BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Paedophile priests should be exposed (not literally, obviously, that's already a big problem)

As most people know, many Catholic priests are paedophiles. Despite the Church's attempts to hush the whole thing up, some kiddy-fiddling clergymen have been caught out and publicly shamed. However, my suspicion is that most consecrated choirboy cuddling goes unreported and, because the priests know that the Church won't punish them (unless they are actually arrested), these corrupt Catholic clerics continue their perverted practices with impunity. The only way the Catholic Church can begin to restore it's shattered reputation is to form squads of ecumenical investigators with the power to mount wholesale surveillance operations on suspected or known offenders and make random raids on all parochial houses. I therefore affirm that the Catholic Church should be pro-active in bringing these sacrosanct sex-pests to justice.
Paedophile priests should be exposed (not literally, obviously, that's already a big problem)

No problem Brian Eggleston, I really enjoyed discussing this topic with you. Hopefully, more investigation will ensue. Before I continue, I'd like to remind the community that this is a very touchy topic, so if you are inclined to vote based on your personal bias, please do not vote at all. ______________ My opponent agrees that this "exposure" would harm the Catholic community, yet, he says it may help in the long run. I respectfully disagree. This pedophilia issue ought to be resolved, that is without a doubt. I am simply arguing that my opponent's approach to solve this problem is detrimental at best. I propose a different solution. This problem ought to be handled as a high priority issue BUT it should be solved surreptitiously. If we expose these priests for there personal criminal activity it would add an unnecessary burden to the Catholic community. I argue, as I have argued in the past, I speak namely in virtue of the preservation of Catholicism. If we were to, from your rhetoric, "expose" the few Catholic Priest that have paedophiliac tendencies, we would be in essence, slowly delegitimazing importance of Catholicism and colloquially every branch of Catholicism. This issue should be solved by us arresting those accused of child molestation of indecent exposure etc, arrest them, not expose them. Every church ought to have surveillance in places where acts like this may occur, this surveillance ought to be seen by an outsider, possibly by a police officer. Please disregard my opponent's arguments regarding the car example, I'd argue that this issue would be solved with tighter inspection, as would the issue of pedophiles in a church. IN closing, this is an issue that is NOT unique to Catholic churches, and this issue should be solved immediately from churches to restaurants, it doesn't matter where this problem is occurring, it ought to be resolved immediately. It is wrong to blame the Catholic community and call them categorically wrong, when this only occurs in rare incidences. I hope more debates over solving this issue will ensue. Thank you for your time and consideration, - Protagoras of Abdera
Active euthanasia, the right to commit suicide with the help of doctors

"United States: Doctors are allowed to prescribe lethal doses of medicine to terminally ill patients in five US states. Euthanasia, however, is illegal. In recent years, the "aid in dying" movement has made incremental gains, but the issue remains controversial." http://www.theguardian.com... This source tells you about giving doses to terminally ill patients and also that it is illegal. http://www.bbc.co.uk... "switch off life-support machines "disconnect a feeding tube "don't carry out a life-extending operation "don't give life-extending drugs These are the terms for passive euthanasia. It is only about removing life supporting materiel. There is no talk about illegal overdoses! I am not saying that the doctors don"t do it, I don"t know about that. Actually giving overdoses with the intention to kill is not my debate topic. I want to make clear to you that I don"t what a debate about where I have used the word dissention or not. If it is really important to you, then yes I mend decision. And still you don"t get that I want to discuss the active form of euthanasia NOT the passive form that you talk about. I want to discuss the right for people to choose active euthanasia. I still don"t get if you are con or pro to active euthanasia, because until now you only talk about the definition of it? The type of euthanasia you are discussing is called palliative sedation. It is not active euthanasia.
Active euthanasia, the right to commit suicide with the help of doctors

I thought you mandated that we are only supposed to give our own opinion in this past round & then the next, this one that is, we can critique the opposition position. Anyway, I am a bit puzzled as to your argument being that you have only given your short opinion, pretty much restating your opening statement, without anything to back up your argument. Onward. Even though overdoses with medication for terminally ill patients in much pain, can considered euthanasia because overdoses are very difficult to prove with people in pain & terminally ill. There is a fine line that courts are not willing to cross unless the patient's family is very persistent. The reason for this is that the doctor, or doctors, have been in contact with family member & have been given the OK to give the overdose so as the patient will have an end to their suffering. (See my 1st argument). Thing is, the ethical problems such as the Hippocratic Oath contradicts giving such doses of pain medication to completely ease the pain, because it may kill the patient. Yet, this is an active type of euthanasia. See my initial argument for additional reasons not to administer active euthanasia. I am confused with your usage of the word 'dissention.' It may fit in one sense, although doesn't make sense in the other two places you have used it. Do you mean decision? Probably so, so I'll answer your point in that respect. Be it one doctor or several, as you suggest, does not reduce violating ethical standards, medical excellence, family guilt, etc. Even if there are four doctors that concur, they still face the same issues as if there was only one doctor.
Active euthanasia, the right to commit suicide with the help of doctors

In my presentations I only comment active euthanasia and why I think it"s should be legal for everyone. In my opinion administrating overdoses is not passive euthanasia. Administering overdoses with the intent to end lives is illegal. There is a clear different between overdoses with the intention to kill and passive euthanasia as remove life supporting assistant. I agree with the point you make about, that pain relief treatment is not euthanasia. I also agree with your concern about the power the doctors might be getting, regarding their major decisions. The dissention should never be giving to only one doctor but several have to make the dissention to make sure that the right dissention is made. And to reduce the power that is given to the doctors.
Active euthanasia, the right to commit suicide with the help of doctors

Passive euthanasia is where the doctors remove life supporting assistant, so a terminal injured person"s life is shortened. Active euthanasia is where you decide to commit suicide with help from doctors, when you are mortally ill. I wish the active form of euthanasia could be an option for everyone to choose, if needed. All people should have the freedom to decide to end their own life while they are still able to. People should have the opportunity to choose to die before time, if they are in strong pain and don"t want to live any longer and no chance of recovery. It should be a human right to choose active euthanasia. Active euthanasia should only be allowed for those who are declared terminal ill by the doctors.
Gay marriage should be legal

I would like to say I want us to stay away from any religious and lifestyles contexts, especially those explained in the comment section. And thanks for the link, I always wondered how courts perceived the issue (legally classifying transgender/transsexual). 1. Now going back, my first point still stands. Laws in marriage relations and divorce say wife, husband, father, mother. By making gay marriage legal suddenly, more problems would arise out of the wording of certain laws which would cause unnecessary complication. By creating civil unions, previous marriage laws could be argued that they don't apply. 2. Court case also would need to exist at a federal level to solve this: Is "gay marriage" the same as the previously noted "marriage" in court cases and laws? 3. Complications also arise in legal and medical paperwork listing "mother" or "father". School paperwork has the same issue. My point is that "gay marriage" shouldn't be legal because it would cause such a massive number of legal problems. Should everyone be treated the same, yes, but writing laws to say "gay marriage " is legal is a bad idea. Presenting a solution I thought about last night: Change the laws to not be gender specific. Otherwise a hundred years of laws will have to be brought up in court to be dealt with for the next 50 years. By changing the laws to not be gender specific, there would just be marriage that doesn't recognize gender. Yet this still aligns with my argument because gay marriage would not be legal. Marriage would be marriage, without denoting the genders of those married. Yes gays would be able to marry then, but "gay marriage" would not exist. (I know my debate is falling into semantics but that's how the legal system works. Also the method means a completely different thing socially. Removing the denotation of gender in marriage says we are all equal and all marriages are equal. Gay marriage separates gay marriage from the traditional marriage which as you said, "people deserve marriage just as much as anyone else".)
Gay marriage should be legal

If you and your former spouse agree on custody, the court will normally ratify your agreement without considering the details of how you lead your life. A judge won't know (or necessarily ask) whether one of you is living with another person unless your ex brings it to the judges attention. If you and your spouse are battling over custody, however, the traditional advice is to not live with a new partner and to be discreet in your sexual activity, at least until the court makes a decision. This advice applies to both fault and no-fault divorces, as a parent living arrangement is always admissible in a custody dispute on the theory that a court needs as much information as possible to determine "the best interests of the child.' The text above is from here http://www.nolo.com... Now anyway in any relationship one member Hetero or not one parent takes over as the dominate one. If you read above it talks about how the judge decides based on the kids perception of who he/she wants to be with. As for transgendered example boy to girl the boy would consider themselves a girl but they're actually a boy so if the judge would need to go to detail about that they will. But transsexual is when the individual gets surgery to change sex then they would be the opposite sex officially.
Gay marriage should be legal

I don't believe gay marriage is mad. I have several gay friends but making gay marriage legal in the current society and more problems than people would think. 1. Current laws are written for heterosexual marriages so many would have to be rewritten. Many laws, especially with those concerning children and divorce, have references to wife and husband which would bring to question "Well we are both wives so what now?". http://www.hg.org... 2. In a divorce, precedent gives favor in most states to the female as having priority to the children. What happens with both parents are female and precedent gives both priority? What if one is transgender? Could they be argued as male instead, which would be unfair? For Gay Marriages to become legal, there needs to be a comprehensive solution. So until a laws arise that deal with the federal and state laws and make them gender neutral, gay marriage shouldn't be legal.
Gay marriage should be legal

Its fine if you were out of state, and I would prefer if people didn't just vote for me because of a ff round.Rebuttals1. "gay marriage is already legal in 19 states an you don't see the Limbo that you" - Most are done by court cases. Look at the court cases. The court cases use the logic of all people are equals, not gay marriage and traditional marraige are equal. As society changes, marraige is becoming more widely considered gender neutral. Thus reflecting in court cases where courts say that the law was unfair to cite a gender. They are not changing the courts cases on "make gay marraige legal".http://gaymarriage.procon.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...; - "policy for the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples was determined at the county level at the discretion of local issuing authorities."2. "How? Taxes how are they any different tell me that." - Taxes are higher on those with larger incomes. Though it is morally right for them to pay higher taxes, it does not treat all people as perfect equals. Because the individual is able to make more money means they should have more taken from them, which is unequal. I am definity NOT an advocate for the FLAT tax. I am just saying that taxes for those with higher incomes is unequal.4. (NOT A REBUTTAL) "having to change things legally isn't a reason to keep the idea of gay marriage illegal" - This is pretty much signifies why I debated aganist you on this. How many people actually think about the legal process and the best way to make gay marraige legal? No one. They make demands and don't think the process.5. "FYI I will enjoy the court cases if that what it takes :)" - Going to court is expensive, and can take a dramatic toll on people, relationships and families.ArgumentsMost of my points still stand, especially those on divorce laws.Finally,Gay marraige should not exist or be legal, because it identifies it as seperate from traditional marraige. Marraige without gender is a more appropiate means of accomplishing your goal (and is how courts are allowing same-sex marraiges).
Gay marriage should be legal

Sorry for the inconvenience but I was out of town and gay marriage is already legal in 19 states an you don't see the Limbo that you. It doesn't even affect You or at all evolve you. This doesn't evolve the DOMA a bill signed in 1996 remember its 2014 and times have changed 19 states have legalized gay marriage and they are doing just fine. As I said earlier Gay marriage is already legal in 19 states which the school system still hasn't collapsed. "Gay marriage" is just a way of easily organizing the topics that gays should marry. When gay couples get married, they get married, not gay married. What makes no sense why if you were gay and you wanted to get married how do you think they feel having to move away from there friends and families just to be married. When they SHOULD be allowed to marry anywhere. Other people should not get to decide weather they can get married just because you love someone. People commonly base it off religion which there are homosexual religious types out there. But the reason they are so against it I because it bans them and being who they are. You said '5. Yeah they have the liberty to do as they please. Gays are represented in court as equal citizens to everyone else. That does not mean laws are equal to all. Taxes, affirmative action, etc are all unequal and legal.' How? Taxes how are they any different tell me that. 'Gay marriage isn't it's own entity, it is saying gays should be able to get married.' Worded from fellow debater YaHey Which is very TRUE. It isn't anyone else's choice except them weather they can get married or not I don't think its fair weather people get to vote on if two people can get married that is taking away there rights. If you were in their shoes you wouldn't want other people to have the power over you. When you can't legally combine love with the very one you love. having to change things legally isn't a reason to keep the idea of gay marriage illegal A. Making gay marriage legal. Adding a law that adds/amends DOMA style laws. By amending DOMA, there must be a difference between marriage, the civil union of a male and female, and the gay marriage, allowing same sex marriage. This is the solution that cause problems. This is the solution we are arguing and that I am arguing against. Which is there is no reason like I said in the very beginning. DIVORCE the same either way no absolute difference between mm ,mw, ww . JUST GENDER Instead of noticing healthy apple relationship and give rights and marriage equalities to both green and red apples and there applied. So That Concludes My Argument For my first debate and I don't looking forward to loosing. FYI I will enjoy the court cases if that what it takes :)
Gay marriage should be legal

.1 so isn't gay marriage very similar why does gender matter though? Take your example and basically it's like hetero both parents take the roles that a mom and dad would take . There can be children in both types of marriages that's their choice . Divorce is no different either one parent gets the kids or they both just keep the kid 2. What's the difference? Marriage is Marriage why does it matter if its gay or straight you don't call it (Straight Marriage). 3. Just change it from mother or father to the other if needed its not that big of a problem 4. You tell me a mass number of legal problems and give me some. 5. The Pledge of allegiance even says 'Liberty and Justice for All' For ALL including Gays which includes marriage 6. Marriage is all equal it shouldn't be labeled by gender I said what I said because ITS NOT LEGAL YET.
Attacking skepticism is Anti-Science

You said that sometimes it's safe to assume what you're being told is correct, why would that be? On the environment for example, we can be concerned and act like global warming is a problem but if you were a scientist, you may not believe what you're told. History is rife with people doing this; if it wasn't for some scientists saying "wait a minute" and going against the grain we would probably still believe in phrenology, outdated atomic models, and so on. Being a skeptic is what motivates people to do research and improve/alter certain theories, which advances science. You and I basically agree that attacking skepticism in general is not a good thing.
Attacking skepticism is Anti-Science

I agree that obviously you must make sure that information you are getting is in fact true. But there are some instances i'm saying where it's safe to assume what your being told is correct. Like how were causing global warming. I think that skepticism is sometimes important but you should obviously be able to tell which things are probably true. I think that attacking skepticism as a whole is obviously the wrong thing to do but like i said before in my last arguement it doesn't really necessarily tie into science like as if science and skepticism goes together. Also like i said before on occasion there is skepticism of obvious things like how the earth is a ball and not a flat rectangle. Trying to make sure information is correct is always good but being skeptic of every single thing is a bit much. What i'm saying is obviously before telling someone something you have to fact check what your saying but skepticism as in doubt of everything is a bit much. Science does involve being skeptical but once again i wouldn't say they exactly interlink all the time.
Attacking skepticism is Anti-Science

I call myself a skeptic on every issue. I'm not saying all these scientists and politicians are lying but I am saying that they don't have enough evidence to prove certain claims such as "humans are the main cause of climate change." However this debate is not about climate change, it's about skepticism and its place in science. Individuals such as Bill Nye and, I assume, a bunch of leftists call people "science deniers" just because they express doubt on current consensus. So, I think skepticism is actually a pro-science thing to do and belittling people for it is thus an anti-science sentiment. You will argue otherwise.
It's impossible to know anything with absolution

The statement that you believe to know with absolution is that 'it's impossible to know anything with absolution', or that you can't know anything without doubt. You also stated that not knowing if we're right or wrong doesn't dictate if we're right or wrong. But the argument at hand isn't about what is, but what is known. And for something to be known, it need to be both true and be believed by the person who knows it, in such a way that they have proven it true, without any contradictions in the data they have. So although I agree the information we have doesn't dictate what is (at least since our last argument), the information we have does still determine what we can actualy know. So since we could get more information in the future, we could know something with absolution eventualy, even if it was impossible now. I'm not saying we will get information that allows us to do this eventualy, but it isn't impossible that we might know something with absolution. P.S- if you want to continue the debate, or do a separate conclusion round or something, we can complete this on a second debate.
It's impossible to know anything with absolution

"But since you haven't provided evidence for any other statement being true, the first part of your logic has no base."The problem with this is the burden of proof wasn't on me, but rather my opponent put it on himself. My responsibility was to provide a statement that either disproved the resolution "that NOTHING could be known for certain", or to disprove your logic (what I did, which is my argument). My burden wasn't to refute, but to defend. You even said in the First Round "I ask that my opponent simply come up with as statement or fact that they believe can be prove undeniably, and I'll try and refute it.". I have done so, provided that "It is impossible to know anything with absolution" is my statement. It is your job to disprove it. Since you have failed to do so thus far, you have failed to prove your BOP, while I have fulfilled mine."A paradox is definitely not an example of absolution."The problem with this is my argument isn't a paradox, it's the example of a double bind. A double bind being an argument that uses an opponent's argument and makes them lose in any way that can be taken. In this case, the double bind is this:Either a) It IS impossible to know anything with absolution. That itself is an absolute statement, thus proving the resolution falseor b) It ISN'T impossible to know anything with absolution, thus making the resolution automatically negated.While my opponent may argue that one is a paradox, that doesn't negate, nor does it disprove the point. But then moreover, even if it is a paradox, it just disproves that statement, resulting in the b) option. "It was only intended for reacting to your specific statement, not addressing the idea overall. Circumstantial evidence can't prove a statement false, but it can keep you from knowing that your right."Not knowing if we're right or wrong doesn't mean we are right or wrong. Saying that our knowledge dictates what is right is just the Argument from Ignorance.But then even if you're argument is true, then not having all the information to make a conclusion prevents it from being impossible, because there could always be that one fact out there that we don't know yet that proves something absolutely true. This means that it wouldn't be impossible, but rather possible, regardless of the unlikliness of it, which means we negate the resolution.