BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay Rights

THE POINT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE IS THAT A PASTOR WANT MARRY GAY PEOPLE, I TAKE THAT BACK SOME WILL IF THE PRICE IS RIGHT. AND I COULD CARE LESS IF GAYS GET MARRIED I AM SAYING THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE A SAY IN IT AND THAT ANYTHING GAY SHOULD BE PRIVATE NOT IT THE OPEN AND IF IS ILLEGAL LEAVE IT ILLEGAL. AND ABOUT THE WHOLE ( it's not that science CANNOT explain something, it's that we don't yet have the tools developed in order to fully explain something, before we discovered bacteria/virus's we did not know why people would get sick, did this mean it was magic? No, it just meant we did not have the proper knowledge or tools at the time). THERE IS STUFF OUT THERE THAT WE WELL NEVER HAVE THE TOOLS TO EXPLAIN, LIKE HOW CAN A VEHICAL MOVE 6 MILE AT 60MPH ON FLAT GROUND WITH A HOLE ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE ENGINE,OR HOW DO SOME ONE WITH AN INCURABLE DISEASE GET CURED SOME STUFF CAN BE ONLY ANSWERED BY THE WILL OF GOD. JUST CUZ PEOPLE DONT BELIEVE IN SOMETHING DOESN'T MEAN ITS NOT REAL. AND ABOUT THE KIDS I THINK THAT SAME WAY THAT KIDS SHOULD BE TAUGHT TO LOVE PEOPLE NO MATTER THE RACE OR GENDER JUST NOT IN A SEXUAL WAY. AND I DONT WONT TO HIDE FEELING FROM KIDS BUT I DONT WANT KID TO DEVELOPED UNNATURAL FEELS CUZ OF WHAT THEY SEE. BEING GAY IS A PERSONAL CHOICE THAT I WOULD NOT WANT MY KIDS TO MAKE LIKE KILLING, RAPING, STEALING ETC....... I JUST WANT MY KIDS TO MAKE THE RIGHT CHOICE IN LIFE AND NOT GET CONFUSED BY THE WRONG ONES, CUZ OF WHAT THEY SEE OR HERE.THIS IS WHAT I WOULD HAVE SAID "Two men walked into a coffee shop holding hands, at the table next to me I heard a little girl ask her mom why the two men were holding hands, her FATHER replied "because they ARE CONFUSED sweetie THEY HAVE DEMONS IN THEM THAT THEY NEED TO GET OUT LETS PRAY FOR THEM." AND YES ALL MEN AND WOMEN ARE EQUAL I DONT DISLIKE PEOPLE CUZ THERE GAY JUST LIKE I DONT DISLIKE PEOPLE THAT STEAL LONG AS IT ANIT AROUND ME OR FROM ME I AM COOL, EVERYONE WILL ANSWER FOR WHAT THEY HAVE DONE IN LIFE. AND FAR AS LAW THERE IS A LOT OF LAW IN AFFECT THAT IS FROM THE BIBLE AND IT U WONT TO BE TECHNICAL DOING A GAY ACT IS ILLEGAL CUZ SODOMY IS ILLEGAL, THIS is a term used in the law to describe the act of "unnatural"[1] sex, which depending on jurisdiction can consist of oral sex or anal sex or any non-genital to genital congress, whether heterosexual, or homosexual. NOW LET ME ASK U A COMMON SENSE QUESTION OR SCIENCE QUESTION CAN U PUT 2 SAME SIZE CIRCLES IN EACH OTHER OR CAN U PUT 2 SOLD POLLS IN TO EACH OTHER . NO CUZ IT IS NOT MEANT TO HAPPEN Y CUZ A POLL IS MEANT TO BE PUT IN A CIRCLE. WHICH IS Y 2 MEN NOR 2 WOMEN CANT HAVE A BABY NATURALLY WHICH IS Y HOMOSEXUALITY IS UNNATURAL.
Gay Rights

one- u don't have to get married by a pastor u can just go to the court house and do it. two- I don't have to prove that god is real, god proves everyday he is real. everyday something happen that science can ex plan. me personally I have been to Iraq and afghan multiple times and it was plenty of time that they said I can believe y'all alive and it was all due to faith and god shielding us from evil. three- I worry about it cuz this is not a good example for our kids, if any law is to be past it should be to make it illegal to be openly be gay like it is in the military
Gay Rights

Greetings, as discussed in the comments section we are debating whether or not Gay marriage should be legalized. Since this debate is 5 rounds (way to long) I will make round one short. So far my opponent has shown Bible verses that suggest homosexuality to be a sin. This is a problem on multiple accounts. 1. Not everyone accepts Christianity and/or the Bible, so why should a law be prevented on that account? 2. Even though I personally believe in God, in this debate he must PROVE that God exists as an objective source of morality in order to justify laws being based upon that premise. ========= My arguments ========= 1. Pastors have the choice of whether or not to marry a couple, whether it be a heterosexual couple, or in this case a homosexual couple, if a pastor did not want to marry a homosexual couple based on his beliefs he would not need to. If you don't agree with homosexual marriage, why worry about it? It's benefiting them while not harming you, ignore it. This is it for now, good luck to my opponent.
Gay Rights

I WONT TO HAVE A DEBATE JUST BECUZ, I AM NOT BASHING ANYONE SO DONT TAKE IT AS THAT I JUST WONT TO SEE WHAT PEOPLE THINK. this cam about came about cuz at work i see a lot of gay people and with all the talk about gay rights these days, and Atlanta being the #1 gay city in the US ahead San francisco. what are your thoughts do 1 approve or think its ok 2 disapprove dont think its ok 3 neutral only god can judge AND THIS IS WHAT GOD HAS TO SAY ON IT: Leviticus 18:22 'You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. Leviticus 18:23 'Also you shall not have intercourse with any animal to be defiled with it, nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it; it is a perversion. Romans 1:26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, Romans 1:27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. ME MY ANSWER IS ONLY GOD CAN JUDGE
Gay Rights

1.U SAY IT AINT PROVEN TO BE A CHOICE, THAT DONT MAKE SINCE HOW ELSE DO U BECOME GAY.U CHOSE TO LIKE THE SAME SEX JUST LIKE U CHOSE TO LIKE THE OPPSITE SEX. THE ONLY FACT IS ONE IS NATURAL AND ONE IS UNNATURAL. 2. BEING GAY IS A BAD THING ONE CUZ ITS ILLEGAL TO COMMENT A GAY ACT, TWO ITS UNNATURAL, THREE AIDS WAS MADE TO KILL OFF GAY PEOPLE BUT THE DUMB ASSES FOR GOT ABOUT THE BI PEOPLE AND NOW 1 IN EVERY 10 OR 12 PEOPLE HAVE HIV OR AIDS, Y CUZ OF GAY PEOPLE. 3. ANIMALS ARE MEANT TO REPRODUCE NATURALLY ITS THE WAY OF NATURE. BEING GAY IS UPSETTING THE BALANCE OF NATURE. AND ABOUT LOOKING DOWN ON GAYS I DONT REALLY CARE ABOUT THEM THEY CAN DO WHAT THEY WONT LIKE I SAID BEFORE THEY WILL BE JUDGED. I JUST DONT THINK THEY SHOULD BE GAY PUBLICLLY, AS THE ARMY DO (DONT ASK DONT TELL) I THINK ITS SHOULD BE LIKE THAT WORLD WIDE. 4. Prove it. You cannot use arguments in debates without backing them up, you stating that it is true does not make it so. I DIDNT THINK I WOULD HAVE TO ARGUE THE, OR BACK UP THE FACE THAT U CANT PUT TWO SOLID POLLS INTO EACH OTHER, OR TWO SAME SIZE CIRCLE INTO EACH OTHER. BUT IT U WONT PROF TRY THIS GET 2 HOT DOGS AND TRY TO PUT THEM INSIDE EACH OTHER WITH OUT MESSING THEM UP, THEN GET TWO SAME SIZE NUTS (LIKE FOR BOLTS ) AND SEE IF U CAN PUT THEM IN EACH OTHER. THAT SHOULD BE ALL THE PROF U NEED. LOL GOD I CAN BELIEVE I JUST HAD TO EXPLAIN THAT. IN CLOSEING I SAY THIS , U NO HOW THEY SAY THAT IF U DO A LIST OF PROS AND CONS AND THE CONS OUT WAY THE PROS THEN IS WRONG OR U SHOULD LET IT GO. WILL DO THAT WITH GAY AND NOT GAY 1.GAY PRO: CON: NO NATURAL KIDS ILLEGAL ACT NOT APPROVED OF GOT TO HELL WITH OUT CHANGING YOUR WAYS CANT GET MARRIED IN MOST PLACES AROUND THE WORLD UNNATURAL CANT BE IN THE MILITARY 2. STRAIGHT PRO: CAN HAVE KIDS NOT ILLEGAL APPROVED OF GO TO HEAVEN LONG AS THE REST OF YOUR LIFE IS IN ORDER CAT GET MARRIED ANYWHERE NATURAL CAN BE IN THE MILITARY CON: AND I AM GOING TO STOP THERE WITH JUST A FEW UMMMM SORRY COULD NOT THINK OF A THING GOOD ABOUT BEING GAY THAT WAS A FACT NOT A FEELING OR ANYTHING BAD ABOUT BEING STRAIGHT. CAN U THEY SHOULD NOT BE ANY RIGHTS FOR GAYS, THEY ARE NO RIGHT FOR ANY OTHER CRIMES AGAINST NATURE OR FOR ANY CRIMES AT ALL ONCE U COMMENT A CRIME U LOSE YOUR RIGHTS.
Gay Rights

1. Being Gay is NOT proven to be a choice. "2. I AM NOT CONTRADICTING, I DIDNT SAY THAT IF U SEE A GAY ACT THAT IT WILL MAKE U GAY, BUT IT CAN MAKE U CONFUSED. AND TEACHING KIDS RIGHT FROM WRONG IS BEING A GOOD PARENT AND I DID SAY THEY WERE POSSESSED BY DEMONS I WAS SAYING DEMON IN THE SINCE OF THE VOICE THAT TELL U TO DO BAD STUFF EVERYONE ONE HAS THERE DEMONS THAT TELL THEM TO DO BAD STUFF, WE JUST GOT TO FIGHT IT.AND THE ONLY WAY TO HELP OTHER PEOPLE WITH THERE DEMONS IS TO LOVE THEM AND PRAY FOR THEM SO LIKE I SAID ITS NOT A CONTRADICTION. AND U DONT DEVELOP HOMOSEXUAL FEELING, U DEVELOP CANCER OR ARTHRITIS" What you said here contradicts that. You said "BUT I DONT WANT KID TO DEVELOPED UNNATURAL FEELS CUZ OF WHAT THEY SEE." Why is being gay a "Bad" or "Wrong" thing? I don't think it is. "NOW LET ME ASK U A COMMON SENSE QUESTION OR SCIENCE QUESTION CAN U PUT 2 SAME SIZE CIRCLES IN EACH OTHER OR CAN U PUT 2 SOLD POLLS IN TO EACH OTHER . NO CUZ IT IS NOT MEANT TO HAPPEN Y CUZ A POLL IS MEANT TO BE PUT IN A CIRCLE. WHICH IS Y 2 MEN NOR 2 WOMEN CANT HAVE A BABY NATURALLY WHICH IS Y HOMOSEXUALITY IS UNNATURAL" Regardless of what makes someone "gay" or the fact that they can't reproduce does not make it unnatural, even if it did why would/should it be looked down upon? "3. U SAID THIS STATEMENT IS WRONG BUT ITS A FACT THIS STATEMENT IS 100% TRUE" Prove it. You cannot use arguments in debates without backing them up, you stating that it is true does not make it so.
The CWO "vote bombed" no one.

Although I had hoped my opponent might continue with his refutations he has instead made his last round a round about the rules of the debate. First I would like to sum up my opponents main refutation: 1. He personally opposes vote bombing 2. He stated the reason I left the group and thus conceded members of the CWO supported vote bombing 3. He directly concedes that members of his group (including leaders) support vote bombing 4. States that I have the burden of proof 5. Incorrectly states that I have been "speculating" but has yet to define what this term means in his context 6. Would like voters to vote based on his resolution that he never provided in his R1 Below are my points against my opponents refutations: 1. My opponents personal opinion has no place in this debate, however on a side note I would like to state that I could not agree more fully with him. My negative feelings for vote bombing are the reason I engaged in this debate 2. I have no point except to agree with his conceded point 3. Again I agree with the logic of his conceded point 4. A) My opponent incorrectly states that I have the burden of proof. Firstly, by providing absolutely no resolution and making no definitions (other than CWO) nor contesting my own definitions or resolution I have absolutely nothing to prove. B) Additionally other than setting parameters about the debate being fact based, my opponent has affirmed that he wished me to create the resolution by stating "I will let my opponent cast the first stone" C) Furthermore, my opponent never anywhere in the argument contested my providing the resolution. D) I would like to call to the attention of all voters that the person refuting the person who made the resolution has indeed the burden of proof. My opponent not only never contested that members of CWO vote bombed, but he conceded it. E) Therefore for this point alone I affirm that all debaters viewing this debate vote CON 5. No where in this debate was there blind speculation [definition] speculation - a message expressing an opinion As was shown I posted factual quotes. My opponent conceded the validity of these quotes by not contesting them. I also have shown (as posted twice in observations) that there was reasonable evidence that such actions not only were supported but were followed through. My opponent has not contested these quotes nor observations. Additionally I would like to remind my opponent and voters that I do not have to show video evidence of such events occurring. I simply have to show reasonable evidence suggesting that a member of the CWO engaged in vote bombing. I have done so. My opponent has conceded this point. Additionally for this point of evidence all voters by default should vote CON. 6 (see point 4) 7. I would like to remind voters to be sufficiently unbiased when casting their votes. As both agreed upon by myself and my opponent we both would like the readers of this debate to vote upon who was the best debater and who proved their point the best.
The CWO "vote bombed" no one.

I will keep this simple and to the point. The topic of this debate is "The CWO "vote bombed" no one.", my opponent had to prove that the CWO bombed someone. As defined in R1, referring to CWO means the whole group. Regardless if I vote bombed someone, CirRo did, or anyone else affiliated with the CWO did, my opponent cannot prove that the CWO vote bombed anyone. I have stated again and again that I oppose vote bombing, my opponent even joined the group because I promised the group wouldn't go that course, he left because 2 members of the group did. I do not dispute that some members are for vote bombing, and yet my opponent has wasted his rounds to prove what is not under question. Unless my opponent can prove that the CWO vote bombed someone (without speculating), I should win this debate. I wish for the voters to vote on the bases provided in my R1 and supported in my opponents R1. Do not vote based on your belief but instead vote on who truly won this debate. I would like for my opponent to finish his final round upholding the moral values I just provided, and Scissor, good luck.
The CWO "vote bombed" no one.

Hello and good day to you all! Good luck to you scissor. I will expect this debate to be fact-based, and I would like for the voters to vote with this expectation in mind. "The CWO" will be defined as a group of people. Fact-Based will be defined as staying away from statements such as "The CWO vote bombed ____" the debater must use his facts to make that statement for him, he can however use the statement in his summery after the facts were presented. My opponent has made accusations against a group who call themselves the CWO. Their has been much resistance on this site about this group. My opponent stated this before the debate in a message that is entitled CWO, much of the site is getting this message now. He said, "If you wanted i suppose you could term this as an informal debate? However you would be very hard-pressed indeed.", It is obvious that he feels that the majority of this site will vote for him simply because he is now against the CWO (as the majority of this site is). But, I must remind you that this site is about how the debater debated, not who you agree with. I will let my opponent cast the first stone, since he was the one who started debating me on this subject in the first place. Good luck again Scissor.
Americans are free.

Americans are free. First I'd like to discuss the concept presented by Mikayla that since we as America are bound by the laws of our country, we are not truly free. To this I would say that Americans have the ability to participate in the making of laws and concepts to which they are bound. They can participate through electing representatives or becoming directly involved by representing others. People have the ability to shape their lives in a Democracy. "How are we any different than slaves?" Slaves are unpaid laborers, people in America are paid for their labor. "If the government tells us to do something, we must it or there will be consequences." I return to the ideas presented in my first paragraph: that we as Americans have the ability to get involved in the workings of their country. We have the ability to vote for representatives who will support laws or policies that we agree with, and if that isn't good enough, we ourselves can become the representatives. Freedom hinges on free will, and the ability to control one's destiny, and the system in America provides just that, as long as people are willing to be involved in the workings of their country.
Americans are free.

I do not think that Americans are really free. I hear things like "they came to America to be free" in movies, but are we really free? We abide by laws, have duties, and accept responsibilities stated in the constitution. If we do something unlawful, we are punished by jail, or even death. How are we any different from slaves? Sure, we can walk around the United States, but we can't leave it without a passport. If the government tells us to do something, we must do it or there will be consequences.
Resolved: The Death Penalty should be abolished.

For my rebuttal i will argue that the Penalty of Death is moral. To quote from this website, conservativelogic a user of Debate.org argues that the Death Penalty is moral. "It is not murder. Murder is the killing of an innocent victim. Those who are given the death penalty (murders) are neither innocent nor "victims". Also, the death penalty saves money. The cost of feeding and clothing a murderer for the rest of his or her life is enormous. Most murderers are relatively young and, therefore, will spend decades in jail, using up are hard-earned tax dollars. The price of a bullet for the execution is a lot less than keeping these killers alive. Lastly the death penalty is the most effective deterrent for murder known to exist. Virtually everybody is afraid of dying, Knowing that you will die for your crimes would make people think twice before pulling the trigger." I am using this as my rebuttal because it proves that it is moral, and an even trade somewhat. Because if one takes a life, that life that took one is taken as well. Another user from Debate.org also agrees that its moral, Mr. E-Man Comments "100% moral. Of course it is moral as it is a matter of rights. Any individual convicted of taking the life of another or any other crime warranting a life sentence has proven his/her disregard for the rights of others and therefore has no rights of their own. These kinds of individuals should be removed from society permanently. Sure there are times when the innocent are falsely convicted but there are just as many times when the guilty are falsely found innocent. No judicial system is perfect and there is not a high percentage of false convictions."
Resolved: The Death Penalty should be abolished.

Greetings! This is a debate about the death penalty. It should be open to Mercedes. Please accept as soon as possible.Additional Rules:No vulgarityBoP is sharedNo k's of the topicNo semanticsTrolling results in an automatic lossForfeiture results in an automatic lossThe debate atmosphere should remain courteous and respectfulRound Schedule:Round 1: Rules and AcceptanceRound 2: Presentation of Arguments (Pro) and Arguments and Rebuttals (Con)Round 3: Arguments and Rebuttals (Pro) and Arguments and Rebuttals (Con)Round 4: Closing Arguments/Rebuttals (Pro & Con)
Euthanasia must be made legal in India

Resolved: Euthanasia must be made legal in India.Introduction:Thanks to unni4debate for proposing this topic. I am nominally in favor of the legalization of euthanasia, but I will be using this debate to explore the idea of meta-ethical non-cognitivism. Non-cognitivism denies that moral statements are capable of being true or false because they do not describe some feature of the world. I will defend a series of philosophical arguments that justify this position.1. A proposition is a sentence capable of being true or false.This just allows us to understand what is meant by the word 'proposition.' It is purely definitional. Sentences like “Barack Obama is the POTUS,” are propositions. Statements like “Who are you?” or “Come here,” are not propositions because they are not true or false.2. Truth is a relationship between the content of a sentence and the world.I will defend this as the only coherent understanding of what it means for something to be true. A sentence is true if its content refers to some actual phenomenon and false is it fails to. The truth of the sentence “there is a cat in my room” is determined solely by the status of there being or not being a cat in my room in the actual world. 3. There is no phenomenon in the actual word that the sentence “euthanasia must be made legal in India” could refer to.This is fairly straightforward. When someone says, “euthanasia should be made legal in India,” what does he refer to in the actual world that could make this true or false? There is clearly no fact of the matter that something “must be done” in the sense that there is a fact of the matter that something “is.” What would it even mean for that sentence to be true? The definition of truth does not and cannot account for sentences like this.4. The resolution does not express a proposition.Because it is not capable of being assigned a truth value, the resolution is reduced to the same level as sentences like “hello!” It cannot be defended as correct even in principle. Because Pro is logically incapable of giving any meaningful arguments, the debate goes to Con by default.I will defend each of these arguments in more detail in the following rounds.
Euthanasia must be made legal in India

It is time to support the concept of right to die with dignity in the same manner as the human race endorses dignity of life. A man in PVS will be suffering more mental pain than that of physical pain.There are limits to human suffering, especially when there is no light at the end of the tunnel. A terminally ill patient cannot be kept on life support with the hope that, in the foreseeable future, there may be developments in medicine which may save him or her. Quality of life is as important as life itself. People argue that if euthanasia is legalised, it could be misused; but isn't that the case with most of the existing laws? Strong safeguards should be put in place to avoid any kind of misuse, and euthanasia should be allowed only when no amount of palliative care can help the patient recover. This debate has caused a schism within people from all walks of life. The people who matter most are those who have to endure unimaginable suffering, both physical and mental, and who may be forced to take the route of euthanasia. Death is never the first choice, and people opt for this path only because there is none other left to take. To die on one's own terms can be a boon for both the patients and their families who have to go through this ordeal. Being a human one should not forget the humane values and must work for legalising euthanasia. Good luck to whoever accepts my debate!
castor oyl has too large an ego.

He may think he's the greatest, but he is STILL not to egotistical. He may be egotistical, but is ego is NOT too large. His large ego is an essential plot device used to develop the story. There is no doubt that you like the comic strip series, considering you are making a debate about it. However, if he WAS too egotistical the plot would've sucked and you would not have liked it. Also, he may be cruel, but you have failed to give evidence on why he is egotistical. Egotistical =/= cruel.
castor oyl has too large an ego.

you think you're gonna win just because you're the legend 27, don't you? well, you may have won those other six debates, but you only won them because your opponent didn't report the votes which said "thelegend27 can't lose." i warn you, judges, anyone who votes without a valid reason will get reported. i'd suggest you start posting real arguments, thelegend27. castor oyl has a huge ego. he demands that everyone do things his way, whether or not they want to. when he gambled at dice island and used the whiffle hen, he makes olive, ham, and popeye toil under the hot african sun, carrying huge bags of cash to the boat, while he has fun inside. not only is his ego huge, he's also pretty darn cruel. then, of course, he teams up with mister kilph, and when popeye loses every match because he's too good, castor and kilph leave him, and start managing big hunks of cheese like bullet joe and tinearo. i think that as the strip goes on, castor becomes more cruel to popeye, and olive, cole, and nana oyl start excluding him from the family. he really does think he's the greatest. I await your next argument. and please, use more than fifty words. i want this to be exciting.