Bible was written by multiple unknown authors and based upon the values of a society that existed 2,000 years ago. I don't think many people support raping someone and giving 50 shekels of silver to the father of the person you raped, and then marrying the person you raped. "If love is all that matters in marriage then other restrictions on marriage like Polygamy bans, Incest prohibitions, Age restrictions should be too since all of them are able to love each other." Love is not all that matters in marriage. When you get married, you have responsibilities to your partner, and your partner has responsibilities to you. These include being faithful, respecting each other, and hearing each other out on disagreements. If love was all that mattered in marriage, we'd be too busy making love instead of doing laundry. "Many supporters of Homosexual marriage claim that it is a civil right, but this isn't true." *A civil right is an enforceable right or privilege, which if interfered with by another gives rise to an action for injury. Examples of civil rights are freedom of speech, press, and assembly; the right to vote; freedom from involuntary servitude; and the right to equality in public places. Discrimination occurs when the civil rights of an individual are denied or interfered with because of their membership in a particular group or class. Various jurisdictions have enacted statutes to prevent discrimination based on a person's race, sex, religion, age, previous condition of servitude, physical limitation, national origin, and in some instances sexual orientation.* Looks like a civil right to me. Some people claim that if we legalize gay marriage, that it will somehow affect heterosexuals. I don't see how, I mean, it won't start WWIII, or make all women men. Gays will just be allowed to marry. *http://www.law.cornell.edu...*
Gay Marriage Should be Legalized

Some people may say that gay marriage is unnatural, but that assumption is false, as homosexuality is found in countless species of animals. http://www.yalescientific.org... This defeats the purpose of marriage being solely to reproduce. Marriage doesn't even exist within animals, unless you count animals that mate for life. I'm sorry for a quick round, I had to do this on the run. I look forward to my opponent's response.
The Walking Dead Vs World War Z

The Walking Dead Gives Us The story of rick, carl, michonne, daryl and the walkers themselves while the movie world war z is basically based off of brad pitt's story during the zombie apocalypse and it is also better because the walking dead offers us horror while World war Z offers us Thriller not horror Meta Critic scores world war z a 63% on 46 reviews from the critics meta critic scores The walking dead a 82 based on 25 reviews from the critics WWW.Metacritic.com'
A Tesla Model 3 around 35000 is possible with 200 miles range

Because I had the opportunity to start the arguments and Con doesn't have the opportunity to answer anymore, I will try to briefly answer only some things. Being profitable can be done in 2 ways:- sell few items with a big margin- sell lots of items with a small marginSo Model 3 will have 1/3th of the margin of Model S, but with 10x production amount Tesla will get more money.Ofcourse in 2020 Tesla will have even less costs on each Model 3 and produce even more cars. In 2017 profit on Model 3 will be very low, but that's the case with every startup of a new product.Some American states indeed restrict Tesla from selling cars. But Tesla is currently already selling fine in Europe and starting in Azia, by 2017 Tesla will be a true global player. These few American states are only a small percent of the market and they will have to change their restrictions sooner or later.Tesla Model 3 should in no way be compared to mini BEV's with low range and hybrids we currently see. I wasn't comparing Model 3 with a BMW i3, but with the conventional ICE engine BMW 3 series (of which a 320i is a good example) and also the C200 is a good comparison.Thanks for the fine debate Con! I found it interesting and I hope other people do too.
A Tesla Model 3 around 35000 is possible with 200 miles range

This is the voting round but I will put on my rebuttals anyways. Perhaps they will build more cars however, while they are still busy upgrading their assembly line, they can't make their car very cheap. The problem is, the money for the factory has to come from somewhere and the most obvious way is through "profit" from selling the vehicles. The popularity issue is that although some people do like the Teslas, buying them could be hard due to the amount of retailers closed (because of legal issues, for some reason it is illegal in quite a lot of US states to sell directly from corporation to customer). People are also less familiar with electric cars and most important of all, since Tesla just started making cars recently, and their first car, the Tesla Roadster being a variant of an already existing car, little people have experience with the vehicles. It's the same reason why a small amount of people buy BYD cars (most people probably don't even know what that is). Tesla still haves some problems with charging time and range decreasing in the cold. The "lack of connection" theory basically means that a lot of people claims the car has no "feel" or that it feels like it is driving itself. Or that it has bad handling. If Tesla does not stay either "sporty", "hi-tech" or luxurious, it will simply fall into the tons of tons of electric cars we have today. EV really isn't anything new and making such a cheap vehicle will make it directly fall into the i3 territory which isn't very preferable as it would always be more fun and less expensive to go with the Fiesta or GTi. That is why the i3 didn't sell a lot. Perhaps you are saying more of a 320i or C200 territory. Even the i3 is made out of mainly carbon fibre and aluminium. Making it out of steel would be a fail as it would make it too heavy and the money saved won't be enough to justify the needed increase in motor power output as well as battery size. What I said was that it costs money to build the gigafactory and in the short term, it would, in fact spark prices as the team has more of it's budget spend on the gigafactories and less on their cars.
A Tesla Model 3 around 35000 is possible with 200 miles range

Mass productionTesla is idd not yet a mass production company, that's why they are spending all their money on growth.They have already spend lots of money on upgrading their assembly line and they will continue to do that.They build the first Model S in 2012, 23000 cars in 2013 and 35000 cars in 2014.They are aiming to build 50% more Model S every year + Model X will start production.Production target for 2015 is 55,000 cars.Production target for 2020 is 500,000 cars.So by 2017 Tesla could produce 100,000 to 150,000 cars.The company and electric cars are not popular?I have no statistics about this and it is ofcourse very subjective.What I can say is that Tesla has not spend money on advertising whatsoever and still can't follow demand.Tesla owners, events and test-drives are enough to get people interested about their cars.Tesla idd did have some problems with the first cars it produced (fast engine replacements), but lately it has been producing more cars while there were less problems in total.Meanwhile lots of magazines are writing very positive reviews of Tesla, ranking it in the top of cars to buy (not top electric car, but top of all cars). Also Tesla service is ranked at the top and Tesla customers are most satisfied with their car. [1]If Tesla and the electric car did have popularity problems, it is changing fast.I'm not sure what you mean with "lack of connection" of the car.You think that Tesla wants to keep the brand connected to luxurious cars. That's not the case, Tesla is founded to convert the whole car industry faster to electric cars by leading the way.Using steel in stead of aluminiumEverything has it's advantages (steel is cheaper) and disadvantages (steel is heavier). I have no idea what the weight difference would be between a Model 3 in steel or aluminium.In Model S the cost price is less important then Model 3, making steel maybe better then aluminium, but I'm not sure.In my argument #2 i just wanted to show a general example of how they could use cheaper materials.Gigafactory benefitsI'm not sure what you are saying with "by 2017 it's benefits will still not be a lot larger than the amount of money needed to build the factories".Ofcourse every battery factory costs money for any manufacturer. The gigafactory will have less costs / KWh because of it's scale and better integration then other factories. Also the gigafactory will put more effort in producing batteries that fit better for an EV (slightly bigger battery cells and small improvements in weight/KWh, durability, ...).References:[1]: http://www.teslamotors.com...
A Tesla Model 3 around 35000 is possible with 200 miles range

First of all, Tesla is not a mass production company and will have to spend a lot of money to upgrade their assembly line. 2, Tesla is not exactly a popular company right now due to various faults of the car and the "lack of connection" of the car. I do not feel any of these and think it is a great brand, however, it seems like my opinions is not very popular. 2017 is quite close. I am not sure that Tesla will want to lower it's brand reputation by producing vehicles that are less luxurious then they already are. If they made a vehicle in steel, they will loss a huge selling point. Also, it will take a much more powerful motor to propel a heavier car which is a great cost compared to simply lowering the weight. Also, electric cars are already stereotyped to be bad at handling, Tesla doesn't want to push that any farther. If it uses steel instead of aluminium, it will need about the same amount of power as the model S as it will also be about the same weight so given your points, 15 percent less energy isn't possible. Maybe the Tesla giga factories will be great but by 2017 it's benefits will still not be a lot larger than the amount of money needed to build the factories. The amount of money needed to build it has to be accounted for in the price of the vehicles.
Nintendo VS. Sony- The final decision. My stance- Nitendo owns all.

Well, I honestly don't feel like running around the internetz to make my case if the other person doesn't show up. I did the same thing to someone else by accident over the weekend, so I guess its just karma. its a 4 round debate, so maybe the opponent will show up again. My point is that Nintendo simply doesn't "own" Sony. They both have strong markets and have been able to profitably coexist for 13 years now.
Nintendo VS. Sony- The final decision. My stance- Nitendo owns all.

The beginning of this debate will more than likely both begin and end with this statement- "Nintendo is better". Please, if you're a Sony fanboy, don't let the basis of your argument be "buT it haz b3tt3R gr@pHixxorz!!!1!1!!1", because, the only things graphics do are visual. Nintendo owns because contrary to popular belief, it does have Mature games as well as the family-oriented ones. Pushing that aside, I have strong reason to believe that Sony is a thief- It's "revolutionary" Sixaxis. Hmm... Motion sensing... Sounds familiar. In fact, almost IDENTICAL to Nintendo's Wii, whose motion sensing was announced long before Playstation 3. Not only are they thieves, they can't be very smart. Here's the story- In the period between SNES and N64, Nintendo and Sony were *gasp* working together. On a project called Playstation. But then sony broke the deal at the last second. Not only was that stupid, but they just ripped the name from their ex-partners without so much as a "thanks". Now to prices- Wii- 250$ PS# 600$ (then cut down because of bad sales). That's about it, but before you post, go to nexgenwars.com to look at the stats. Even Xbox is beating PS3... I challenge you to face me in this debate!
Education in your motherland is better than abroad

The debate could not be removed. It will be continued.1. Safety is not universalPro claims that you feel more calm and safe in your motherland. This is often far from the truth. If you're from Afghanistan or Somalia, not only would you feel safer in every European country, but your education will progress better. If you're a female in these countries, chances are you're better of not even thinking of getting an education. "These days, it takes more than textbooks and pencils to be a schoolgirl in Afghanistan - it also takes tremendous bravery and tenacity." [1] Clearly it is not in everyone's safety interests to be educated in their native lands. 2. Cultural diversity is a normI find Pro's argument on this point weak. In some countries, cultural diversity might not be a very positive thing -- But in Europe, for example, most countries have nothing against students who bring their cultures with them. What's more, if students weren't already prepared for experiencing other cultures (including people, laws, etc.,), I doubt they'd want to study abroad in the first place. In fact, by experiencing other cultures it might motivate you a lot more to study. If you are student of religion, political science, or anything of the like, studying abroad means you open your mind more toward people who are different, and probably gain an insight to their beliefs.3. Cost is not a problemMy opponent brought expenses into the debate. It might be costly to study abroad -- On the other hand, it might be more costly to study in your native land. For example, if you're from Sweden and study as an exchange student in Bosnia, chances are you'd be much more well-off financially. The cost of everyday needs is significantly lower in Bosnia than in Sweden. [2] If you're from Denmark and study abroad, you'd not only benefit from cheaper everyday needs in most other countries, but you'd probably be getting student grants by the state - on top of whatever else you earn through work. [3]Lastly, Pro has offered no substantial arguments. Personal opinions are not facts. If he believes that most students face the horrors he refers to, I look forward to evidence for that.[1] www.unicefusa.org/news/news-from-the-field/feeding-girls-hunger-to.html[2] http://www.numbeo.com...[3] http://www.su.dk...