BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Same-sex marriage in the U.S.

What is CIVIL marriage and the purpose of it: "Sexual unions of male and female are unique: they alone can make new life, and when they do so will either connect (or disconnect) children from mothers and fathers [ to form a family unit]. It is this biological reality that has given rise to the marriage relationship, not just in America, but across all cultural, ethnic, religious and tribal lines throughout recorded history. This global consensus on marriage formed the foundation of our common law, animating the laws governing marriage not only in California, but throughout the United States. The vast majority of children are conceived through acts of sexual passion; marriage provides a means to help society regulate this [biologically driven sexual act] so that children do not get hurt." Our marriage laws regulate opposite-sex relationships by establishing a baseline definition of who is married (man and woman) and the purpose of marriage (responsible procreation and rearing of children). As a by-product, it provides a shared framework from which concepts such as out-of-wedlock pregnancies, adultery, remarriage, step parenting, divorce, etc. can be understood. Moreover, We come to know how these choices and situations can be detrimental for kids or families as a result. Then, the law steps in to reinforce that meaning of marriage to simulate a part of reality for people. Although, as a secondary effect, marriage does provide incentives and disincentives; the idea of marriage and the other social institutions that are associated with it do not require people to use them. Primarily, it is the very existence and understanding of these social institutions, the social exchange, and the government's reinforcement of these social rituals that combine to make it seem reasonable and even natural for people to apply these concepts. "Apart from marriage, there is also a body of law that assists in the determination of parental status, then provides for legal actions to establish support obligations and then government agencies stringently enforce those obligations. With marriage, the narrative is different, but the aims clear. The husband of the child's mother is considered the father of the child and is presumed to adequately support the child. With only rare exceptions, his paternity cannot be challenged and not by any third party. With the automatic parental status come enforceable responsibilities and the spouses cannot abandon one another or their children without some formal decree and even then, the support obligations that began with marriage continue, between the spouses for a time and for the child until adulthood. " References: Page 3,4,5,6,7 http://nomblog.com..................
Back to the basics/ the death penalty should be harsher and used more often

I personally believe that America has gone soft. We believe that more humane ways to carry out the death penalty is better. NO WAY!!! I think that if we go back to the basics, and start with hanging, electric chair, and the firing squad. The scarier the punishment, i believe will scare criminals into not doing such horrendous acts. I also think that the death penalty should be sentenced much more often. I am not demented just sensible. I hope you understand my way of viewing it.
Back to the basics/ the death penalty should be harsher and used more often

My opponent continues to ignore the evidence that I have provided and continues to push the argument that the death sentence would cost .37 cents. However, my opponent continues to ignore the fact that the government cannot immediately execute a criminal after charging them with the death penalty. They have to be put in prison to allow time for appeals. look at my previous evidence of how long the average prison time for death row is (14 years). To further this argument, if you look at the evidence about the seven people in California who proved they were innocent, if we immediately executed these people, seven innocent people would have died. So yes, it does cost millions to keep people in prison, but this includes people who are charged with the death penalty. Finally, when you extend my argument that death penalty trials cost 20 times as much as life sentence trials, you can see that the death penalty is in fact more expensive than a life sentence without parole. 2. my opponent's only point so far that has had any weight (if any) in this round is her argument that the family of the victim would want revenge to console the hurt of a lost loved one. However, as I have pointed out before, the funds used in a death sentence trial could be used instead to console the family of the victim. furthermore, killing the murderer will not console the family. Killing the criminal will not bring their loved one back, there will still be a void where the loved one was before. Also, the criminal could also have a family, so, not only will the family of the victim experience loss, but so will the family of the criminal. By killing the criminal you are just creating more of a problem. 3. Finally, one point that I made in my first case that my opponent did not refute was that the death penalty will not deter crime. The South, which makes up 80% of the executions in the U.S, has the highest regional murder rate.
Back to the basics/ the death penalty should be harsher and used more often

My opponent happens to be invalid. A lethal injection cost about 20,000 dollars. where as states that still uses the fire squad(which I support very much) the bullets cost .37 cents each. Life sentences can cost tax payers millions of dollars a year to clothe, house and feed scum. The family's of a victim would want closure if the criminal had done something terrible. Say my opponent had a 12 year old daughter, she was talking to some man online and he found out personal information her. He asks her to meet him, then when she goes to meet up, he kidnaps her, rapes her, then murders her. Wouldn't my opponent want that man to pay the ultimate price for his sickening deed?
Back to the basics/ the death penalty should be harsher and used more often

This is the evidence to my case: http://www.deathpenalty.org... I'll use this round for my rebuttal. 1. My opponent claims that it will only cost .37 cents to go with the death sentence but this argument is completely invalid. First off, if you looked at the evidence that I provided in the first round, a death sentence trial cost 20 times as much as a life sentence trial. Secondly, my opponent has made a misinformed claim that it would be that cheap to go with the death sentence. I say this because my opponent forgets that after a criminal is charged with the death sentence, they are not immediately taken behind the courthouse and shot in the head, they are put in prison to allow time for an appeal. This is known as death row, and it can last quite a long time. In fact, according to a study from the bureau of justice, in 2010, the average time on death row was 178 months (or around 14 years). http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org.... This shows that a death penalty sentence does cost more than the life sentence, proving my opponents point wrong. 2. My opponent claims that dangerous criminals should have no pardons, well, I agree. This does not mean that you have to have the death penalty to accomplish this. You can do this with a life sentence, it's called a life sentence without parole. my evidence from my first case has shown that this exists and a life sentence without parole would be a much more cost efficient and moral way to go. Also, as I have shown before, the only way to get out of a life sentence without parole is to prove your innocence, which is why the life sentence is a much more moral system. This is why the life sentence is by far better.
Back to the basics/ the death penalty should be harsher and used more often

1) A Bullet cost the family $0.37 versus a life sentence which can cost taxpayers much more, about thousands of dollars a year. 2) Dangerous criminals should have no pardons, and the death penalty eliminates that possibility. Even having a life sentence a criminal can go up for parole or even get out early. Many life sentences only last for 20 years, plus criminal can get out after 30 years for good behavior. 3) A rapist or a kidnapper and so on, are sick people with sick minds that probably will never be cured. These people will never face justice with a life sentence. The family needs closer, and the criminal should pay the ultimate price for his/her deeds.
Back to the basics/ the death penalty should be harsher and used more often

I will use this round to post my arguments. 1. The death penalty will not deter crime. Scientific studies have failed to prove that executions deter people from committing crime anymore than long prison sentences. Moreover, states without the death penalty have much lower murder rates. The South accounts for 80% of US executions and has the highest regional murder rate. 2.the Death penalty cost the taxpayer more than a life term. It costs far more to execute a person than to keep him or her in prison for life. A 2011 study found that California has spent more than $4 billion on capital punishment since it was reinstated in 1978 and that death penalty trials are 20 times more expensive than trials seeking a sentence of life in prison without possibility of parole. California currently spends $184 million on the death penalty each year and is on track to spend $1 billion in the next five years. 3. money used in the death penalty could be put to better use. Many family members who have lost love ones to murder feel that the death penalty will not heal their wounds nor will it end their pain; the extended process prior to executions can prolong the agony experienced by the family. Funds now being used for the costly process of executions could be used to help families put their lives back together through counseling, restitution, crime victim hot lines, and other services addressing their needs. 4. the life sentence is a much more sensible way to go. In every state that retains the death penalty, jurors have the option of sentencing convicted capital murderers to life in prison without the possibility of parole. The sentence is cheaper to tax-payers and keeps violent offenders off the streets for good. Unlike the death penalty, a sentence of Life Without Parole also allows mistakes to be corrected. There are currently over 3,300 people in California who have received this alternative sentence, which also has a more limited appeals process last approximately 3 years. According to the California Governor's Office, only seven people sentenced to life without parole have been released since the state provided for this option in 1977, and this occurred because they were able to prove their innocence. I look forward to my opponents arguments.
The Brotherhood is good for DDO

I choose not to extend my argument. Let me say this. The Brotherhood is not GOOD for DDO nor is it bad. It's like a snack. Maybe like a cheese cracker or whatever. It's not bad for your but it's not good for you either. I don't see anyway The Brotherhood has contributed to I An online gaming site. It's not like you created it or whatever and you don't contribute anything to that other than your online status so if that's what you're talking about then sure, you contribute. But I'm guessing that's not what you're talking about. Technically, you are a group of white supremacists. You literally build on the ground that white men made America. Nothing women nothing race. Are you trying to come off as racist? Or are you making some stupid white men encouragement group because other people do that with women, races and religions? Because that's just a little ridiculous. So what if in some alternate universe white men did contribute the most? Is that something you really want to stand on? Because if you celebrate something like that, then you are racist. White men don't need encouraging. They had the most power. We should be empowering people who need it and if that's what you stand for, you aren't good for DDO. You haven't done anything to improve it in anyway.
The Brotherhood is good for DDO

"The Brotherhood is not good for DDO because even if they"re open to free speech, they"re obviously not open to free people because it seems even though you keep repeating you are NOT racist, you believe that white men contributed most to this world which is not true, and it"s only because they had more power back then and used everyone else like a toy" White men did contributed most to the world. Here are some examples, printing press developed by a German named Johannes Gutenberg, which allowed poorer people to afford books which helped spark the age of enlightenment. Humphry Davy inventor of the first electric light, which in turned allowed for more electric appliances for the domestic homes. Alexander Fleming pioneered for modern medicine with penicillin, and Isoyznme. Edward Jenner who made the first succesful vaccine for small pox which saved many, many people lives. These are just small examples of how the White man contributed most to society. We're not saying that White's did all the work, we are not denying the advancements of many other culture but the white man contributed most to society. ", and it"s only because they had more power back then and used everyone else like a toy. " This is an over generalization made by Con with no sources to back that claim up. He made an over generalization, and assumed that the advancements of the white man was only made possible because they had "more power, and treated everyone else like a toy" which is a false cause. " What about those who were slaves? What about those who spent all their time providing in many ways for their family? Women and people of all other races. You are being racist. " Those who were slaves did contribute to society but I am saying in general the white man has contributed the most to society. I also clarify we acknowledge the contribution to people who are not white or male. "The point of that was The Brotherhood is not good for DDO if you are obviously not open to people other than yourself. " We are open to the opinions of other people, and value free speech. This debate is made for the sole purpose to help showcase that The Brotherhood, is an organization that wants a place in DDO's community. Sources: . http://www.history.com... . https://www.thoughtco.com... . http://www.history.com... . https://explorable.com...
The Brotherhood is good for DDO

First of all: Who the hell cares? Why are you talking about The Brotherhood being good for Dungeons and Dragons, that"s a random debate topic and why did you challenge me? I don"t know it doesn"t make sense it"s just random. Anyway, I looked into The Brotherhood which of course was created by Masterful. If I believe what your profile states, you are a 14 year old Nazi under the influence of a 22 year old who is VERY racist, talks about women like he owns them, and is just a bad person overall. I"m sorry you were caught in this trap, even if it WERE a troll profile. The Brotherhood is not good for DDO because even if they"re open to free speech, they"re obviously not open to free people because it seems even though you keep repeating you are NOT racist, you believe that white men contributed most to this world which is not true, and it"s only because they had more power back then and used everyone else like a toy. That means they did not contribute the most. What about those who were slaves? What about those who spent all their time providing in many ways for their family? Women and people of all other races. You are being racist. The point of that was The Brotherhood is not good for DDO if you are obviously not open to people other than yourself. I"m sorry but if you ask me, you and Masterful shouldn"t be making any content at all with your prejudice beliefs.
The Brotherhood is good for DDO

Thank you Con for joining my debate. I hope we can have a civilized discussion on "The Brotherhood". Case Number 1: The DDO community never had real full fledged group. As we can see The Brotherhood changes that, we posted our manifesto, and established our group. We're the only DDO group currently that has a manifesto, and members. Case Number 2: The Brotherhood isn't breaking the terms and services. As we know as long as The Brotherhood is not breaking the rules of DDO we're not making DDO a bad community. Case Number 3: The Brotherhood is a group in which we support, and encourage our fellow members. If we're so bad for DDO why are we encouraging our fellow members on their debates, and forums? Case Number 4: We value freedom of speech. As part of our manifesto, we respect everyone's opinion, and that they're entitled to freedom of speech no matter how controversial the speech may be. Link to our manifesto: http://www.debate.org... I await my opponent.
You are a troll.

First off, I did not argue yet, so that long response was unnecessary. Second, you broke the rule "Round 1 for acceptance." Contention 1 You have created spam debates such as "People should give me lemons". http://www.debate.org... Then you posted "Yo I didn't read your argument, but I know you in real life and if you continue to upset me, I will throw a plastic ladybug at you. GET OUT OF MY CASA!! (btw to respond to your other statement, Captain Falcon sux and if you want to debate that I will play you in Brawl.) Thank you very much. :)" for round 2. Thank you very much.
You are a troll.

Hmm I guess I get to be a con man here, then. Thank you for posting your thoughts, and here is my argument against the supposition that I am a troll. I will go through these accusations one by one. First, the idea that I post inflammatory messages. Yeah so apparently "inflammatory" means "arousing or intended to arouse angry or violent feelings." I assure you that I do not intend to incite angry or violent feelings; in fact, I am for the exact opposite. If you would, take a look at my debate "Swagger should be banned," as shown here: http://www.debate.org... In it, I claim that "We do not want to promote suicidal intentions." Suicide is a form of violence against oneself, and clearly that is against my views. My messages are very obviously anti-violence. I am a pacifist. I live somewhat near the Pacific Ocean. ;)Second, the idea that I post extraneous or off-topic messages. When I am meant to create the topic, there is no "off-topic," as there has been no precedent; no topic of which to be "off." And I AM meant to create the topic. In the "About" section of Debate.org, it is claimed that "Members of the community are...to challenge one another to a debate a topic of their choice." The purpose of the website is to provide a place for people to debate whatever they want. If I want to debate that Dunsparces are bosses, then that's good. And what about when there already is a topic? Well I keep debating that topic, as shown here. I am a very on-topic poster. If my topic had an on/off switch, the "off" would be broken. Lastly, I do not want to provoke emotional responses. I want to engage in intellectual debates about Dunsparces okay? :)Even though I do look sort of like this: I still reaffirm that I am not a troll as per Internet slang. Thank you and have an excellent day :)
You are a troll.

R1 for acceptance. Troll- In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[4] The noun troll may refer to the provocative message itself, as in: "That was an excellent troll you posted". http://en.wikipedia.org...(Internet)
Marijuana should be legalized in the US

although Marijuana may be in some ways healthier than alcohol and cigarettes, it still shouldn't be made legal. Marijuana is the second most abused drug in the united states. Abusing marijuana can result in problems with memory, learning and social behavior. Longer term it can lead to problems such as lung cancer and increased risk of infections. Aside from the health issues of Marijuana, officers often get criminals and dangerous people off the street because of their drug use, then later convict them for their crimes. If Marijuana is made legal, that is one less way dangerous people can be taken off the street, and who wants criminals out on the loose? And i'm just going to ask one last thing, are you a crack head or something?
Marijuana should be legalized in the US

kay, so i could cut his argument down to two points (none if his points so far, might i add, have had sources or supporting facts): -Slippery Slope (we'll legalize more drugs) -Fuels Addicts First off, the Slippery Slope concept is flawed. On any topic. Humans know when to stop. Use my analogy for gateway drugs for this to. Going to floor one does not imply that we will go to floor ten. The idea that our government will legalize MJ, then harder drugs, is unlikely at best. It's a longshot to even convince people MJ is safe. Next, his second argument is also flawed. He basically says that MJ can cause addiction, and legalization would fuel this trend in society. Well, you can be addicted to sex and it's legal (well, mostly). Supposedly now you can be addicted to video games too, and they're legal. And they're both psychological addictions. addiction to marijuana is psychological as well. Arguably Psychological addictions are easier to overcome than physical ones, as you don't start getting like physical symptoms from withdrawals. Tobacco is PHYSICALLY addicting and much harder to beat. as tobacco is legal, marijuana should also be. pleasure debating with you as well. i await your rebuttal
Marijuana should be legalized in the US

Alright, Marijuana gets legalized, what then? It will begin a chain reaction, that's what. Legalized on drug such as marijuana, then we get other supposedly "safer" drugs to get legalized, ans so on and so forth. Unfortunately, like any drug, Marijuana causes addictions, and addictions cost money to fulfil. Anyone who is a major cigarette user today will tell you it costs a lot, imagine how much marijuana will cost? The American families who pay taxes will soon be trying to satisfy their addiction while attempting to support their family. Imagine, a kid walks how to the smell of burnt marijuana, his dad is continuously spending all his money to buy more weed, and later finds out his dad has lung cancer, yet his dad has no idea what the hell is going on due to him being high every few hours. You may say that a responsible parent wouldn't do that, but the fact is, there are a lot of irresponsible parents in this world. You may also say people will smoke a joint just to relieve their stress, well, you can do the same thing with a cigarette. I just want to add, if i seem to look like Jesus, then you REALLY must be a crack head XD. Oh, and it's a pleasure debating with you