BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Allow gay couples to adopt

"I would like to say that just because you have same sex parents doesn't mean the opposite-sex ain't around." However, even though the opposite sex isn't around, you are mostly getting interactions with your parents. Therefore, you aren't seeing that sex as often, therefore not absorbing as much of the personality as you should. Grandparents, unless they are living with the child, will at average see the child every 1 or 2 weeks. They will not have teachers until they are about 5-6 years old, so by then, they will have most of their personality (I'm assuming about 50-60%). So they wouldn't be as influenced by teachers as much as they would with their parents. Besides, they only see their teacher for a set amount of time, usually 6-7 hours, for only 5 days a week. With their friends, they won't really absorb personality from there. Little kids are really sexist. They don't realize that they are being sexist, but they are. The two sexes don't mix in the younger grades. So if a girl has a more male personality, she won't be accepted in the female group. She won't be accepted in the male group either, as she is a girl. Most studies have not found the adopted children to be happy. In fact, they are quite the opposite. Children adopted by homosexuals are more prone to being alcoholics, suicidal, people who cut themselves, depression, and being homosexuals themselves. I know you think being homosexual isn't bad, but in the long run, an increase in the homosexual population will be bad for the Earth's population as a whole. If there are more homosexuals, then there will be a decrease in the amount of children being born, and in the long run, that will not be good for the Earth. Now it all comes down to this... If you ever pass away and leave your child parent-less, would you rather have a heterosexual couple adopt your child, or a homosexual couple, in which case your child will be more prone to being alcoholic, suicidal, someone who harms themselves, or depression? Please think about this, voters, and don't let your personal feelings come out when you vote. Vote for whoever you think did better, and what you see the facts support more. Thanks all. And thanks for the great debate, opponent. This debate made me think a lot and do a lot of research as well.
Allow gay couples to adopt

Gender influence these kids won't be completely deprived of models from the opposite sex to their parents'. They will still have contact with grandparents, teachers, friends, etc. But even if they didn't, why would the opposition just assume that gender roles are a valuable thing to learn? Why would we want to teach children to act and think differently based on being a boy or a girl? Parents should help them develop as individuals, based on their own interests and propensities. 2. Children are not off worse with a same-sex parents then Straight parents The overwhelming majority of scientific studies on this issue have convincingly shown that children raised by gay couples are certainly not worse off than those raised by straight parents1. Some studies have gone as far as to demand that in the face of this evidence, gay bans be ended2. Based on the robust nature of the evidence available, the courts in Florida were satisfied in 2010 that the issue is beyond dispute and they struck down the ban3. When there isn't any scientific evidence to support the differential treatment of one group, it is only based on prejudice and bigotry, which should have no place in a democratic society. 1. Carey, Benedict. "Experts Dispute Bush on Gay-Adoption Issue". New York Times. 29 January 2005. 2. Foster Care 1999 Statistics. Adoption. com Every child has a right to a family no matter there race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation PLEASE VOTE PRO! !! FOR YOUR RIGHT TO HAVE A FAMILY! ! !
Allow gay couples to adopt

However, it is necessary for both sexes to be present in an upbringing of a child. Each sex provides certain aspects of a person's personality. Assuming you are not the adopted child of a homosexual couple, you will notice that you have aspects of your personality from both your parents, in which some aspects can only be absorbed from each sex. Also, let's say a male gay couple adopt a young girl. Since she would be around males most of the time when she is young and doesn't go to school, she would become more masculine in her personality. She wouldn't be like any of the girls, because of her personality traits, and since she will still keep some aspects of femininity that are ingrained within her and because of her feminine looks, she won't be accepted into the male group either. Therefore, she will be an outcast, and because of that, be bullied or be bullied, as little children don't have much sense of right or wrong. Sometimes, little kids don't realize that they are bullying, but yet they are. The bullying could mess with the child's head, and could end up harming the child greatly, either mentally or physically. Thus, children should not be adopted by homosexual couples. In your facts, you stated that 270,000 children are happy while being raised by homosexual couples. However, you didn't mention how many children are unhappy while being raised by homosexual parents. I am not sure of the exact number, but it is very high. If you look in pretty much any religion, it has homosexuality banned. I realize that there is a big difference in law and religion, but if multiple scholars from different parts of the world who haven't ever met are all saying the same thing, what does that tell us all? Thus, if homosexuality should not be allowed, then how should homosexuals allowed to adopt? Also, the people that say that children raised by homosexuals are sorely mistaken. I know that my first example was all hypothetical. However, it has happened multiple times. It may not happen every time, but there is a high chance that something like this shall occur. People have researched about this and have disproved the study that you use as your source. Also, your source is outdated by 20 years. There are many more sources out there that are more updated that disprove you. I shall provide the links for two sources. I suggest you read over both of them. I used the two resources in my argument, but never directly quoted anything. Links: http://www.frc.org... http://www.familyresearchinst.org...
Allow gay couples to adopt

Homosexuals are also very loving, capable people who make the upbringing of a child much smoother. There is no CV or form that you need to fill in saying that you took a 3 year university course on parenting, it"s not a job. You just need to be an able, trustworthy and responsible person... None of which single out heterosexuals. There are, at the moment around 270,000 elated children being raised by same-sex couples. It is known that gay fathers in particular, are extremely committed to parenting. This all just goes to show that gay parents are not inferior to straight parents. "Not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents" American Psychological Association, Lesbian and Gay Parenting: A Resource for Psychologists 8 (1995). In the bird world, for example, two flamingos will "adopt" and raise a baby because male flamingos can make milk in their throat. This happens often within this species. The point is that these birds are more evolved than humans.
Burden of Proof

IN A DEBATE, BURDEN OF PROOF IS ALWAYS ON BOTH PRO AND CON. PRO must prove he is right. CON Must PROVE something else is right. Being Con in a debate means you must provide a contrary belief and defend it. Con does not just have the right to sit back and deny your evidence. He must Prove a contrary Thesis to Pro. An Idiot thinks they can have a debate and not share Burden of Proof.
The Bible Teaches That Water Baptism Is Necessary For Salvation

Me and Dan123 agreed to do a short 3 round debate on this topic. Basically the only rule is no semantics. I will go through some definitions and if Dan123 has a problem with them, I will edit the debate. Necessary - Inescapable Water Baptism - fully immersed in water All other definitions should just be pretty common sense. I want to have a genuine debate on this and I believe Dan123 does as well so I see no problems in the future as far as definitions and semantics. Essence of the debate: I believe that Jesus is Savior and Lord and I try to live my life the way that he wants me to. However, I have not been baptized yet. I believe that if I, or someone in my position dies, they will gain salvation (go to heaven). Dan123 will be arguing that if I, or someone in my position dies, they will not gain salvation (go to heaven). Burden of proof is shared. Good luck
Practical special effects are better than CG special effects

Thanks for posting this! Will be fun. 1. This argument is based on personal opinion. It would totally depend on what was being destroyed. If you want to see the cosmos shatter in an awe inspiring explosion, then I would go with CGI. Small scale destruction is fine and dandy but I do not believe NCBT (non-computer based techniques) can compete on as large a scale as CGI can. Again this argument is based on personal preference but judging by how well Avatar did, it's safe to say that CGI can excite people more than NCBT. 2. This would depend on the plot and character development. No amount of NCBT or CGI can make you care about a character or story without a thrilling plot. On this basis I would consider them equal. But I would like to point out that basically any movie by Pixar has had a saddening scene that without a doubt, touched the audience's heart. 3. CGI can require a serious amount of coding skill and a passion for design. I am not 100% certain that there is a way to prove NCBT users spend more time creating their product than CGI users spend coding and designing their own creation. You need to prove to me that NCBT actually requires more time than CGI creation (including art design? Your call.) 4. True. No one can really get excited about how a model was crafted in a computer program, no matter the amount of time put into it. 5. Again, pixar has shown that audiences weep over toy story characters and the like. In fact, I could probably do a search on youtube and find a good amount of tears being shed over a CGI character (there is definitely one with a guy crying over master chief, but I assume we are sticking to the movie industry?) Perhaps I will include some in the next round. Thank you again for this debate
Practical special effects are better than CG special effects

I argue that practical special effects, that is, the use of scale models, puppetry and other non-computer based techniques are better than computer generated special effects for the following reasons: 1) It is more exciting and satisfying to watch models and props being destroyed in films, as you know you are watching something real being blown up, crushed etc than watching what is effectively an animation being destroyed which is not something real. 2) A film is able to create a greater sense of danger, excitement or otherwise a more intense emotional response from seeing something real being in harms way (or something being harmed by something real) than seeing an animation. 3) One gets a greater sense of appreciation for the creativity and hard work of the film's creators when they use practical effects because of the obviously greater amount of time and creative thought that goes into creating models, puppets etc than in programming computer animation software. 4) There is a greater sense of "How did they do that?" when looking at impressive practical effects than with CG. 5) A person connects more easily with physical characters such as puppets than they would with CG animations. 6) The use of practical effects employs more people than does CG in most cases, thus creating more jobs.
Children should start learning education from the internet now, not schools.

Like I stated, children can meet friends just by walking outside and socially interacting, which child do you know that has NO friends at all? People have friends no matter what at some points of their life. And these days, which do you think is more reliable, people or the internet? Sometimes you just believe what the teacher is telling you not caring if it is false fact. But using the internet you can find variety of information and combine it into one, forming the most accurate information that most people agree with. If you think children are lonely, that is when SMS comes into action. We have Facebook and other social sites we can chat, call, and see their faces. People are putting way more effort to the internet than to schools. And by health and safety risks, I believe using the internet is safer than going to school for the matters of gun shootings and bullying. The Internet has drastically changed the way that children interact with the world. They have access to in-depth knowledge, tools to express their creativity, and people from all over the world. Simply put, you can do way more things when you are studying from the internet than sitting in the classroom and studying. There are distractions in classes like friends, and sometimes you do not even listen to your teacher. But when learning from the internet you are looking at one screen in front of you, fascinated and eager to do more things. Think of the possibilities the internet can give you information. for example, competitive education game, debates, and online award winnings. You mentioned there is not interaction with other children, but like I said there are many ways you can. By SNS and forming study groups together. Also, statistics show that when children learn from the internet, it raises their concentration and achieve higher grades. Technologies are advancing fast, and we have to adapt to them for our benefits. The internet is created for this reason. Children learning from the internet raises nearly all benefits than learning in schools.
Children should start learning education from the internet now, not schools.

Children need to learn in an interactive environment, where they will be exposed to diversity and opinions. Fact checking is important, as is interacting with peers. If children are learning solely from the internet, there is no interaction with other children, and as such diversity is not taught, and the child is locked in an echo chamber of its own personal beliefs. The child can disregard information that it disagrees with by simply ignoring it, rather than discuss their opinion with teachers, other students and friends
Children should start learning education from the internet now, not schools.

Children should start getting education from the internet since almost all information you want to know is contained in the internet. By learning from the internet you can save more money and other necessities required to go to school. You can save more time and greatly increase your knowledge because you can always test yourself or just click to review a page. It is true schools have social experience, but you can also have social experience from the internet, you are not going to sit all day, you go outside to exercise and encounter everyday people. Learning from the internet also reduces the bullying in schools because you do not see them. Learning form the internet might seem lonely but you can form a group together with friends and learn together. Therefore getting educated from the internet has way more benefits than going to school.
World government > present day UN

First, I will point out that my opponent has contradicted himself in defining his utopian dream. In Round 1, he clearly defines a federal system: "The world government will work much like the United States' states. Each country would be a state in the world government." However, in Round 2, my opponent denies that there are nation states: "all the countries in the world must willingly give up their sovereignty" Because I accepted this debate arguing against what was defined in the first round, I feel it is fair that this debate follows what was originally presented. Second, I will point out that my opponent's new position is clearly an attempt to define his way around my case. He states without backing that taxes were agreed upon, although I listed before the reasons they wouldn't be. In addition, he erases discussion of the introduction of this utopia, one of my key points. Third, my opponent has ignored my 3-point case entirely, claiming that I have not even "made a case as of yet." I encourage my opponent to read what is written in my half of round one and reconsider that statement. If he makes no response in Round 3, I will assume that he concedes my case. With that, I'm off to answer my opponent's case. First, he has dropped his third point, that somehow redrawing political boundaries will cause ethnic groups to forget their differences. Second, he has proposed a 1984 society in which "Everyone will be accounted for electronically," which is a clear violation of privacy rights, while insisting that terrorists would be much easier to find with 1st world technology. My opponent quickly forgets that the United States has been using 1st world technology for almost two decades and has been incapable of finding terrorists, or even stinting terrorist activity. In addition, my opponent has stated that the UN has proven itself incompetent without drawing any real distinction between the approach of the UN to the approach of his proposal. Third, my opponent has still not given any reason any "great leaps in technology" would occur at all, while ignoring my point that the only hidden technology was the technology of war. My opponent also pretends that the military would be useless after this prevalent world peace he imagines, but he ignores my first round arguments that war would be unaffected by redrawing political boundaries. That's all for now. I hope this debate develops more in the third round.
World government > present day UN

I feel I need to define my world government a bit more for Con. For the world government to exist at all, all the countries in the world must willingly give up their sovereignty to the world government. For the sake of the debate, this has happened already for my world government to exist. For this reason, the states will not being trying to win back anything from the government. The stage that it is currently at is new, within a year or two, so some hiccups still occur, such as a small war, so a world army would still be viable. Taxation was agreed upon when the world government was established. 1)Lasting wars. The UN has proven time and time again that it is incompetent to take care of global issues. Con mentioned the Middle East, well let's start there. If the entire world was united, than as soon as the terrorists committed an act of terror, the entire world army would intervene, and attack the individuals involved. Because all countries are states in the world government, 3rd world countries would no longer exist. Everyone will be accounted for electronically, like in 1st world counties. Individuals in acts of terror would be much easier to find than the way the present day works. 2)Combined technology. The great leaps in technology would not happen right away. Military spending would be viable for several years until a world army was no longer practical. Once this happens, much more money would be spent in technology for what I've already mention in round 1. My opponent has not made a case as of yet. I look forward to Con's round 2.
World government > present day UN

I contend that, as demonstrated when other cultures were forced together, coerced coexistence will lead to violence. First, I will address my opponent's points. 1) No lasting wars. The United Nations currently does the function described by my opponent, and it has lead to covert, unofficial and terrorist warfare. This is demonstrated with the current war on terrorism, where small groups are engaging in guerrilla warfare across the Middle East. This unofficial warfare is more difficult to end because the enemy is hidden, spread out, and hidden amongst innocent civilians. 2) Combined Technology Because the only technology secret between governments is military technology, no such great innovations will occur. In fact, because this technology is used for warfare, if this information were shared, belligerent nations would be more capable of successfully expanding than before. 3) Greater Acceptance of Other Cultures This is perhaps the most utopian argument presented. There are countless historical examples that prove that when you remove an individual culture's sovereignty, they fight to regain it. Examples include the War Between the States (where the Southern States fought to maintain self-governance), the Niger Civil War [1] (an ethnic civil war), and Chad's constant civil wars [2]. Ignoring history, my opponent forgets that political unions between hostile peoples doesn't lead to peace. Now, I will present my case against a Federalist World Government. 1) Taxation Such a government would have to have revenue, and expecting individual nations to donate results in a free-rider problem, so this revenue would have to be forced. Because many nations are socialist, no universal taxation method can be used. 2) Civil Wars Civil wars would be common, as discussed earlier. In such a case, who is the world government to side with? To pick one is to enact favoritism and damage a country's civilians. To pick both is to fight one's self and aid the war. To pick neither is to do nothing, and the purpose of the world government is defeated. 3) Sovereignty Sovereignty would end, as demonstrated with the United States example, within a few centuries, as the world government expands. Governmental responsibilities would overlap, creating inefficiency. Sovereignty would be infringed upon at many levels, preventing the competition of political ideas and public policies. Because of this, politics would become only a theory, and no more of a science than sociology or economics. The world government proposal is full of idealist optimism, and fails through historical examples and realistic application. [1] http://www.onwar.com... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
World government > present day UN

For this debate, Con and I will discuss what will be more helpful for mankind, one world government or the way the world works right now. The world government will work much like the United States' states. Each country would be a state in the world government. 1)No lasting wars. If the world was united in a world government, wars would not be a common thing. The knowledge that if one state attacked another then the world army would get involved would scare off any ideas of war. 2)Combined technology. If the world was united under one government, than each state would share its research and technology with the government. This would lead to great technological advances. With united research and no wars no worry about, humans could very likely find the cure for many diseases, improve space faring technology, find alternate resources as fuel, and many more discoveries. 3)Greater acceptance of other cultures. Once humans united into a world government, they will be ready to forget the little differences between each other and realize, we are all human. This acceptance will also lead to better cooperation between states and the government that leads them. I look forward to Cons arguments and for the debate to get started.