BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Same-sex Marriage Should Be Legalized Throughout the United States of America

She has very cleverly portrayed me as some kind of frothing homophobe, which I can assure you that I am not. Actually, I happen to personally know a bloke who is homosexual. Indeed, until last week, I knew two, but his boyfriend was set upon in the street by a pack of gay-bashers and he died from his injuries a few days ago. Still, never mind, he had life insurance and I know that the money will be of some comfort to his former partner. In my argument I hope I did not give the impression that paedophilia, bestiality, incest and homosexuality are necessarily connected. Having said that, no doubt they could be, and though I haven't checked, I bet if you could find at least one website that catered for gay father and son and pet dog sex perverts. My opponent wrote that she is "a strong, strong believer in giving people as many rights as possible, as long as they do not interfere with the rights of other people. " This sounds like a good philosophy until we examine what it means. If dad and young junior both consented to having gay sex with each other and decided to get Fido involved as well, would that be okay? In mean, they're not interfering with the rights of other people are they? (Dogs aren't "people"). Society elects governments to represent their views and if the majority of people are of the opinion that incest, bestiality, paedophilia and gay marriage are morally abhorrent then their elected representatives have the duty to ensure that such practices remain outlawed. At no time did I say, by the way, that single parents should have their kids taken off them, although most people would agree that children should have both male and female positive role models in their daily lives and, ideally, should be brought up by their mother and father. My opponent was right, however, to point out that society has changed over the years and is continuing to change. It may be that in time to come, the majority of people will view homosexual marriages as equally valid as heterosexual ones and that the average mum and dad will think nothing of allowing their son to sleep over at an adopted boy's dad and dad's house, but we haven't reached that point yet. Finally, my opponent tried to muddy the water by referring to gun rights and religious tolerance. The fact is that these rights already exist (at least in the US) and will continue to do so until decides that they shouldn't and elect a political party that promises to "crackdown hard on gun crime" or to "put and end to Jewry, Israeli usury and other Semitic skulduggery" whereas gay marriage is a "right" that the minority of people want to foist upon the majority.
Same-sex Marriage Should Be Legalized Throughout the United States of America

Between the ages of 11 and 16 I attended a school in the rural county of Norfolk, England. Whilst living there, I was aghast at how rife incest was and how openly the locals discussed it. . http://www.telegraph.co.uk... The natives of this god-forsaken, windswept backwater would claim that it was nobody else's business if they had sexual intercourse with their close relatives, provided both parties consented, but I begged to differ. My argument was that incest, like paedophilia, bestiality and male homosexuality are sexual perversions that are abhorrent to the mainstream of society and society has no moral or legal duty to acknowledge that these sexual practices are as equally valid as heterosexuality. It is not good enough to say the "rights" of a minority should be enshrined in law. If the majority of society opposes these deviant sexual predilections and don't want them legally recognised, then their will, in a democratic country such as the United States, must prevail. Currently, only 30% of Americans believe that homosexuals should be allowed to marry. Should their opinions trump those of the remainder of the people who disagree? Of course not. . http://www.cbsnews.com... Marriage, as an institution, evolved to foster parental responsibility and engender a society wherein children were brought up by caring role models representing both the sexes. That is not to say male homosexuality has always been, or should now be, condemned. In ancient Greece, for example, sexual relationships between men were actually encouraged. Nevertheless, marriage was insisted upon for the purpose of producing children and single and childless men were treated with scorn. . http://www2.hu-berlin.de... The fact is that society, whilst largely tolerant of homosexuality, nevertheless recognises the value of the traditional family unit and does not wish to see the cherished and ancient institution of marriage polluted by individuals who want to get wed to their mother or father, son or daughter, underage Thai ladyboy, pet pig, same sex partner or whatever.
south park vs. family guy

in south park they have more then just 1 family so many i can't count.in the south park they always kill Kenny in a very funny way family guy could never be like this south park will be on the air for a all time because they only have the one show.south park makes better video games too south park has more then family guy does by far family didn't do anything on tv they had to kill someone off the show so people would watch it south park does it for comedy not so people cry
south park vs. family guy

Family was created in 1999 and like South Park as been around for a while. Family guy has it all. Peter is a lovable, hilarious oaf who makes you laugh every time he opens his mouth. Stewie is the hilarious baby who is evil, intelligent, and possibly gay. Chris is the quintessential teen boy who is easy to connect with. Lois is the hot mom, and Meg is the girl who everyone hates. Brian is the smart liberal dog who provides a voice of reason while still trying to get laid. Quagmire is the hilarious bachelor who is a huge hilarious pervert. Family guy makes tons of jokes from politics, to pop culture, to just about anything. Family guy does not just make you laugh, it makes you cry. When they killed of Brian, the lovable dog, I was brought to tears. Then when he came back I was crying tears of joy. Family guy is far superior because it makes you feel both happy and sad, and leaves you laughing on the floor from its hilarity.
south park vs. family guy

for this argument I will be going going for south park. south park is a very funny show and has 17 seasons and still going on. South park was made in 1997 by Trey Parker and Matt Stone . They are both still on the show and do most of the voices on the show. They made a movie for south park in 1999 and a few more movies but not for south park. as you just saw south park is one of a kind and one of the fastest shows made ever.
south park vs. family guy

You say "a comedy cartoon TV show should make you cry of laughter not cry of saddest" However in round 3 you say "I put south park vs. family guy for anything of it." So if we are going off what you say in round 3, then we are weighing this round on ALL aspects of the two shows. This means that family guy is the better show. Not only does it make you cry of laughter like South Park, but it takes that a step forward and makes you cry of sadness. It has it all. Hilarity, sadness, and it makes you connect and feel for the characters. When Brian dies, everyone who watches the show felt sorrow, and cried. Family guy was so good, and they made the viewer connect with, and feel for the character so much, that they truly felt sadness when Brian died. This is something South park does not do. South Park only makes you laugh, not cry, or feel for the characters. In fact as my opponent stated that when a character of south park, Kenny, died, it was meant to be funny, meaning that south park failed to make their viewers feel, and sympathize with the characters. They did not care at all when Kenny died, because south park did a horrible job creating good, easy-to-connect-with characters. Therefore, Family Guy has been proven has the much better television show is every single way. I leave you with some of the best family guy moments, and dare you not to laugh. http://www.youtube.com... To my opponent: this has been an excellent debate. I had a lot of fun, and enjoyed this very much, this was an interesting topic and I hope to debate you again sometime soon. :)
south park vs. family guy

south park makes you cry...... cry of laughter it is a very good and funny show a comedy cartoon tv show should make you cry of laughter not cry of saddest. i am watching south park right now and i am dying of laugher. if they kill someone off a CARTOON tv show it's to be funny http://www.southparkstudios.com... now these three videos prove south park is way better then family guy http://www.southparkstudios.com... http://www.southparkstudios.com...
south park vs. family guy

Ok so if you are saying that its for anything then my point in round 1 about how Family guy makes you cry and laugh wins, because you have failed to prove that Family guy does not make you both laugh and cry. And for South Park all you have proven is that it makes you laugh. It does not make you cry, therefore Family Guy is better. And it is dark thinking even if it is a cartoon because you care about the characters. I cried when Brian died because, even though he is a cartoon, I still felt love for him, so thinking that it is funny when a beloved character dies is cruel and evil. Family Guy makes you laugh: http://www.youtube.com... Family Guy makes you cry: http://www.youtube.com...
south park vs. family guy

south park will be on the air for a all time because they only have the one show." This makes absolutely no sense! Who has only one show? And does family guy have multiple shows? If you are talking about creators of the 2 shows, and how Seth Macfarlane has multiple shows, then your point works for both sides, because the creators of South Park have a Broadway play, The Book of Mormon, and can no longer be spending all their time on south park, so therefore your point is dropped from the debate. Also if you think that killing someone is a humorous thing then you are a sick person. If they always kill Kenny off in a "very funny" way, then your and everyone who watches South Park and thinks that this is funny is a very sick and dark person. Finally, south park improving video games, (which it does not), does not make it a better TV show at all. Therefore family guy is the far superior show!
aliens are real

Thanks to my opponent.Initial rebuttals"We have no proof".While we have no direct observational proof for the existence of aliens, it is approaching statistically impossibility that no other organic chemistry arose elsewhere in the universe, as demonstrated in the previous round. In the same way, we have no direct observational evidence for dark energy or dark matter, or even black holes for that matter, but we can calculate very high confidence levels for their existence because of modelling on their effects. While it is not yet possible to say "we have seen a black hole" because black holes, by their very nature, are not observable (light that enters them does not escape. I don't think we need to get into Hawking radiation but you get the gist). What we observe is their effect on the universe, for instance light being bent around the hole, gravitational projections for proximal celestial objects and other measures. We can't actually say we have visual proof of black holes (technically we never have proof of anything!) but what we can say is that we are approaching maximal certainty in its existance. The same is said for non-terrestrial life."20 years ago scientists have sended a signal wave around a few galaxys to see if thre really were aliens but there have been NO Results at all". Although you have not specified, presumeably you are referring to the Arecibo message(1). While you are correct that no response has been received in *40 years, this is because the message was sent to the globular star cluster M13, which is 25 000 light years away. 25 000 - 40 = 24 960 years before it reaches its destination. If anything is in that region, and it can detect the signal, and it can respond, it will take another 25 000 years to receive a responce. No wonder we haven't heard anything yet!My opponent has not attempted to refute any of my contentions, so they stand.Until refuted, two points stand:1. Aliens, synonymous with foreigners, are real, to a maximally certain degree of confidence.2. Aliens, being non-terrestrial life forms, are real, to a degree of certainty approaching maximal, despite not having achieved direct physical contact...yet.Best of luck with your homework! (1) [http://en.wikipedia.org...]
The U.S. economy is a fraud based on the Federal Reserve System of fiat money and legal-tender laws.

I stated my credentials in the debate not because I was trying to act better than you but, because I wanted to prove that I had knowledge on the subject. That being the case, I am extremely impressed with your credentials, should they be true. They back up your argument extremely well. Before we finish this debate, I'd like to clear a couple of things up. First of all, the explanations given in your first round were not consistent with the clarity of the rebuttals in round two. Their lies the reason for me accepting this debate challenge. The original concepts presented allowed for criticism and false interpretation. The rebuttals in round two do not. "Loans are NOT backed 100% by deposit. This is just an utter fallacy. That's why what we have is called 'fractional reserve banking.'...They are required to keep on hand just 10% of the money they've lent." I never stated that fractional reserve banking doesn't exist. All I stated is that money is backed by deposits in some way or another, whether it is money that was "created" as you like to say or money that was physically deposited into an account. To clarify, money isn't just CREATED, it is backed by some form of loan contract or deposit. Your original statement made it seem like money was created out of thin air with no sort of backing whatsoever. "As for "creating stability" -- the Federal Reserve has not presided over stability. It caused the Great Depression via its inflation of the money supply in the twenties followed by severe contraction in the late 20s and 30s, and it has ushered in unprecedented inflation ever since." It's true that the federal reserve caused the great depression. Evidence of that and the other factors that contributed can be found here in one of Bernake's economic reviews. http://www.uoregon.edu... As for the years between 1933 and 2005, the Fed has helped to create stability in the U.S. economy. Heck, the overall goal of the Fed is to provide financial stability to this nation. The nation knows that the U.S. economy is extremely messed up right now but, is it the fault of the Fed, fiat money, and a system of legal-tender laws? No it isn't. It's because the other branches of government fail to utilize proper budgeting techniques and they rely on the Federal Reserve to help bail them out. The federal reserve is here to protect the people and the economy the best it can. Ask yourself this...What would happen if the nation disbanded the federal reserve and immediately adopted an entirely new policy? The answer is chaos; total and utter chaos. It's clear that you have more knowledge on the subject than myself. I encourage you to keep your arguments clear and not open to false interpretation. I have thoroughly enjoyed this debate and hope that you have as well. Good luck in your endeavours.
January LD Topic: See INFO

1. Domestic violence/abuse: Domestic violence and emotional abuse are behaviors used by one person in a relationship to control the other. Partners may be married or not married; heterosexual, gay, or lesbian; living together, separated or dating.2. An abuse victim has the right to leave, however, the right is not afforded to them by their partner in a relationship. Unfortunately, threats are made to the victim if they say they are going to leave and they are also abused for saying so.3. Not necessarily. Deadly force does not mean that the user of it intends death on the person they are applying it on. It only means they wish to put them in a state of incapacitation in order to escape or run.4. Regardless of the money lost when murder occurs, as what the resolution calls for is self-defense, the money lost upon the death of the abuser is far less than the death or abuse of the victim as it happens far less frequently. 5. I will reserve my answer to this question until my opponent states his own case and the case requires I provide philosophy.
January LD Topic: See INFO

1. Define Domestic Abuse. 2. Does an abuse victim have the right to leave a relationship? 3. If a person is being abused "repeatedly" as the resolution states wouldn't it be premeditated murder to purposefully us deadly force? 4.In terms of economy how much money is lost when murders occur? 5.Do you have any philosophy backing your case? I don't know if you want me to wait to put my contentions up but I will wait until you answer CX before I make my negative rebuttal.
January LD Topic: See INFO

Resolved: It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domestic violence. Seeing as my first tournament on this topic is this weekend and I'll pretty much be screwed unless I get a practice round in to help me formulate my case, I need someone to debate this with me before Saturday. First round is for acceptance. 24 hours is the time to argue, and the max for word count is 8k.
Christianity is a disgusting religion.

I agree that we are debating "Christianity" but do not see how we can have a discussion about the religion without talking about Christians themselves. Christianity has produced some great people and some true monsters, but I do not see any evidence that the religion anymore disgusting than humanity itself. On the contrary I see a group of people who promote things like community, kindness, education, tenderness, pessimism, perspective, art, architecture and institutions. Please present you evidence that Christianity is a disgusting religion.
Christianity is a disgusting religion.

I agree that the passages that pro cited are ugly and reflect bronze age thinking. Personaly, I do not know anyone,Christian or otherwise,that subscribes to that kind of thinking. If you would like to debate that the bible is disgusting that would be a different debate. This is as you say what what "Christianity is" I'm my experiance Christians support community, kindness, education, tenderness, pessimism, perspective, art, architecture and institutions. As an atheist one thing that I feel Christians do very well is foster a sence of community. In or cities we are divided by our jobs or educiation into separate classes. With billions of people sourounding us we become alienated from our fellow man. When I walk into a church (I burst into flames j/k) I am greeted by total straingers and invited to eat with the group after mass (this happened to me two weeks ago). When they learn I am an atheist they show signs of concern because they belive I will go to hell if not converted,but this concern tells me they think about my wellbeing. Even if I think they are missguided, they Care for me. Anyway, my point with all of that is Christianity as practiced today is one of community and love. The day of atonement, while a Jewish tradition, is a great example for us atheists to recogonize we need to say sorry sometimes. Kindness We are not really encouraged to be nice to one another anymore. We assume And family demands daddy time so I will this tomorrow. Hope all is well.
Christianity is a disgusting religion.

Alright, let's begin. I'll start by quoting some Bible verses that I consider immoral and wrong. 1: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." - Leviticus 20:13 2: "Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property." - Exodus 21:21-21 3: "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives." - Deuteronomy 22:28-29 4: "And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell." - Matthew, Chapter 5, 5:29 5: "Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire." - Matthew, Chapter 18, 18:8. Alright, mate, it's your turn. Good luck!
Ban the consumption of dog meat in countries that have citizens consume dog meat.

Hello. This is a debate between me and my friend. This particular debate is about consumption of dog meat within China and whether or not it should happen. I am for Con, meaning, I am against the particular statement My friend will be for Pro, promoting the statement. There are a total of 5 rounds. I wish my opponent to present to me logical sounding and rational arguments rather than those that incorporate personal preferences, such as personal opinions. I hope you will judge fairly, and will base your judgement based on our arguments, not because of your, or others, opinions
Ban the consumption of dog meat in countries that have citizens consume dog meat.

First, allow me to correct Pro's statement "the countries that allow eating dog meat should accept and tolerate the countries that ban eating dog meat (or have citizens consuming dog meat), they should be acceptive." This is, without a doubt, a misunderstanding. We are not tackling the problem of whether or not we should respect a country's opinion to ban the consumption of dog meat in their country, but instead, the act of banning consumption of dog meat in other countries, such as banning consumption of dog meat in China and in other asian countries. Pro has also stated that because countries that consume dog meat are outnumbered to countries that don't allow the consumption of dog meat, I am assuming that Pro is using this to discourage a consumption of dog meat. However, even if countries that have citizens consume dog meat, that is not a reason for countries like them to back down and to completely ban the consumption of dog meat. Countries that consume dog meat do not need to have, and should not be threatened to have their citizens prohibited from consuming dog meat. Furthermore, although approximately 25 million dogs are eaten each year as of 2014 [1], this amount is dwarfed by the fact that there are over 525 million dogs in this world, and in China, there are roughly 110 dogs, about one fifth of the dog population, as of 2012 [2]. If we consume more dog meat, I believe it should be no harm to the environment. In fact, it should be encouraged that we eat more dog meat, because, in some countries, such as in Bali [3], have an excess of dog and cannot provide sufficient handling and vaccinations for the dogs. A quick and easy solution to this, is to consume dog meat. My opponent has also not commented on my previous argument, so I will not put a say on that for now. [1] https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com... [2] https://www.psychologytoday.com... [3] http://www.thebalitimes.com...