BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should the United States Embrace Gay Marriage

Hello and thank you for understanding and being very considerate. :) I really do appreciate it. Now as of me being surprised it is because you dd not mention in your intro that you would be relating the topic to the bible. But my apologies for being critical and not nearing in mind that you would be using all resources as possible and as I suppose as you mentioned I was being closed minded in thinking you wouldn't. So again, my apologies to you. I see your points regarding the two reasons and thank for sharing then, however I must say, if you are going to use the scripture please keep them in context. Although I see what your attempting to say, however were talking about homosexuality not polygamy. :/ The point of marriage is to procreate, although some couples don't want to have children. So to your question yes I do believe that. And that's why I stand with one man one woman marriage. I'm sorry, "tough love"... i understand, but common sense should show that a man is meant for a woman and a woman meant for a man.. Since you've been using the Bible, genesis 23-24, then the man said, "this is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man." Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his WIFE, and they become one flesh. Ephesians 5:22-23 & 25-27, wives submit to your own HUSBANDS, as to The Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself it's Savior. Husbands love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave hisself up for her, that he mighty sanctify her, having cleansed her by washing of water with the sword, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. So, with that, I cannot visually see how a man can pretend to be something he is not because he was made to lead his bride/wife. And I cannot visually see how a woman would pretend to be something she is not because she is meant to follow what is being lead to her by her groom/husband. A woman was made for man. Not man for man or woman for woman ... If that is the case God should've made two men in the beginning or two women instead... But He didn't, he created ONE man and ONE woman, as it should be... Seeing that I've given other thoughts or suggestions regarding your 5th question maybe you did not catch it... I was basically pointing to (morals). Because morally speaking, it's not normal... Same gender is exactly that, the same... And your last question, I'm sorry I don't see how Christianity is "controlling" homosexuality... If anything I believe homosexuality is progressively trying to control straight people just because of the laws that have been passed (just my opinion though). Thank you for giving me the chance to still post my response I really do appreciate it. :)
Should the United States Embrace Gay Marriage

Hello Alex and thank you for asking me to have this debate with you. I was interested in your background history, sounds rather intriguing. Thank you for sharing although I realize you were making a point in what you shared. So thank you for that. You mentioned the UDHR and how it rules and handles things. I appreciate the info and your forward concerns. To your questions, I realize that you are referring towards the Bible as a means of criticism, but why only view things one sided? It doesn't even have to pertain to the Bible. We can even go as far as looking at things from a moral point if view. How natural do you believe it to be right for "homosexuals" to be united in marriage? Marriage takes two opposites to provide children. How will same sex marriage provide this? Hate speech is only taken as hate because no one likes to be told their wrong and also because the truth stings the heart. So I say tradition is ridiculous but doing whats right is better. Tradition is more of a prideful thing and just agreeing just because a person wants acceptance isn't right either. Two wrongs don't make it right. (Sorry so short and a bit vague, but I didn't wanna forfeit either. Been a bit busy).
Should the United States Embrace Gay Marriage

Hello Everyone and Welcome! You clicked on this Debate because you were interested in the discussion for this debate. A discussion that has swept internationally. The discussion that has offended many but also gained many. One that has engaged you the viewer. Today's debate is "Should the Untied States Embrace Gay Marriage?" I will take the position of being In favor of gay marriage in the untied states whereas my opponent and also friend here on DDO, GodChoosesLife will be against the motion for Gay Marriage in the United States. Here will be the Agenda for the Rounds Agenda Round 1: Intro Acceptance Round 2: State arguments Round 3: Rebuttal arguments (New Arguments Optional) Round 4: Rebuttal arguments (No New Arguments) Round 5: Closing Arguments (No New Arguments) This will be the agenda for this debate. If you think that this is unclear please pm me and will negotiate for a possibly new debate and where this one will be replaced by a new debate and the old one no longer paid attention to. I look forward to debating with you.
In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned.

First of all, my opponent has not refuted any of my points. Extend. Voters, please ignore my opponent's 1, 2, 3, and 6, as they do not have any sources or examples for the reasoning. Although I just said this, I will refute them anyways, in the case that you don't take my recommendation. For 1: Has this ever happened with any other banned item? Just because marijuana is banned in some places doesn't make everyone revolt and riot against the government; that's just speculation and ridiculous. For 2: This is again speculation. How do we know that everyone who kills themselves has a mental illness? It simply isn't true. For 3: How would we enforce this? Just thinking about it, it is common sense that this would also cost a lot of money. For 4: Handguns are the ideal kill weapon, according to the Violence Policy Center. They are concealable and easy to use. One would not be able to do anything if they were to walk into a place with a knife, which is easily avoidable, but using a handgun is simple and effective at killing. For 5: This is completely untrue. Nothing in the source linked shows anything about firearm injury, or handgun relation. Voters, I urge you to check the link cited. For 6: This is also simply speculation. My opponent has not provided any examples of this happening. Again, my opponent has not refuted any of my points, so they remain standing.
In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned.

Guns kill there is no question about that. The debate is over if we should ban handguns in the United States. I say no for several reasons. 1. Try and take any type of guns away from people in the southern states or any state really, this will cause not only riots but a revolution. The citizens will uprise. 2. Mental health is a far more accurate. Medicate and treating the mentally ill will bring the gun-related homicide and suicide numbers down. If you are going to kill yourself obviously, you have some mental instability. Same with mass shooters and the mentally ill gun owners. 3. Mandatory gun safety classes for all gun owners should be implicated especially if they have children. 4. If someone wants to kill someone, banning handguns is not going to prevent them from killing another. We can't outlaw knives, our hands, any blunt objects can we? 5. In 2013, around 2.6 million people died in total. A little over 30k died from firearm injuries, not all were handgun related. Seems there are more important things to ban such as prescription medication since people overdose far more than they get shot. http://www.cdc.gov... 6. Banning handguns will not stop crime, criminals will just get more inventive. https://www.fbi.gov...
homosexuals and adopting children

Since there hasn't been any argument posted, I've simply found some sources to cited for some of my arguments last round. Adoption of children by LGBT people is an issue of active debate. In the United States, for example, legislation to stop the practice has been introduced in many jurisdictions; such efforts have largely been defeated. There is agreement between the debating parties, however, that the welfare of children alone should dictate policy. (Charlotte Patterson, et. al, "Adolescents with Same-Sex Parents: Findings from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, November 7, 2007, pg. 2) Opponents of homosexual adoption suggest that the alleged greater prevalence of depression, drug use, promiscuity and suicide among homosexuals (and alleged greater prevalence of domestic violence) might affect children. (William Satetan,Adopting Premises, Slate, 7 February 2002) Another interesting point that I didn't bring up is that of the need for both genders as parents. This has actually been discredited by the social science literature (http://www.sciencedaily.com...). However, it is important to note the chauvinistic attitude of such departments of universities, specifically glorifying and elevating as much as possible anything that renders disposable and unnecessary the heterosexual male. A critical eye could be cast as the very evident ideological bent of modern academia (one that I don't wish to cast at the moment, for the time and effort of the research, as well as it being seemingly superfluous to winning this debate). We'll see what the other side has to say, if anything.
World of Warcraft is overrated.

The popular online game, World of Warcraft is not overrated. Many of the features MMO players count on as benchmark and essential features got their start in World of Warcraft (Wow) and persist to this day. The action bar, respawnable mobs, loot drops, PvP systems etc are all derived from World of Warcraft which launched in 2004. Wow has maintained an average playerbase of well over 5 million since its conception and launch peaking at around 12 million subscription players in 2010. [1] Wow has one of the largest and most active playerbases for a reason and that is superior gameplay, an expanding and changing world, high levels and loads of quests. In fact one player was cited as saying their character had completed over 6,000 quests. [2]There have been four expansions for Wow [3] each of them adding new zones, quests and things for players to do. Not many other games out there have such dynamic content additions on a regular basis and it keeps the game enticing for veteran players to continue playing. Just because a few people might not enjoy the genre of MMO or have a beef with Wow doesn't mean the game itself is overrated. In fact a game can only be really called "overrated" if it has high ratings to begin with. If the game has high ratings that means the term overrated is a mere opinion generated by someone who doesn't agree while the overall ratings are sill high. Wow is not overrated in the slightest, its rated highly by a large consistent playerbase. In fact, Wow is so popular there is a genre in online gaming called "Wow-clones", meaning a game that tries to emulate World of Warcraft's formula because it is so successful. [4] It is a successful formula that brings gamers back again and again and is one of the most talked about games of the modern age. It gets high ratings from nearly every review website on the web for a reason. It is not overrated but a successful game. [1] http://www.statista.com... [2] http://us.battle.net... [3] http://www.wowwiki.com... [4] http://mmohuts.com...
Batman is best hero ever

Batman has accomplished more than any hero in history due to the fact that he has indeed defeated superman saved the world and also the galaxy, and batman is more moral than any other hero in marvel due to the fact that marvel heros will kill anybody and so will superman, where as batman will never kill, oh by the way where are you getting your facts from cause mine come directly from the comics, and batman could take down wolverine and deadpool because there is a special sword than can stop all regenerative powers and the hulk should never be included for best superhero due to that fact that he is super OP. Plus batman is one the most iconic heros of all time unlike deadpool and wolverine, who do you think is the best superhero
Batman is best hero ever

So, which bestest are you defining Batman as? Since it appears to be the fourth, I am going to base my argument off of this. Batman would lose obviously lose to: Deadpool, The Hulk, and Wolverine. I also feel that, depending on whether or not Batman happens to find Kryptonite that Superman should be in this list. Regenerative skin powers means that you CANNOT kill these guys (one could make the case for Hulk, and there are exception comics, but we must stick with the majorities.) Batman is less moral than: Superman, Captain America, and Vision. On a list of the most moral super heroes, Batman came in 13th, beaten by all of the previously mentioned and more. Batman has accomplished less than: Superman, Iron Man, Captain America, Ant Man, and pretty much any Marvel super hero ever. Sadly, DC does not quite have the "Vision" that Marvel does. Based off of these things, I think it is easy to see that Batman is not the best super hero, as he is not even in the Top 10 of any of the categories.
Batman is best hero ever

First off, you really ought to define "best." Be this as it may, I shall list a couple of example of "bestness" and prove Batman is the best in none of these circumstances. To define something first. By hero, I assume you mean super hero, and since you did not limit it to only DC super heroes, I shall incorporate others, such as Marvel. Best the First.) Could beat any other super hero in a fight. I certainly hope you do not mean this one. I can list many many super heroes who could beat Batman any day. To list a few: Superman, Spiderman, Thor, Iron Man, Ant Man, Hulk, Captain Marvel, and yes, sadly even Supergirl. Best the Second.) Has the best sense of morality and virtue. Perhaps more so. But still, many heroes beat him and his sense of revenge and justice. For example, Captain America, trying to keep America safe while restoring its morality to what it once was, or even Superman, doing his best to protect the planet that adopted him while coping with the destruction of this own world. Best the Third.) Accomplishes the most in his hero life time. No. Just no. Batman does a very good job at killing criminals who inconvenience him, but he saves the world... pretty much never. Best the Fourth.) The best all around taking into consideration all previous categories. Once again, no. Seeing as Captain America is on all of the previous lists, I might classify him as one of the best heroes, but in this case, I don't have to choose a favorite. I only have to show that there is at least one hero who is better than Batman. And I feel I have succeeded, don't you?
I am debating myself

Since my opponent has not provided definitions for debating and myself I will do so: Debating: To discuss or argue (a question, for example) formally.[1] Myself: Used reflexively as the direct or indirect object of a verb or as the object of a preposition.[2] I would also like to propose that neither side (in this debate, the debate with the resolution "I am debating myself") has the burden of proof. Before I start my arguments. I ask my opponent and the voters to bear with me while I begin a debate where I contend I am debating with myself. =========================================================================== The goal of my debate is to affirm the resolution that I am discussing or arguing formally with myself. So am I really debating myself? One might say no (something even I'm inclined to say so). Debating with myself suggests inner conflict. It suggests that my opponent is myself. Consider these two statements: I am cat I am not a cat If one single entity were to argue for both, formally, it would be debating itself. The two statements that arise from the resolution of this current debate are as follows: I am debating myself I am not debating myself If I argue or discuss these two statements with myself it is arguing myself correct? I will anticipate the response of my opponent (myself) and bring up a point. This is not necessarily true because by the time I bring up a counter point against myself my mind and chemical balance have changed. Maybe a different part of me is doing the actual debating. I would like to point out that I (me) is poorly defined and ambiguous. What exactly is I? is I a particular temporal entity or is it referring to an entity that refers to this mind through all its movements through time? This makes me think of identity. If I define myself that does the action "A" does that mean only the parts of "me" or "I" that actually contribute to the action "A" is the correctly define I? I think I will contemplate this some more throughout the night and onto tomorrow and who knows however long. I will argue with myself till I at least finish my debate with BlackVoid. =========================================================================== Now I will begin my argument. As you can see above I, the entity debating Pro for this debate, am debating myself. I was discussing or arguing the same topic as this debate and will continue to debate with myself outside of DDO till the conclusion of my current debate with BlackVoid. So therefore at any moment between me typing this and the conclusion of this debate I will be debating with myself. Since this is a long 8000 character limit debate I will type more of an argument next round because at the moment I am tired and would also like to see how my opponent (BlackVoid) will respond before I go to the trouble. I thank him again for accepting the debating and am honoured to have such a reputable debater debating with me (:
I am debating myself

This should be a cool debate. I have no idea what to expect. Before we begin though I would like to question rule 2. If we assume logic in general to be correct, then that means he would auto-win if he can give a logical reason the resolution is true, regardles of how questionable it may be. I would suggest adding "unless proven false" to the end of the rule. Honestly though, I dont think this will be an issue, I'm just putting it out there just in case. If you dont plan on using this rule to affirm then feel free to pretend like I never said any of this.
Story Debate

Author's note: This is turning, truly, into a mockery. I wonder why my opponent accepted this debate with the amount of effort he has put into it. While I have certainly labored over this, my opponent hasn't. His forfeiture makes it very, very clear that he does not care. The amount of work that he has put in for the entire debate has not equaled the amount of heart and soul that I put into one argument. I am sickened by this, and will not write an argument this round. I have no more patience with my opponent and with this debate.
Story Debate

Just as Axel was on his way to fight the beast a huge orb of lighting hit the ground. Konrad was unconscious. Axel was knocked back only a little. Eva was dying. A voice said " Who dares destroy my pets?". A creature missing an arm rose up. It was huge. It had a white body. It had one red eye. He said " Kill this". A huge monster appeared. Axel and Konrad quickly ran.
Story Debate

Axel went to sleep. It was a night as usual. That was until a loud moan was heard. The horseman of death had been creative with his 3/4 of the earth. Axel heard the noise and screamed " Run". Everyone got their guns and a huge panic had begun. It was total chaos in the camp as a horde of rotting corpses marched their way towards the survivors. There was a mess of screams. Konrad shot a little and ran for his life. He was not tired. He was only very scared. Axel was taken by Eva. He flew up into the sky. He asked her" Where am i going?". The angel did not answer. Demons began to attack Eva and Axel. Eva successfully held them off. Soon they were on a remote uninhabited island. " A prophet like you must be protected" she said to him. " Me a prophet?" " Yes" " I am going to bestow angelic powers on you" " You are to kill the beast with the number 666 on it" It was finally morning and Konrad was running across some great and green forests of a country.
Convicts should be exiled to another planet.

I was looking at a site (http://www.vera.org...) which told me that in a survey that 40 states participated, there was a total of $39 billion spent on prisons. Now how about we say that these 40 states passed a bill where all of their prisoners were sent to another planet by using the money they already spend on prison. Now $39 billion may sound like a lot, but according to NASA it costs $450 million to only launch a shuttle mission. This would mean that you could only launch 86 shuttles into space. These shuttles can only hold a few people though. Doing the math, if we sent 3 people up per shuttle, that would be 258 people. In 2012 there were 159,000 prisoners who were spending life in prison. Obviously you can see that it would not be possible to send everyone. That is just the economical reason why we can't do it. Now for the moral reason. Some of these people are able to have parole, and sending them into space would basically eliminate the chance for that. They would no longer see any family or friends they have ever again. Also, you are sending them on a death trip since you would not be able to afford to send any food to these prisoners because you spent all of the money on getting them there. They would starve and die in the cold vacuum of space. These people who were supposed to serve only a life sentence are dead now because you sent them to space. Where would they live? Which planet? If you sent them anywhere how would they survive with the lack of oxygen, food, and shelter that they have on Earth? Simply stating, there are too many holes in your plan. Next time you decide to start a debate, maybe you should think of everything that is wrong with what you are saying. Thank you, and have a nice day.
Convicts should be exiled to another planet.

Exile: the expulsion of a person from his native land by official decree. Convict: a person found guilty of a criminal offense and serving a sentence of imprisonment. Convicts who have life in prison or are on death row should be sent to another planet. Keeping them on earth is a waste, spending tax payers dollars on their food, water, utilities, supervision, health care is a waste. It is more ethical and would free up all those debates on the death penalty. It would fund space exploration. It is the more logical, educational, and ethical way.
The covenant from halo could beat the locusts from gears of war in a battle.

Now, there is one thing that the covenant has, and that is the superior technology. The covenant have destroyed thousands of planets without even having to step a foot on the planet. They outnumber the locusts by too much to count, they have many different types of vehicles, such as ghosts, phantoms, wraiths, scarabs, banshees, brute choppers, the mother ships, and much more. Take planet reach for example, the UNSC fought as hard as they could, and even the UNSC has the better technology than the locusts do, but the UNSC failed and had to retreat from the planet. One of the only flying units for the locusts are the reavers, there are just too many flying units for the covenant for just the reavers to handle, the covenant could flank the locusts from the air, and there is just too many for the locusts to handle, there is not much to do about this.