BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay Marriage Should be Legal

My opponent has sadly forfeited this round. I hearby urge a vote for the affirmative as my arguments stand.SummaryI'd like to summarize my arguments before I close this debate for the voting period. 1) The purpose of marriageI have shown that the purpose of state recognized marriage is to facilitate public order by organizign individuals into cohesive families; develop a realm or liberty and free decision making by spouces; and to create a stable household. 2) The harm principleI have shown that gay marriage does not harm anyone. Therefore, there is no reason for the majority to impose morality on the minority.3) The utility factorI have shown that marriage brings benefits, which include financial benefits; and would thereby give gays a more stable household in which to live.4) Benefits everyoneI have shown that there are both social and economic benefits to legalization of same-sex marriage.5) ChildrenI have shown same-sex couples are just as capable of raising children as their heterosexual counterparts.6) 14th amendmentI have shown that there are over 1,000 rights denied to same-sex couples and thus it is a blatant violation of the constitutional amendment.I thank my opponent for a lively debate. I thereby urge a vote for the affirmative (PRO) side as my arguments stand.Thanks!
Gay Marriage Should be Legal

ResolutionHomosexuals should be given the right to marry with full equal benefits as their straight counterparts. The opponents of the debate, and what positions they will argue. I am affirmative (the pro gay marriage position) whilst my opponent is going to argue the anti-gay position (the negative). The scope of the debate. To discuss the legalization of gay marriage. The length of the debate, in number of rounds. There will be 4 rounds. First round is acceptance only. The maximum length of each statement.8000 CharactersThe time limit between statements.72 hours (3 days). Burden of ProofThe burden of proof is shared. ________________________________________________________________________Voters, please read this debate before voting, do not vote based on your biased opinion.
Being gay is wrong and unnatural

Being gay is something natural. Evidence from ancient times proved its existence in every society we know of. In ancient Greece, it was normal for men to have relationships with other men. It was very common too in that era. The Romans had the same things. A new discovery also proved that being gay was normal also in the time of the Pharaohs in ancient Egypt. Being gay is not a choice, and it is something you cant control. You are born in that way and you couldn't change it.
The Titanic Band Played Nearer My God To Thee As Their Last Song

Thanks for the argument, Kylar! My main question is what makes you believe that this is the last song played by the band? If what you're saying is true, and Wallace Hartley was in fact a devout Christian, and his favourite song was Nearer My God To Thee, then I'm sure the band played it sometime on the cruise, even multiple times. However the last song makes more sense to be a song that puts everyone at peace, or calms everyone instead of just the Christians, or just the band. You said yourself that Wallace would play Nearer My God To Thee if he was on a sinking ship, so maybe he did after he discovered the ship was sinking, however the last song he played? I doubt it would be reasonable, for the sake of his audience. Also, if a song like this was played, there would most likely be less of a will to survive, considering the circumstances and nature of the song. Even if someone did write a book on Wallace and his band, the survivor's claims, as I've stated in round 1, are that the last song the band played was Autumn. Even if Wallace's favourite song was Nearer My God To Thee, nobody says that was the last song he played, and more people are claiming it was Autumn. Thanks for a good start!
The Titanic Band Played Nearer My God To Thee As Their Last Song

My opening argument is that of course it was reasonable for them to play Nearer My God To Thee. I will be breif on this because we have 5 rounds. My first argument is that the bandleader Wallace Hartley was a devout Christian. He was known to have said that Nearer My God To Thee was his favorite hymn, and he would play it if he was on a sinking ship. (1) The band was composed of churchgoing chaps, and it is likley that they all were terrified of what was about to happen. A hymn for these 8 valliant men would serve as a mental rail of comfort for them and for all on board. (1). This is my argument for round 2, and I thank my friend for debating a very interesting subject with me. (1). The Band That Played On by Steve Turner
The Titanic Band Played Nearer My God To Thee As Their Last Song

Thanks for the Challenge, Kylar. This is a very unique debate that I'm happy to be a part of. However I'd like to clarify the rules before we begin.Considering there is no definitive proof, and only hearsay, this debate should be (as we agreed upon in our private conversation) if it is likely or not that the band played "Nearer my God to Thee."There is speculation that the song "Autumn" was played as the ship sank, according to some surviving passengers [1], so considering this is speculation, we shall debate about whether or not it is likely or a good idea for the band to have played Nearer My God To Thee.Thanks for the challenge, good luck Kylar! [1] https://singingthesonginmyheart.wordpress.com...
The Titanic Band Played Nearer My God To Thee As Their Last Song

Hey all :). I am challenging my good friend Mister_Man to a debate on a very historical subject. I am taking the pro side of this debate. I believe that at 2:13 am on April 15th 1912, the Titanic band, so noble and valliant played one last song. As the deck tilted into the sea, Wallace Henry Hartley, the Titanic band leader nodded to the band, and the 7 musicians with him joined in one last song. That song was the Christian hymn Nearer My God To Thee. I will support this more thorugly as the debate goes on and I look forward to a great debate with my friend Mister_Man.
The Titanic Band Played Nearer My God To Thee As Their Last Song

Thank you my friend once again for debating me on a very interesting topic :). I have often enjoyed discussing this, and a friendly debate on this is particularly awesome. I will conclude our friendly debate with the following points.Yes I agree with you friend, Autumn, being a slow, pretty, yet sad waltz would instill a will to survive, and a struggle to keep living. Yes, it does instill a will to somehow try and survive during those last dreadful moments. There is no doubt in my mind that the Titanic band, and quite frankly, most of everyone left on board knew they were going to die the very moment the ship would go under. Wallace Hartley, the brave leader of the 7 other Titanic musicians, was a devout United Methodist Christian. He must have been aware of the panic, and the terror they would all soon feel and were feeling as the deck continued to slant. Hartley and certainly his fellow musicans, if not most of those on board, would be thinking of their death. They would probably be wondering: now what? what is going to happen to me? where will I be after this? and so on. The Titanic band probably had the same thoughts, and according to the book The Band That Played On by Steve Turner they were all church going men, and likley had a lot of comfort from old Christian hymns. The hymn Nearer My God To Thee is a very comforting piece of music, and was well known to both Christians and atheists during this time as a message of hope. That song would instill a sense of peace in those left behind, to show them, death would not be the end for them. The very lyrics are beautiful and moving, for instance:Nearer My God To Thee, Nearer To Thee, Eén though it be a cross that raiseth me! Therefore, it was reasonable for them to play Nearer My God To Thee as their last song.Thanks again for a great debate, friend :).
The Titanic Band Played Nearer My God To Thee As Their Last Song

Thank you too, Kylar!So we've established that the band was not selfish, meaning they probably didn't play a song that they liked, but a song everyone (or most people) liked.The difference between a waltz and a hymn is that one has much more significant meaning, the hymn is a song for God, a religious song, whereas a waltz is not. The Christians who hear a waltz won't stop and accept their fate and pass away, they would ignore it and keep fighting for lifeboats or whatever else they can find.In a life or death situation, "hope" is not a good thing. I don't want to be sitting with a group of people "hoping" it will be okay, considering the ship is going down, it would be much more reasonable to fight for your life instead of hoping you'll be okay.If the band had played a song like Autumn, the panic may have subsided a bit, however it wouldn't cause people to accept their fate, unlike Nearer My God To Thee. Even the name of that song is implying we'll be with God soon, aka; dead.I understand the importance of prayer, but in a life or death situation, praying doesn't keep you alive.Thank you too again, Kylar, looking forward to a good final round!
The Titanic Band Played Nearer My God To Thee As Their Last Song

Round IV is upon us my friend already :). I would like to thank you once again for the debate :). I firmly do agree that the Titanic band was not selfish, and their selfless act of heroism will last for all of time. Though, I believe that a waltz, particularly Autumn though it is pretty sounds very depressing in some areas. The hymn Nearer My God To Thee is a very soothing piece, and therefore would have provided hope to many. There was no time for anything but panic or prayer in that situation. the musicians had to have played that hymn, as one last prayer. thanks again for the debate, friend
The Titanic Band Played Nearer My God To Thee As Their Last Song

Well thanks for challenging me haha. There's no doubt in my mind the musicians here enjoyed this song and would have been at peace from it, however this band was not a selfish group, and it's reasonable to think they played a song that accommodated everyone around instead of just themselves. Hymns being a message of hope and joy is just my point. Most humans have a will to fight to survive, and in a severe life or death situation such as the one here, being given false hope (or given less ambition to survive) through these hymns is detrimental to the people around who are listening. I would rather listen to something that isn't telling me to be at peace if I'm in a life or death situation, and I'm sure a lot of others believe this too.This is the Autumn people claim to have heard as the last song on the Titanic - Thanks a lot for a good third round! Looking forward to hearing back from you.
The Titanic Band Played Nearer My God To Thee As Their Last Song

Thank you once again for being willing to debate with me my friend, on a topic that is very interesting I will now place my argument for round 3. You say that the Titanic band in playing that song as their last song it would take a way a will to survive. Personally I think that the Titanic band knew that they would not make it out alive. There was no chance of survival for those noble musicans. They were prepared to die and I think that hymn would be a last way of showing it. According to my book, The Band That Played On by Steve Turner, in that time, for Christians and atheists, hymns were not a message of death, but rather of hope and joy, in the Edwardian era. I think many would be comforted with the power of one last hymn played by a very noble ensemble. You say the majority of survivors say it was Autumn. Do you mean the waltz or the ancient Episcopalian hymn? There are 2 different pieces with that name.This is my argument for Round III, thanks again for the debate my friend :) I am enjoying i a lot so far.
Same-sex marriage in the U.S.

Sure, I'll accept.I don't see any need to cover the three points you bring up in your R1, but I may touch on them tangentally.Or, if you think you can choose which arguments I have to make, you have to include in your argument the following:1. Explain why a particular conservative US-Christian definition of marriage should be forced on other groups in a secular society.2. Explain why 'seperate but equal' is a valid concept of human rights.3. Show what valid state interest is uniquely present in denying that equal status to same-sex couples.Over to you.
Same-sex marriage in the U.S.

Explain what CIVIL marriage and the purpose of it is and how this view of marriage is true (if you can of course) 2. Explain how the due process and equal protection clause are being violating. 3. Show how having gay marriage is more beneficial then banning it. Also, you can cut and paste information from other debates you have been in to save your time. Lastly, if five rounds is too long for you, then I will change it. However, if this is the case, You should be the instigator who has the burden of proof while I become the contender.
interference of powerful nations in to the matters of inferior nations

The interference in the business of other nations is something which is widely agreed upon but also widely debated. Whilst many take the examples of Afghanistan and Syria as key examples that this interference does not work, there is a large collection of unrecognised evidence in this argument which shows that larger state interference can and will result in a growth of democracy, individualism, and human development. Looking throughout history, we can see that the presence of larger empires and nations has had difficult beginnings, usually winding up in some form of conflict or war. In this circumstance, especially in a modern age, it has been keen for many people to point to these situations and say that the interference does not work. However, throughout historical examples, the interference of larger nations has increased development. The Roman occupation of Britain is a key example of this. During the early 1st Century AD, the Roman empire sailed to Britain and sought to romanise its citizens. Whilst there were conflicts that arose from this, the Romans brought with them education, agricultural knowledge, economy and culture. This occupation allowed for British citizens to begin to flourish which would lead to some future conflicts, e.g the Normans and the Vikings, but it allowed for the British people to become their own rather than a collection of mixed tribes that only sought to fight one another. The same can be said for the British empire's occupation of India. Whilst the Indians eventually sought independence from their occupiers, the British provided them with the foundations to build a better nation which seeks to better helps its people. All development starts rough and takes some time to grow, but to assume that all larger nation interference is bad for smaller nations is similar to saying that parent interference in the growing of a child is completely wrong. It takes the guidance of those older and more wise than children to guide them to the path which will allow for them to develop into the best they possibly can be. To allow the child to grow completely by itself leads to many more issues. Larger nation interference is vital in creating nations that advocate future development for its people.
You are an eternal being

I will take the side of con. I will argue I am not an eternal being. Note: 'Me' and 'I' might be used interchangeably due to grammar but I hope it is clear what I am trying to say. I will not exist forever and I will give three reasons for this: 1. The matter that makes me is composed in a unique pattern (eg. My DNA and anatomy are slightly different from those who may be similar to me) and this unique pattern is one of two necessary components of the being that is me. When I die and decompose my matter is scattered over a small area and my unique pattern is broken. 2. I as a being constitute more than just the sum of the matter that I am made of. The I that I am is also composed of experiences and other subjective traits that do not exist in a physical sense. This is the second of the two necessary components that it is to be me. During my life and after I die my consciousness will cease to exist and with it as will I as me and my conscious being are nearly synonymous. 3. Eternity, an infinite amount of time, or a timeless state [1]. The most widely accepted theory for the creation of the universe (and therefore matter) is the Big Bang and with that the theory of the Big Crunch for the end of the universe. I will not exist eternally because that, according to these theories, is impossible. As all matter cease to be the moment after the Big Crunch my existence (according to you) should also cease to exist, however you posit the matter I am made from will exist eternally that is that it will survive time itself, this is surely a scientific impossibility. (This point is more of a technicality with a term I know but I felt obligated to at least point it out) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Zinedine Zidane is histories greatest footballer

You can only compare if they play against each other. Defenders nowadays are much better the training is incredibly intense and fitness levels are higher than they have ever been. It is easy to say todays football is the hardest market to get into you have to be much more gifted now then before to get into a decent team Unless Zidane comes back and starts playing against the players now we can never tell who was better. They also have completely different styles of play Zidane and Ronaldo so they were both good at what they did. This debate should be a truce as there is not enough evidence to prove both of our opinions. Zidane= the best of his generation Ronaldo/Messi/Iniesta/Falcao = best of this generation Debate over, thankyou sir I will see you today...for a fight
Zinedine Zidane is histories greatest footballer

you are forgetting, sir, that zidane and ronaldo played for the same team, real madrid, and ronald was not the best player on that team it was zidane, zidane didn't peak, because he got ridiculously good and never got worse, as we can see from his 2006 world cup performance(not including that tragic headbutt) you over look the fact that zidane has got more indiviual trophies too and got a pretty dire french team to the world cup final 2006, ronaldo is good but not legendary, he might be more skillful but not as purposeful, zidane would play with intention and was always the middle man as we can see from his ridiculous assist tally, zidane could also very quickly change his style of play to become a very dominant centre attacking mid, or a very tactical centre deffensive, and if he wanted he could be a slow but incredible striker who would just sit outside the box, zidane has the control and finesse to do whatever is on his mind, ronaldo however can barely manage to convince us he's better than messi
Noone can beat Chuck Norris.

First off I would like to apologize for the lack of video. I have however an even more valuable source chuck norris facts com. As it mentions chuck norris it is guranteed holy and it would be a sin to tamper with it. It is testimony from real wiitnesses and the souls in hell of his victims. I doubt you need the link. Now on the examples you posted lets look back. Jackie Chan: Great showman, but the fact of him doing his own stunts now is near impossible. Inhis latest quiet stupid movie, for kids might I add, He even in the bloopers I can't find, can barely speak the english. It is highly likely he uses a stunt double now. He is also, like chuck norris old, and remembering that in his later movie is rimarily no action. What action there is pretty basic. Plus that movie sucked so it immediately is not a good example. You: Chuck Norris at age 90 could beat you, as could I as I have 2 shotguns and a trunkfull of ammo, various objeects for a barricade, a katana and tonfas as well as "me Irish fists." Batman: I must give you a refresher on the rules. //(1): The fight must be bareknuckle. Using only there fists and there awesomeness.// Batman never in his life has fought a fair boxing match. It has 97% of the time been stealth kills or gadgets. I intended the rules to be in a brightly light arena so this is illogical to have batman. I challenge you to find a picture or video of batman fighting a fair match, without weapons or technology, and winning. (Mortal Kombat doesn't count.)
Noone can beat Chuck Norris.

First Off I would point out that e are never sure of anything. You may have a fraction of a doubt that you could be in the matrix or in a hallucination, so thinking does not guarantee, existence. Plus even if we were sure you existed, than what are you. If you were put in a metallic body you would still be you so the only thing that guarantees you're existence is your consciousness which of course would be roundhouse kicked by Chuck Norris' consciousness. Besides that killing me, which is unlikely as I have years of martial art's training, a katana and various guns would not end the so called figment of chuck norris. He is also in many other peoples imagination and once again noone can beat something that does not exist.
Noone can beat Chuck Norris.

First off I will mention that by proven to exist I meant in their respective fictional universes. Freddy Krueger is real in his universe and so are others. However, according to both Descartes and Neitzches nothing is real unless you percieve it and of course according to probability there is always the small chance an incredible thing will happen. There is a percentage of chance you will go to mars tomorrow morning however impossible it seems. So there is the probability that Jackie Chan as well as Chuck Norris. Plus have you seen Jackie Chan, are you sure he is real. If you have then he could have been an impostor. So therefore nothing is proven real and Chuck Norris does not exist so therefore you can not beat Chuck Norris as he does not exist. I now will proceed to tap dance.
Noone can beat Chuck Norris.

I will challenge you to find a person, any person who can beat Chuck Norris. The only restrictions. (1): The fight must be bareknuckle. Using only there fists and there awesomeness. (2): The competitor must be a living, human. Fictional characters are possible but discouraged. (3): Jesus Christ does not count, neither does God, Allah, The Flying Spaghetti Monster or Santa Claus, The person must be proven to exist. (4): You can change contenders between matches but only one per round. I await your response.
Noone can beat Chuck Norris.

I extend all my arguments concerning the previous contenders. I included contenders from what is considered 'real' normally, in concept of the imagination having free rain, awesome characters from fictitious universes, and another celebrity that could very easily be used for similar Mary sue http://en.wikipedia.org... stereotype jokes like Chuck Norris has become. So what kind of contender should I use for the last one? I choose a semantic one. Peter Noone http://en.wikipedia.org... The resolution is that Noone can beat Norris, and I am Con to that. No matter how you consider it best to consider Norris (based on the chucknorrisfacts.com, based on his own website, Wikipedia, the huckabee report video, your imagination...) its clear that any of those chucks could wipe the floor with Peter Noone, witch its my opponents position to defend that Noone can beat Norris. even at age 70 I think Norris is got what it takes to defeat a 62 music artist. So its more rational to believe that Norris would beat Noone, not the other way around. If anyone viewing this debate has a fundamental problem with use of semantic arguments, feel free to ignore this one, I saved it for last round for the very reason that we all know full well what my opponent intended in the resolution. I feel confident at least one of the previous 4 should be enough to defeat Norris, as long as you are consistent with how you consider chuck norris to be each round.