BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay Marriage

I apologize to my opponent for calling his assertions laughable. However, I do honestly think they are very flawed. My opponent goes on on his argument about how there are plenty of people as is so procreation is irrelevant. Well sir, I already explained that procreation is not irrelevant because a society needs the young to replace the old eventually so they can take over and furthermore continue the society. Blahblahblah lots of irrelevant stuff; my opponent states that I simply shrug off his argument. I think not good sir! I gave an appropriate response in my opening argument, in my round 2 argument, and now I'm giving an appropriate response in this argument. My opponent talks about over-population, which goes very off-topic from this debate which if I may remind my opponent, is about gay marriage. My opponent talks about a "gay gene" which is nature's way of saying slow down. I think not, homosexuality in fact, was far more common and accepted in old societies such as Greece and Rome. Arguably, homosexuality is related more to the surrounding environment and societies acceptance of it then it is related to biological factors. ConclusionNearly all of my opponent's arguments are irrelevant and my opponent failed to so much as respond to my own opening arguments. Good(ish)(Okay, fine, the debate was pretty bad) debate Pro.
Should Hillary be put in jail for her Email scandal

Firstly, I am in no way endorsing Mrs. Clinton for any position, nor endorsing any of her opponents. "How could someone of her status get away with something of such proportion?" It is a very simple answer. To put a person in jail, we must establish that they committed the act on purpose. If you can prove that Clinton acted in such a way as to intentionally release classified documents in an illegal way, then I will completely concede. "...while there are 18 year olds in the military that can manage to not spill information without constant assistance or supervision?" Clinton is obviously not the administrator of her official email account, by any means. To deal with thousands of emails a day takes an office. Intelligence officers are different in that their job is to handle and manage classified files.
Should Hillary be put in jail for her Email scandal

I'm currently in a position in the military that deals everyday with sensitive and classified information, such as everything that was included in the deleted emails. If anyone in my position even sent one email with information over the wrong network we could be thrown in jail and stripped of everything we've earned. So my question is this: How could someone of her status get away with something of such proportion while there are 18 year olds in the military that can manage to not spill information without constant assistance or supervision?
Should Hillary be put in jail for her Email scandal

"To put a person in jail, we must establish that they committed the act on purpose." I understand that in writing, that is how the law works, but she didn't even start this whole ordeal out on the right side of the law. According to this article (1) she never had a .gov email that would've already been on a secure network. She instead, used a "private email account housed on her own personal server to conduct her government business" which as far as my job is concerned, has to be okayed by the government and cleared to house and transport any information that is anything above unclassified. Which would mean that she also, by extension or even directly, she is the administrator or has access to the direct administration of her email account and server. The other point I would like to make is that these emails weren't all over the course of a day or even a week, these were emails that were compiled after years of working for the state department as stated in the article cited at the bottom. (1) http://www.slate.com...
We Know Our Knowledge.

Rebuttals"Can we search for that which we do not know?" Yes we can search for information online, but there are STILL so many other information that is undiscovered.Ex. The ocean is not even completely explored. "Do we know our knowledge or not?"Obivously I took on this debate, since I do not believe that we know our knowledge. ArgumentHe did not refute any of my arguments.So my argument still stands.Conclusion: Knowledge is something you can have, but the amount of knowledge makes "knowledge" never attainable.Which means that we don't know our knowledge. Have fun and good luck.
We Know Our Knowledge.

DefinitionsKNOWLEDGEKnowledge is a familiarity with someone or something, which can include facts, information, descriptions, or skills acquired through experience or education. It can refer to the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.http://en.wikipedia.org...KNOWLEDGEthe fact or state of knowinghttp://dictionary.reference.com... Argument:Knowledge is something we can not fully achieve. It is the gap between God and the human mind. We do have knowledge, but the true question is how much knowledge do we have. We still have the world to explore and the space to examine. We understand life, but we do not understand it completely. Even after decades and decades of years pass, we will still ponder if we know our knowledge. Our search for knowledge is a never ending quest for the ultimate victory: intelligence of all things. Conclusion: Knowledge is something you can have, but the amount of knowledge makes "knowledge" never attainable.Good luck and have fun.
The Circumcision of minors without absolute medical necessity should be banned

In response to my opponents argument- though some forms of Genital alterations on women are legal, all forms of body altering procedures are prohibited to be preformed on minors. But even if we were to assume that it was legal, Male Circumcision is not a minor cosmetic procedure, instead, it refers to the removal of a specialized part of the male genitals, the most sensitive part as a matter of fact. The equivalent would be to cut out a girls clitoris, which is illegal, and a blatant violation of bodily autonomy.
The Circumcision of minors without absolute medical necessity should be banned

I am happy to accept Pro's definitions.RebuttalTo summarise Pro's argument, the way the USA government handles Female Genitam Mutilation should be expanded and made to apply to both sexes. If we do this, circumcision (as a form of genital mutilation) should supposedly be banned.Now there are a lot of holes I could poke in this such as:- Why should the USA's government's laws be the ones we look at. I am not part of the USA and neither is most of the world.- Why are the female genitals considered the baseline that male genitals revert to, why not vice versa? Why not treat female genitals like make ones?- Why are we treating different genitals that have different health risks from different procedures as if they are the same thing and a violation of the 14th amendment?However I don't need to because based on his own definition and sources, Pro has conceded the point.His third source, and the only one that isn't a basic dictionary definition, does not support what he says. The USA actually only bans certain kinds of female genital mutilation, nameley:"circumcises, excises, or infibulates the whole or any part of the labia majora or labia minora or clitoris"[1]So although it outlaws some actions performed on some part of the vulva, some sections of the vulva like the mons pubis, bulb of vestibule, vulval vestibule, etc are not covered by this law as they are not part of the labia majora, labia minora or clitoris[2] and some actions are fine even when performed on those sections, like a small surgical cut to the labia which causes no lasting damge or even scars.That last example is not a technicality I've invented, but a specific and practiced form of gental alteration which fit's Pro's definition of mutilation ("Any type of cutting or removal of all or some of the genital organs") and is actually advocated by academics as a method which can meet religion and cultural criteria without leaving lasting damage to the child and reduce the number of people who pursue the harmful and long-term damaging types of genital mutilation. [3] All of which still meets Pro's definition of genital mutilation.So in actuality, what the USA does is regulate female genital mutilation. As with all kinds of things - from weapons to food - it allows some kinds and bans others.If we therefore follow Pro's argument and use the USA's treatment of FGM as our basis, then circumcision should be legal. It falls under the type of "mutilation" that is legal on females as one that has no common long term health risks.As Pro has conceded the argument, I don't feel the need to make a positive argument of my own at this stage.[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu...[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://jme.bmj.com...
The Circumcision of minors without absolute medical necessity should be banned

The resolution consists in 2 points which I must now prove- first, that circumcision is genital mutilation, and second, that it should be banned. I. THAT CIRCUMCISION IS GENITAL MUTILATIONGenital Mutilation is defined as: {1}"Any type of cutting or removal of all or some of the genital organs"Circumcision is defined as:"To remove the prepuce of a male."Circumcision refers to the removal of part of the genital organs, which fits the definition of genital mutilation- thus fulfilling my first burden of proof. 2. THAT CIRCUMCISION ON MINORS SHOULD BE BANNEDTitle 18 Section 116, United States Code, prohibits the removal of any part of the genitalia of a female who is under the age of 18, save out of absolute medical necessity, and only permitted to be done by a licensed practitioner. Though this law only explicitly prohibits the mutilation of female genitalia, Section 1 of the 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection of the Law to all citizens of the United States, men and women. Therefore, male circumcision should be illegal- as to keep it legal is a violation of the 14th Amendment. {3} {1}. http://www.dictionary.com...{2}. http://www.dictionary.com...{3}. https://www.law.cornell.edu...
RESOLVED: Gay marriage should be legal in all of the U.S.

Before I will begin Cross Examination I would like to apologize for dropping necessary arguments of Cons case. He wrote the article in question, and he has properly extended his arguments. I also apologize for the lack of expected structure, I am new to this debate atmosphere, I study a different form. 1.) Essentially what you're saying is that Aristotle would not have condoned homosexuality, at all, correct? 2.) What value are you upholding by what criterion? 3.) How do the two link? 4.) How is your definition of "human nature" superior to mine, specifically? 5.) Why can the judges not view my definition as legitimate in this debate? 6.) What is your personal definition of "Justice?" 7.) What is your personal definition of "Equality?" 8.) When was the article (previously in question) written? 9.) How did I not address your attack on my Aristotle contention about equality and justice definitions?
RESOLVED: Gay marriage should be legal in all of the U.S.

My responses will be brief, seeing that Pro neglected to respond to a substantial portion of my argument.First, Pro accuses me of plagiarizing my argument against same-sex marriage. This charge is false: I wrote the article in question. If one checks the link he provided, my username is listed right next to the author's name. Now aside from this charge, Pro did not respond to the arguments I provided. Henceforth, extend my arguments.Now regarding Pro's proposed definition of human nature, I'd like to make several points. First, why should we accept it? What makes his account of human nature superior to the one I provided (one which is grounded in biological function). Second, Pro's account of human nature puts the cart before hte horse. We have these psychological characteristics, feelings, and behavioral traits precisely because we share a human nature which they are grounded in. Hence, it is more ontologically basic to ground human nature in biology, as opposed to these traits (which themselves are grounded in biology). Third and most importantly, Pro completely misses the point. I provided a definition of human nature in terms of biological function, and my argument is based on that conception of human nature. Showing that my argument fails under another account of human nature thus completely misses the point, since it was never meant to accomodate that conception to begin with.Pro has not responded to the charge that he misinterpreted Aristotle, nor has he responded to the charge that same-sex marriage would be prohibited under Aristotle's own political and ethical theory. Hence, extend my arguments there. Aristotle's understanding of "justice" and "equality" actually goes against Pro's case. Nor has Pro been able to provide an account of justice and equality that is non-question begging, per my previous criticisms. If Pro is to refute my arguments, he must thus abandon an Aristotelian conception of justice.I turn it over now to Pro.
RESOLVED: Gay marriage should be legal in all of the U.S.

I enjoyed reading his response very much, and will propose my rebuttal. First, I would like to point out a few flaws in Cons argument. "Justice is equality, but only for equals; and justice is inequality, but only for those who are unequal. " is the reference to Aristotle that my point was conveying. I was not defining Justice as Equality, but Equality as Justice. Aristotle claimed that equality was justice in and of itself. I would also like to point out that his argument under the tag line: "Against Same-Sex Marriage" should gain no Con ground because I believe I have read this previously in "Love Is Not All You Need" written by Tim Hsiao. All arguments in this section will be negated because it is only evidence, there are no original claims, no original tag lines, and no original content whatsoever by the Con. However, after checking under the tag line of "Justice, Equality, and Aristotle" I have found no such plagiarism, so I will pose my rebuttal only addressing these arguments. I would first like to propose a counter definition of "human nature,"being that it is the general psychological characteristics, feelings, and behavioral traits of humankind, regarded as shared by all humans. " According to this definition, human nature is the portion of our psychological characteristics that are the same. What the Con argues is the "heterosexual nature. " By using the narrow definition that the Con provides, we would ultimately call homosexuals inhuman. As I stated before, the value of this debate will be Justice, and indirectly referring to a homosexual, whether intended to or not, as inhuman is clearly not just. Therefore, this argument will be negated as well, as it covers no ground under the value and criterion of justice and equality. Under the constitutions dictation, "all men are created equal. " We all have equal moral status until people taking the Cons side of the argument come up and claim that those with homosexual beliefs are not. For all of these reasons, please vote pro in this debate. *The United States Constitution *. http://rationalgang.com...
RESOLVED: Gay marriage should be legal in all of the U.S.

Gay marriage seems to take up a lot of debate nowadays, and I wanted to get my opinion out in the open. Before I begin a road map of what I will review in my debate, I would like to state that I am heterosexual. To make this debate as clear as possible, I would like to offer the following definitions. Homosexual (or Gay): Sexually attracted to people of one's own sex. Legal: Of, based on, or concerned with the law: "the American legal system" All: Used to refer to the whole quantity or extent of a particular group or thing. "I see the policy of opposing same-sex marriages or unions, whatever you call it, as bigotry or discrimination." Patrick J. Kennedy It is because I agree with Patrick J. Kennedy that I must affirm today's resolution: RESOLVED: Gay marriage should be legal in all of the U.S. The value I will be upholding in this debate is justice, which is the quality of being fair and reasonable. Justice balances the rights of every individual. Justice should be valued above all other possible values because when debating the laws that apply to all of those that life in the United States, we must be fair and reasonable to everyone; essentially, we need to be just. My value of Justice will be upheld by the criterion of providing equality. Equality is, in a purely formal sense as understood by Aristotle, justice. We can understand equality as fundamental equality in the sense that all human beings have the same fundamental moral status. By providing equality, we can achieve true justice. Now, onto my first contention. When gays are refused the right to marry in certain states, they are denied opportunities in life that should be provided. Marriage itself should be valued as a right, and when it is, we can see that by not providing this right to gays in today's society, we do not allow for justice to take place because we do not offer equality. I will close my part of round 1 with 1 contention, I will elaborate this point, create new ones, and defend my view in further rounds.
Technology is making humans less sociable.

First, as a technologist, I find the shorthand use of the word troubling. Technology existed before the first integrated circuit, before the industrial revolution, before the founding of the United States of America. I know my opponent didn’t intend to start a debate over semantics, and will give him or her the debate I believe she intends. I read it as, “The ubiquity of computing devices and their access to the Internet and other communication systems is making humans less sociable.” With that as question, my answer is unequivocally NO! Let’s paint the mental picture I think pro would like us to see. Well, I will give you some inspiration [1]. The first reaction is that these people could be engaging in a more social activity, say talking to each other. I suppose they could, but that’s not the question, the question is – is the ubiquitous computer making these people less social. Well, let’s look at some other photos from before computing devices were in everyone’s pockets. [2][3]. The juxtaposition of the photos says quite a lot, but leaves more to be said. The older photos show a completely solitary activity, reading the news. The more recent scene has more options. What is on the screen they are staring so intently at? It might be news, it might be a text from mom. Regardless, even if it is only news reading, the device has the potential to turn the interaction into a bidirectional exchange of information. The user of the computing device can, in most cases, post information BACK to the source in the form of personal opinion, or questioning. He may even pass the source of the information to another person. A pointer back to the source. The detractor of this interaction may be inclined to say something like “if they looked up, they may interact with someone new”. This is about the worst of misnomers, but I know I have heard it before. Socializing online opens incredible opportunities to meet more, and more diverse people. I only have to use this debate, and this debater as an example [4]. I now have more interaction with him or her than I might with anyone I drop my newspaper to mumble “good morning” to. The quality and content of the interaction is measurably better, and that’s without even factoring in the benefits of my opponent being geographically removed in a way that would make the interaction nearly impossible not long ago. Since we have a five round debate, I will keep it short for now. [1] http://i.imgur.com... [2] http://also.kottke.org... [3] http://timelifeblog.files.wordpress.com... [4] http://www.debate.org...
God Hurts People

I am unaware of what evidence there is to support your claim that God only hurts people for their well-being. God is all powerful, and can hurt people for reasons other than their well-being. Maybe God thinks it's in the best interest of all people except one person that that one person endures great suffering and pain followed immediately by death. That would kind of be like the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. It does not seem that in such a case God hurt the person for their well-being. Maybe God hurts people because God wants one group of people to enjoy and exploit the benefits of making another group of people suffer greatly, to no noteworthy benefit of the group suffering. As to your last statement, if "hurt" is not hurt, then "hurt" does not qualify as being included in the meaning of my claim that God hurts people. My claim is that God actually and genuinely hurts people.
'Yes or No' questions are fundamentally different to 'True or False' questions.

I will start off with recapping a few things from my previous round..."Fundamentally (adverb): used to make an emphatic statement about the basic truth of something."Fundamentally is simply helping emphasis the word Different, meaning it can be taken out of the premise and the premise will still have the same meaning."Different (adjective) : not the same as another or each other; unlike in nature, form, or quality.""As Pro, I accept full Burden of Proof (BoP). To achieve BoP it is my duty to show how 'Yes or No' questions, are different (in ANY way) from "True or False" questions." Now I will quote a short excerpt from Con's argument as it directly details my argument. (This is not a rebuttal, this is actually my argument)"Here we find one slight issue (or so you think). 'Yes' and 'no' are nouns/exclamations whilst 'true' and 'false' are adjectives regarding the correctness of an assertion in the form of a statement."As my opponent has gladly pointed out, as is my first argument, T/F questions require an adjective to answer their questions. Y/N questions require a noun.Adjectives and nouns are different from each other.I truly appreciate Con making his arguments for me. This falls under my BoP of finding ANY difference between the two. Therefore, according to the rules set out in Round 1 by me, I win this debate.I do not believe any rebuttals would be plausible as of this point, but I will let Con decide on that, and continue this debate as necessary based on the responses.Thank you.