BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Cowardice is something to be ashamed of showing.

Coward!By no means was I insulting, I was simply stating his user name. :) Don't give up on me now! I put a lot of effort into that spiel. It took me a good two hours to sort out my thoughts and produce my result.Plus, I don't even necessarily want to win. I would prefer if cowardice was something we didn't have to be ashamed of. Agh, anyhow I'll give the summary/conclusion that I couldn't fit in round 2 as my round 3 contribution. SummaryCowardice, the lack of courage, can be seen in every human being. No man could walk this Earth without the kind of fear that incites cowardly behavior. Fear is what protects us from danger, but it can often hinder us from life.Courage is understanding that there are things which it is O.K. not to fear. Courage is what gives leaders like Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr, and Abraham Lincoln the ability to do what was right despite the popular belief. It's that ability to see that their relatively small contribution and hard work would result in a much larger profit for the rest of society. Best of all, Courage is what gives us the ability to face a world full of fear inciting things. It gives us that feeling we need to face down our every day problems.So what can one do when one lacks Courage?I'll tell you what a Coward can't do. A Coward can't comprehend the knowledge needed to understand their problems. A Coward can't rationalize a solution to their problems. A Coward can't control their emotion. A Coward can't see the bigger picture. A Coward can't think for the welfare of others. A Coward can't face reality. A Coward can't. ...but we are all cowards by default.... ....I don't want to be a Coward....To shed cowardice we need one thing: Courage.No one is born with Courage. No one can know how to fear less than others by default.BUT every one can learn. One can learn how to fear. One can learn how to be rational. One can learn how to understand the quality of a threat. One can learn how to face reality. Any one can learn to be what they lack.This is why it's in poor taste to be a Coward. This is why a Coward is inferior.Thank you, Coward. Although this debate accomplished little, I feel as if writing these things out made me remember why I want to live. I want to live so that I can help people learn how not to be afraid. I want to help people take a stand for what they believe in even if every body else thinks they are wrong. You can only ever know your own thoughts to be true through your view of reality. Sorry for the rambling, but I like to feel dramatic.
Cowardice is something to be ashamed of showing.

I will be arguing for Pro. I must prove beyond reasonable doubt that cowardice is something to be ashamed of showing. The definitions I choose are as follows:Cowardice: lack of courage or resolution (1)Ashamed: a : feeling shame, guilt, or disgraceb : feeling inferior or unworthy (2)I would have to assume that under this debate the display of a character trait is a non-zero value. In other words, it can't be said that we simply shouldn't care about what traits we show. I think that would beg the question and isn't contributive to the resolution. That argument is an entirely different debate. I have no idea how Con is going to spin this debate, but I am looking forward to being proved wrong. I actually want to see an outcome where the display of cowardice can be justified or the ramifications mitigated. That being the case, I would like to wish Con Good Luck and thank him again for this chance to debate. 1. . http://www.merriam-webster.com...2. . http://www.merriam-webster.com...;
Cowardice is something to be ashamed of showing.

Pro can present their case in round one.If they don't then I will have nothing to rebut for round two...Pro must prove their case beyond reasonable doubt whilst I must render their case ineffective as to the purpose of removing doubt of the resolution.Pro can come up with any definition of 'cowardice' and 'ashamed' they wish but can lose this debate on semantics if they do not stick purely to that definition throughout. They must, however, provide a link to the definition they are using. "Urban Dictionary" is banned, please use an official dictionary site.Thank you in advance for accepting this debate.I would wish you good luck but I'm a coward and afraid that my wish might give you an unfair edge... So... No luck to you...
Legalizing gay marriage

Married couples do have legal benefits, but that doesn't that non-married couples couldn't have the same benefits. For example, a law could be passed that allows the incomes of two people living in the same home to be taxed together, instead of separately. Or another law could allow a person to write a document similar to a will, that would give permission for such and such a person to visit one in the hospital. Laws like these would be much more equalizing than gay marriage laws, as they would give equal benefits to gays, straights, and people completely uninterested in marriage at all. Gay rights activists should be lobbying for equal benefits, not marriage. The negative effects of breaking with tradition in this case are these: 1. Giving the government the power to define what a family is. The present government may be genuinely concerned with spreading equality, but future governments could use this power against individual and religious liberty. Religious liberty should be preserved for religious institutions as well as individuals. 2. Confusion between marriage and friendship. As the culture learns to accept gay marriage, other groups will clamor for marriage rights. As marriages move farther and farther away from being fully sexual (that is, sex for the purpose of procreation) it will become closer to institutionalized friendship. Marriage will lose its meaning as a deep relationship and become dependent on like-mindedness, instead of total commitment. Friendship will decrease, as it will suggest a greater future commitment than is reasonable to ask for in a friend. 3.Decreased respect for raising children. Disdain for the domestic life began a long time ago, (maybe with the Vikings!) but will certainly reach its climax with the normalization of gay marriage. As the family becomes disassociated with blood relationships, it will become a loose collection of persons whose commitment to each other is based on like-mindedness, instead of a necessary duty regardless of the situation. The family will become weak and limited in its power to form children. This last point seems to me the most worrisome of all. I thank you for challenging me to this debate. May our conversation inspire others to think deeply on this matter of marriage.
Legalizing gay marriage

Marriage acually has a lot of benifits that couples that arent married dont have. I remeber hearing on the local news about a homosexual couple. One was in the hospital with injuries but her partner couldn't see her because since theyre homosexuals they can't legally get married and have the same benifits. Without the benifits they wherent considered married and her partner couldn't see her in the hospital. If straigh couples get thoes benifits then why dont homosexuals? Yes breaking a tradition can have negative effects but breaking this tradition is going to give equal rights to homosexuals. If we break this tradition it will allow people to marry who they love, no matter what gender, and still enjoy the benifits as everyone else. On to your question. Marriage is both, it doesn't mean you have to have sex but involves sexual feelings. It also involves a deep commitment to each other as well as sexual feelings.
Legalizing gay marriage

Legal benefits can be given without calling it marriage. And breaking with tradition (that is, the acumilated wisdom of hundreds of years of human expirience) can sometimes have bad effects. As I said, the Ancient Greeks kept with Tradition and accepted Homosexual relationships. Homosexuals don't need marriage.Earlier, you told me that the definition of marriage has nothing to do with sex. Now you say Marriage is a commitment with sexual attractions as well. Do tell me, which is it?
Legalizing gay marriage

I understand marriage was traditionally between a man and woman but that doesn't mean we can't change it. Back in the day, women didnt traditionally participate in politics and generally ran the house, which was unfair but that was tradition. And look how far women have come. Today many women take part in politics so breaking tradition isn't bad. Also, if homosexuals want the legal benifits of marriage like filling joint income taxes and inheriting a spouses property after death. Why should we deny them those legal benifits? Marriage is a commitment with sexual attractions as well. Freindship is the state of being a friend with no sexual attraction. I hope that answers your question.
Legalizing gay marriage

I may not be well versed in the history of the institution of marriage, but I do know that it has existed much longer than dictionary.com or any other dictionary. The vast majority of marriages were for primarily procreative purposes wherever they appear in history. The exceptions seem to be political and financial. (Even the political marriages seem to put a heavy emphasis on procreation). And people have for most of history considered marriage between a man and woman. Take ancient Greece for example. Homosexuality was a widely excepted practice in the old Hellenic world, but Homosexual pairs never asked to get married. Since the topic is Legalizing gay marriage, I will stick to the legal aspect of marriage. If the definition of marriage is the legal recognition of two persons' commitment to each other, then two friends of the same gender with no homosexual attraction could get married. So my question to you is this. What is the difference between marriage and friendship?
Legalizing gay marriage

Thanks for making your argument short. Ill do the same. According to dictionary.com, marriage is a legally, religiously, and socially sanctioned union of persons who commit to one another, forming a familial and economic bond. That defonition say nothing about gender or sex. It doesn't matter if they can have sex or not. Marriage, as said in the defonition, is basically just a commitment between two people. Also who cares if they can have sex or not? The defonition of marriage says nothin about sex. Also it is natural for some people to be homosexual. About 25 percent of the population is. Its just a recessive gene, like blue eyes. Having blue eyes means your eyes are slightly underdeveloped but its also natural. 25 percent of the population has blue eyes. My sources Dictionary.com 7th grade health class
Legalizing gay marriage

Well I suppose I won't get very many votes no matter how I argue. Nevertheless I appreciate and accept your challenge. To me the question is not whether gay marriage should be allowed. The question is whether it is even possible. Marriage is the formal recognition of two person's joint desire to have sex. Sex is the physical union of two bodies. Now a man and a woman can unite, because a man can fit into a woman, like one puzzle piece fits into another. Where one has an opening, the other has an organ specifically designed by evolution to fit in that opening. But two of the same organ cannot unite. Homosexuals cannot have sex. They can only have dual masturbation. I do not yet suggest that masturbation is wrong, only that it is not sex.
Banning Guns

Thanks for accepting 1. Firearms stop 800k to 2 million violent crimes per year 2. Gun free-zones make up 93% of mass-shootings as well as mass shootings take place in high gun control areas like Connecticut. 3. Chicago and Baltimore, Two cities you mentioned as well as Detroit and D. C have strict gun laws and far above the national average for gun crime, Britain after banning guns saw a identical rate of decrease in crime as the U. S EXCPET for a 6 year period after banning guns where crime doubled, Australia gun control proved ineffective as Mexico. 4. The current system is a joke: All mass shooters passed a background check and in 2010, 80k prohibited people committed a felony while purchasing a gun while only 44 were prosecuted for it. 5. Demand what works: put armed security in schools, Fix the broken mental health system, Enforce the federal gun laws, Persecute dangerous people when they try to buy a gun and put every prohibited person in the current system since it only comes out if Politicians demand it. 6. Lithuania has one of the world's lowest gun ownership rates (0. 7 guns per 100 people) but its suicide rate (by any method) was 45. 06 per 100, 000 people in 1999, The highest suicide rate among 71 countries with available information. 7. Gun control has a long history of racism as well as the KKK is the first major gun control group in the U. S. 8. Assault rifles make up a small percentage of crime. Answer these questions If guns existed before, Why are we only seeing mass shootings now? What is your solution to disarming people?
Banning Guns

To build this argument, It is best to start with the role of government. 1. The role of government is to act in the public's best interest. 2. The best interest of the people is for them to be totally independent IF they are responsible enough to handle it. (So ideally, I agree that guns should be legal in an ideal society. A goal to strive for. ) 3. However, Providing more freedom than a society can handle will be detrimental, As they will not be responsible enough to handle it. The government should provide as much freedom as a society could handle. If an analogy is needed: Think of a parent with a child. Ideally, They want the child to be independent, But they do not give the child total freedom when they are 2 years old. It is a gradual process where the parent gives them as much freedom as they can handle. 4. The USA is big enough that there exist multiple subcultures within it. While some cultures might have enough responsibility around guns to handle this freedom (Perhaps Texas). I believe some are not. 5. Take for example cities with high homicide rates like Chicago or Baltimore. These cities show signs of being irresponsible in this area, And therefore should not be given further freedom for the fear of them misusing it to hurt themselves or others. 6. So, To conclude, I believe that subcultures that cannot handle this freedom should have their guns banned until they show signs of cultural responsibility. Therefore, Banning guns is a proper method and should be done when needed. Allowing guns across the board will be detrimental.
Abortion should be outlawed in all cases with exceptions like the mother's life and rape.

1. ConcessionsMy opponent has conceded his entire position and foundation for his position. He has founded his position throughout this entire debate on the issue of morality. However, he just conceded his position and his foundation. He has agreed that I am right and that my arguments stand in this debate. This obviously warrants a negative/Con vote.2. Feel-Good FallacyMy opponent flip-flopped from valuing morality and having that as his foundation to believing that it is unfair and doesn't "sit well". However, simply because something does not "sit well" with my opponent does not warrant a vote in his favour. Sitting well is entirely subjective from person to person, thus it cannot stand in today's debate as a reason to warrant a vote towards either side.3. FairnessMy opponent, as part of his flip-flopping in this debate, has said that it isn't fair for woman to have the child. However, we must ask, is it fair to kill a child for something it couldn't control? This idea of fairness is shaky, this argument can warrant a vote for either side. Thus, again, it shouldn't change or alter your decision. It isn't fair for the woman nor is it fair for the child.4. Voting for the Negative/ConI have successfully upheld my responsibility to negate the resolution. My opponent has conceded his arguments and have agreed with mine. For replacement, he brought up subjective arguments that shouldn't alter your vote. I have refuted all of my opponent's arguments and have upheld my arguments and my position, while my opponent's position fails.It is for these reasons that I strongly urge a vote for the Negative/Con.Finally, I thank the Affirmative/Pro for this debate.
Abortion should be outlawed in all cases with exceptions like the mother's life and rape.

I truly understand my opponents argument. I agree that abortion under any circumstance is morally wrong. Con is right that the suffering shouldn't have to spread, and that two wrongs don't make a right. The problem is that I personally take issue with a women having to deliver a child that was conceived while she was raped. It does not sit well with me that she has a reminder for nine months. I understand that there is adoption, and that the child shouldn't have to suffer. It just doesn't seem right to me that a women has to deal with this for nine months. Let her move on with her life. I agree with con morally, and I have wavered on this issue myself, but I don't think it is fair to the women.
Abortion should be outlawed in all cases with exceptions like the mother's life and rape.

First of all, I cast doubt on his statistic, as it is not sourced.Though, I agree with my opponent that when a baby is conceived, a new organism, a developing human being is created. Thus, abortion is murder. I agree that it should be outlawed, except in some cases. However, the clash in this debate is going to be what are the exceptions. I argue that abortion should be outlawed in all cases with the exception of when the mother's life is at risk. I do not believe that rape is a valid reason to abort a human being.1. Spread of SufferingI truly sympathize with all women who have been raped and impregnated by the rapist. However, that terrible pain should be isolated to the mother and should not spread to anyone else. There is enough suffering occurring with the mother, that terrible suffering shouldn't affect the child, the living, developing human being. As my opponent said, "It is no less than murder to terminate this organism, especially after weeks or months of it growing." Thus, it should not be allowed to let the child suffer the worst human rights violation of them all, the violation of life, for something it could not control.2. Two Wrongs do not Make a Right.Rape is obviously a moral wrong. However, committing a moral wrong, to try to solve or accommodate another moral wrong, does not make anything right. Even my opponent agreed that abortion is murder, thus killing an innocent child to try to accommdate the moral wrong of being raped, does not make anything right. All you end up with is a suffering mother and a dead child.3. Fulfilling Responsibilities.My responsibility as the negative or 'Con' is to negate the resolution, "Abortion should be outlawed in all cases with exceptions like the mother's life and rape." I have successfully fulfilled my responsibility as I have negated the resolution, wich states that exceptions to abortion include not only when the mother's life is in danger, but also in the case of rape. I have shown why rape should not be an exception. Thus, the resolution is now negated, I have fulfilled my responsibilities, and a negative/Con vote is warranted.
Abortion should legal on request morally

I will begin my argument by addressing my opponent's first claim.I was taking the idea that "Murder is evil" as my moral standpoint, and therefore did not attempt to prove it. If he would like a debate on whether murder is evil or not, that is excellent material for a follow-up debate. In the mean time, I will address how abortion is evil in his exclusive moral standing.He has established his moral view as Utilitarianism, and has made three claims saying why abortion is not immoral according to his view.He has said, "[W]hen it comes to a fetus, they do not feel pain." He also claims that, "[Y]ou allow the mother to have kids later on whom will live happier lives." He finally says, "[Y]ou do not sadden the people around the fetus." These are the three pillars on which his argument stands, and he claims I have not addressed them. If my responses were not clear enough before, I will make myself very clear now. Concerning his first pillar, which I addressed in Round 3, the fetus does feel pain before 20 weeks. In that argument, and the passage I cited, what was being addressed was the extreme awareness of the fetus that far in development. In the first trimester, the embryo undergoes the process called differentiation, in which it develops specialized cells such as blood cells, kidney cells, and most importantly: Nerve cells. Because the embryo has nerve cells, it is able to react to stimuli and feel pain. Addressing the second pillar, I simply claim that any happiness or relief gained by an abortion can alternately be obtained by an adoption. If you disagree, please provide examples. In regards to the third and final pillar, the very fact that this debate is going on is proof that the statement is false. Abortion is a major issue in the world, and has caused many on both sides of the argument extensive grief. I believe I have addressed his claims fully. If you think I have not, please directly explain why in the final round. Otherwise, reserve it for a conclusion.
Abortion should legal on request morally

However, he has not said any reason that we should decide murder to be inherently evil. He has simply said it to be so. I maintain the reasons for murder being evil is that it causes them pain, it prevents them from joy, and it saddens those around them, because those are the negative benefits that come out of something (and if there are no negative benefits, it can't be said to be immoral). These points for why murder is bad stand as my opponent has yet to attack them other than by giving another reason for murder being moral, yet he hasn't provided a reason for why this is, and has used a blanket statement for the immorality. We must understand why we think of murder as evil (the bad things that come as a result of it) and then judge if these are true (which, again, they are not). He also says that fetuses can feel pain, which is true. However, with my opponents evidence (. http://www.mccl.org...), it does not ever say earlier than 20 weeks, only 20 weeks. Furthermore, in the current system for the regulation of abortion (which pertains to this topic), it is not legal to abort after those 20 weeks, and because this refers to how it works in law, it means that fetus's will not feel pain, therefore, it is not immoral. In summary, because removing a fetus does not meet any of the negative parts of murder, it is not immoral. Furthermore, my arguments in my opening case remains untouched, therefore those many benefits to allowing abortion still exist, so the only effects of abortion are positive.