BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
State's should have the right to impose gay marriage not the feds

Minorities are far more often to benefit from the state government instead of the federal government since the majority of America is what elects the politicians that run our country. The federal government is one entity that only makes one decision. When it comes to civil rights issues this could anger many people. Texas can make a decision to benefit the people that live their, while New York can benefit their people. These two states have two very different ideologies. What if the federal government decided to do away with gay marriage altogether. The people of New York will still be protected by their state laws. That's why I think states should have control of this issue, because if you give the federal government the power over this then they could take it away. The right way to legalize gay marriage without any opposition is to let the states enforce it on their own. Look at the world today. The federal government abolished segregation yet African Americans continued to face discrimination. It is better to let things happen gradually that way they will last forever with little or no opposition. Also you accused me of advocating segregation. I never mentioned anything about where someone could live. The word segregation means to separate where people can go. You might want to check your vocabulary. See the definition of segregation at http://dictionary.reference.com... .
State's should have the right to impose gay marriage not the feds

I will push my arguments since they are unrefuted and I will respond to my opponents statement:"Since when has the federal government ever controlled a states marriage policy."for as long as they have offered deductions on federal taxes for marriage. It isnt about at what level a mandate is enforced, it only matters that the mandate is made, and it will only be made federally."I understand that this is a big civil rights issue, but the problem is no one looks out for the Christians who aren't comfortable with living with gay marriage in their community."What you are advocating for is simply segregation, because I dont like you, you cannot live near me. This is fallacious and doesn't actually show warranty for state action over federal."At constitutioncenter.org it clearly states that states have always controlled the marriage policy."where, cite it, and show me why this source is superior to the two I have provided." If we allow the states to act on their own it will help the majority."This shows minorities will not be benefited and thus left out, a government isn't here to represent the majority, its here for every individual."For instance New York will probably allow gay marriage to support the majority. Texas probably won't allow it because it will offend the Christians that live their. It doesn't make any since to force a law on a group of people who do not wish to follow it."This is your fatal flaw, you are saying, if the majority wants to deny a right they can, simply because we wouldn't want to force it upon them, EX: Women shouldn't have an amendment allowing them to vote, let the states decide, we wouldn't want to force people to let them vote." If we let gay rights slowly become passed in each state it will prevent people from complaining about it."This is an ineffective and is not guaranteed to allow individuals their rights.AT THIS POINT MY OPPONENT HAS NOT FULFILLED THE BOP
State's should have the right to impose gay marriage not the feds

Since when has the federal government ever controlled a states marriage policy. I understand that this is a big civil rights issue, but the problem is no one looks out for the Christians who aren't comfortable with living with gay marriage in their community. At constitutioncenter.org it clearly states that states have always controlled the marriage policy. If we allow the states to act on their own it will help the majority. For instance New York will probably allow gay marriage to support the majority. Texas probably won't allow it because it will offend the Christians that live their. It doesn't make any since to force a law on a group of people who do not wish to follow it. If we let gay rights slowly become passed in each state it will prevent people from complaining about it.
State's should have the right to impose gay marriage not the feds

Alright i will use the following arguments to refute the resolution: - - Constitutionality - -My first contention is that through the constitution the federal government is given the power to impose these laws not states."Under the Constitution, powers reserved to the national government include:Print money (bills and coins)Declare warEstablish an army and navyEnter into treaties with foreign governmentsRegulate commerce between states and international tradeEstablish post offices and issue postageMake laws necessary to enforce the Constitutionhttp://usgovinfo.about.com...;Because they have the power to enforce the constitution and civil rights are guaranteed through the constitution we see that the federal government are the ones who would be responsible for these laws. - - Relying on states can hinder growth - -In the past when civil rights are in question we see that states that disagree with the right oppose it and do not protect it. For example, African americans were treated poorly and less protected in states that did not believe they had rights. Women were not allowed to vote is some states when they could in others, if we rely on states for development we will still see people deprived of their rights. (http://civilrights.findlaw.com...) - - Neglecting this issue is not a choice - -You cannot ignore civil rights issues, this is another reason why federal government is superior, because in our republic we see the federal government able to swiftly effect all states. - - BOP - -Because my opponent is pro he must show State's should have the right to impose gay marriage not the feds, thus he must show the superiority of state over federal government in relations to civil rights.
I am kohai

Rather than go into a long list of rebuttals, I'd like to close this debate with a few thoughts.In a debate, Burden of Proof is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt (not the shadow of doubt, as in a court case) that the resolution is true. In reality, I cannot prove that GMDebater is Kohai, and GMDebater cannot prove that he is not Kohai. This is a limitation of the anonynimity of the internet. So in this debate we are debating on what is or is not likely, and which situation is more likely.A few closing comments before I pose my final question:"Correct, however your aruments are entierly circumstansial. Circumstansial arguments really don't go well in a court." - We are not in a court. When arguing what is more likely, circumstansial evidence can go a long way in establishing probability."I have verified my ID with my cell-pone on THIS account." - Two thoughts. How do we know you have done this? Also, Kohai has managed to get past this in the past, we have seen this by the fact that he has voted on his own debate in the past."Most of what I know is from talking to MA and looking at his profile." - This is certainly convinient, and seems like a hail mary play to try to create a reason for the debating style to be so similar."Really, WHO CARES unless I'm violating the rules of DDO!" - Although not conclusive, this seems to be acknowleging the multiple account issue. Why even bring this up if the rule violation in question is not being breached.I will not urge my readers to vote a particular way. Rather I will end with a question? Which is the most likely situation: Two males from the same 12.5 sq mile area containing roughly 8000 males, with extremely similar debating styles, manurisms, debating topics, and weaknesses randomly manage to end up on the same website and challenge the same persons to debate.OrOne person who has a habbit of creating multiple accounts to hide his identity any time he begins to develop a losing record, created a second account after begining to develop a losing record?Well kind reader which is more likely?
I am kohai

RRRRC1) It proves that you both make the same mistake, using essentially the same manurisism, and behave incredibly similar in the way you debate. Rebuttal: So does everyone that makes the same mistakes the same person? RRRRC2) You have found a style of debate you like when you have only had a handful of debates? And that style happens to be identical to someone in your home town of 8000 males? Who makes the same mistakes using the same manurisms and behaves very similarly? Rebuttal: Well, I did look through several debates and found that this style was cleanest. I may try some new styles in the future--but so what. 8000 males and DDO has 25000+ members. Do you really think that it isn't logical for the same city to have a couple representatives on DDO. RRRRC) Everyone does do that. .. but not everyone who does do that makes those mistakes, with the same manurisms, and behaves very similarly, and is from the same home town of 8000 males. Rebuttal: You have no proof of that. Furthermore, how do you know I'm from Aberdeen? Perhaps I just posted it up there to hide my true city. .. right? RRRRC4) My identity is not an issue in the debate. Yours is. It is entierly possible that the girl you see pictured on aschwamb's profile is indeed a fake picture and that her and I are one and the same. However, that means nothing. However, Her and I do not make the same mitakes, using the same manurisms, behaving in the same way, with the same style of debate, and debate the same topics. Rebuttal: Correct, however your arguments are entirely circumstansial. Circumstansial arguments really don't go well in a court. Finally, the prohibition against multiple accounts is monitored by mandating an identity verification by means of cellular telephone. And I have verified my ID with my cell-phone on THIS account. Secondly, you seem to know a lot about Kohai's other accounts for not being him. Most of what I know is from talking to MA and looking at his profile. I think any logical reader can clearly see that I have put together a rather compelling case to show that you are indeed Kohai. I think any logical reader can see that your case is circumstansial. I urge voters to vote con if there is any shadow of doubt that I am kohai. Thaddeus asked a good question, " if he has stopped using his other accounts to vote bomb, should we really care? Despite the occasional. .. er, foolishness, Kohai was pretty cool. " Really, WHO CARES unless I'm violating the rules of DDO!
I am kohai

RRRRC1) It proves that you both make the same mistake, using essentially the same manurisism, and behave incredibly similar in the way you debate.RRRRC2) You have found a style of debate you like when you have only had a handful of debates? And that style happens to be identical to someone in your home town of 8000 males? Who makes the same mistakes using the same manurisms and behaves very similarly?RRRRC) Everyone does do that... but not everyone who does do that makes those mistakes, with the same manurisms, and behaves very similarly, and is from the same home town of 8000 males.RRRRC4) My identity is not an issue in the debate. Yours is. It is entierly possible that the girl you see pictured on aschwamb's profile is indeed a fake picture and that her and I are one and the same. However, that means nothing. However, Her and I do not make the same mitakes, using the same manurisms, behaving in the same way, with the same style of debate, and debate the same topics.Finally, the prohibition against multiple accounts is monitored by mandating an identity verification by means of cellular telephone.Secondly, you seem to know a lot about Kohai's other accounts for not being him.I think any logical reader can clearly see that I have put together a rather compelling case to show that you are indeed Kohai.
I am kohai

RRRC1) Again, what does that prove other than the fact that we are newer debaters?RRRC2) Again, what does that prove other than the fact that I have found a style of debates that I like?RRRC3) So...again, doesn't everyone do that once in a while?RRRC4) My opponent claims that they do know each other. How do I know that isn't really you and hiding away to vote for yoruself? Anyway, how do I know that she is your girlfriend?And finally the TOS clearly states that you aren't allowed multiple accounts (I wish someone would tell this "kohai" that!). Therefore, there must be a way of enforcing that rule. The only logical way to do it is by ip.Secondly my opponent claims that kohai evaded it before. What if DDO ignored it because kohai closed his accounts before creating new ones.Oh, and by the way, I do agree that this kohai should be banned.
I am kohai

RRC1) I am not just claiming that you write poor resolutions, you write poor resolutions in the same way that Kohai does.RRC2) Your debating style shows striking similarity to Kohai, including similar formatting, similar structure/rules, and similar phrasing.RRC3) My opponent has shown to quickly read and misunderstand various aspects of the debate, just as Kohai does. RRC3 has to do with the behavioral commonality of messaging a user through the profile comments instead of an actual message.RRC4) First of all, It is South Hamilton, again my opponent demonstrates his identiy by making simple mistakes, as Kohai is wont to do.. Second of all, aschwamb is my girlfriend and goes to the same school as I do. If you were to find someone claiming to be the same age, gender, has the same debating style, argues similar debate perspectives, and also matched me in the same ways I have shown you to match Kohai... you might have something.Finally, Kohai has made multiple accounts before with no issues with the IPChecker... I'm not even sure what the IPChecker my opponent has refered to is. Perhaps he can elightenme about this IPchecker.
I am kohai

RC1) My opponent claims that I am the same person as kohai because I have written poor resolutions. However, this is not unusual with new debaters like myself. (and apparently, kohai is also a new debater.)I would also point out that what does the poor resolution argument prove? There are a lot of poor resolutions on DDO. Is everyone who has poor resolutions the same as kohai?RC2) My opponent points out that we have a similar style of debate. Personally, I like to open up with syllogisms. Is everyone that opens up with a similar style of debating the same as kohai?Anyway, I would also like to point out that all what that proves is that I have found a structure and style of debating that fits my personal interest. My opponent points out that we both "attack" the Bible. While this may be true, what does that prove? All that proves is that we share a common belief. RC3) My opponent points out that we are both in the same geographic region. So what!According to this page, 3 people (including myself) are in the Aberdeen proving ground area http://www.debate.org...My opponent is claiming to be from South Hamption, Massachusetts. debate.org/ReformedArsenalHowever, there are two people (including my opponnt) from South Hamptionhttp://www.debate.org...Now, according to the same site that my opponent cited, South Hamption has a low population--a MUCH lower population than Aberdeen http://www.city-data.com...What's more likely, ReformedArsenal and aschwamb are the same or that they just happen to be from the same region?I will also point out that my opponent stated that we're roughtly the same age. MA is 17 http://www.debate.org... at least claims to be. I am claiming to be 18, what does that prove? Is everyone in the 17-18 age group kohai?Final StatmentsDo you really, in all honesty, think that the DDO's ip check will not detect that I, GMDebater,=Kohai?Back to you.
The parliament should have a representative from teenage group.

What's one teenager going to do to change anything? It's not like one teenager could possibly represent all teenagers. Plus, teenagers are too young to know what's good for themselves. That's why they need their parents, especially a dad to smack 'em into shape. Teenagers only think they know what's good for them when they're mating like rats and snorting and injecting all sorts of drugs. If anything teenagers need less representation and need to be put in their place!
christus victor model of atonement is better than substitutionary

You know what I love? I love the way that you try and belittle and talk down everything . Some issues in the Old Testament? You ignore everything I have said. I point out that sub view would mean God is not a hypocrite and a cheat. Love your enemy, but still kill them? If you love your enemy, then that would make them a friend. If you hurt your friend, that is betrayal. Jesus has surely has enough betrayal by now. The sub theory means that God may ask people to follow his rules, but it also means that he will follow them too, as an equal with his followers. He does not smite and lay waste while telling others thou shalt not kill. And this means that he acknowledges that in the past, he has broken the rules that he set for his people. The second part of the bible is the New Testament to his repentance and atonement. A newer, more forgiving and loving God is born from this. But just saying love thine enemy? That conquers death? Don't make me laugh. Love has not conquered death. Neither has forgiveness. You cannot deny the demise that spreads worldwide by just sitting in church asking people to forgive. That does not eliminate death, a process as natural and infinite as God himself. What would god do when people forgave? Fire Azrael, his chief Angel of Death? No. God says in CV theory (or only part of it, does that mean the title should be "a specfic bit of christus victor model of atonement is better than substitutionary"?) love thine enemy, and every day, Christians pray for forgiveness to God. Do you see the same conclusion that I see to this? God sees the people of Earth as enemies, and when his son returns, he will judge the living and the dead. I suppose if he kills everyone, then no one can die anymore. Is that how he intends to conquer death? By outright then and there deciding who is to enter the afterlife. And as Judge, he stands above us. As a clear superior. I, and I am sure others stand with me that a God that has atoned for his crimes has more of an appeal than one who just says, oh I don't need to apologize, you need to forgive your enemy (so forgive me without my apology), and acknowledges that while perfection is a goal all strive for, none may obtain it, a goal as distant as the heavens. Sub view and CV disagree on the portrayal of God. I know that you do not fully support CV theory, as you will only accept one part of the theory, and reject the majority. If even you ditch half your theory, then you must be admitting the flaws of it. Sub theory atones for its flaws, and for this reason, I find it the better theory to follow.
christus victor model of atonement is better than substitutionary

even if you could show that God committed sins, what point is there in bringing it up in this debate? i could go into how it's probably not sins you are seeing, but this point is so off it's not really worth getting into it. as i said in the comments section, you are focusing too much on some of the theories of CV, like bargaining with the devil or bribing the devil etc. i gave my best view in the comment section on the theory behind CV. CV is the best in love thine own enemy view,cause it is love and forgiveness that conquers death, and Jesus chose to let people kill him than to fight back. sub view has to get into legalities and pointless deaths and appeasing God's wrath before forgiveness can be given... worst on loving thine own enemies. your response against the good news point doesn't really follow. the old testament has some issues in it, therefore it's not good news, therefore sub view beats out CV? i can concede the OT has some issues in it, but it doesn't have anything to do with which atonement theory is best. i could see some tenuous arguments trying to branch off from what you said, but you need to make yoru own points.
christus victor model of atonement is better than substitutionary

It does not matter if few consider God morally imperfect. Since we're going on Scripture here, then I could pull up a list of times when God violated his own 7 deadly sins. But in sub view, it's also proof that God does not have double standards. CV view seems to violate Jesus' own love thine enemy view, as God lies to the Devil, and oh yeah, on the topic of the Devil trade, you said that in Sub view, it was a legal requirement? But CV view is also known as the Ransom Theory, as the Devil was holding Humanity hostage due to Adam and Eve's corruption, and God traded Jesus to the Devil, knowing that Jesus would not die, instead returning to Heaven and cheating the Devil. Morally wrong actions towards bad people are still morally wrong actions, or are you still saying we should murder murderers? Regardless, the debate's topic is which is better, but you suggested that it is more about which is more in line with the "good news", which I guess is some teaching about Christ? No, more modern religions only take the bible in a figurative context, but your cv view seems to draw from the old testament too. Not a good source of teachings, considering the amount of times God kills people (plus the homophobic laws) and so not a good theory for this purpose. Oh yeah, some rule about multiple debates with the same person stopped me from accepting your other debate, but once this one is finished I will. Awaiting your response, Duncan.
christus victor model of atonement is better than substitutionary

i'm not trying to argue the substutition view has no merit. all your points about willingness to die, to let a son die, are all greatly respected. it is decently defended biblically and rational. i'm trying to argue, that early church beliefs should give deference to CV, and that CV seems more in line with the good news as orginally understood, and it should be viewed that way still. is it really better to say that Jesus' death was the only way to pay the price of a legal requiremet? what was actually accomplshed? and the bible says innocent people should not be held accountable for other's sins, so i doubt others could take the punishment. a pointless death to satisfy a technical requirement just does not seem what a truly loving and forgiving God would do. i'm not sure what you mean 'no one is morally perfect, not even God'. as most accept that God is morally perfect. this doesn't really seem to be much to teh essence of the debate, but it's good debate form I suppose to bring up points that are too off for good argument. i dont see how CV says that Jesus died for nothing. only by dying could he defeat sin. only by dying could he give himself as a sacrifice for God and others. only by dying could he turn the other cheek to his attackers. this point is only to stress the importance/necessity of his sacrice in another way, not that sub view doesn't include the reasoning. as Jesus said, he gave up his life voluntarily, no one made him do it. in fact, he by most standards of christianity would be entitled to self defense, but he choose not to opt into that option, in favor of letting his captures prevail in his life. and favoring not confusing everyone as to whether he was someone who was willing to cheek turn or let things slide or forgive etc. (i do know some question the view that self defense is a christain belief, but i'm making the point, to emphasize the voluntary nature of it)