BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Marriage isn't a civil right

My opponent's argument is convincing, she clearly posesses charisma, however her entire argument hinges on the idea that humanity has always been so squeamish about sex as it is today, oral sex and sticking it in her pooper weren't invented in the last thirty years, and specfic cultures like those of Greece and Africa have always embraced sex, the Japanese studied it with rigorous abandon, the French experimented with it, and we Brits, well, we used it as humour, even our potentially most famous love story, Romeo and Juliet, is rife with sexual jokes made by characters like Mercutio, Benvolio and Paris. Our sensitivity towards sex is a by-product of the development of the nations of the world, therefore, my opponent's argument is only correct in the context of the current attitude of man, however if we are to discuss civil rights and especially something as fragile and precious as love then we must consider mankind in the context of the heart, not the context of the mind, and especially not the context of the current period in mankind's history. We will be remembered most famously for our greatest acts of both cruelty and compassion and thus we will be judged based on the context of the heart, so we must view all things through the same looking glass.
Marriage isn't a civil right

I will be arguing from a viewpoint that people seem keen to overlook in debates particularly pertaining to gay marriage but also to marriage in general. Namely I would argue that humans are social creatures, and unlike specific species of fish or bird, we stick together in the largest numbers possible, and yet are perfectly capable of the social ranking used by wolves and some other predators, meaning we feel comfort in numbers but are capable of dedicating our lives and loyalty to a single person whom we believe is worthy. I would argue that marriage is the self-aware version of that socially necessary dedication to a single other person, and that it's denial is not an abuse of civil rights in the traditional sense, but more a denial of what we have built our entire existence upon as a species, even the smallest and most isolated tribes elected leaders, and when leaders weren't enough, there was always god, and even the gods had their own leaders, Zeus, Jupiter, Amun, and as time progressed polytheistic religions proved unnecessary and we as a species switched to monotheistic religions but our need to dedicate ourselves utterly to a single person has never changed. I would argue that to deny anyone the right to marriage is effectively the same as saying they aren't human, a despicable act in itself.
Marriage isn't a civil right

I will be arguing that, with an anthropological perspective on marriage, marriage is a civil right. This debate will focus on American law. I have the most burden of proof, and must argue my case, however my opponent must also argue theirs. The first round will be used to agree and to put forward any needed definitions or clarifications. The second and third round will be used to debate. Civil rights are defined as: "Civil rights are the rights of individuals to receive equal treatment (and to be free from unfair treatment or "discrimination") in a number of settings -- including education, employment, housing, and more -- and based on certain legally-protected characteristics." [1] The same thing but in more words and with more legalese: "A civil right is an enforceable right or privilege, which if interfered with by another gives rise to an action for injury. Examples of civil rights are freedom of speech, press, and assembly; the right to vote; freedom from involuntary servitude; and the right to equality in public places. Discrimination occurs when the civil rights of an individual are denied or interfered with because of their membership in a particular group or class. Statutes have been enacted to prevent discrimination based on a person's race, sex, religion, age, previous condition of servitude, physical limitation, national origin, and in some instances sexual preference." [2] Excessive semantics are not welcome, this is not a semantical debate. Finally, let me end with this: marriage is a civil right, but my resolution is not that there can't be overriding factors which allow for such rights to be denied. Rights to the pursuit of happiness is considered a basic right in American society, for example, but there are countless reasons such rights might be denied, most notably that the person has committed a crime. Whether civil rights should be granted in a specific case, whether a specific characteristic should be legally protected and whether civil rights should even exist are not the topic of this debate. SOURCES 1. http://goo.gl... 2. http://goo.gl...
dream nter pretation

Dream interpretation - "•Dream interpretation is the process of assigning meaning to dreams." [1] Dream interpretation is assigning meaning to the meaningless, and so, it is inaccurate and un-scientific. Now, before I get too far into this, I will say that every now and again, a "dream interpretation" may seem accurate. To this, I'd say, "a broken clock is still right once every 12 hours." The reason that we know, from a scientific stand point, that you cannot assign meaning to dreams, is because dreams don't have a meaning or a purpose. [2] I will end this short and sweet and let my opponent make his arguments. [1] http://www.google.com...= [2] http://psych.ucsc.edu...
dream nter pretation

dream state is ver y much to be cosidered though they do not p active role in real life. in waking state your activities are preformedby body,moneterd by mind . all the time the experiencer is prese where as you body is connected and rest are manipulated by subconcious mind as per the mind mapping. at this s tate our biologicl needs and invluntary functions h to be met. sie body is totally dis nnected. if theshenomenon is studied with proper sceienfic method we can tae proper steps to ma intain und health.this is the same reason why ho meopathy diagnoss is based on dreams, every thing has behind which our technology is in search.many people exp erience snes floods, snakes,flames ,these commondreams give us certain hope
dream nter pretation

It appears that my arguments in Round 1 went unchallenged, so I will extend those arguments. In responce to my opponenet's argument, I will say that often dreams don't mean anything. The fact that we have, on average several dreams every single night, yet will often only remember a few a week implies that these dreams are not very important. Now, research has shown the existance of Beta wave dreams (dreams in which there is high brain activity, as opposed to the other 3 types of brain waves, Delta, Theta, and Alpha) which only occur when are brains are highly stressed, however, those dreams don't really reveal anything to you, since you are almost always already aware that you are stressed (just watched a scary movie, have a big meeting that could be the difference between a promotion and being jobless the next day, stuff). [1] http://health.howstuffworks.com... [2] http://health.howstuffworks.com... [3] http://health.howstuffworks.com... [4] http://health.howstuffworks.com... [5] http://health.howstuffworks.com... [6] http://health.howstuffworks.com... [7] http://health.howstuffworks.com... [8] http://health.howstuffworks.com... [9] http://health.howstuffworks.com...
Should the Death Penalty be banned

Name calling and sexual references will achieve NOTHING! So I ask you is it really $4 billion of U.S funds or is the majority of that really just the defendants lawyer and other advisers and the small judge fee? So no I put to you can you handle having a muti/mass murder with known health disabilities living next to you? It would be simple to get hold of a gun in the angel country USA? So GTFO BOY!
Should the Death Penalty be banned

Now Now "Reactive" i am not in fact this mad man on Death Row and i am just trying to get my point across that the death penalty is not morally right and doesnt have much going for it. In California 1978 they re instated the death penalty and since then only 13 people have been executed at an expense of $4 billion of tax payers money so GET REKT bro ur not my M8 and u have a 0% chance of winning this debate u minecraft goon
Should the Death Penalty be banned

The death penalty is in fact a simple, painless way to rid the world of potential mass murders, suicide bombers and other kinds of terrorists. Instead you say 'No' but the real reason I believe is that you are in fact one of 'them'. A mass murder using your last few minutes on this earth to post a stupid argument on the beautiful website. I hope you enjoy your last meal before you feel the first of the 3 fatal injections that will rid you of life. L8er M9, Reactive
should cyberbullying be taken seriously

Cyber bullying should not be taken seriously because its not worth the energy. bullying someone over the internet is not bullying. Bullying is when someone beats the snot out of you and stealing your money while shoving you in a locker. Not someone who types into some computer miles from you saying "U R DUM LOL". Think of all the people with no friends, family, or anything and they still fight and live to they're very last breath to stay alive. Think of all the teenagers in a place like Africa who don't have basic human needs. they don't have clean water or food. Just think, their biggest problem is whether or not they might eat or drink today. Our biggest problem is if someone is going to call us a mean name on facebook. just compare these two sentences. "Oh I sure hope no one calls me a dumb dumb stupid head in a text message, that would surely ruin my day!" or "Oh I sure hope I get some food and water today, maybe this time it wont have fish poo in it, that would sure make my day!" Yet you dare to sit down in your $50 chair and type into your $500 computer complaining about your first world problems. all these cyber bully websites just make me sick.
Stricter gun control laws would reduce gun violence, both murder accident and suicide

Gun control laws reduce gun violence--the evidence for that is overwhelming. Take two states who did exactly the opposite Missouri and Connecticut: in 1995 Connecticut tightened its gun laws; in 2007 Missouri loosened them. Gin related homicide dropped sharply in Connecticut and rose in Missouri. http://www.cnn.com... A frequent talking point of gun rights supporters is that gun violence occurs in other countries too. Well, yes, but not nearly as often. For example, see this headline after the murder of a British Mp: Gun violence rare in U.K. compared to U.S. The numbers are staggering: Britain has 50 to 60 gun killings annually. In the USA, by contrast, there are about 160 times as many gun homicides with a population only about six times larger. This disparity isn't due to some unavoidable law of nature. After a mass shooting in 1996, the British government decided to do something about it and actually passed some laws. Military-style weapons and most handguns were banned, background checks were tightened, and thousands of guns were taken off the street. Australia that very same year passed strict laws in response to a mass shooting; the results were similiar. Gun violence has gone considerably down since then in both countries. I'm confused by my opponent's following statement: "As for the other two, accident's wouldn't really be considered violence." Deadly accidents, like a recently publicized tragedy of a father shooting his gun at a gun range in Florida, aren't considered violence? http://www.cnn.com... Easy access to guns is responsible for so many lethal accidents. By the end of 2015, about 265 children under 18 picked up a firearm and shot someone by accident, and 83 of those shootings were fatal. This simply doesn't happen anywhere else in the world. My opponent makes another common but deeply flawed argument regarding suicides: "there are still plenty of other ways " That's a very misleading statement. Suicide attempts are much more "successful," if that's the right word, with a gun. Suicidal acts with guns are fatal in 85 percent of cases, while those with pills are fatal in just 2 percent of cases, according to the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. The Alcohol/Prohibition analogy my opponent uses, which my pro-gun father also uses, is a straw man. What I am proposing is stricter gun laws, not outright prohibition. The Court ruled in 2008 that there was an individual right to a firearm so any national laws banning guns--which won't pass-- would be immediately invalidated. Easy access to guns in America doesn't go unnoticed by our foreign enemies. A recent ISIS defector was quoted as saying: For America and Canada, it"s much easier to get them over the social network, because [ISIS says] the Americans are dumb " they have open gun policies. From 2002 to 2014, 85 percent of people killed by terrorists in the U.S. were killed using guns, according to our analysis. Link: http://fivethirtyeight.com...
Stricter gun control laws would reduce gun violence, both murder accident and suicide

I accept the challenge and am looking forward to a good debate. I would like to open with that while stricter gun control laws may reduce some gun related violence, it won't be able to reduce all the issues it's trying to resolve. It may just end up causing more problems than it creates. For example, guns are a very popular item to own. In some areas, like rural Idaho, having a gun is needed for hunting and warding off bears and other carnivores from your ranch. In the city, one might argue that they need it to protect their family or it might just make them feel safe. No matter the reason, 1 in 3 Americans own guns (according to the journal Injury Prevention) and with added pressure on stricter gun control, the number keeps on rising. After events like San Bernadino, pressure for gun control goes up, but at the same time, so does the desire for more to own guns. According to an article on NPR, they are afraid of the governments power if they don't or that if they have a gun when a terrorist comes through town, they can fight back. If this trend was to continue, there could be an increase in crimes involving guns. Another example is relatable to the this issue is the government banning alcohol during the Prohibition Era in the 1920's. When the government cracked down on the consumption of alcohol, the people responded with an underground movement to continue to enjoy their favorite drink. I don't believe people would act any differently today. They'd just seek out the black market to buy guns, which since the black market or similar vendors wouldn't adhere to any federal law, would make it impossible to track the gun owner. As for the other two, accident's wouldn't really be considered violence. As for suicide, while firearms make up for approximately 50% of how someone commits suicide, there are still plenty of other ways and if your truly suicidal, you'd find anyway possible to do it. There's still a 50% of other methods used, and that's just in the U.S. alone.
The Seventh day Sabbath (Saturday) Christians only please!

It's been a while since I've been on this website so I'm a bit out of the loop in terms of the general outline of how these debates go about. I will present my case in the second round after the con's initial arguments by refuting them and providing scriptural evidence of the necessity of keeping God's holy seventh day as it being a required "Holy convocation" Leviticus 23:3 and that God is no respecter of persons whether Jew or Gentile. Galatians 3:29 also points out that there is a spiritual element to being a Child of Abraham or Israel. If we follow God's commandments to the best of our ability we are most certainly a spiritual Jew. Romans 2:29 explains this. Exodus 31:13-16 states that the Sabbath is a never ending covenant meant to be observed to recognize God as our creator and that in seven days he created the Earth and all things that exist in our physical universe. The Sabbath was never changed in scripture and it cannot be found anywhere in the Bible because that is a creation of man. Specifically during the Roman Catholic church era. I look forward to a great debate!
The Seventh day Sabbath (Saturday) Christians only please!

There's nothing to debate about. Assuming god, For some reason, Puts the actual day the sabbath is celebrated as the absolute primary article of faith (in other words, If god is amazingly petty) the burden is on you to show that the day we currently identify as Saturday IS that day god (for some reason) insists we celebrate the sabbath. You have done the opposite. You have shown calendars have change, Day names and orders altered. What do you expect me to debate? I agree with your points, But you own points defeat your side of the argument.
The Seventh day Sabbath (Saturday) Christians only please!

That isn't an argument but I will go ahead with it anyways. It's clear that the Jews made Sabbath worship their top physical priority. To worship improperly or on a different day would result in death of the individual. In fact they were so meticulous that walking certain distances, Killing a fly, And lighting candles a certain way were considered breaking the law. Under penalty of death I think it's safe to say the Jews have kept a watchful eye on the proper day that lands as the Sabbath. Exodus 16:14-30 is an example of the Sabbath law being instated before it was written as a physical law. Every 7th day the Jews were not allowed to go out and collect manna while they were in the wilderness. This happened for 40 years which is plenty enough time to keep them on track of which day was the correct day because the manna was placed from God himself. We even see that their rebellion by trying to collect the manna on the 7th day resulted in anger from God and those who went out anyways to collect would find that the manna wasn't there or that it was spoiled. John 15:10 "If you keep my commandments you shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my fathers commandments and abide in his love" We know that the fourth commandment specifically states that the seventh day was sanctified and we are required to keep it. Thus we can conclude Jesus Christ had kept this weekly day of worship. Luke 4:16 proves even further that Christ would regularly go up and teach in the Synagogue on the Sabbath. Moving forward to when the change happened before the Gregorian came the Julian calendar. From 46 B. C. To 1582 A. D. The west had been using the Julian calendar. Seeing as how Christ had been walking the earth during this time period the Jews had an accurate count of the Sabbath day and when it landed. The Julian calendar was replaced in 1582 because it was 10 days out of sync with the solar system. After the change happened the 10 days were simply dropped to re-sync with the solar system turning it from Thursday October 4th to Thursday October 14th. The next day would have been Friday the 15th. We do still have leap years but changing the number of days in the month does not alter the weekly cycle. There is no such thing as a 6th day week or 8 day week. Hebrew calendars are what I use in determining God's annual Sabbaths and when they occur. I. E, Pentecost, Day of Atonement, And Passover. http://libguides. Ctstatelibrary. Org/hg/colonialresearch/calendar https://www. Ucg. Org/bible-study-tools/bible-questions-and-answers/how-can-we-be-sure-that-saturday-is-the-seventh-day The seven day cycle has been preserved throughout human history. Specific days of the month have NOT however. There is a huge difference between the days of the year and the weekly cycle.
Sex Education Shoud be Taught Rather Than Abstinence Only

I have a question does knowing about disease's prevent them? Intro: My opponent said "one learns how to go about having sex in a way that is as safe as possible," well that sounds like a concession if I ever heard one, so there is risks when having "safe sex" though all the protection one won't ever be fully protected and therefore they won't be safe, thus they might not lead a safer and healthy life style. I object to the students learn to be tested part most teens won't show up to a clinic and say hey I need a couple tests for HIV/AIDS and several of the afore mentioned diseases. Then the conversation with their sex partner hey I want you to get tested for diseases or hey you gave me AIDS I'm sure teens are just dying to get in line for tests that will confirm their worst fears, and by the by fear is a great motivator it's the main cause why teens don't get tested of course until it's too late. C1- The reason my opponent has place on teaching sex education rather than abstinence is because its more beneficial to the student in that it will allow for a safer and healthier life style but my opponent does not have any anecdotal evidence nor any statistics proving this, so it falls to common sense the best way to be healthy and safe when you're a teenager is to not have sex. C2 - "Although this paragraph is very choppy and somewhat difficult to understand I believe the main points from this are that some teens feel they will have a bad reputation for having sex, which may cause depression, which would be a detriment to ones health. Another point within the argument is that having safe sex may cause pregnancy, which would not be healthy for teens, being that they have countless school activities such as AP classes, athletics, extra curricular activities, and home issues, which would cause countless problems for the young adult. Although these are valid statements, in that pregnancy would complicate a youths schooling, and that being a person singled out and made to feel awkward, this does not really provide any argument as to why abstinence only education is better, and safe sex education is inferior." If a person becomes pregnant even though they were taught sex education then her partner or her parents might want her to marry then she would drop out of school to care for the baby, then her partner would drop out of school to support her then the baby would grow up in a home where both adults were thrown together because of principles or some sort of misplaced feeling of self righteousness, said baby would then grow up in a "broken home" then he/she might grow up as a gang banger or rapist or murderer take a pick.