BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay Marriage Should Be Legal In The United States

Let's begin by sharing common arguments against same-sex marriages that don't make sense. "I don't like gays, therefore they should not be able to marry."Anyone who says this should not have the right to be involved in such a serious matter. It doesn't matter if you like it or not, it's what is right. There are plenty of people who do want same-sex marriages, therefore why should their wants and needs be ignored? "Gays can't have children."Should an older couple be denied the right to get married just because they can no longer have children? Should a couple who cannot have sex due to medical reasons be denied the right to marry as well because they cannot have children? Should a couple who cannot have kids for any reason be denied the right to get married? NO. So why is it different for gays?"It is against my religion."What? Oh yeah, there's only one religion in the entire world huh? NO. There are other religions, too. Against your religion? Don't marry someone of the same sex. Simple. No one is forcing you to marry the same sex. There are other religions too, don't be ignorant about that."Gays are more likely to spread/get AIDS."While this is true, it does not make sense to say that because they are more likely to spread AIDS, they should not be allowed to get married. Rather they are married or not they're going to have sex. Just because two people aren't married doesn't mean they won't have sex. "It's not appropriate for a minor." This is ridiculous. Do you want to hide your children from normal things? By hiding your child, it's almost as if you're hiding them from the outside world. Also, what makes it any worse than a couple not of the same sex? Nothing. What's not appropriate for a child is knowing that their parent doesn't accept differences...or love. Here are my main reasons:1. America is supposedly a free country. Why is it different for gays? Why should this not account for them?2. It's natural. In almost every species, homosexuality is found. It's not like they can choose who they love...it just happens. 3. It's none of anyone's business if someone wants to marry someone else, especially if you have no idea who they are. 4. Government will get a lot more money by legalizing it than they ever will by making it illegal. Thank you! So, what do you think?
Gay Marriage Should Be Legal In The United States

Sex is an expression of love. Tell me how many gays have physical health (I know they have mental health issues) problems. The point is Hetrosexual people just don't become Homosexual tell me do you know any Homosexuals who just suddenly became that way i'm gussing not. Your argument is not realistic. It is evil because it is not natrual. I do know what evil is. EXCUSE ME MISS we need protein we need to eat we need meat what we don't need is to have sex with another man and gays are mostly physically healthy. I know what love is i'v fallen in love 3 times (with a woman) I have expirence with it so yes I know.
Gay Marriage Should Be Legal In The United States

Okay love does not equal sex. Well, it can, but there doesn't have to be sex in order to love someone, and you don't have to be married in order to have sex. What person gets married and doesn't have sex? Someone who has health issues and can't physically do that. And yes, I know people who have health issues and cannot have sex, so don't say that's not possible. And those two people love each other. If you don't know any Gays then how can you possibly say it's not love as if you know everything about them? Okay so now you're associating a gay with a vampire? Okay if a heterosexual falls in love with the same sex, it's not because the other person "made" them, it's because they're in love with them! Are you really telling me that you believe that homosexuals are like vampires? They don't 'spread a disease.' The heterosexual fell in love with the same sex...people who said that they can make a heterosexual fall in love with them are ridiculous. How is it evil? You know what's evil? Not allowing two people who are in love (if it's not love than what is it? Why do you think they are gay if they don't love the other person? I don't think someone would choose to be a gay in this hateful world) to marry. Evil is killing someone else. Evil is eating an animal. Evil is not loving someone and wanting to spend the rest of your life with that person. Please explain to me how being gay is evil and please explain how it's not real love. If it's not love then what is it? Thank you.
Evolution is tried and true and should be taught in the modern school system

Posted by TheMinorMiner99 6 hours ago Cons final Question to Pro: So are you conceding then? Because despite your attempt to squirm out of your predicament, which cannot BE done, because this was YOUR debate. The exact Debate challenge was: Evolution is tried and true. Pros response to Con: I can no longer debate this with someone who thinks that because I made a mistake, they have won. I'm conceding, because this is a worthless argument. I hope you feel happy you have won. Sorry folks confirmation of response to my question CONFIRMED. THis debate ended . Too bad you didn't grow a pair BEFORE CONCEDING. I'm glad though. Why would you ask me questions off topic .... what I think of the origin of earth. . Pro stated: The first 4 question I have addressed, but It has been 2 rounds and you haven't responded to mine "The response" I'm afraid your first 3 questions don't work, as we cannot hope to complete a process that took nature millions of years in a matter of a single human lifetime, or many lifetimes. Proving Evolution was not tried and True by Pro's admission Posted by TheMinorMiner99 6 hours ago You, know I might finish this just to rub in your face when I win Ohh what a dishonest,dishonorable fellow you have shown yourself to be. Lies, deceitful, conniving. So much FOR YOUR character. You have assassinated it all by yourself. Let all who read consider pros conduct. He conceded. I of course have accepted. This debate ended long ago. Henceforth only Pros form of imagination must serve too entertain you. The smart man, would NOT have tipped his hand. Bye.
Evolution is tried and true and should be taught in the modern school system

"Here is what I meant: Tried and true is a figure of speech, it means that its the current working model, and is good enough for science to say OK! " THIS IS WHAT YOU PUT "Evolution is tried and true and should be taught in the modern school system" "As multiple lines of evidence shows, the evolution model of life can be tested and has been proven." "Shown again and again by experimentation and direct observation." "Why are we deluding future biologists from knowing the truth about our origins." "This is important for the future of biology, and our species." Your admission of evolution as unproven theory. "I'm afraid your first 3 questions don't work, as we cannot hope to complete a process that took nature millions of years in a matter of a single human lifetime, or many lifetimes. " This readily means no actual evidence exist, theorizing we must wait Millions of years to "SEE" IF something evolves? That is in direct contradiction of Use of the term TRUE. This also may be construed as an awareness of misleading at onset. Knowing something is UNTRUE but inferring it as TRUE is a violation of debate rule, i.e... misrepresentation, fraudulent statements, misleading statements. Further You did not notify opponent of your deception till Round 3 this is unconscionable and unacceptable. Debate was entered into in good faith, you've turned into a sham by deliberately lying to cover up your errors, rather than simply admitting your loss. Now you insult the intelligence of your readers and voters by insisting figure of speech was your intent all along, when a simple reading of your opening statements clearly demonstrates you meant precisely that evolution WAS TRIED AND TRUE in the absolute. Why in the world something known to be false would be of more benefit to teach in school as you recommended, shows want of clear thinking, and a clear indication that you yourself, were obviously UNAWARE that evolution was false at the onset of our debate. And only by my questioning, were you forced to research and discover your error. I'm afraid in light of your inexperience on the subject of evolution, continued debate would be all but pointless. This obviously renders my submission of further evidences as moot, in that you cannot even provide any evidence contradicting my original four questions, what sense would there be to submit other, equally unanswerable questions. You lose. Sir, in every way that matters you failed to provide anything that could remotely be called TRUE!
Evolution is tried and true and should be taught in the modern school system

You thinking I`ve put myself in a corner doesn`t mean you`ve won, that`s fallacious debating. Here is what I meant: Tried and true is a figure of speech, it means that its the current working model, and is good enough for science to say OK! It`s impossible to name something objectively true, if I say something is true, it means it`s good enough. Evolution is good enough for science, just as reproducing is good enough for evolution. Congrats, you have wasted a round. I don`t do that, so I`m going to give another example regarding the success of evolution, and the failure of your model. Humans. They breathe, eat, drink and talk all through the same hole. The amusement park is right next to the garbage dump. Why? If your god created all species perfectly, something like this wouldn`t have happened. Please answer these in addition to the previous questions you failed to answer. Try to name something true, I`ll tell you a case when it isn`t. Why do whale have hipbones? They aren`t attached to their skeletons, and serve no purpose.
Evolution is tried and true and should be taught in the modern school system

So are you conceding then? Because despite your attempt to squirm out of your predicament, which cannot BE done, because this was YOUR debate. The exact Debate challenge was: Evolution is tried and true Now you openly admit in your OWN words: "My favorite quote of all, because 100% provable isn`t a thing in science. " That being the case you cannot possibly state accurately that Evolution IS TRUE, then can you. by your own admission it cannot BE PROVEN hence NOT TRUE! The dictionary defines true as something not almost true, close to True, not even hinting at true. It Means that it is a real accurate statement! true 1. in accordance with fact or reality. "a true story" synonyms: correct, accurate, right, verifiable, in accordance with the facts, what actually/really happened, well documented, the case, so; More By your admission Evolution is not "TRUE" by required standards of accuracy, and according to you, never can Be. I submit, you admitted your own defeat in your response. There is nothing else to say. The debate WAS yours, the Burden was yours. You admit No evidence exist. You lose. Thank You for playing.
Evolution is tried and true and should be taught in the modern school system

I'm afraid your first 3 questions don't work, as we cannot hope to complete a process that took nature millions of years in a matter of a single human lifetime, or many lifetimes. That's not how it works. the fourth one, I definitely can, but I can guarantee you will dismiss it as you did with the other one. I`ts a little different though, so you will listen. Ill also phrase it like you would like it with no misdirection. mosquitoes bite birds WW2, mosquitoes get trapped underground Some mosquito`s randomly can bite rats They survive, biting all the rats underground and do better because they have food when the mosquito`s get out, they can`t mate with other mosquito`s of the same species. BAM! new species that didn`t exist before ``Like dog to fish, bird to lizard, elephant to flea, ape to Man, pig to dog`` I don`t think you understand how evolution works. Here is a quick explanation, if you want the full one let me know. Occasionally, when developing sex cells, (sperm and egg), a extra set of genes will duplicate. It happens a ton, some mistakes are bound to happen. the old set of genes can now shuffle around a bit, specialize, do something brand new. A lot of these mutations are bad, like limbs not growing properly. Lots do nothing at all, but some are fantastic, like light sensitive cells in bacteria to get more food. These bacteria do really well, and reproduce! They pass on the light sensitive cells! Fish may turn into birds over millions of generations, but fish are really good at being fish. Why would they stop. I want you to read that paragraph again, this time with the mindset ``LOGIC``. It just makes sense. mistakes happen, some are good, some are bad, bad ones die, good ones do well. Now the incredible thing would have BEEN IF two mating no ridgeback crickets had produced a what? Right a ridgeback cricket, but it's still a cricket so not a new species! You are wrong there, crickets with no ridges and crickets with ridges are two different species in the cricket family, just as trout and salmon are two different species of fish in the fish family IS 100% proveable! My favorite quote of all, because 100% provable isn`t a thing in science. You can only get closer to the truth, you never actually get there. It`s my favorite part about science because no one in science can claim to know all the answers. What is your personal account of origin science? How does it work, what changes. I ask because you just tried to disprove my points, not add anything of your own. Where is your evidence for your belief, because god said so is not a valid answer, it being written in the bible is also a no good answer. Did you agree that we should teach the best truth we have, and what is that truth to you? What do feel you for sure know, and where might you be wrong? Please bring hard evidence, that is, in your eyes, better then mine. Good luck, enjoy.
Evolution is tried and true and should be taught in the modern school system

Hi. I am an evolutionist and an atheist, and enjoy talking to people who disagree with me. The way in which we avoid the topic of creation science in school is ridiculous, and needs to be rebuilt, taught using a modern scientific method, which evolution by natural selection provides for us. As multiple lines of evidence shows, the evolution model of life can be tested and has been proven. There is a mosquito in Hawaii who lays its eggs in between the ridges of crickets wings, and when they hatch, those crickets get devoured from the inside. Yum! Quickly, most of the crickets died out, except for a few, who had a random mutation in their DNA, and didn't have the ridges necessary to make sounds, or have eggs lain in them. They were the only crickets who survived this mosquito, and quickly reproduced. The mosquito's couldn't touch them, and natural selection allowed the silent crickets to live. When those mosquito's flew to the neighboring island, those crickets had already developed a different mutation in the same gene that accomplished the same task. Those islands are now filled with silent crickets. http://evolution.berkeley.edu... As you can see, a random mutation, chosen to succeed, led to a brand new species. There are countless other examples of this happening around the world. Why are we deluding future biologists from knowing the truth about our origins. Teaching them nothing is much worse then teaching them the best truth we have access to. Shown again and again by experimentation and direct observation. This is important for the future of biology, and our species.
Gay Marriage harms the U.S

"I stated I meant something else in the previous rebuttal. Not gay marriage which means ur argument aganist it is dropped and irrelavent." Correction accepted. Still, I asked for you to back up your claim that homosexuality in and of itself spreads disease, which you have failed to do. "It is a personal opinion but every country is perfectly fine with it." Apparently not. Several countries have now granted homosexuals the right to marry, so clearly they were not "fine with" only heterosexuals having that right. "If it is untrue where are your sources? You "doubt" Homosexuals are PERFECTLY fine with heterosexuals. For instance the woman on CNN being a lesbian christian. She had no problem with the straight pastor. Your claim is flawed." You are misunderstanding your own claims. What you originally claimed was that everyone was fine with marriage remaining the way it was (opposite sex only). Now you are claiming everyone is fine with heterosexuality. Which is it? If your claim is that everyone is fine with heterosexuality, this is irrelevant to your other claim, which is that homosexuality is harmful. If your claim is that everyone is fine with hetero-only marriage, this is obviously incorrect. "Each homosexual is capable of reproduction but they simply choose not to which means they do not reproduce Reproduction is beneficial to the world which my opponent has seem to avoid. By agreeing with my opponent you are saying not reproducing isnt harmful." Plenty of homosexuals choose to reproduce. Invalid argument. Also, many heterosexuals choose not to, so this makes your argument even more invalid. If your argument is that choosing not to reproduce is wrong, feel free to start a new debate on that topic, but it is irrelevant to this one. "I am applying the fact that Homosexuality is harmful." And you have yet to give one logical reason to defend that position.
Gay Marriage harms the U.S

I will be quoting my opponent to clearly refute their claims: "You have not shown that marriage spreads disease, so I believe this point is moot, but to be sure, I will refute this anyway." I stated I meant something else in the previous rebuttal. Not gay marriage which means ur argument aganist it is dropped and irrelavent. "Heterosexuality is perfectly fine in this world. Every1 is ok with it." "This is a personal opinion, and does not further your case at all. As well, it is untrue. I doubt that homosexuals are OK with pretending to be heterosexual." It is a personal opinion but every country is perfectly fine with it. If it is untrue where are your sources? You "doubt" Homosexuals are PERFECTLY fine with heterosexuals. For instance the woman on CNN being a lesbian christian. She had no problem with the straight pastor. Your claim is flawed. "Homosexual couples cannot reproduce themselves, but each homosexual *individual* is still capable of reproduction. Also, you seem to have ignored the point -- other people that are either incapable or uninterested in reproduction are still allowed to marry. Reproduction is not a requirement for the ability to wed. Why would you apply this standard only to homosexuals?" Each homosexual is capable of reproduction but they simply choose not to which means they do not reproduce Reproduction is beneficial to the world which my opponent has seem to avoid. By agreeing with my opponent you are saying not reproducing isnt harmful. I am applying the fact that Homosexuality is harmful.
Gay Marriage harms the U.S

I will be quoting my opponent to clearly refute their claims: "Starting with the fact that gay marriage still spreads diease. Gay people that are married most likely have sex therefore it does cause diease. It doesnt matter if heterosexuality causes diease. With all of the diease in the world we must prevent even more diease." You have not shown that marriage spreads disease, so I believe this point is moot, but to be sure, I will refute this anyway. Marriage implies fidelity. While there is no guarantee that a married couple will remain faithful to one another, many studies (as well as common sense) show that married people sleep around less than unmarried people, therefore *preventing* the spread of disease rather than perpetuating it. Banning gay marriage will not, in any way, prevent the spread of disease -- there is, in fact, a case to be made that it would do the opposite Furthermore, you are making a rather large leap by implying that, simply because a person is homosexual, they are spreading disease. Please back up both of the claims you have made here, or concede that they are unfounded. "Heterosexuality is perfectly fine in this world. Every1 is ok with it." This is a personal opinion, and does not further your case at all. As well, it is untrue. I doubt that homosexuals are OK with pretending to be heterosexual. "Next my opponent hasnt shown any evidence for homosexuality producing children. Adopting kids is completely irrelavent. We are talking about the reproduction of the U.S or even the world. I will agree that homosexuality isnt harmful if my opponent can prove that you can still reproduce." Homosexual couples cannot reproduce themselves, but each homosexual *individual* is still capable of reproduction. Also, you seem to have ignored the point -- other people that are either incapable or uninterested in reproduction are still allowed to marry. Reproduction is not a requirement for the ability to wed. Why would you apply this standard only to homosexuals?
Gay Marriage harms the U.S

I will begin my argument by apologizing. I meant to say homosexuality. Anyways to defend my case Starting with the fact that gay marriage still spreads diease. Gay people that are married most likely have sex therefore it does cause diease. It doesnt matter if heterosexuality causes diease. With all of the diease in the world we must prevent even more diease. Heterosexuality is perfectly fine in this world. Every1 is ok with it. Next my opponent hasnt shown any evidence for homosexuality producing children. Adopting kids is completely irrelavent. We are talking about the reproduction of the U.S or even the world. I will agree that homosexuality isnt harmful if my opponent can prove that you can still reproduce.
Gay Marriage harms the U.S

I welcome this debate, although must state that I am not American. I am Canadian, but I feel I can still adequately defend the position that gay marriage would not harm the U.S. It appears my opponent may not have completed their argument in their initial post, so I will address the 2 points made and allow them to continue their argument in their next round. 1. Gay marriage does not in any way spread disease. I believe what my opponent is suggesting is that *homosexuality* spreads disease. There are several problems with this argument. First, it is untrue that homosexuality spreads disease any more than heterosexuality. Second, gay marriage and gay sex, while related, are not the same thing. Sex spreads diseases, marriage does not. In fact, it likely decreases the spreading of them. 2. Homosexuals can and do have children, and are able to adopt children. Furthermore, marriage has never been denied on the basis of fertility. Infertile people can marry, people who do not want children can marry, people who plan to adopt can marry, the elderly can marry -- in short, every heterosexual, whether they intend to breed or not, has the option of marrying.
Gay Marriage harms the U.S

As my opponent forfeited the right to defend their case, I presume I have made the stronger case. To be sure, however, I will state my reasoning one more time, so as to allow a final opportunity to my opponent. Homosexuality does not harm the US (or any other nation): 1. Disease is spread through unprotected or promiscuous sexual practices, not via homosexuality. Many studies have been done on the subject, and the result is *always* that homosexuals engaging in unprotected sex are more likely to get *certain* diseases, and that heterosexuals engaging in unprotected sex are more likely to get *certain* diseases, but that the rates of infection are very similar. 2. Sexual and romantic behavior between two people has little to no effect on those not involved. Simply put, whether I am involved with a man or a woman, your life is not being effected. 3. Reproduction is not a qualifier for being in a romantic relationship. Whether or not homosexuals can or will reproduce has no moral impact. If my opponent wishes to address any of these points, I welcome a continuance of this debate. If not, I must presume I have won.