BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexuals.

i hope they only vote for the arguments, because my position is not politically popular, and i don't think you're responding to my points. You keep repeating that it's natural, and I from the beginning have repeatedly agreed that it's natural. It's genetic. You just keep saying it's genetic. You did say it should be expected to run its course, in the last post. But you didn't say why other than it simply should. That's not an argument. I made an argument… that it's moral to respect a localities automomy when the issue is reasonably disputed. Slavery etc is not reasonably disputed. The fact that the states had the sodomy laws shows they have that potential; that there's nothing inherent in the constitution to say they can't have moral type laws etc. specifically that they can't have sodomy related type laws like gay marriage. As to the argument of fundamental nature of the sodomy. Remember, we're not banning sodomy; we're simply not promoting it by passing the laws….. actually we're not even not promoting it; we're only allowing states to decide. Why can't the states have the autonmy? You haven't responded other than to repeat yourself that it's natural, which I've all along agreed with You say that homosexuality is unvoluntary like those diseases you mention. I agree with that, I always have. You did not respond to the idea that they engage in the sodomy behavior etc voluntarily though. They're not the same then, for that reason and the reasons I said in my last post. You say we don't outlaw lying etc. I agree we don't, and along those lines I've agreed we shouldn't ban sodomy. We shouldn't go around banning sins or otherwise bad things as long as it's not hurting others; it infinges on pepole's right to do bad etc. but, I'm not arguing we ban sodomy, as I've already said. I'm only arguing that peple be given the autonomy to not vote proactively for something they think is sinful or wrong. The real analogy then, is not that we're not banning lying; it's that we're not passing laws that encourage or promote lying; or at any rate rate, respecting the autonomy of a locality to decide whether or not it wants to promote lying or not.
Homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexuals.

i've acknowledged it's a natural phenomonenon. but, that does not mean it's something that should be allowed, because, even if it were something good, it appears to be a genetic deviation, not something that is suppose to be. you give the preusmption that it's actually the normal order, but that's not your presumption to make, and you simply assert it's natural. i agree we should defer to it being natural in my state, because we want to be as equal as possible, and it's not really hurting anyone that bad etc. but, that positive aspect does not outweigh giving other state's their own autonomy. in addition to techincal legal arguments, allowing other localities autonomy on decisions like this is a moral imperitive. it's about respecting other people's laws and ways of life. now, if it were a clear fundamental right like prohibiting slavery, it'd be universal. but it's not the same, as homosexuality is a deviation that a reasonable person could view as not good. as a legal argument, just because many do not have those laws anymore does not mean they can't make them any more. the fact they existed in fact shows that the states at least have a potential to make laws similar it, and in this case exactly like it, or very similar to it like gay marriage and its resultant sodomy etc. banning diseases like you mention is not at all analogous. those people have a disease occurring to them, and it's involuntary. whereas homosexual people engage in their behavoir voluntariarily: and we're not banning gays... and we're not even banning their sodomy behavior in my system. we're simply not creating laws that would promote or encourage what some perceive to be sinnful; in fact we're not even creating the laws, just allowing the potential for them to be made. your analogy could only work if the disease person were arguably abusing themself voluntarily, and we didn't want to make laws promoting it. now, you'd argue it's not abusing one self, but that's not always your decision to make in this situation. it's certainly your perogative in your state to have your say in it.
Homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexuals.

But it is isn't. It's discrimination because as I have clearly outlined the relationship between genetics and homosexuality is quite strong. In fact there was a recent article that scientists were able to turn a fruit fly homosexual and then straight again through gene manipulation (source-http://www.foxnews.com...). So if we accept that homosexuality is something that you're born with then how can we in turn deny them the same rights that heterosexual people enjoy. I don't think that there are any more anti-sodomy laws left in the U.S. Which shows that just because you find something morally repugnant does not mean you can force your morals on others if that said problem does not hurt others, which homosexuality does not. Who has the right to say how things should be? Perhaps homosexuality is a natural reaction to overpopulation, in that way it works with the natural order just as homosexuality reproduces. Some find cursing morally repugnant, by your reasoning we should punish people with Tourette's syndrome because if you don't then you would be encouraging the problem, right?
Ray will get laid before Ethan.

Okay, so I'm, fine with these parameters. Now, as I am CON I must show that this statement that Ray will get laid before me is not a fact. To do this I will go multiple directions in which I will show I could easily get laid before Ray. First way: According to Ray himself, he's broke. I on the other hand have a nice little stockpile of money stored away. This money could serve the purpose (if I so wished) to be used to have sexual intercourse with a professional. In short, I could go out on a street corner, pay $50 and get 15 minutes of good old-fashioned sex from a cheap whore. As Ray has no money, he can't get the sex. In this case I get laid first. Second way: Ray, when asked if he masturbates said definitively "NO! " Now, if I so wished, I could get to know my right hand a little better tonight while Ray is off being chaste and such. To answer the question of whether masturbation is technically getting laid I cite wikipedia. org, saying "Autoeroticism is the practice of stimulating oneself sexually. " This is sexual intercourse, and as he defined getting laid as "to have sexual intercourse with" This is having sexual intercourse with oneself. Third way: Also, Ray could die in a tragic accident any time, making him incapable of getting laid. Fourth way: When asked who Ray would lay he replied, "Hold on, give me a minute" signifying that he is way too picky. As I am not that picky, I have a much broader selection to choose from, making it more likely for me to get laid. To win this debate Ray must show that all of the situations will not prevent him from being laid first.
Ray will get laid before Ethan.

First I'll do some explaining. get laid: 23.Slang: Vulgar. to have sexual intercourse with. (from dictionary.com) Ray = gahbage Ethan = LR4N6FTW4EVA Pro's argument: I (gahbage, Ray) will get laid before Ethan (LR4N6FTW4EVA). But I'll let my opponent state his "arguments" first and then I'll rebut them and provide my own.
Ray will get laid before Ethan.

"1) Ok, so it would be a "surprise hug", then. You can at least show her some affection back. If she happens to want to lay you, it would decrease your chances if you don't show the same amount of affection she's showing you. And if you were truly sexy, you'd be getting more action/affection." I don't see it happening to you. I think that's a point for me. 2) Sure, that only helps me. 3) "I'm still stronger than you in real life, so either it doesn't matter the muscle weight or your statistics are way off (which I'm willing to bet). Also, you didn't want to compare muscles/strength, so unless you can prove it in real life (which i was willing to, but you refused and hurried over to your car, lol), you'll have to drop this point." Strength is relative to the muscle. I walk up hills a lot, daily hikes, as well as the walk from my bus, you bounce balls a lot, (playing b-ball), you may have strong muscles that are used for bouncing balls, I may have strong muscles used for climbing hills. (The difference in our muscle weight probably accounts for this. If one was to look at my thighs, they would see large amounts of muscle, that tips the scale in my favor, although it is not usually included when people refer to strength.) 4) That's a subjective point. that is null. 5) That's speculation, that's null. 6) Cool, that only helps me. 7) I know a different Chris that is well liked, showing that the title of a sitcom does not impact real life. 1. The point isn't null, it merely shows that it is mere speculation that you'll get laid first. 2. It doesn't imply genital to genital, that's your opinion. Unless it specifically limits it to this form, then we must keep it open. Jacking off counts as getting laid. (For this debate.) 3. It shows that it is not definite that you get laid. 4. It shows that you have high standards, you never really showed why it didn't. I don't have to prove anything. You are the one who has to prove that you get laid first, you have admitted that you can't. That means you lose this debate. If you can't hold your burden, you lose. As CON I have no burden.
Ray will get laid before Ethan.

1) Ok, so it would be a "surprise hug", then. You can at least show her some affection back. If she happens to want to lay you, it would decrease your chances if you don't show the same amount of affection she's showing you. And if you were truly sexy, you'd be getting more action/affection. 2) Touche. However, I get more action/affection than you do, making me sexier. In addition, if I would use your arguments from last round, Neither of us can prove this, so I assume you'd consider it null. 3) I'm still stronger than you in real life, so either it doesn't matter the muscle weight or your statistics are way off (which I'm willing to bet). Also, you didn't want to compare muscles/strength, so unless you can prove it in real life (which i was willing to, but you refused and hurried over to your car, lol), you'll have to drop this point. 4) Neither did one of them and I'll admit the other one is really good, but he made the team mainly because of luck (he made an incredibly lucky assist [even he said he didn't do it fully on purpose], and was only present for the second half of the tryouts). Also, I'm alot better now than I was last year. 5) All I'm saying is, it made a bad impression on the people who heard you, decreasing your chances of getting laid. Bad impressions don't help anyone. 6) "Even so, both of these lists are hearsay, and aren't really admissible, unless we could get testimony from all girls that we think may have said the phrase." So this point is null. 7) Actually, I don't know many people who like the Chris I know, either. lol This only further pushes the fact that "Everybody Loves Raymond" is a true statement. Also, If everybody does, in fact, love Raymond on the show, there is no reason why everyone should not love me. Your points: 1. "...each of us has an equal potential in that case." Therefore, the point is null. 2. "Genital contact" implies genital-on-genital contact, just as a "handshake" implies hand-on-hand contact. (The hand is not shaking anything else, nor is the genital contacting anything else.) 3. So if it could happen to you the point is null. 4. It only took a few seconds, and she's more than reasonably tappable. ha "The burden of proof is not on me, it is on you to prove your point. As you just admitted that you couldn't prove it, you can't win this debate." If you admit this: "However for the very reason you state that it is impossible for me to prove my point" Then it is only logical that you admit the second half of the statement: "...you prove that it is impossible, therefore, for you to disprove me." By saying that I have admitted that proving my point was impossible, you say that it is impossible for you to disprove my point. ("...you can't tell if I will not get laid before you.") Judging by this, the following statement is false: "The only reasonable vote is for CON." By admitting the same thing I have, it is just as reasonable to vote PRO. Why vote PRO: 1. My opponent has, so far, not completely refuted all of my points. 2. My opponent's points are either null or false. 3. My opponent accuses me of admitting the same thing that he has.
Ray will get laid before Ethan.

1) I used the term rape as a figure of speech. I meant it as an unasked-for hug while I was in the middle of other activities. The term "too sexy for my pants" was also a figure of speech, showing that in the eyes of many, I am too sexy for my pants. 2) Are you a girl? Do you know if that would disqualify me from getting laid? I hope you aren't. And, as I proved earlier, I am sexy. You on the other hand have not shown any evidence as to why you're sexy. 3) It actually does. Dictionary. com definitions don't mention it, but truly muscular people have heavier muscles, that's why many athletes are considered overweight even though they aren't fat. Size is not a measure of strength anyhow, one could have very little muscle, but they may look like they have huge muscles because they have large fat deposits under them. Besides, you act like you are the only one who exercises. I could list off many activities that are exercise, but to name a few that I do everyday I have walking .3 miles uphill from my bus stop, hauling 50 pound bags of feed animals, and regular organized exercise routines. 4) Two have seen you try out for the school basketball team, and they both called you bad. Besides, you didn't make it on the team. 5) It's not like I say big words everyday. It is not that big a deal that it would keep me from getting laid. 6) "His word is no better than mine. " My word is a little better, I have that debate as evidence of this fact and several others. I could provide initials pretty easily however for nine, and I'm not sure about the tenth and eleventh, and I think its more. Even so, both of these lists are hearsay, and aren't really admissible, unless we could get testimony from all girls that we think may have said the phrase. 7) There is also a show called 'Everybody Hates Chris" that doesn't mean everybody hates Chris though, it only applies to the show. 1. But I could still do it first, making it not definite that you get laid first, each of us has an equal potential in that case. 2. It never says that it has to be between two genitals, it can be with the hand and the genital. The genital simply has to contact something. 3. Yes, it could happen to me, but I'm just showing that it is not set in stone that you get laid first. 4. You should have been able to come up with a reasonably tappable girl in seconds. The burden of proof is not on me, it is on you to prove your point. As you just admitted that you couldn't prove it, you can't win this debate.
Polygamy Should Be Legal

Thank you for this great discussion, Pro.The Government has sufficient interest in banning polygamy. Polygamy raises a man's chance of committing crimes, such as robbery or rape. Polygamy also affects the how many females are able to be married as men would tka eup the number of women available leaving many men without a wife. The remaining men would end up performing riskier behaviors to attempt to gain a partner. Many of the polygamous men would also spend less time bolstering their relationship with their children, because they would spend more time looking for a mate.This will also decrease the power of women and they will become more bargaining tools, than person as they will be sold of to wealthy men. Men will also learn to not respect women as they are growing up in a scoiety where women will recive little respect in front of them. Women will be degraded throughout and sink down in status.Polygamy: Marriage between one man and many women. Is what I will argue, so do not cite me on this part as there are much better sources on this meaning.http://huntergatherer.com...; http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca...; http://marginalrevolution.com...
Polygamy Should Be Legal

As I summarized in the opening, my argument is one of an unobtrusive government, and our right to privacy. If the government has no overriding social concerns, then it should politely stay out of its citizens' personal affairs. The problem is that because marriage is such an ancient and established practice, most people have never tried to properly consider what marriage is in the context of society. Fundamentally, marriage is a type of social contract. Like any contract it has terms and conditions, such as mutual loyalty, housing arrangements, or sexual arrangements, which are agreed to by all parties involved (ideally, though forced marriages still exist). Unfortunately, marriage has become so commonplace that not many people actually consider or deliberate these terms or their consequences explicitly, which usually leads to a lot of problems. People have forgotten that they are free to define these terms for themselves. As a result of marriage becoming the primary social unit, it has become convenient for governments to specifically recognize marriage in order to provide certain administrative benefits and services. These include such things as hospital visitation rights, property management, and tax considerations. However, this raises issues of equality and civil rights by tying these benefits to the institution of marriage, with people becoming dependent on the specific terms of government recognition. This is why we have had to expand the legal recognition of marriage to include interracial and gay marriage. A better, longer-term solution, however, would be to dissociate these legal benefits from marriage, and instead establish them independently. Traditionally, one of the largest (or rather most vocal) oppositions against expanding the definition of marriage has come from religious conservativism. We have seen this before with interracial marriage, then again with gay marriage. Unfortunately for them, none of their arguments actually have any substance beyond "this is bad because we say it is" (or, more accurately, this is bad because we say that some ancient people wrote down that our unknowable deity says it is"). Fortunately, this country runs off of freedom of (and from) religion and separation of church and state, meaning that our government can never and should never use such claims as a basis for law. As a result, people have attempted to provide secular justifications for restricting marriage. Among the most popular of these seem to be the claims that anything other than the standard will somehow be inherently unstable and any children raised in such a household will suffer horribly in some fashion. In nearly all of these cases, however, these assertions have been found to be baseless once actually investigated and quantified with empirical data. In other words, they do not stand up against actual evidence. We have already seen this with interracial and gay marriage, so there is no reason to assume that polygamy or bigamy will be any different without suitable evidence.
Polygamy Should Be Legal

In the wake of the LGBT rights movement, I want to scope out ahead of the civil rights curve a bit. Like gay marriage, I see nothing fundamentally wrong with polygamy, such that it should specifically be prohibited by our government. When you strip away any imposed religious connotation, marriage in a secular society is essentially just a social contract like any other, the terms and conditions of which should be decided solely by the parties involved. I will stipulate, however, that I believe one should be an adult before entering into any binding social contract, marriage or otherwise. If it's a contract between two or more consenting adults, I simply see no suitable justification for governmental interference. The proponent should attempt to argue that the American government has no overriding interest sufficient to warrant a legal ban on polygamy. The opponent should attempt to argue that the American government has some overriding interest sufficient to warrant a legal ban on polygamy.
GED should only be for those who are older and come from another country

ohh, this is just an assignment for you. well now I'm even more certain you wont finish it. the few 'crash and burn' debates I have had in the past where they eventually did come back online months later to tell me why they quit on me, the excuse has always been 'it was just an assignment, when it was over I quite'. well when your assignments due and over if this debate is still going on please have the curtousy to take a 5 min out of your day's to check this site until the debate is in the voting period and enter an argument when you have an argument due. Its just the right and honorable thing to do. anyway, on to the debate. .. .. .. ." did you see me say anything about "old people? no. .. . "Yes you did infact say something about 'old people'. its in the resolution "GED should only be for those who are older and come from another country". 'those who are older' or 'old people' for short. " im just saying that at the end of the day, GED should not be easier than High School is. "actually given the resolution and you being the pro to it your saying that GED's should be witheld as an option for those under a an certain age ('should only be for those who are older' part) with the exeption of immigrants to that rule ('should only be for. .. .. .and come from another country' part). but by this withdrawl in your position you are basically conceading this debate to me, the Con, as you have just agreed with the very case I made last round, that the standards required to get a GED should be raised to the same level as it takes to graduate high school. so the resalution "GED should only be for those who are older and come from another country" has now been negated, no Pro arguments for that resolution have been made while I have made my con arguments to the resolution. Thus I win this debate.
GED should only be for those who are older and come from another country

FYI its not me that cant last only 2 rounds. the people ive had the debates with never write back -_-. plus i put it to 5 rounds, because it is part of an assignment i havemy point is that many find it as an easy way out. and did you see me say anything about "old people? no.... im just saying that at the end of the day, GED should not be easier than High School is. because i have had friends drop out of high school and "graduate" before me. how should that even be fair?