BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay Marriage should be legal in all States.

I accept the challenge of your debate. I will take the con side of this debate and give reason as to why I disagree that gay marriage should not become legalised in all states.I'd like to first break down your argument and give my argument against. Then I'll wait for your rebuttle in the next round."Marriage is a right to everyone, not to just those who are straight."I would agree with your statement that marriage is a right to everyone if I believed marriage was indeed a right.I do not believe it to be a right. We, as human beings, have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Marriage does not fall into those categories. This would fall under the Decloration of Independence and there is nothing about happiness and marriage coinciding. Marriage would not fall under these right, gay or straight. http://www.archives.gov..."If we start saying Gays can't be married then what is going to stop us from saying that about Blacks or Immigrants?"It will never get to a point where we refuse to allow blacks and immigrants to get married. We have already climbed out of that hole years ago. Race is inherited and homosexuality is not, therefore cannot be desciminated over, that is, if marriage was a right. Nowhere in the Constitution does it mention marriage as a right. http://www.archives.gov...;"There is absolutely no reason that gay marriage shouldn't be allowed."There is a very good reason. Marriage is not a right. If it were a right, this debate would not be taking place."Your religion should not have a say in whether or not a man can marry another man, what gives you the power to say that two people perfectly in love can't get married?Religion plays a big part in it, actually. This country was founded on religious grounds and principles. Therefore, religion has a lot of say in this debate. And what gives me the power to say two people in love cannot get married? Well, I do have the right to free speech. And so does everyone else. And again, if marriage were a right protected for us in the Constitution, then I wouldn't have a say."Would you like to be discriminated against for something you can't control?"No, I probably would not like it one bit. However, there has never been any scientifically proven data that prove a "gay gene" even exists. Therefore homosexual desires can be controlled.
Gay Marriage should be legal in all States.

Marriage is a right to everyone, not to just those who are straight. If we start saying Gays can't be married then what is going to stop us from saying that about Blacks or Immigrants? There is absolutely no reason that gay marriage shouldn't be allowed. Your religion should not have a say in whether or not a man can marry another man, what gives you the power to say that two people perfectly in love can't get married? Would you like to be discriminated against for something you can't control? I wouldn't think so.
Evil Proves The Existence of An Evil God

Rule: Con must argue from an atheist standpoint, not a "God is good" standpoint. If you are too dumb to comprehend how this debate can be done with this rule, or you just won't follow this rule, THEN DON'T accept the debate. I will point out immediately that you have violated the rule and so for voters to vote for me, and then BLOCK YOU, and start the debate over again. I have already had to do that with a troll the first time I tried to start this debate! Science can not explain evil. Why are people capable of murder, not just a little bit capable such as if we feel threatened, but capable out of pure malice and in large numbers (the Holocaust for example)? Some people even murder innocent children, even babies (and I'm not talking about abortion here, I'm talking about infanticide). That clearly is not a beneficial trait. It would have helped us greatly if humans had an inherent revulsion to murdering each other, and a desire to cooperate with each other for mutual benefit. Cultures and societies would have come together a lot faster. Technologies and knowledge would've been shared. By now we would probably already have a colony on Mars. There are a number of other things which would've been beneficial had we developed genetic mutations to avoid, such as rape and suicide. Suicide is particularly difficult to understand, since the individual is directly acting against their own survival, the individual selecting against him/herself! Since all human behavior boils down to neurobiology unless there is some sort of supernatural intervention it is possible for genes to emerge that would stop these sorts of behaviors, but it didn't happen. There can be only one explanation for why natural selection did not eliminate these things from our DNA. God. There must be an all-powerful evil deity who continuously intervenes to prevent these sorts of beneficial mutations that would've otherwise occurred due to natural selection. Nature alone can not account for all the evil in the world.
Creationism is an irrational explanation for life on Earth

Alright, well, thank you for this debate. You make excellent points. Telling me to do research and whatnot. I'd like to say a few things before I raise my white flag, however. Read it or not, I don't really mind. In the beginning of this debate, you told me that the Bible is not a reliable source of information, and is factually flawed. That right there, was almost telling me "Hey, we're gonna have a gun fight, but you can't bring a gun". Obviously, there are other "weapons", per say, but the Bible would be my most powerful. Why would that be? Onto your next contradiction. You say I'm "making up the Ad Popululum fallacy". Which, you would be incorrect, and no, I'm not changing my point of view at all, I'm just explaining my true reasoning. I didn't say "If all say it is, then it is". No, that would be like the world saying "Michael Jackson is alive." It's still not true, and that doesn't bring Jackson back to life. What I'm saying, is that if SO many people read it, buy it, and steal it, then there MUST be some viability or actuality behind it. Now, I want to point out something that didn't quite make sense to me. "I don't want to insult you, but I find this quite funny. Humans, and other 'intelligent' creatures have the intellectual capacity to create tools. Humans in the cold wore and made jackets. Humans developed medicine and a social system to cope as well. Because of such 'tools', humans have stopped dying off, and using the logic of natural selection" That's mostly a mental level, and I'm talking about physical. I might just be delusional, but in many cases I think you're attempting to raise yourself up, or exalt yourself. Again, I could be very wrong, as I usually am. In my final argument, I will bring forth this statement. We're looking at this from different perspectives, which is causing such a clash in ideals. A debate of this topic will never be fully proven, simply because God made it so that you actually get a choice in what you want to believe in. He didn't provide TONS of evidence in His existence, or otherwise it would dull the effect of a "spiritual relationship", and yes, that exists, not just in Christianity. I'm looking at this from a standpoint of Faith, but trying to be unbiased, and kinda failing. You, are trying to disprove something that may or may not shake the laws of reality and your "science" that you hold so dear. I loved this debate, but I hope I won't have to speak of this topic again as it gets bland, and some people just absolutely hate being proved wrong, arguably yourself. Not trying to hate on you, in fact, you're a very intelligent young man. I admire that, and I hope to one day try to enlighten myself in the brain, as I study psychology and neurology. Thank you for your time, audience and Pro, but this debate goes to Pro. He brought up greater points than me and worded them better. Good day.
Creationism is an irrational explanation for life on Earth

First of all, I would like to state that the basis for Creationism is based on a literal interpretation of the Bible, which by all means is NOT a reliable source of information whatsoever, as it contradicts itself and is factually flawed. There are many more viable theories on the topic of creation of life and species of Earth, such as the theory of evolution and abiogenesis, which provide scientific explanations with evidence, and it is generally accepted as scientific fact and has more than enough evidence than creationism. Evolution itself is quite simple and based on the following logical or scientific facts: 1. Animals are occasionally born with mutations, which can be good bad or do neither. 2. Animals with favorable traits are more likely survive and reproduce. 3. Animals pass down genes which define specific traits 4. Different locations, climates, predators and etc can effect what is considered a 'favorable trait', making species evolve differently based on surroundings, creating new species and etc. 5. Over time, this can create entirely different 'kinds' of animals. Abiogenesis is much harder of a concept as it explains how 'life' was originally created, however life is hard to define. Here is how it goes: 1. Small organic molecules (amino acids and etc) naturally occur in some sort of 'primordial soup'. 2. They combine to make larger biomolecules (proteins, RNA, and etc) 3. RNA, in the conditions in said 'soup' reacts and acts like DNA making a semi-alive system 4. That gradually transformed into a more complex living organism. There are much more details but I won't bother to delve into that. (Unless you want me to) Many of the parts are actually proven in lab conditions, whereas creationism offers no such evidence. I await your response.
This Debate's Vote Points Shall End With a Tie!

However, in order to affirm the resolution, Pro has to prove with absolute certainty that this debate *will* end in a tie. Obviously this is problematic for the voters because it is impossible to give Pro the win if he has demonstrated that the debate absolutely *will* end in a tie. In other words, any attempt at voting Pro results in a unsolvable paradox for the voters. In order to avoid such an ugly paradox, voters should vote Con -- for the sake of simplicity and the logical soundness of the universe. By affirming the resolution, Pro wins the debate, thus definitively negating the resolution (because the debate didn't end in a tie). He cannot fulfill his burden of proof because any attempt at doing so results in a logical dead-end. Meanwhile, I have already fulfilled my burden of proof with my argument from the previous paragraph. Therefore, the debate will *not* end in a tie -- it will end in a win for me. Thank you.
This Debate's Vote Points Shall End With a Tie!

1. Equal Rounds My opponent has the equal rounds such as I. We both have rounds 2, 3, and 4 to debate. Thus, this debate will end in a tie. 2. Equal Footing According to my opponent's profile, he's a 19 year old male. http://www.debate.org... Although he has not yet done a single debate with this single exception, doubtless, his age brings more experience since I am currently only 16. We are on an equal footing so to speak. 3. Equal burden of Proof We have equal burden of proof. I have to try to prove that we will each earn the same amount of votes, while my opponent will try to argue that we will not. We both have to prove something equally, and try to defeat the other with only the amount of information we know of each other and within the debate. Because of the equal BoP, if he fulfills his BoP as well as mine, this debate will end in a tie. I will see and adjust to my opponent's response. I will try to make this debate a tie. I will now turn the floor to my opponent.
This Debate's Vote Points Shall End With a Tie!

Welcome, welcome my friends. Today we will see my power in debating within this debate. I say that this debate will end in a tie. Go ahead, accept. A tie: with the same score on both sides. Or rather, with the voting style being the "select winner" option, both debaters will have equal amount of votes at the very end of this debate. Voting period: 6 months Who can vote: Every registered DDO user Good luck and have fun.
This Debate's Vote Points Shall End With a Tie!

Pro claims that this is a "special" debate, and that affirming the resolution doesn't necessarily mean that voters have to vote him up. However, if we take a look at his presentation of the rules in Round 1, there is nothing indicating this - it seems like a perfectly ordinary debate, and therefore the voting mechanics of an ordinary debate should apply to it. Voters should not "adjust" to Pro's unorthodox structure because there was no specification to do so in the terms of the debate. That aside, Pro seems to concede that if the voting on this debate *does* work like any other debate, then my paradox argument succeeds; since I have demonstrated that to be the case, Pro essentially concedes my entire argument, and I have already won the debate. Pro's only counter-rebuttal is, once again, that this is a "special" debate and that his arguments somehow become sound once put in that context. Firstly, I already explained why it isn't "special" - it may be about an uncommon topic, but it is still very much a contest of rhetorical skill, knowledge, and logical reasoning (as all debates are), so there is no reason to grant it any sort of "special" status. Secondly, even if it is "special", Pro fails to show why that has any bearing on the soundness of the 4 arguments he put forth. He just asserts that I didn't refute his arguments, when in fact I did. Pro's arguments do not even come close to affirming the resolution. In conclusion, there is no possible world in which Pro has fulfilled his burden of proof. Meanwhile, I have put forth the paradox argument, which has basically been conceded and is more than enough to fulfill my own BoP. This debate is a clear win for me, and I implore the voters to vote Con. Thank you.
This Debate's Vote Points Shall End With a Tie!

It's the final round and my opponent sticks to his point. I can see where he is going with his logic: The conclusion: If pro demonstrates that the debate will end in a tie, voters will be obliged to vote pro, which defeats his arguments. Therefore he cannot possibly demonstrate his BoP, and as long as con demonstrates his BoP, he wins.... However, I already said so, and I will say this again. Let us suppose, for a moment, that the debate, instead of forcing me to tie the debate, had forced me to argue for "Con will gain more points than pro at the end of the voting period". If I advocate for con, and I advocate it better than Con advocates for myself, then obviously people will vote for con, because I outright said, "go ahead, you should vote for my opponent", while con did not manage to convince the others to vote for me. Similarly, when I advocate for pro and con having equal amount of votes, I expect the voters to adjust as such and tie the debate if I uphold my burden of proof better than my opponent. My opponent also attempts to foil my arguments by stating the fallacies within them. He seems to argue that most debates, even with equal rounds, even with "equal footing", even with "equal burden of proof", and even with "a long voting period", do not end with a tie. Is this really "most debates" though? There aren't many debates similar to this one, and this is not really serious compared to most controvercial issues which have many many different experts and sources talking about it. We cannot truly judge this debate based on other serious debates--there is really no other debate like this one (I know a debate with the same resolution but that was during the time when voting periods could NOT end and thus pro was doomed to lose)--and thus con's case falls apart as well. My opponent also shows that he sufficiently used his rounds as mine. He didn't attempt to foil that 4 years of maturity equals over 150 debates on this site. He didn't really try to convince us that I couldn't try to ask more people to vote for whoever is losing until the debate is tied. He has failed to foil my argument. In conclusion, this debate will end with a tie point. If you agree with me, please tie the debate. But if you don't, go ahead--vote for anyone you want just to prove con.
This Debate's Vote Points Shall End With a Tie!

Pro misunderstands the mechanics of debate. It is quite simple - there is a proposition known as the "resolution", and Pro's job is to affirm it, while Con's job is to negate it. Voters must vote for the side which they believed did their "job" better (i.e. fulfilled their burden of proof). In this particular resolution, an absolute claim is being made about what the future holds - Pro has to demonstrate with 100% certainty that the debate will end in a tie. As I explained last round, this is paradoxical: if he does that, he will have affirmed the resolution and the voters will be obligated to vote him up, thus making him win the debate, but that's impossible because he would have already shown with no room for error that the debate will end in a tie... In other words, there IS a paradox. It is impossible for him to affirm the resolution without simultaneously negating it. Since he cannot fulfill his BoP, as long as I make some attempt at fulfilling mine (as I already have), I automatically win.His arguments are irrelevant due to the aforementioned paradox making his BoP impossible to fulfill, but I will go ahead and address them anyways.1. Equal Rounds -- The vast majority of (non-forfeited) debates on this site have equal rounds for both debaters, yet most of them do not end in a tie. Why should equal rounds indicate that this particular debate will end in a tie? Pro fails to explain... this is a blatant non-sequitur.2. Equal Footing -- It doesn't matter if we're on "equal footing". There are plenty of instances on this site where someone with less experience has beaten someone with more experience. For example:http://www.debate.org...http://www.debate.org...http://www.debate.org...Just because we are evenly-matched does not mean that one of us cannot out-do the other in this debate.3. Equal BoP -- Again, many debates on this site have a split burden of proof, e.g. the global warming debate I cited above. Yet obviously, most of them do not end in ties. Another glaring non-sequitur.4. Voting Period -- Pro claims that because a 6-month voting period is ideal for ending a debate in a tie, this debate will end in one. However, just because it could potentially facilitate the occurrence tie doesn't mean it *will* result in a tie. This argument does nothing to support the resolution.Thank you.
This Debate's Vote Points Shall End With a Tie!

Interestingly enough, even though I never said my opponent could not refute my points within round 2, he remained in his stand of position, and my points still stand. My opponent tries to show that this debate has a paradox, because if I convince the others that the debate will be a tie, they will as a result vote for me, and "for the sake of simplicity and logical soundness" people should vote con. However, this is also illogical and filled with assumption. First and foremost, if people agree with me, they will then vote for nobody--they will tie the debate and say "yes, indeed, pro has convinced us we should tie the debate, and neither he nor con shall win, and if anybody thinks otherwise, I will vote the opposite of what he has voted." In addition, merely because I affirm the resolution does NOT mean the voters have to vote for me. If my opponent can spot out any fallacies within my arguments, why, surely then my affirmation has fallen to pieces. And as I have stated before, if I am very convincing nobody will vote for any particular debater--they will vote for a tie because that is the position I have advocated for. I shall convince you all further that this debate shall end with a tie. You see, why did I make the voting period six months? So that many people could vote on it. Sure, if I made it very short, technically speaking a tie would be more likely--however, maybe only one vote is accounted for. Six months allow the most amount of voters to vote on this debate. I will have plenty of time to keep watch and convince others to change their votes so that this debate will be a tie. Thank you for your round and now it is your round again.
gravity, reality, are not facts, are not theories

theories and facts, are of reality, they are not real fact=memory=truth=knowledge if gravity didnt exist out side of facts, facts about gravity could not exist. you are taking past and now as matter.. now is matter, past is not matter. observation is now and past observation is not now, not real you got it wrong m8, all knowlege i have involves gravity, dosnt mean gravity is a memory.. no.. the theory of gravity is simply not gravity, gravity is gravity, not a theory. the theory of gravity, is the theory of gravity... gravity is not made up.. the theory of gravity is made up
gravity, reality, are not facts, are not theories

observation is not fact, past observation is fact, past dosnt matter, now is matterPart of our discrepency in argument is in how we are using the terms. This is a definition of fact from dictionary.com:fact: a truth known by actual experience or observation; I am not sure how to infer your meaning of fact. But by commonly accepted usage, a fact is an observation or actual experience. Since gravity exists through experience or observation, it does not exist outside of experience or observation. Gravity is not a thing that exists outside of its observation. Gravity does not have an intrinsic reality outside of how it influences the universe and the objects within it. no fact can exist without the thing the fact is aboutIf the thing under discussion is defined by the facts about it, then it actually does not exist without its facts. This is similar to most scientific things. A virus is defined by the way it influences the world- how it makes you sick, how you can isolate it and extract its DNA, how you can observe it. A virus which has no facts- is not observable, does not make you sick, and can not be isolated- it no longer is a real thing, it is just a belief at that point. Our fundamental division is that I am contending that scientific concepts do not exist outside of their observables, and you are contending that they do.My concluding rebuttal is that things one imagines to exist do not have an intrinsic reality outside of one's imagination, regardless of how compelling they appear to be. And this includes attributes of known physical phenomena that are not part of their observable characteristics. no.. it proves gravity is real, and facts are not.. And herein is where you are amiss- the only things that are actually real are the observable things - the facts- which we perceive. Other things are beliefs. Beliefs are real within their own mental framework, but not outside them.
gravity, reality, are not facts, are not theories

observation is not fact, past observation is fact, past dosnt matter, now is matter reality is not a fact... but there are plenty of facts about reality... no fact can exist without the thing the fact is about light has no speed, its on or off light has no limit beyond the limit i put on the light by seeking it no.. it proves gravity is real, and facts are not.. concepts only exist in the mind.. information is the opposite of matter, not real false=anywhere beyond my personal physical experience of now fact=truth=past, not real