BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Civilization should endorse homosexual monogamy for reasons of public health and accountability.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) agrees with you that condoms do not provide absolute protection against HIV and other stds ( in fact, there are some STDs that condoms demonstrate very little protection against ). But if used right, condoms do significantly reduce one's chances of contracting HIV and other specified STDs. I'm not going to post stats, but laboratory tests show that condoms do provide an effective barrier against even the tiniest STD pathogens, including HIV [1]. Despite what you claim, studies demonstrate that cheating in marriage and in long-term partnerships has decreased over the last decades, with increased knowledge and worries of STDs and HIV. Unsafe sex and promiscuity carries greater risk of declining health and even death, so the public at large is reacting to this message in a suitable and responsible way. There are some STDs, such as Human papillomavirus (HPV), that can be transmitted through simple skin-on-skin contact, and which can develop into serious health issues later in time. A person infected by specific strands of HPV, for example, can go on to develop precancerous lesions and invasive cancer [2]. Thus the CDC places emphasis on knowing your partner(s) sexual history and taking precautions where necessary.Marriages, relationships, and society in general benefit when people take sexual responsibility seriously.The statistic in ROUND 2 shows that 59% of male homosexuals cheated on their long-term partners in 2000; this is still too much infidelity - and it partly explains why men who have sex with men remain a population severely affected by HIV [3]. But the fact that cheating has decreased among this group since 1975 demonstrates that gay men understand the health risks involved with unsafe sex and promiscuity. As a gay man I understand the dangers to my health posed by unsafe sex and serial promiscuity. But I understand that there are better, more responsible ways to be gay in the modern world. That's why I advocate safe sex and emphasize long-term monogamy for all sexually active gay, bisexual, and trangendered men and women.Genuine, long-term monogamy is the most responsible way any sexually active adult can live. A couple that are united in love and that are commited to each other in life will have an easier time. Knowing your partner's history and having a sound knowledge of who he or she is makes one's own life easier. It also optmizes the health and life satisfaction of both people - conditions that generally benefit society.A topic for the next ROUND.[1] http://www.cdc.gov...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://www.cdc.gov...
Civilization should endorse homosexual monogamy for reasons of public health and accountability.

So you're saying both gay people and straight people have become monogamous because of STDs like AIDS. But first, most people mistakenly believe that birth control thingamajigs will prevent contracting AIDS. Male birth control devices actually have micro-fractures large enough for the AIDS virus, which is a lot smaller than a sperm, to fit through. Therefore, birth control will not actually protect against AIDS. You say that less people have reported cheating. But alas, perhaps this simply means people are being dishonest. Yes, the numbers do suggest that AIDS is less of a problem today. But this is most likely due to prevention methods, not increased monogamy.
Civilization should endorse homosexual monogamy for reasons of public health and accountability.

So basically you're saying that gay people should get married to prevent them from sleeping with every same gender person they meet. However, there's a problem with this. What if they still do so while married? I mean, if they're forced to get married against their will, I don't see why that would change their lifestyles. Granted, if it worked it'd be a lesser of two evils. If it's a social movement to encourage marriage, and they want to live that certain messed up lifestyle, they probably wouldn't get married, or they'd get married while agreeing that cheating on one another was okay. You see, the whole deal is part of an addiction. Read a book called "Truth Decay" by Steve Hale. It cites a source for just about everything that it says. According to the book: "43% of white male homosexuals estimate having had sex with 500 or more partners, while 28% estimate having had 1,000 sexual partners. Incredibly, 79% of those surveyed admitted that at least half of their partners were strangers. A study in the early 1980s revealed that only about two percent of homosexuals are 'monogamous' or 'semi-monogamous,' which means that they've had 10 or fewer partners in their lifetime. If these figures sound a bit exaggerated, then listen to a study by the U. S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). They found that 1,100 sexual partners is about average for gay men. Some reported as many as 22,000 partners in their lifetime! This is not normal. " I quoted the book mentioned above, Truth Decay (by Steve Hale). If these figures are true, then what you suggest is nearly impossible.
Civilization should endorse homosexual monogamy for reasons of public health and accountability.

Civilization has a responsibility to advocate positions that promote both individual satisfaction and community health. Heterosexual monogamy is a recent invention, but its benefits compared to what came before it are hard to discount. A structured family where both the mother and the father are equal heads of household only came about thanks to heterosexual marriage and monogamy. The concepts of women's rights and increased sexual responsibility among both partners developed as heterosexual marriage and monogamy evolved in the subscribing culture.Today we frown at behavior that carries increased health risks that also fails to exhibit a modicum of personal accountability. For example, unsafe promiscuous sex is viewed as both morally reprehensible and as a public health hazard. Safe promiscuous sex is generally considered better, but still carries risks and has moral loose-ends attached to it. Safe monogamous sex is regarded as far more safer and virtuous than the other two, and it's lauded most within the confines of marriage, for reasons of health, law, ethics, and social responsibility.Two people contracted to each other in marriage is the best way that society can distinguish who loves who and who shares legal liability on a number of matters in the union. It is the ultimate demonstration of ethical, legal responsibility in the realms of love, sex, and property - and therefore society has a responsibility to encourage it!Heterosexual monogamy and marriage are recent inventions but it would be foolish and destructive to our society to eradicate this lifestyle and institution.For this very reason society must endorse homosexual monogamy for its public health! Homosexual marriage is something gay and bisexual people should be encouraged to shoot for, to promote individual responsibility in the realms of love, sex, property, and health, and to further underscore the ethical truth that society functions best and most happily when people are allowed to be themselves within the confines of social etiquette, rules and laws.People of a legal age should be permitted and encouraged to form monogamous unions as long as they intend to have sex and fall in love.My opponent should begin his arguments against my resolution in ROUND 1.
Evolution: Pick One

Thanks Dave! I accept your challenge. I choose #8, Micro evolution is just variety within the same kind, so macro evolution is at best just a myth. Definitions: Myth- any invented story, idea, or concept. Micro evolution- Micro evolution refers to evolution that occurs at or below the level of species, such as a change in the gene frequency of a population of organisms or the process by which new species are created (speciation). Macro evolution- Macro evolution refers to evolution that occurs above the level of species, such as the origin of new designs (feathers, vertebrates from invertebrates, jaws in fish), large scale events (extinction of dinosaurs), broad trends (increase in brain size in mammals), and major transitions (origin of higher-level phyla). BOF- Burden of proof is upon both. Con is must shown that macro evolution is true and not a myth. Pro must show that macro evolution is in fact a modern myth. I also agree to your rules and structure. Thanks! I send it back To Dave-->
Evolution: Pick One

ScottyDouglas recently published a post in the Religion forum regarding evolution and the flood. The following are the key propositions from that post, which I have copied and pasted here (spelling errors and all):(1) A formerly wide spread of these (flood) myths can make one think that the actuality of the flood can be true. (2) The geological evidences from the Biblical Flood are in agreement with geological facts seen in the field.(3) The deposits fit well with the Genesis magnitude of a Great Flood but not so for naturalism in a uniform scheme.(4) Typical unbelievers say that flood legends are not absolute proof but they are far better evidence then any that relates man and apes from a common ancestor. (5) Lets remember that Carbon dating is far from accurate or fact. (6)The sedimentary rock of the earth that contain fossils and is our supposed geologic history have been laid down by moving waters.(7) The fossil record of species have never been apart of evidence for evolution.(8) Micro evolution (...) is just variety within the same kind, so macro evolution is at best just a myth.(9) The palaeontologist finds is just too intermittent and is full of missing links. My challenge to Scotty is to pick one, just one of the above statements that he made, and defend it in this debate. He may present his opening argument in this opening round, and he may have the last word. Ordinarily I would insist on an artificial character count restriction to maintain fairness when an opponent has the first and last word, but in this case I don't think it's necessary.Rules:No semantics.A separate page may be used for sources, but not for commentary or argumentation of any kind.No round forfeitures.
Concealed Carry Laws Decrease Violent Crime

I accept the challenge. As Con, I will be arguing that the Concealed Carry Laws do not necessarily reduce violent crime (ineffective or may even exacerbate the situation). May both of us enjoy this debate and let's begin. P.S. Question: Are we talking about the Concealed Carry laws in general or we must confine ourselves to any specific state? Request: Please define "violent crime."
People should not keep pets

1) Pets are not enslaved into the homeKeeping an animal as a pet does not neccessarily mean to enslave that animal. Dogs, cats, rabbits and other common household pets are often seen by their owners as members of the family and are loved and cared for accordingly. Pets offer a sense of companionship and bonding that positively affects both the animal and its owner. For example, according to studies, it has been proven that pet owners are less likely to suffer from depression in comparison to pet owners. Owning a pet can also increase an owner's fitness. (1) Pets such as dogs, cats and rabbits wouldn't be able to survive without us, and if even if they weren't domesticated, their life expectancy in the wild would very likely be far worse than that of a life spent in the human home. Generally, pets live a far happier and warmer life under the love of a human than they would out in the bitter wilderness. Besides, most pets such as cats and dogs have the option to break free via a cat flap or for a dog when it has been let off lead, but the vast majority stay because they love their owners.2) Animals don't careThe hard truth is that animals really don't care about morality or any of those mushy human traits - all they require is love, a degree of freedom, nutritious food and shelter. ALL of these are provided by law-abiding owners. The only commodity listed that an animal would indefinitely receive if released into the wild is full, unprecedented freedom, which isn't always a positive thing given the lack of direction and guidance they'd have. You said that all living creatures deserve basics rights and that captivity doesn't fulfil these demands. How does feeding, excercising and loving a pet not accomplish their basic rights? You have provided no evidence whatsoever to support your claim that keeping animals as pets is affecting their evolutional process. And even if we were 'tampering' with their biological structure, who is to say that it will be for the worse? (1) . http://www.helpguide.org...
People should not keep pets

This debate raises questions about the similarities and differences between humans and animals. "Humans are morally considerable because of the distinctively human capacities we possess, capacities that only we humans have" argues an article in Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. (http://plato.stanford.edu...) If this is the case, then we should use our morality for the animals that have no thought of it - I mean should we be able to decide to keep them in an unnatural environment that they have no understanding of? You hear many animal rights groups say that: "Pets are our property. Dogs, cats, hamsters, rabbits, and other animals are mass produced like bolts" (http://www.abolitionistapproach.com...) AND that is wrong! All living creatures deserve the basic rights which captivity denies even though they may have no moral comprehension of their experiences! I think it is up to the humans, who actually do have an awareness of these factors, to ensure that these rights are maintained. Beyond this there is the issue of tampering with evolution to change the appearance of animals for our enjoyment. This process of evolution is morally wrong! We have no rights to change each other.
People should not keep pets

I do not think that people should keep pets. Humans are a natural part of the animal kingdom, and have been used to be around animals for the entirety of their existence. But is it really right to keep them as pets? Just to introduce the topic I have written a bit about the history.. One of the defining characteristics of the human race is that we developed the ability to domesticate and eventually control other species for our use. The first sign of a relationship between humans and animals can be traced as far back as 20,000 years ago, when humans and wolves were hunting the same animals for food. Around 12,000 years ago this relationship developed into the domestication of dogs as a separate kind from wolves through selective breeding to choose those individuals who were most obedient and less likely to harm their human keepers. In this process the initial bond between humans and dogs were created. It extended beyond their use for hunting and was the necessary foregrounding for keeping pets in general. Dogs appear to have been with early humans in many different parts of the world - the domestication of cats on the other hand was rather more localized. The Ancient Egyptians first bred wild cats 5000 years ago to eventually produce the domestic cats we know today. Other people around the world seem to have tamed many sorts of animals as companions and pets, from goldfish and birds to monkeys and reptiles, and the isolation of these examples suggests that it is an intrinsic human quality to tame animals beyond the role of hunting. Despite the vast popularity of pet ownership, especially in more economically developed countries, the question still remains as to whether the practice should be continued. http://www.historyworld.net...
People should not keep pets

As well as the risk to health of the humans, keeping pets can be damaging to animal health. Diseases that can be transferred between animals and humans are called "zoonoses". The list of these diseases is long and varied, and they are often transferred by a subsidiary medium - a parasite like a flea or tick, when it comes to humans getting sick because of the animals. (http://www.who.int...) (http://en.wikipedia.org...) The other way around; Animals getting sick because of humans - this is also a big risk! And isn"t it our fault that we take them in and then make them sick? Animals can also get sick with the same infections as humans. Flu and rabies are well known, but sexually transmitted diseases crop up in animals too. (http://www.popsci.com...) And if animals don"t really care about morals and whatsoever, why can they become depressed? "Depression is actually pretty common in the animal kingdom and "Many kinds of animals exhibit a classic depression-related sense of helplessness when they can't change their situations". (http://www.popsci.com...) Animals can"t talk, so how do we even know if they want to be with us or not? Maybe we should just let them completely live their own lives. And it isn"t only dogs, cats and rabbits that we see people have as pets. It is also seen that someone actually has a monkey, snake or a pig inside. Anything beyond the initial taming of animals for protection and hunting is unnatural. Some of the animal species that we keep as pets cannot be 'domesticated' - they are simply wild animals in captivity. Especially in the case of birds, keeping them as pets greatly limits the experience they would have in the wild. They are born to fly, and they don"t get very far in a case or in a house, do they? And as Monica Engebretsen argues for Born Free USA, "Birds are routinely denied two of their most fundamental natural behaviors " flying and socialization. Denial of these activities can cause physical and behavioral abnormalities including incessant screaming, pacing, head-bobbing, feather-plucking, and self-mutilation" (http://http//www.opposingviews.com/i/should-birds-be-kept-as-pets) From a basic animal welfare point of view then, many animals which are currently kept as pets are not suited to that lifestyle, and in fact they are often suffering for no other reason than human gratification is reason. We are selfish! Isn"t this enough to stop this from happening? This is also a problem that is growing rather than receding, as zoo vet and government inspector Matt Brash points out: "There is a big problem out there. There are an awful lot of exotics in the country. A lot of them are not being kept properly". (http://news.bbc.co.uk...) These animals are kept in unsuitable conditions which damages their health.
Gay Marriage

Ok, first i would like to point out, I agree with you 100% personally but i dont agree with you in America. in the Vatican City, you would be correct. But the first amendment clearly dictates that the United States will play no part in religion. The under god claus you stated i believe in, but out government does not. So you can;t use the "God made" statement here marriage is not specifically combined with reproduction. in regards to homosexuals, marriage has nothing to do with reproduction. marriage is a "civil union" and thus, simply an institute to display one's love to one another. there is no reason why a man can not love another man. they want marriage to encompass them simply to be able to say we love each other enough to get married AND to receive benefits. since marriage in teh united states MUST BE CIVIL UNION, not a religious establishment, homosexuals do not know why they can not partake. we can not dictate love. therefore, we can not dictate who wants to get married. since there is no reason why a civil union is only heterosexual, there is no reason to not allow gay marriage.
Darren Wilson was in the right

The fact of the matter with this case is that Michael Brown has no argument for his defense. I'm not saying that it isn't horrible to lose a family member, but when someone assaults an officer of the law, you cannot pull an about-face and say that the officer was in the wrong. Here are the facts, -13 shots were fired at Brown, only a small number actually hit. -Blood and DNA from Brown were found on officer Wilson's weapon and pant leg, as well as inside the squad car, supporting the argument for the altercation inside the vehicle. -Brown had significant levels of Marijuana in his system -The angle of the shots as well as gunpowder evidence from the weapon show that Brown was shot only from the front, breaking down the argument that Brown was running away or turned around facing away from Wilson -Officer Wilson responded to a theft call and radioed that he had two men who fit the suspects' description and he was going to investigate. He also called for backup (Now why would a cop that supposedly did something wrong call in additional police to assist? Anyone that just committed a crime wouldn't call in the police on themselves) -Eyewitness accounts that were proven to be true in a grand jury trial show that Brown charged at Wilson "like a football player" and never had his hands up, instead at his sides or in a running position. -Brown, who was an "innocent little boy who wouldn't hurt a fly" had just robbed a convenience store of some cigarillos and assaulted the clerk, and was walking in the middle of the street with the stolen goods in plain sight. To say that this was racial profiling is a false assumption, Wilson was merely doing his job and then saving his own life. Another important note is that Brown's "parents" were nonexistent in his life. His biological dad was divorced from his mom and had no been around. His mother and step-dad did not live with Michael, and Michael lived with his grandmother. He had little parental guidance, that, if you think about it, probably contributed to Michael's criminal behavior. Plus, to add to the list of bad influences on Michael, his parents were seen striking a relative and his step father is quoted as saying on that Monday night of the decision, "burn it down". If this didn't lead to a more violent young man that we knew, I don't know what did. Thank you and good luck
to much homework is bad for students

First to refute my opponents points: < > I never stated that they should be pardoned from their work but merely as the topic states it is bad for them. By doing EC activities you get to experience life, stay fit, even pick up a few worthy skills you can use later on maybe for college? Do you think higher education isn't going to look outside of how the kid does academically? Of course they want to know if the student is good all around. < > We are not talking about when kids are not IN school so this point is irrelevant, as the topic states to much homework is bad for students, and I do not believe we get homework over break or holidays. < > Again, I never said they shouldn't but said that that is not the sole reason. Of course if you are the best swimmer in the world a college will want despite your academic life, that is called RECRUITING. < > To what extent are you willing to push the student, until they break? Some of those are natural in adulthood but you have to realize there is a proven study that A LOT of those are harmful to the body and brain. As Toynbee once said "How far can you push a civilization until it has reached an extent where it doesn't perform?" To summarize: Too much Homework causes A LOT of stress which is proven to be harmful to the brain. Too much homework causes kids to be stuck at home and have no outside life. Too much homework causes kids to reach a limit until they cannot take it any more and crack under pressure. Too much homework prevents kids from leading a healthy life outdoors and active because they are to busy with Homework. OVERALL too much homework is bad for students because of the restriction and limits it puts on the children. Thank you Juggernaut, I have enjoyed this debate.