BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Civil Unions should be legal in the United States

Insults aside, my opponent begins with this: "You think that what is going on with the gay people in status-quo America is a problem, and isnt already solved by basic human ethics. We shouldnt even be having this debate, what we should be doing is molding our mindsets to accepting gays everywhere, to do anything, including be married. " What he fails to understand is that, in the status quo, homosexuals ARE NOT TREATED EQUALLY. You claim that we need to accept homosexuals everywhere. But by not giving them civil unions, we keep them separated from society by not allowing them to have unions AT ALL. How can we possible mold our minds to accept homosexuals if our laws set a paradigm of ‘rewarding' heterosexual couples. "The only time gays will ever be equal is when we fully accept them, and that is NOT going to happen by a civil union. " Again, my opponent fails to realize that civil unions and marriage is the EXACT SAME THING. The only difference is the name and the church's recognition. Unless my opponent wants to institute a totalitarian regime in America, it is IMPOSSIBLE to force a church to recognize a union. "You believe there are two separate groups out there and you are trying to appease both. The two groups will hate each other horribly. We cant try and fix the current system in which the two groups hate each other, we have to mold everyones minds to believe that gays are equal. " The church and government hate each other? Appeasing both is wrong? In my opponent's flawed mind, he believes that we can completely destroy religion to ensure equality only as deep as the name. He does not seem to believe that giving two groups two equal benefits is equal. Example: I give a boy 2 apples and a girl 2 apples. I let the boy calls his apples ‘bob' and the girl call her apples ‘rob'. Both the boy and the girl and treated the same. My opponent also believes that homosexuals should be able to do what ever they want. That's fine, but in the current America, they CAN NOT. IF my opponent is such an advocate of gay rights, he would support civil unions, BECAUSE THEY ARE THE SAME AS MARRIAGE. A brief summary of the round: I advocate civil unions that give homosexuals equal rights and equal benefits. Everyone can have a civil union, not just homosexuals. I advocate that the government does not interfere with religious institutions and force them to recognize all civil unions. I am able to ensure that everyone has the same rights, same benefits, and is treated equally under the law. My opponent advocates molding people's minds to accept homosexuals without providing a method. He either assumes (as he has in the debate) 1. that the current law provides equality. 2. that we should destroy religious freedom and force church's to follow a law they may find sinful Both of these are wrong.
Civil Unions should be legal in the United States

"Unlike what my opponent seems to think, I am not trying to stay safe, but stay American" Oh my, classic. "Stay American". ARE YOU SERIOUS!? Have you given up at this point of the debate or what? He tries to illustrate this type of double bind Americans are in because of the different laws we have. This horrible terrible double bind; and he is the one that can see through the fog. Oh yes, he has the answer to the problem. The problem? Im sorry sir, but you have shot yourself in the foot on this speech. The mere fact your mindset carries the thought that this is a "problem that needs to be solved" (that civil unions solve) destroys your entire case. You think that what is going on with the gay people in status-quo America is a problem, and isnt already solved by basic human ethics. We shouldnt even be having this debate, what we should be doing is molding our mindsets to accepting gays everywhere, to do anything, including be married. The only time gays will ever be equal is when we fully accept them, and that is NOT going to happen by a civil union. You still hold them on a level lower than you. "Im straight, i can be married. Hes gay, I want to appease him, but he cant be AS EQUAL as me". Your mindset destroys itself, and im sorry, but you lose. Turn his entire justice onto gays case onto him, hes the one putting them lower, hes the one that even started this debate. We should see gays as equal, we should not be debating on whether or not they should be married. You say separation of church and state. fail. Do you understand what you are doing? You believe there are two separate groups out there and you are trying to appease both. The two groups will hate each other horribly. We cant try and fix the current system in which the two groups hate each other, we have to mold everyones minds to believe that gays are equal. However, this is impossible. So let the two groups fight over the morality. Right now the government is sitting on the side of the oppressor, and will be until they recognize gay marriage. The standards you set in your first speech allowed us to just look at the philosophy behind the ideas. Allowed us to toy with what gays can, and cant do. We should not be having this debate, gays can do whatever they want because of the arguments you yourself made in your first speech.
Civil Unions should be legal in the United States

Unlike what my opponent seems to think, I am not trying to stay safe, but stay American. Let me summarize my opponent's argument. I am an elitist because I support civil unions and not gay marriage. He ignores, though, one key part of the Bill of Rights. That the United States Congress "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. " With this in mind, Congress CAN NOT force churches and religious institutions to recognize homosexual marriage. The only way to ensure that homosexuals receive the same benefits, same perks, same status in the government's eyes, while NOT destroying religious freedom, is to allow civil unions. Anyone is eligible for a civil union. It is the government's version of marriage. The only difference is that marriage is recognized by the church. I am not, as you put it, sitting on a throne and telling gays what to do. We are giving them an option to get 'married' without the name 'marriage. ' If we do not establish civil unions, homosexuals will STILL be denied the benefits they deserve. If we force all churches to recognize homosexual unions as marriage, we completely destroy the separation between church and state.
Civil Unions should be legal in the United States

"I would first like to say good luck to my opponent (who ever he or she may be)" Thank you. To you too. "I am not in favor of gay marriage." Great job. He has already gone to damn himself in this debate round. Looking to the fact he believes they should have "EQUAL" rights, and he is AGAINST gay marriage, proves how redundant and idiotic his thought process is. He tried to say this to keep his name safe, to make him look "understanding, but not too far understanding". But its going to hurt him drastically in this debate round. "However, I also understand that I am not the whole country and I do not represent everyone. I believe, that in the United States, a country known for freedom and rights, civil unions should be fully legal 1) Homosexuals deserve no worse rights than Heterosexuals. 2) It violates the Constitution to deny homosexuals the right to civil unions." I will cold concede both arguments he makes, because I fully agree. These will both come back to bite him, hard. If they deserve no less rights than heteros do, then why not make gay marriage legal? His thought process is self destroying, hes against marriage, but for unions. These civil unions dehumanize the gay population to something that can be controlled and merely told what to do rather than make their own decisions. Civil unions should be illegal in the united states, always and forever. He has an elitist mindset that is in desperate need of molding. He thinks he can sit atop his high thrown, with gay people at his feet waiting for what he says is ok for them to do. He represents that cold part of society that subjectivizes those around them, dehumanizes them. He might as well think that they are animals. He thinks he can choose what they can and cant do, and that is wrong. Horribly wrong. If you think they should have equal rights, give them equal rights. If you think they shouldnt. Dont. Dont post a debate you think you can easily win because you worded it to your advantage, or so you thought. the affs policy option is to legalize civil unions mine is to ban them Vote for the neg to stop the dehumanization of an entire group of people. Vote for the neg to keep the United States of America actually equal, and end the fake image portrayed as equality we are so accustomed to seeing away. Sorry sir, you tried to be too safe. And its game over now.
Civil Unions should be legal in the United States

I would first like to say good luck to my opponent (who ever he or she may be) I understand that gay marriage is a highly charged issue in the United States, and I would like to first point out that I am not in favor of gay marriage. I believe that marriage is a religious institution and the government should not be able to tell churches what they can and cannot do within the church. However, I also understand that I am not the whole country and I do not represent everyone. I believe, that in the United States, a country known for freedom and rights, civil unions should be fully legal. 1) Homosexuals deserve no worse rights than Heterosexuals. Know one knows why some people are homosexual. There are two possible reasons. Either they were born homosexual, or they choose to be homosexual. If they were born homosexual, denying them civil unions would be synonymous with denying African Americans or Hispanic Americans civil unions. An individual cannot change what they are born as, and it is not fair to punish someone for something that is beyond their control. If homosexuality is simply a life choice, it would still be unfair. Should we stop people who shop at Walmart instead of Target from having civil unions? Of course not. There is no reason why homosexuals are different from heterosexuals in a way that they deserve less rights. 2) It violates the Constitution to deny homosexuals the right to civil unions. If civil unions are not legalized, homosexuals are not open to the same benefits as heterosexual couples, such as victim recovery benefits and joint leases. The 14th amendment states that "no state shall . .. deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. " Slavery was considered a violation of the 14th amendment because one group was treated better than another. Now I would just like to conclude with a little more analysis on the topic. We aren't debating what the United States is currently, or what it ever will be. We are simply debating what SHOULD happen.
Providing Material Aid to Impoverished Communities/Nations/Individuals Promotes Poverty

You have established a dichotomy of what we could do for these hypothetical 10,000 impoverished people. Although it's somewhat inaccurate, let's continue with absolute statements. Without intervention, these 10,000 people will starve. If we continue to follow my preceding argument, however, sustaining them for a year of life will result in an increase of population. Since you have not denied this I'll assume that you agree with it. The following year, instead of having 10,000 impoverished people you'll have 10,000 + X impoverished people, where X = number of newborn. This will just continue to snowball until the caregivers themselves are impoverished. As for your point on counting me as one of those 10,000 impoverished people: Of course I would want the help. We're ultimately selfish when our lives are at stake. But the question is not whether a starving individual wants help, but whether or not we should give it to him/her. It's an important distinction to make. "…we may have more and better means of helping those people." That's a big ‘may'. We ‘may' also have no means of helping even a single one of them. On the subject of your remarks about fishing: A place to fish does not count as material aid. How would you provide this to anyone? As for your remark about giving them the tools as means to provide for their own subsistence, you've got a good point there. Tools could certainly help an impoverished community get up on its feet. Unfortunately, tools that help us feed ourselves don't control our food supply. If there are 10,000 of you but only enough wild boars to feed 1,000 then there will be 9,000 left to starve. My following point has much to do with my above concept of supply and demand, and is in response to your comment about providing food, water and shelter. Much like food, our dependence on water relies on its availability. If a community exists in a location where water is scarce, then it is a futile endeavor to deliver them water. They will quench their thirst for a year and continue to reproduce, and then there will be even more dehydrated people for you to cater to. Sustaining a doomed community is cruel. Any form of teaching is not a part of this debate. I made this explicitly clear in my first post by elucidating what I meant by ‘material aid'. My argument is not that we make it illegal to make charitable donations. I don't believe in petty laws that infringe on a person's right to do as they please with their possessions. The question at hand is not whether or not we should make it illegal to donate but rather about whether or not we should bother. PS: The ice cream statistic was a nice addition, and it certainly helps to put our lives in perspective. It's a shame that our chances at life are typically dictated by where we're born.
Providing Material Aid to Impoverished Communities/Nations/Individuals Promotes Poverty

In your example of 10,000 people we could either not help them for fear we will not be able to help the next generation. Or Help the 10,000 people survive. Save as many as we can and hope that in the future we can help the next generation. Because while there may be more people in the next generation we may have more and better means of helping those people. It is easier to say its a better option to let the 10,000 die when you and your family/friends is not included in those 10,000. I have a hard time believing that if you were you would say, "no don't help us because there's a chance that in the future more people may die." In your argument of "teach a man to fish and he'll never starve" part of that argument helps my case. If someone is going to fish won't someone need to give him a pole and a place to fish? I believe a pole and place to fish fit under your definition of material aid. Even if we were to provide everyone with food, water and shelter, which we could, you are assuming that they would still always be in poverty, which may not be the case. If we give them food, water, and shelter than that will also make it easier for them to get a job and therefore get out of poverty. And to my point that we could provide everyone with food, drinking water and shelter, it is estimated that in order to provide everyone on earth with those three things, it would cost roughly 20 billion dollars. That is the same amount of money americans spend on icecream per year. Putting the fishing thing in context of your example of the 10,000 people you are under the false pretense that the only thing we could do for them is give them food. We could also teach them to cook. However someone would need to give material aid such as things to cook on and food to cook with. So if we teach them to cook and other things it will increase oppurtunities for jobs. Thus, decreasing the amount of people living in poverty. Granted some people will still live in poverty and will have kids that live in poverty. But we will be giving them a better chance not to. Precedent has already been set in the courts. Philadelphia had, just a few years ago, began passing laws that made it illegal to help homeless people because they though it would do exactly what you propose, promote homelessness. Shane Claiborne and others were arrested for giving homeless people food. When they went to court the judge said "what is in question here is not whether or not these folks broke the law, that is quite clear. What is in question is the constitutionality of these laws" they were found not guilty on every count.
Providing Material Aid to Impoverished Communities/Nations/Individuals Promotes Poverty

That is indeed a worthy clarification, and I wish I'd thought of including it. Thank you. For the purpose of this argument, I am using 'to promote' in the sense of 'furthering the progress', but not 'active encouragement'. I truly regret not having specified such an important part of the argument question. I believe that most charitable contributions to poverty are done with good intentions, albeit naive ones--more on this later. Your initial speculation was correct. I do indeed mean to stick to the adage of 'teach a man to fish and he'll never starve', and I don't think further elaboration is required. However, that is not where I intended on stopping. Supposing that I would argue that equal opportunity exists, however, is not a fair statement. It certainly would be a ridiculous argument and it was not the direction that I was heading in. You have presented the following counter-argument: 1. Not everyone has equal opportunity. (I agree) 2. When people help those in poverty they are doing it to provide their needs for survival. (I agree) Your point about people not willingly living in poverty doesn't add any weight to your argument, so I'll leave it aside. If you believe that there's more to it than please elaborate on it. Peter Farb: ""Intensification of production to feed an increased population leads to a still greater increase in population." For our purposes, this could be translated into 'an increase of resources results in an increase of population'. Logically speaking, this makes sense: If 10,000 people cannot feed themselves, then they will die and won't be able to reproduce. But if you feed all 10,000 of them then there will invariably be an increase of population. Their means of subsistence has not changed and instead of 10,000 starving people next year there may be 20,000 to feed. Abridged: Providing aid to impoverished people will invariably result in an increase of population, and this impoverished population will have even more mouths to feed than before. Giving aid to a community in need therefore increases the number of individuals living in poverty.
Providing Material Aid to Impoverished Communities/Nations/Individuals Promotes Poverty

Thanks for debating this topic and I am looking forward to it. I also just wanted to clarify the definition of promoting. According to google promote is to "further the progress of, support or actively encourage" When people give to charity it is not to support poverty or to encourage people to live in poverty. It is to help them with their needs. I'm speculating that your argument is going to, in some way, say that those people in poverty need to work for things themselves. The problem is not everyone has equal oppurtunity. I really hope you do not try and make a case that there is equal oppurtunity because that is one of the most ridiculous arguments anyone has ever come up with. In conclusion, when people help those living in poverty it is not encouraging people to go live in poverty, it is simply providing for needs. I know that it doesn't promote poverty because I have never heard anyone say, "let's live in poverty so that people will give us stuff." Those living in poverty want to get out (in most cases) and those that don't live in poverty, don't want to start living in poverty. Thank you and I look forward to hearing your argument.
Providing Material Aid to Impoverished Communities/Nations/Individuals Promotes Poverty

This is my first debate so bear with me. I'm assuming that this counts as my first round post, and so my opponent should use their first round response to accept the challenge as well as taking the opportunity to clarify any important concepts/terms that he/she deems important. The question at hand may seem straight-forward but there's an important clarification to be made. Material aid = the charitable providing of material resources to a group of individuals that cannot otherwise provide it for themselves. To re-iterate my stance: I believe that providing aid to impoverished nations/communities/individuals is a myopic and witless practice. PS: I've noticed that it's become a habit to continually thank opponents for each post but I won't be doing the same. I will give thanks when all is said done but never earlier. I believe that by doing so it will give true weight to the words 'thank you' instead of turning it into a perfunctory ritual.
Providing Material Aid to Impoverished Communities/Nations/Individuals Promotes Poverty

You talked about in nations around the world where the industrial revolution hasn't caught on yet there is no such things as jobs. Yes in specific cases that is true. But generally speaking is there more places that have jobs and a form of money or is there more that don't? Clearly the answer is more places do. You also talked about how people have to hunt and walk far for water. In some situations yes, but then again if we helped them they would have food and water so I do not see the point you are trying to make. Again in your next argument you were making specific arguments to africa. However this debate wasn't about does providing materialistic aid to africa promote poverty. It was just in general to the entire world. You then said "the only way for these communities to avoid devestation is to re-establish towards a funtional population number". The word "re-establish" is important here because It was never stated that this group of people was already over populated. Someone from your point of view could say well eventually they will be over populated, but as I have already talked about in my last arguments, providing materialistic aid can lead someone out of poverty. Again we are talking generally about the earths population, not small sections of africa. Threw out this debate you keep assuming that the number of newborns, from helping to sustaining the community, will automatically be living in poverty as if it were a forgone conclusion. Which is clearly false. My B.O.P was to show that, generally speaking, providing materialistic aid does not promote poverty. I can tell I have done that well because when you could not refute my arguments by using the general population of the earth, you chose to give examples using small sections of africa as your population. Thanks for the debate.