BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Homosexuality

First of all, I do think that I meet the two conditions: 1) I am an actual advocate against homosexuality. 2) You must be both punctual, and not in danger of being banned/quitting. I should be able to fulfill this without so much of a problem. I would then like to make a few personal requests: -Due to the abstract arguments that will be used thorough the debate, I would like to obtain abstracts arguments, rather than sources, where the actual usage of the sources can be torn depending on the point of view. -Keep the words to a minimum, it's annoying for both the audience and myself to have to go through an 2000 words text only to get one out of five arguments. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The actual debate: Here above are some rebuttals to the actual subject. I'd rather wait to make my point for it. "His position is as follows:" 1. Homosexuality is not morally reprehensible. ------------------------------ This is, of course, subjective, as morality evolves through time. After all, you would most likely dislike a bloody public execution, morally speaking, while it was common and nothing more than a mere entertainment in the middle-ages. Being subjective, this point loses it's value. ------------------------------ 2. Homosexuality does not harm humanity ------------------------------ Indeed it does not, but we are an adaptive species. We could as well claim that war does not harm us, as it forces our creativity and ingenuity at long-term. There is very few things that can actually harm humanity, outsides of nuclear warfare and mass extermination, of course. We are most likely the sole specie that can design his own destruction and weep over it. ------------------------------ 3. Homosexuality is positive in its combatance of overpopulation ------------------------------ Except for couples that decides to adopt children, I must agree with this. But then again, it's merely a fact and hardly in favour of homosexuality. After all, being celibate also combat overpopulation. ------------------------------ 4. Gay marriage should be allowed ------------------------------ This would depend on your view on marriage. If it is to be a religious marriage, with a religion that have a very strict view, morally speaking, on the matter, well I would like to refer to your fifth argument: "it's their business, not ours". As for legal marriage, it is already tolerated in some countries. I do not see how this help the cause you put forward. Marriage is a mere technicality, and not the main point of the morality with homosexuality. ------------------------------ 5. Homosexual intercourse is their business, not ours ------------------------------ What make us living beings is the ability to choose. What makes us human is the ability to judge. It's indeed their business, but once again I fail to see how this help your cause to promote homosexuality. After all, if someone decides against homosexuality, well it's "his own business, not ours". ------------------------------
Homosexuality

I have initiated this argument. .. I believe it's been three times now. First time, they were playing devil's advocate. The other two times, they completely forfeited the debate. So I cannot stress enough these two conditions: 1) You must be an actual advocate against gay rights/homosexuality 2) You must be both punctual, and not in danger of being banned/quitting. For anyone who wishes to accept this debate, the first round will be me explaining my position, and you will be allowed a head-start to counter my position. My position is as follows: 1. Homosexuality is not morally reprehensible 2. Homosexuality does not harm humanity 3. Homosexuality is positive in its combatance of overpopulation 4. Gay marriage should be allowed 5.
Homosexuality

Allow me to quote you a few times: -My entire argument is that you have the right to be homophobic. -My position is that it simply isn't wrong to be homosexual. -My position is that the government should remain an unbiased mediator, and never take religious views into account when they are a self-proclaimed secular government. -My position is as follows: 1. Homosexuality is not morally reprehensible [. .. ] 5. Homosexual intercourse is their business, not ours [. .. ] Now, yo certainly do have a lot of positions. But well, I let it to voters to determine if someone that constantly change his position to fit the debate is a good debater. Let's now get to the last point: (Your quote) : I have already shown you at least one way in which it is good, which you have fully conceded to. No, you have not, as we determined that your points were subjective and as such, prior to bias. You have, however, agreed that a subjective debate is quite pointless, as would do any sane men here. Now, my argument here relies on the fact that you have not shown any objective and solid argument in favor of homosexuality. The point you made on the American government is interesting, tough you must certainly realize that our entire moral system is more or less based on Christianity, and that laws are made to serve a moral system, thus the long-standing negativity by the American government towards homosexuality. When they proclaim them self a secular government, they merely mean that no religion institute can interfere with their state affair. A moral legacy is not considered as a state affair. The sole point point that you made which really was objective, 3. Homosexuality is positive in its combatance of overpopulation contains very few value, as it does, at best, promote something that have no link with homosexuality: birth control. If we now consider that your other arguments were completely based on subjective views and as such hold very few relevance in this debate, I think I can clearly state that your case is empty, as you do not have any solid arguments and position. By default, the winner should then be Con.
Homosexuality

My entire argument is that you have the right to be homophobic, you just shouldn't institutionalize it. My position is that the government should remain an unbiased mediator, and never take religious views into account when they are a self-proclaimed secular government. You have yet to show me why homosexuality is wrong, and I have already shown you at least one way in which it is good, which you have fully conceded to. Therefore, if you have pleaded in the semifinal round that the entire argument is subjective and pointless, the substantial bits of the argument rule in favor of my argument.
Homosexuality

This debate is leading nowhere. Whereas you're supposed to offer an objective view on why homosexuality should be tolerated or accepted, you only offer arguments that either have very little value or are composed of subjective view. If you do wish to continue on this road, I think I can provide an argument with the same subjective value: Humans are an adaptive specie, one that claim to change whenever it is possible while dislike any majors change that will occur, on the simple basis that it somehow threaten our very security. As you already said, homosexuality can be set in line with racism, it is therefor a character trait that will remain for as long as we humans possess the faculty to judge, would it be because we find it aesthetically displeasing or quite simply immoral for our own precise reasons, it is likely to prevail in most individuals, despite their claims to the contrary. Nowadays, very little people would openly call themselves racists or homophobic, but their very actions are sometimes determined by those traits. You might call it a displeasing moral situation; for my part, I see in this that Humanity as a whole still value something that has greatly lost importance with multiculturalism: the differences that makes us, at the long run, human beings. And as such, I can rightfully claim the right to be homophobic, as it is, like you previously said: "It is my business, not yours". Following that series of idea, your series of idea, if we are both to be right, morally and ethically, then this debate does not have any purposes.
Homosexuality

Arguments 1. Homosexuality is not morally reprehensible My opponent claims that, following my line of reasoning, psycopaths and paedophiles could also be considered aceeptable. The difference between homosexuality and these things is that homosexuality is not shown to cause any harm, while paedophilia and psychopathic tendencies are. I am defending it on the ground that if an adult male or female were in a comitted relationship with another adult of the same sex as them, there would be nothing to call immoral. 2. Homosexuality does not harm humanity "...homosexual do have an higher frequency of sex with young boy in age." Ignoring for the moment the fact that a large number of those homosexuals were likely also young at the time of intercourse, we must remember that correlation does not equal causation. This does not show that homosexuality causes paedophilia, it shows that there is a statistical correlation between the two. Using this same reasoning, Pastafarians have deduced that pirates were the only things keeping global warming at bay. I am not here to argue in favor of paedophilia, I am saying that two homosexual men or women at the age of consent do no special harm because of their homosexuality. 3. Homosexuality is positive in its combatance of overpopulation My opponent has fully conceded that this is a positive aspect of homosexuality. He simply asks to explain how the "Gay Gene" is passed on. There are a couple theories, but my personal preference is that it is a recessive gene that is "activated" by environmental pressures. I do have a source video, but you yourself requested this argument to be more abstract. 4. Gay marriage should be legal The U.S. Government is actually completely seperated from religion, although some religious zealots don't like to admit it. The First Amendment completely prohibits religiously based laws, but recent administrations have been metaphorically defecating on the First Amendment for more than 50 years. The U.S. governmental system is not based, "...in most part on Christianity," but is, or is at least supposed to be, absolutely secular. Therefore, there can be no religious justification of secular laws. 5. Homosexual intercourse is their business, not ours I was simply trying to say that there is no reason to restrict or condemn homosexual intercourse. I await my opponent's response.
By Scripture, Christianity is More Violent Than Buddhism

. . . ===> B U D D H I S T - S C R I P T U R E <=== My opponent makes an irrelevant statement that Theravada Buddhism recognizes the Pali Canon (Tipitaka) and the Mahayana Sutras as Buddhist scripture. Theravada was the earliest Buddhist sect and goes by the Tipitaka (earliest scriptures), but predates the Mahayana Sutras, so they don't really focus on the Mahayana Sutras (which were later revealed). I would like to keep Buddhist sects out of this because it doesn't pertain to this debate. The focus is simply on the accepted Buddhist scriptures which are the Tipitaka and the Mahayana Sutras. (You can think of it as the Tipitaka as the Old Testament and the Mahayana Sutras as the New Testatment. Anything outside of these are simply not official or legitimate Buddhist scriptures.) Con: "Only the Pali Chronicles and Sinhala sutras have violence, the concepts of liberating death, self defensive murder and the violent achievement of a noble cause." These are non-canonical and thus not part of Buddhist scripture. That's like me using the Book of Mormon to argue agaisnt Christianity. ===> C H R I S T I AN - S C R I P T U R E - I S - M O R E - V I O L E N T <=== The Bible of Christianity has 1,197 cruel and violent passages [1] in which God, the figure of worship, either commits violent acts or commands acts of violence. In both cases, the Bible is advocating violence. As it stands now, there are no passages in Buddhist scripture that advocate violence. ===> C O N C L U S I O N <=== Christian Scripture: 1,197 passages advocating violence. Buddhist Scripture: 0 passages advocating violence. Resolution affirmed. Sources: [1]http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...
By Scripture, Christianity is More Violent Than Buddhism

Theravada Buddhism recognises the Pali Canon and Mahayana Sutras as Buddhist scripture. Works by Buddhavacana and his direct followers. >>>There is no violence in the Pali Canon both preached or as a history; there is only active repulsion of violence.<<< Only the Pali Chronicles and Sinhala sutras have violence, the concepts of liberating death, self defensive murder and the violent achievement of a noble cause. I've done my part of the dual burden of Proof; I agree, Theravada Buddhism is non violent. I make my assertion again, Christian doctrine is also non violent. Your turn. Though Pro already knows this I want to remind him that the only biblical texts as a whole can be followed. I accept the KJV or NIE of the bible and do not follow Catholic cannon, Syriac cannon or the Dead Sea scrolls. I accept contradictions and changes by our omnipotent god. Christian text holds the world of the messiah, Jesus Christ, to higher esteem than Mosaic Law or any other teaches by other prophets, notably Isaiah or Joshua, unless in a way changed by Jesus christians also follow Mosaic Law. I don't follow any another texts by theologians, cardinals or saints. Thank you.
By Scripture, Christianity is More Violent Than Buddhism

====> I N T R O D U C T I O N <==== This debate is instigated in response to Zetsubou's claims that Buddhism is more violent than Christianity. He even went so far as to say that Buddhist scripture itself is more violent than Christian scripture and proposed a debate. Therefore, my opponent must demonstrate that Buddhist scripture is in fact more violent than Christianity. I will even go so far as to assert that my opponent cannot find, not even one single violent passage in Buddhist scripture. By the way, the passages have to actually advocate violence, not just contain it. The first round will be for introductions, definitions, and clarifications. No semantics. ====> D E F I N I T I O N S <==== Buddhist Scripture: The Tipitaka and the Mahayana Sutras. The Tipitaka (the earliest revealed scripture) contains three Pitakas (or baskets). The first is the Vinaya Pitaka which consists of monastic rules in order to preserve the Dharma (Buddhist doctrine). The second is the Sutta Pitaka which contains various discourses of Siddhartha Gotama Buddha (which covers everything from ethics to phenomenology and existence). The third is the Abhidhamma Pitaka which contains content on philosophy, psychology, and metaphysics and is considered the "higher teachings" that are a very complex. Combined, the Tipitaka consists of 50 volumes and is about 11 times the size of the Bible. (Here's a picture of the entire Tipitaka: http://upload.wikimedia.org...) The other part of Buddhist scripture includes the Mahayana Sutras which were later revealed. These consist of 6 collections of Sutras covering various topics and discourses of Buddha. Tipitaka: http://awake.kiev.ua... Mahayana Sutras: http://www4.bayarea.net... Christian Scripture: The Bible. A collection of 66 books divided into the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Old Testament contains primarily the words spoken by Yahweh, the Christian God. The New Testament contains primarily words spoken by Jesus Christ. The Bible: http://www.biblegateway.com... Now onto my opponent's introduction.
Resolved: Governments should give food and money to care the poor.

Good afternoon DDO. Today our topic is that the governments should give money/food to the poor. I am Pro and the opponent is Con.Rules1. No forfeiting2. No "kk's"3. No trolling4. BOP is on Pro5. If you are not over the ELO of 2500, you cannot accept.Defintions1. Government: The system by which a state or community is governed2. Any nutritious substance that people or animals eat or drink or that plants absorb in order to maintain life and growth3. A current medium of exchange in the form; of coins and banknotes; coins and banknotes collectively 4. Deficient or lackingStructure1. Acceptance2. Arguments3. Rebuttals4. ConclusionSourceshttp://www.oxforddictionaries.com...http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...I look for the an exciting debate!
Resolved: Governments should give food and money to care the poor.

Pro says "I totally rebutted everything. I know I didn't rebut the third so I will right now" this is completely false. He didn't rebut my: Dependence case and he didn't say anything about my alternatives. Therefore, he didn't rebut any of my points. He left my alternative un-touched, meaning he agrees with my alternative. I in fact, rebutted all of his points in round 3. Pro says you should vote for him because "I made good rebuts, and even though it took some time, I rebutted Con's points. " But he didn't really rebut anything?
Resolved: Governments should give food and money to care the poor.

I totally rebutted everything. I know I didn't rebut the third so I will right now. 3. Even though the government can't help every single one who is in poverty, they have to at least help. The government's job is to takes care of the citizens. They must at least do something. Also like what you said, charities can't do everything too. We need a lot of the governments help to do this. Why I won this debate1. I made good rebuts, and even though it took some time, I rebutted Con's points.
Resolved: Governments should give food and money to care the poor.

Okay first off, Pro plagiarized his 3rd argument. He bluntly accuses me of plagiarizing, but unlike him I numbered and cited my sources. Pro states I misunderstood the resolution. He says "In this statement, I think Con misunderstanded something. The affirmative side never said that the poor should give nothing in return for what they get. Either the resolution. The resolution didn't say that we needed to give things back or nothing back. " Well if you look at the definition of "Give"- cause or allow (someone or something) to have (something, especially something abstract); provide or supply with ( https://www.google.com...) you will see giving means to freely give something without expecting something in return. Maybe you should try clarifying. Honestly, I'm irritated because Pro didn't rebut *any* of my arguments. He left them all untouched and therefore, he agrees with my case. But to be fair, I guess I'll rebut his points. Pro states "If governments do not give food or money to the poor, they can't survive." False. As provided in my argument, charities and shelters can help feed the homeless. Pros statement merely suggest that if the government docent help the homeless, they'll die, which is untrue. Pro then states "The government's main job is to keep care of the citizens and the country" Well, it may be their job, but there are many charities and churches who feel like its their duty to help the homeless, so let them. To help the poor give them money. Like I argued in R2, giving them money is NOT the awnser. They will likely fund their addiction and not use it for basic necessities. That's why we should only provide them with food and water. I'm not happy with where this debate has went. -.-
Resolved: Governments should give food and money to care the poor.

Thanks for your arguments.Now I will go on my rebuttals.Rebuttals1. In this statement, I think Con misunderstanded something. The affirmative side never said that the poor should give nothing in return for what they get. Either the resolution. The resolution didn't say that we needed to give things back or nothing back. I think this is just a misunderstanding of Con. Also if Con says that statement, the poor can do jobs that are free, and they give some money. They can help the government by doing some jobs. If the poor at least do this, the government can at least give them food or give money from their jobs.2. Part of her arguments is a copy-paste. How I can prove. When I am writing my arguments, only that part is white.These are my rebuttals. If there is any coplains or further rebuttals, I will get to them later.
Life is filled with purpose.

We needn't know our precise purpose, in order to be confident that we have one. But if the bible is true, we can be confident that we were created for a purpose; To know and glorify God. How we will go about doing this will depend upon our vocation. If we fail our purpose, this doesn't mean that we didn't have a purpose. In fact, in order for us to be able to fail our purpose, we would have to have a purpose in the first place!! While many religions have certainly died out in the past, or gone "extinct", it would seem improbable that this would happen to Christianity in this day and age, where basically everything is recorded down online or on paper. Christianity has had such a colossal impact on history, art and culture, that it would be virtually impossible to disappear entirely. Also, the sheer number of believers in Christianity would make it further improbable for it to die out. http://www.pewresearch.org...
Life is filled with purpose.

Darn. See, I was hoping no one would bring religion into the picture. Alas, you clever boy, you found the chink in my armor. Be this as it may, I will do my best to turn this train around. I must admit that your use of syllogism had me worried for a moment. However, upon further research, I realized that syllogism is only useful given that the two givens are true. Loads of people believe the second given is false, but seeing as We agree on this matter, I direct your attention to the first claim. What evidence do you have that you are instilled with a purpose? If you are so sure about the whole purpose thing, may I ask you what your purpose is? Could I go so far as to ask you what my purpose is? Also, while if your idea is true I would be filled with purpose, what do you have to say about the world as a whole? How is my faith going to benefit the masses for all of time. If I have purpose but fail to pass this purpose onward, what is the point? Plus, we should consider the very real possibility that Christianity will be forgotten in the great expanse of time. While this is hopefully not the case, one must consider every possibility. At least 20 religions have gone "extinct," meaning we have no writings about it and no one believes it any more. While Christianity is the truth, it is entirely possible that it will be forgotten, especially in the time of immense skepticism. I therefore propose that even Christianity and faith, while beneficial to the believer, does not have a lasting impact and cannot therefore be considered entirely "purposeful."
Life is filled with purpose.

If Christianity is true, and by looking at your profile it would seem that you think so, then all of life is filled with purpose. If the Christian God really does exist, and He created us for a purpose, (Which if he hadn't, he wouldn't have sent His son Jesus to die for us), then it follows that our life does indeed have purpose. 1. If the Christian God exists, then ours lives have a purpose 2. The Christian God does exist. 3. Therefore our lives have a purpose.
Life is filled with purpose.

Pro will have to provide something that, in the wide view of things... and stuff... timey-wimey... whatnot, has purpose. First round is acceptance. Purpose: meaningful for all of time, never to be considered obsolete or unneeded. An influence that will last until the end of time, defined by whatever world-view you deem appropriate. Thank you, and good luck! Assuming you want to succeed. Which you very well may not. In which case, very poor luck to you!