BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay Should Not Mean Homosexual

"People who use the term "gay" to mean that something is not good or retarded are not intelligent enough to comprehend the fact that gay does refer to homosexuals" - Con, R1Lexicography is the study of diction and its usages within culture. If a high enough percentage of the population uses a word in a certain fashion, it is accepted into the language much like words such as "sup" or other previously slang terms. Sociological evidence clearly demonstrates that "gay" is currently being used to mean, "homosexual identity or tendency" and, "something of displeasure or distaste." These are the two current usages of the word, I am here to argue that we should reject the former denotation."[H]omosexuals are generally nicer people then straight girls or guys that are prejudice against them" - Con, R1Please elaborate how this is relevant to the discussion at hand. I do not agree with the remark as I don't feel sexual preference alone speaks for the quality of someone's character.My position is that using 'gay' to refer to individuals attracted to the same sex is derogatory due to the historical usage of the word being affiliated with promiscuous or sexually carefree behaviour (which is clearly not the image one would hope to imply upon the homosexual community). It evolved from describing a joyful and carefree person to describing a sexually carefree person and from there a person so sexually carefree he or she doesn't distinguish between genders for his or her desires. This was adopted as a euphemistic cover term to colloquially label homosexuals.Gay has been used throughout current culture to express the dissatisfying quality or condition of something (without the sexual connotation attached). One may interpret this definition of the word as being a variant of the original, "Carefree." The definition of the term in this case could arguably be, "Obnoxiously carefree."In the same way that bastard has two understood meanings (one meaning, "The offspring of an unmarried couple." And the other meaning, "Someone of detestable character.") gay has two currently understood meanings. Just as calling someone a bastard isn't typically associated as an insult to illegitimate children, so too should calling something gay not be interpreted as an insult to homosexuals.In summation for this round, there are two key concepts I have proposed:1) Gay is currently used as a descriptive completely removed from a homosexual context (E.G. "that's gay!").2) The etymology behind gay is demonstrably negative and thus should be discarded as a label for homosexuals.
Gay Should Not Mean Homosexual

The final round will be reserved for closing statement and a summarization of argumentation. In this debate I will contend that the term 'gay' should be accepted to mean 'distasteful' or 'displeasurable' in a way that is completely removed from the context of homosexual preference. It will also be my stance that gay ought not refer to individuals who have a same gender sexual preference. It will be the task of my opponent to refute my argumentation and substantiate the diametrically opposing position (E. G. "gay" ought mean anything other than homosexual). As always, this is meant in good humour. Best wishes to any challenger.
Gay Should Not Mean Homosexual

MCDCBC has forfeited the third and final argument round.I posted this debate in hopes of understanding the rationale behind the opposing point of view. I would gladly accept a rematch if requested, and I also will accept any challenger to this topic.My two focal arguements are:1) Gay mean at the very least two mutually exclusive denotations according to modern usage ("homosexual" and "distasteful").2) The etymology of gay, as it led to refer to 'homosexual,' is derogatory and therefore should be discarded as a means to express homosexual tendency or character.All the best.
Most of formal education is a complete waste of time

That being said, the burden of proof is on Pro to show that "roughly 80% to 90% of education from grades 1-12 is completely useless" and "most (is) for college too. " I would also like it to be noted that the key word in the resolution is "complete" or "completely," meaning that if I can show that in the examples provided that the education is in any way useful, then my opponent's point is refuted. Since formal education is not the same around the world, we will qualify "formal education" as "formal education in the United States," as we both have experience with that. Good luck to my opponent, and if he has any problems with my qualification of formal education, we should sort it out in the comments section. If he just posts his next argument, then my qualification of formal education as formal education in the U. S. stands. Good luck!
Most of formal education is a complete waste of time

I do not believe that formal education in a classroom is very effective for life, for conversation, for a job, for much of anything and I will state why after this debate is accepted. I hope to debate with someone who is involved in being an educator but that is not mandatory. I would say that roughly 80% to nearly 90% of education from grades 1-12 is completely useless and most for college too. There is way too much emphasis in this world on "education" accomplishments. I look forward to a great debate.
The Bible is the Foundation for Objective Morals.

The Pro was given the opportunity to post an argument again after his forfeit, which resulted in a loss according to said rules and has decided instead to add insults verses an argument . Its not about blame, it's about debating, it's not about the Pros age, which he keeps alluding to in the comment section. So again, I say that the Pro has forfeited twice and has not dealt with the points that were brought up in my last post. These excuses do not excuse your actions on this web site in an actual debate, what you say and do in the comment section is one thing, but how you act inside the debate and what you say is everything. Vote Con if you even bothered to read this debate. The Bible is not the foundation for objective morality, which the Pro has clearly not been able to prove. I carefully pointed out the things the Pro keep side stepping and would not directly answer. I forward all my arguments and declare that the Pro never dealt with with the arguments that I posted in round three. Point A Slavery: The Pro did not deal directly with the scriptures about beating slaves and fathers selling their daughters in slavery, the Pro claimed that slavery wasn't that bad and was good for the people. Point B Sabbath: This point doesn't even matter. Point C Homosexuality and Killing: The Pro would not answer the direct question about how the Bible mandates the killing of homosexuals. Point E Bearing false witness: Again no direct answer. Point H Author of Evil: The Bible says that God is the author of evil in Isaiah, but the Pro never responds.
The Bible is the Foundation for Objective Morals.

Ok, since projectid clearly doesn't have a heart (or morals) I do not see why I should continue with this debate. I thought I was debating with a mature, understanding, adult. Instead I was debating with a person who hasn't the heart to understand peoples legitimate excuses and has so much hate for the Christian Religion that I feel I will do more harm than good if I continued on with the debate. And I know projectid is just going to blame this on me and I am rude, heartless and blah blah blah. Insult me all you want, but con knows a 16 year old kid is right, that God is the source of good, and that the Bible is God's Word.
The Bible is the Foundation for Objective Morals.

This is not good, we are in a debate, you cannot just stop the debate at your will, this is a forfeit. As per the said rules in my first post upon you accepting the debate you will notice that is says: " Any forfeit of any round results in a loss of the debate by either debater. " The Pro has FORFEITED this debate, by choosing NOT to post an argument. I forward all my arguments and declare that the Pro never dealt with with the arguments that I posted in round three. Point A Slavery Point B Sabbath Point C Homosexuality and Killing Point E Bearing false witness Point H Author of Evil Perhaps the Pro is just having a hard time dealing with the inconsistencies in the Bible as the foundation for objective morality.
The Bible is the Foundation for Objective Morals.

As a firm believer in God and His Word, I believe fully that the Bible is the basis of all objective morals and is in no way controversial. I will use the Saint Joseph Edition Bible, which is a Catholic Bible. My first reference would be the most obvious,, the ten commandments. Genesis 20:7-17. The first three Commandments of course are not objective morals, for they speak of respecting the Most High God, however the last seven are. Honor you father and mother, thou shall not kill, shall not commit adultery, shall not steal, shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor, shall covet neighbors house, shall not covet your neighbors wife (can also mean lust). This one speaks for itself. My other argument comes from Romans 13:8-10 "Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet," and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law." If I am going to try to convince you that the Bible is the basis of objective morals, I would call myself mad, because we both know that is not going to happen. However, speaking from a Christian view, your argument is easily shot down. John 1:1-5 says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be. What came to be through him was life, and this life was the light of the human race; the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it." If all things came to be through God's Word, which is spoken through the Bible and is alive as the person we know as Jesus, then He is the center of all righteous, good, love, and morality. However, if you have not love and you only rely on what the human mind can comprehend, then you have won the debate, because I put my faith and trust in things the human mind can not comprehend. This is called faith. God Bless
The Bible is the Foundation for Objective Morals.

The Pro must believe that objective morals stem from God, which are found in the Holy Bible. In this debate Pro will have to give his/her arguments for the basis of these objective morals via the Holy Bible, which includes the Old and New Testament. This debate will consist of using only the Bible for arguments. Old King James, New King James, New American Standard, English Standard Version are the only acceptable translations to be used, this will alleviate any bias paraphrase translation to be used. The Pro must introduce no more than four points (with scripture references), beyond these points no new points can be brought forth, the Pro must stick with them and I must deal with them, no more and no less. No outside resources, BIBLE ONLY, so I ask the voters to disregard points for resources. The Pro will give his/her arguments in the first round, which is his/her first post. The Pro will make no argument in the 5th round. The Pro will write in the 5th round "No argument posted as agreed upon". If the Pro posts anything in the 5th round other than what is agreed as said above, he/she will forfeit the debate. Any forfeit of any round results in a loss of the debate by either debater.
Basketball VS Baseball

Thank you for accepting. We meet again! This time, I promise to be more proper and use evidence. I will prove my explanations with "EX:1, EX:2, etc. " EX:1- You can watch basketball indoors, not baseball. Baseball games can be only watched and played outdoors. However, basketball can be seen and played indoors and outdoors. For example, a game between the Tigers and Mariners in Detroit was delayed due to cold weather and rain. Many people do not want to be late for other events after a delayed baseball game. On the other hand, if rain pours before an outdoor basketball game, the location could be changed to indoors. Nowadays, mostly all NBA basketball games are indoors. CITES: . http://www.toptenz.net... . http://www.flickr.com... EX:2- Basketball is easy to organize and can be played independently. In order to organize a baseball game, you would need: many people, open grass area, bases, baseball, bat, etc. However, for a basketball game, you would only need: one or more people, hoop, and basketball. Also, basketball games can be played with just one person. You could practice shooting, dribbling, and even practice dribbling past a pretend defender! Try playing baseball alone. CITES:. http://www.toptenz.net... . http://www.flickr.com... EX:3- Basketball is fast-paced and has lots of action, unlike baseball. Baseball can be exciting in some parts of the game, but basketball is exciting throughout the whole game. Basketball includes players stealing, passing, defending, and the most exciting: shooting. Baseball, however, players throw, swing,run, and catch. In basketball games, a player only dribbling can be tense. The crowd could hold their breath, waiting to see if it gets stolen or shot. Baseball is very basic, swinging and running. Also, injures in games means that the game is action-packed and tense. According to Consumer Product Safety Commission, basketball gets the most injuries. Baseball injuries are below the first three most injuries in sports. CITES: . http://www.toptenz.net... . http://www.forbes.com... EX:4- Basketball players are more known and more athletic. Who do you know better, Michael Jordan or Alex Rodriguez? (I'm sorry if Alex R. in your opinion is bad. ) Baseball players just run, throw, swing, and catch. But, basketball players run, shoot, steal, pass, catch, and jump. In our days, basketball has grown popularity and is chosen over baseball. For example, an average basketball game ticket is about $75, while an average baseball game ticket is about $18. Also, one baseball game sold tickets priced $0.35! Basketball players' popularity has increased by a landslide due to their strength and swiftness. Baseball players? Still unpopular. CITES: . http://www.toptenz.net... . http://articles.marketwatch.com... Thank you.
Batman is not a real superhero

1. You say that the only reason Batman doesn't get killed in his fights is because of the "toys" he buys with his money, this is false. In Batman's final fight with Bane he didn't use any said "toys" he just used his fists, and he just about killed Bane.When Bruce Wayne (Batman) was in the prisons, he got in a ton of fights with prisoners, some of them up to 7 prisoners versus Bruce Wayne, and he still beat them up. 2. Then you contradicted yourself when you said "Although Batman might have skills, he is just a man with a lot of money"You are agreeing with me by saying he has skills, but then you say he is just an ordinary man.3. You also aren't giving any facts, your just giving your biased opinion. 4. You say if Jackie Chan was as rich as Batman he would be better than him. This is false. Becuase Batman has WAY more muscle mass, and way more intelligence than Jackie Chan. So i disagree with you.
Batman is not a real superhero

A. Superheroes don't need "super powers"1. The Marriam-Webster dictionary is one of the most used, and trusted, dictionaries in America. The definition of superhero is as follows,: a fictional hero having extraordinary or superhuman powers;also : an exceptionally skillful or successful person. {http://www.merriam-webster.com...}2. It's true Batman doesn't have extraordinary or superhuman powers, but he is indeed exceptionally skillful and successful.Bruce Wayne (Batman) has been calculated to be worth $6.9 billion, making him very successful.{http://www.centives.net...}Bruce Wayne was also trained in the League of Shadows becoming an incredibly skilled fighter, and he has numerous degrees in science and math. Batman is argueably the "perfect human."Conclusion:I hope that i have proved to you how batman is indeed a superhero, good luck in response.
The News Media Is Biased Against the Positive Aspects of Gun Ownership

Since most debates about gun control end up devolving into an argument on the semantics of the 2nd amendment I'd like to engage a fresh perspective. The issue mentioned in the title is key to the reason why so much negative public perception is directed at guns, and thus why many people shudder at the thought of unrestricted gun ownership. The position I am taking is that the media, while not always intentionally, has shown a clear bias in reporting stories that convey the negatives of gun usage and ownership. Simultaneously, they have failed to give the same treatment towards the stories which exhibit the positives of everyday citizens using guns. My opponent should be of the position that the media fairly covers both the positive and negative occurrences of gun usage, with no inherent bias towards either side. Keep in mind: this is NOT a debate about the second amendment or its legitimacy. The only topic for discussion here is the news coverage of gun-related incidents. I eagerly await a willing opponent.
The News Media Is Biased Against the Positive Aspects of Gun Ownership

Thanks for the topic DoctorZhiva. We should both agree in this debate that the news media is SENSATIONALIST. Obviously, they want to put out stories that viewers find interesting, so they are not going to report on what I ate for lunch (unless it was a 20 pound burger). So obviously the media is going to report a lot of bad things that guns do - like murders, robberies, etc. My opponent must prove that in the reporting of these events, the media has a track record of always blaming the gun itself, rather than the person holding it. He cannot just show that the media tends to cover criminal shootings and NOT average citizens who keep their guns safely locked up and never have their kids shoot themselves with an improperly stored weapon. That wouldn't make an interesting story: "for today's 10 o'clock news, let's look to Jonathan Smith, who keeps his gun locked up safely. Here is the gun safe. Here is a picture of his gun. Here is a picture of Jonathan. Isn't that amazing. Gun locks? Wow, technology... The teleprompter says "vamp for 10 minutes" now. I don't know what to say. Um, so, guns are awesome right. Let me read you from the NRA fact sheet..." In fact, if the media were to read fact sheets from lobbying groups on either side, that would be bias. The media is supposed to report the facts of a story. For definition purposes, the news media means actual news, not opinion pundits (like Rachel Maddow), who can express their own opinions. I will show that the media reports just as many self-defense episodes as other shootings. They don't purposely ignore self-defense. For example, this website, which hasn't been updated since February, keeps a record of every news story on gun self-defenses. http://thearmedcitizen.com... It has 15 stories from one ONE WEEK in February 2011. Obviously, the media reports A LOT of stories on self-defense. Every time the website updated, it found more than 10 self-defenses reported every week in the media. Since the media is sensationalist, there aren't any other positive aspects of guns for them to report on. They're not going to be doing story after story about how hunting deer is awesome and helps put dinner on the table in rural California. I await my opponent's response.
lim(x->infinity) 1/x*x is 1

If x = 2, then 1/2*2 = 1/4. 1/4 is not equal to one, therefore the proposition is false. I suspect that Pro will present a false proof of the claim 1/x*x = 1 in which there is a hidden division by zero. That's the ordinary way in which such erroneous proofs are constructed. However, there are some other ways to construct false proofs, such as constructing an equation that yields an equation with a phantom root. I'll play along so we can see what Pro has for us. Since it only takes one counter-example to disprove the resolution, it's already settled that the resolution is false.
lim(x->infinity) 1/x*x is 1

Ok .. sorry about the confusion; the question should have stated the equation as (1/x) * x = 1. As s0m31john this does not work for x = 0, so if Con allows it I would like us to continue with the lim(x->infinity) case. The reason that zero is not relevant for me is that this came up in a discussion on probability. Where x represented the amount of possible and equally likely events. My opponent in that discussion argued that if there are an infinite amount of possible events their respective possibility is 1/infinity and therefore each and every event is impossible. My argument was that since one of the events will happen with probability (1/infinity)*infinity, that is like saying a tossed coin wont land in 50% of the cases.
Latter Day-Saints (Pro) vs. Nation of Islam (Con)

Your statements are utter twaddle but I suppose I must answer them.Very well.....................No1.Islam was established in the 7th century and by the 8th century had an Empire that stretched from Spain to China..................No2. There are currently (by the latest figures) 1.6 billion Muslims.................No3.Muslims give 2.5% of their income to the government to supply alms to the needy and the laws of Islam (read the Hadiths not just the Koran) state that we must aid our fellow men when we can...........No4.This is an opinion not a fact.There are many Hadith governing the laws of hospitality and they encompass all.A non-believer or a believer will be treated with the same hospitality and respect because that is the Law.As I am neither black nor coloured why would I believe black people are superior?." Whites are devils"?.Would I allow a devil to walk my streets,to enter my house?.Read the Hadith concerning the treatment of evil men............No5.Again an opinion.It may be true that Mormons speak ceaselessly about their "God".My God is not in my mouth but in my heart and in my thoughts.My God has shown me the path to Paradise not to the accumulation of riches and earthly things.Islam does not regard Muhammad as a God but as the greatest of the Prophets...............Please note that I have not as yet traduced Mormanism.........but I will......
Latter Day-Saints (Pro) vs. Nation of Islam (Con)

Keep in mind that I am NOT a Mormon and I just want to debate between which one is better morally and spiritually. First of all, Mormonism was around since the 1830s, the Nation of Islam was from the 1930s. Second Mormonism has membership past the 10 million mark, the Nation of Islam barely has 10 thousand. Also the Latter Day-Saints help more with the community (community service, missionary work,etc.) the Nation of Islam just talks and drills. Mormons are friendlier and more caring about people whether in the church or not, the Nation of Islam believes that blacks are superior and that whites are devils. Finally Mormons talk more about God more, even though they mention Joseph Smith in the teachings most of the time. But the Nation of Islam always talks about Elijah Muhammad as if he were God (more on that in my next argument. I am done with my argument now and i will allow you to state your case.
Latter Day-Saints (Pro) vs. Nation of Islam (Con)

I have problems with my P.C. and can type only in ordinary font and use capitals.(for emphasis only) I also can't make paragraphs so please bear with me.............My religion is based on over a millenium of belief whilst yours is the product of a succession of snake-oil salesmen.My faith is based on reverence of my God and the prophets.Yours is the result of a men- only club interested only in lust.I live my life by following the teachings of the Qur'an and the Hadiths.Your life is ruled by self-interest,greed and sex.Your "Saints" and "Apostles" are ludicrous.