BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay people should be able to get married.

I would just like to ask how homosexual directly harms you. Please do not use religious texts, or hypothetical scenarios. Keep in mind that if you use the Bible, you are also saying that you agree that children who jeer their elders should be torn apart by bears (2 kings 2:23-24), and that at one point unicorns came down from the heavens and killed everything. (Isaiah 34:7), and that you should have sex with your jewelry. (Ezekiel 16:17)
United States-Mexico Border Fence

In this debate, I will argue that the United States-Mexico Border Fence should not exist.I will state my reasons in a few basic sentences: Nations should be allied, not at political war. We should assist illegal immigrants and grant them an opportunity for citizenship, not deport them. We do not need a border fence. We need diplomacy. A fence is irrelevant and won't positively influence anything. NOTICE: Immigration Reform will be discussed in this debate.I will now state the debate structure: Round One: Acceptance / Stating Your Stance and Why You Have That ViewRound Two: Main ArgumentsRound Three: Rebuttals / Arguments ContinuedRound Four: Further Rebuttal / Final Arguments Round Five: Final Rebuttals / Debate Review / Conclusion / Concession if NeededThe rules are the following:1. Sources will be cited using the proper MLA format.2. Proper spelling and grammar will be used at all times.3. Both debaters will use proper conduct when debating.4. There will be no forfeitting at any time.I patiently await my opponent's acceptance.
United States-Mexico Border Fence

ConclusionNow that I am aware my opponent is new to the site, I first would like to welcome him to Debate.org. The two arguments he has presented contain quite many statistics. However, I interpret them differently than he does. I managed to refute each argument and I have strengthened mine with additional facts. My opponent, for a new debater and thirteen year-old, performed magnificently. I acknowledge that I myself am a fourteen year-old, but I have shown greater skill in this than he has. That does not mean he has no skill. He is a great debater, quite frankly, but on this specific topic he did not perform as strongly. I wish him good luck in the Debate.org community and, perhaps, I will debate him soon again. Thank you.
Christianity supports equal rights to men and women

In the doctrine of the Trinity, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are equally God and one in essence. Yet, the Son is obedient and submits to the will of the Father and the Father is faithful and shows unconditional love towards the Son. In the same way, wives should be obedient and submit to their husbands and husbands should be faithful and love their wives. In this way, both the husband and wife are equal just as God the Father and God the Son are equal. 1 Corinthians 11:7-9 speaks about how women should cover their heads out of modesty and respect and how men should not cover their heads out of modesty and respect. There is no sexism here. It's a law of God for the different genders. I believe you're confusing equality with identicality. Just because men and women are equal doesn't mean they have to have the same length of hair. By your logic, you could argue that God is sexist because women get pregnant and men don't or men have deeper voices than women. Again, I remind you that 1 Timothy was written by Paul to the church at Ephesus who were a very feminine church which practiced goddess worship and other sinful acts and deviated from the true teachings of Jesus Christ. I'm not saying everything in 1 Timothy is irrelevant but we can't take it simply at face value without seeing the historical context it was written in. As for your statement that Eve caused sin to enter the world, I agree because she was the one who ate the forbidden fruit and gave it to Adam. And 1 Timothy 2:14 clearly states the "woman" was deceived not the "women". So we can't claim this verse is blaming women for sin because it's clearly not. It's talking about a single woman (Eve) not womankind. In conclusion, I have to say the Bible is a book that truly values women and their rights. Christianity is one of the few religions in the world that gives women a high status The Bible is filled with inspiring and godly women who set a fine example for women of today (Ruth, Esther, Mary (mother of Jesus), Mary Magdalene, etc.). Heck, even two books of the Bible are named after women (Ruth and Esther). When talking about feminism in the Bible, the Bible is clear men and women are equal. This doesn't mean however that they're identical. God has given men and women specific roles in the household, church and society.
Christianity supports equal rights to men and women

Christianity definitely supports gender equality and the equal rights and treatment of men and women. My opponent gave some verses from the Bible to present their case. I believe these verses are taken out of context. For example, 1 Timothy 2:12 was written by Apostle Paul to the church at Ephesus. The Ephesian church was a heretical church which mixed Biblical Christianity with Gnosticism so Paul wrote a letter to Timothy in order to correct the church. Even if the verse was taken at face value, there is nothing wrong with it as it doesn't claim women are below men. It only says women should not have authority over men in the church. As for Colossians 3:18, I agree with the statement. Wives should submit to their husbands not with fear or obligation but out of love just as we submit to Christ out of our love for Him. But it doesn't end there. It goes on to say how husbands should stay faithful and be loving to their wives (3:19). The Bible is clear that men and women are equal in the sight of God. "So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." (Genesis 1:27) This verse clearly shows men and women are created equally in the image of God so there is no room for gender inequality. Another analogy to gender equality in Christianity is the concept of the Holy Trinity. In the Trinity, the Father is God and the Son is God. They are of one essence and are equal Persons. Yet still, the Son is obedient to the Father and the Father is faithful and loving towards the Son. In the same way, wives should be obedient to their husbands and husbands should love their wives all while being equal.
Christianity supports equal rights to men and women

Christianity is not a religion that supports equality of men and women "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man;rather, she is to remain quiet (1 Timothy 2:12)." This clearly states that a woman's voice does not matter to men and they should be submissive and more proof of this shown in Colossians 3:18, "Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord." This shows that the Christian god is even seeing this as moral, that a wife should be below her husband, submitting to him. It is even seen bad for a woman to try to learn in the church according to the bible "The women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church (1 Corinthians 14:34-35)."
Drug legalization

I intend to here debate any opponent to drug legalization, with particular emphasis on marijuana, although I am willing to debate on any drug. I will now commence opening arguments. 1). Personal liberty. Drug use is a personal choice, and as long as users do not infringe on the well-beings of others, it should not be illegal as a personal, albeit sometimes unhealthy, choice. 2). Gang use. The majority of gang revenue comes from the production and sale of illegal drugs. Should we make these drugs legal, we could effectively cut gang sizes by over half. Imagine telling the mayors of New York or Los Angeles that you could halve gangs. The average drug user would quickly choose to purchase from the government as opposed to dealers. Would you rather get pot for $5 and a few legal forms from a reliable pharmacist or for $50 from a shady man in an alley who could have put anything in it? 3). Treatment. A simple argument. All this consists of is that people would be more willing to accept treatment for an addiction if they new they would not be prosecuted for possession and use of an illegal substance. 4). Taxation. Legalization and taxation of marijuana alone could generate revenues of $10-14 billion. This would, of course, inordinately help the economies of individual states. This money could be used in part for education, anti-drug, and drug treatment programs. We would end up with more money and fewer addicts. Please respond with some good arguments. Lastly, a disclaimer. I am a high school student and have never consumed any illegal drugs, smoked tobbaco, or consumed alcohol.
Drug legalization

First off, I would like to ask my opponent that we should perhaps narrow the range of this debate, so we are not using semantics and arguing over common pharmaceutical drugs. So therefore, I suggest we argue over narcotics: Narcotics - Any of a class of substances that blunt the senses, as opium, morphine, belladonna, and alcohol, that in large quantities produce euphoria, stupor, or coma, that when used constantly can cause habituation or addiction, and that are used in medicine to relieve pain, cause sedation, and induce sleep. And so, let me open up Round 1 with my own arguments, and get to yours in Round 2. In proving that drug legalization is a good idea, I think it is important for my opponent to disprove these two arguments or effectively negate their importance: Drugs and crime correlation: Every major study, has affirmed the link between drug abuse and crime. A government study was released for 2008, showing that just over 40% of arrestees at the test sites tested positive for marijuana at the time of arrest. [2] Another study shows that over 86% of people arrested show a dependence on these illegal substances. [3] In big cities such as Chicago and Atlanta, 27% of arrests involved criminals who admitted to using crack. And that's just crack, that's not even the statistic for the more popular cocaine powder. Even more crime is a consequence of bad transactions when buying, and with almost every drug, over 50% of arrestees reported failed buys. [2] Marijuana is harmful: Pot is the number #1 used drug in America, in a 2005 survey marijuana boasted 14.6 million regular users, and 95.7 million who have tried it. [5] Marijuana though complex, has been linked to problems with memory, lack of motivation, problems with adolescent development, and is strongly believed to even increase risk of cancer. [4] It has been found to have a direct damaging effects on DNA. [6] I could go on but ill leave that for future rounds and I would prefer it if my opponent can prove how drug legalization would be a benefit to society. [1] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] . http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov... [3] . http://www.uq.edu.au... [4] . http://health.usnews.com... [5] . http://www.doitnow.org... [6] . http://www.sciencedaily.com... Lastly, a disclaimer. I may or may not have consumed two or three of these substances.
God probably exists

First off, you honesty dropped mine. Second, I 'dropped' your argument because the logic behind it could be defeated using the rebuttal above it. Ruck avoid my rebuttals on the Fine-Tuning argument( There really is one 'setting' and that the universe could be one of many.).Rucks moral argument fails because it is a fallacy, which I believe I pointed out. Ruck also misunderstands the point of my Gangnam Style arguement. Note the wiki link. That link shoes a somewhat little known fallacy where people see patterns in meanless data. That's what the Bible is. Ruck had the BOP. He failed. Somethings existance is unlikey if evidence cant be found. Thats why I dont need a argument. In a sense, I already prove my end of the bargin.Vote Frack.
Affirmative Action to promote Equal Opportunity in the United States is Justified

That's not the bad grammar I was referring to, maybe you didn't read my argument. It seems that you rearranged it. The bad grammar I was referring to was not on purpose, but if it was, it did not help your case at all. Here is how it was originally stated - "This is not Just, this is not equitable because it is not consistent with the principles of justice and right." Just should not be capitalized either, I don't know what that was about.. Moving forward, you argued with none of my points, but only brought up your own again.. That's not how it works. All of my points still stand. I will, however, comment on some of what you said.. "I see in your profile that you are latino. So you do fall under the category of affirmative action. Do you enjoy being labeled as a minority? Sorry bud, you are, so therefore I'm going to higher you to this job or accept you to this college even though this white man is more qualified. That is what I mean by a crutch. WE NEED to judge based off of merit, not off of skin/sex/ethnicity/religion, etc." ACTUALLY, I'm not LATINO. I'm Mexican American. Born in America. Mother and Father both born in America though. Dark skinned; I have Mexican somewheres down the line. I fall in between the minority, not qualifying. And you said, "so therefore, I'm going to higher you to this job" I believe the correct term is HIRE. You say that 5 out of 50 states banned affirmative action, which may be true, but in law THE MAJORITY ALWAYS RULES. Nothing will ever be 100% equal amongst the 50 states, but having the majority, this is justified. I don't think YOU gave ME too much to work with. I responded to every one of your arguments, and you responded to none of mine.
Barack Obama needs to be impeached now.

Barack Obama has consistently lied to the American public, committed treason by helping our enemies, fought illegal wars without congressional approval, disrespected our most important documents(the Constitution and the Bill of Rights), and has destroyed the American economy far beyond repair. Misdemeanor means a minor wrongdoing, so you can factually say he has committed numerous misdemeanors against the United States. He should be impeached as he is the biggest threat to our national security in current times.
minecraft is more influential to gaming than skyrim

Focusing on Skyrim, the game has unique gameplay because there is an expansive lore and map with various places to go, people to see, peasants to rob from etc. (the possibilities really are endless, especially with mods). In Skyrim, the decisions you make while conversing with NPCs and what you can do impact what happens later in the game. This is something that most popular modern role-playing open world games have incorporated into their game, such as the popular game: The Witcher 3 , which features similar decision making that affects gameplay as you continue to play. Skyrim is arguably one of the most influential games that have ever been created. On the Angry Joe show, Skyrim received a 10/10 which is extremely rare for games judged by the video game critic, Angry Joe. Skyrim had set the new limit of perfection for other role playing open world video games. Its influence is more subtle than Minecraft, but are very much noticeable. One of the strongest differences between Skyrim and Minecraft is that it is of a different gaming genre. The impact it had on its gaming genre is arguably more influential than Minecraft"s influence on its genre of indie gaming in terms of redefining its genre. On Gameranx, Skyrim was listed as #2, whereas Minecraft was listed as #3 for "Best Open World Game of All Time".(Skyrim: http://prntscr.com... ) (Minecraft: http://prntscr.com...) Its contributions as an influence to the Steam gaming community are many. Currently, there is still an active modding community for Skyrim. (Here is what mods are for those who don"t know :(https://en.wikipedia.org...(video_gaming) ) "BioWare's Aaryn Flynn says it would be impossible to develop an RPG today without acknowledging and reacting to Bethesda's game" (Makuch). Dragon Age III provides concrete evidence of how Skyrim was influential to gaming. Aaryn Flynn (the general manager of Bioware Edmont and Montreal who produced Dragon Age III) stated that "it would be impossible to create a role-playing game today without acknowledging and reacting to Bethesda's award-winning game"(Makuch). This means that there are definitely professionals in the gaming industry who acknowledge Skyrim"s impact on other games. Focusing on Minecraft, there have been many re-productions or "copies" in terms of graphics for the game. However, is gameplay something that really stands out for Minecraft though? Building things in a game, is that something actually new in terms of a contribution to gaming? Not really, as there is arguably the Lego video games that have been launched since 1997 that incorporate similar elements to Minecraft. (http://prntscr.com... ) Skyrim vs. Minecraft? In terms of being more "influential"? Again, its influence is subtle but apparent for its genre of games. Skyrim is arguably the more influential to games. Sources: - http://www.gamespot.com... - https://en.wikipedia.org... - http://www.gameranx.com... - https://en.wikipedia.org...
I am bad at debating

My refutations are as follows. I pay due respects to my opponent's argument " it was very interesting indeed. R #1 : The fact that you think I conceded the debate makes you a bad debater. The Pro side failed to show why thinking that he conceded makes me a bad debater. I merely stated that he made a concession that I was good at debating. This is no respect would make me a "bad debater." R #2 : You should have ad[d]ressed my undefined "your". In debates, it is not up to someone to define the opponent's words. For example, If the pro uses a word, it is up to them to define it if they think it will cause confusion. In other words, the con does not have the burden to define the pro"s words. Therefore, the pro has incorrectly shifted the burden to me, the con side, to define words he/she used. On another note, it is incorrect grammar to state "Your good at debating." If you use your as you mean it, there must be a gerund after it. The correct version would in fact be "You"re." R #3: Furthermore, you have currently left the word "bad" undefined. Again, I don"t have to define your words. Otherwise, most debates would proceed with every side defining every single word. It is implied that both sides understand the proper definitions of each word used, or if they don"t, they ask the opposing side for clarification. This is how a debate proceeds in almost all circumstances. R #4: In other words, your topic of debate is "I am unfavourable at debating". This simply is not true. You cannot insert synonyms and expect the sentence to make sense. In the English Language, there exists grammar - in other words, words are used for clarity. It wouldn't make sense in any context to use unfavorable to describe my debating ability. Bad and unfavorable, although synonyms in some thesaurus, cannot be used interchangeably wherever, whenever. English is much more complex than that. Words are chosen extremely carefully in proper academic writing to represent what a person is trying to say. Just because "bad" might have another definition, it doesn't mean one can substitute those definitions for the opponent in order to attack their argument. R #5: A more favourable debater would have completed more debates. That isn"t true at all. All "favorable" debaters must start somewhere. Are you contending that it is impossible for someone to join debate.org and be a good debater, before having completed many debates? Completing more debates does not, in any respect, make someone a favorable debater. In conclusion, my opponent has merely tried to show I am a bad debater because I didn't define the words he himself used - which were completely common English words. It is not necessary to define every single word in a debate - only those that may be confusing. If the opponent wants clarification, it is assumed he will ask the opposition for clarification, not use it to attack the opponent"s debating skills. Sources: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... http://stevenpinker.com...
I am bad at debating

The fact that you think I conceded the debate makes you a bad debater. You should have adressed my undefined "your". When I said "your", I meant the 2nd definition of the Oxford Dictionary which states that "your" could "[be] associated with any person in general". I was not referring to you when I said "your". The fact that you assumed I did makes you a bad debater. Furthermore, you have currently left the word "bad" undefined. Since you have left it undefined, I shall take the liberty of doing so myself: Bad: "unfavourable". In other words, your topic of debate is "I am unfavourable at debating". You obviously are. A more favourable debater would have completed more debates. Checkmate.
Schools Should Be Required to Teach Basic Investing Skills and Finance

FrameworkWell, round 02 has been opted for main argumentative speech. I showed my stand in the first round, so no more necessity with that. Let's get started.YardstickMy burden of proof on the current position is to show that families should play a more important role rather than schools in tesching these basic real life knowledges. See these in the next section, Constructives.Constructives
Schools Should Be Required to Teach Basic Investing Skills and Finance

Alright, let's begin. It's quite obvious that Americans, no matter adults or children, lack basic knowledge when it comes to investing and finance. According to http://articles.latimes.com..., in a study, "Barely 1 in 2 people knew that a single stock is not safer than a mutual fund, which holds many stocks." Many American adults, including parents, are clueless when it comes to investing and often do not have good financial skills. This can lead to many people going into debt and not knowing how to manage their money wisely. This can be shown in a report in http://www.foxbusiness.com... , which stated that "The proportion of adults spending less dropped to a low this year -- to 29% from the high of 57% in 2009 -- as one in three adults report they carry credit card debt each month. Fifteen percent of people roll over at least $2,500 every month on the credit cards, according to the survey. This habit seems to contradict the result that shows lack of savings is a top financial worry among respondents." You said that you believed a child's family should teach the child financial and basic investing skills. However, from what we've seen from the average American population today, it seems like a child's family would not even be qualified to teach them finance and investing skills, as the family probably does not have much knowledge on these subjects. This is why we need to instill basic finance and investing in our schools, as these classes would be vital for a child to be able to know how to grow more money from their current money with their investments, be more aware of the financial world, and know how to manage their money. After all, if every citizen in America knew the basics of investing, they could know how to make more money and have financial freedom by making money based off of their investments.