BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay Marriage

To start things off I'm going to point out the fact that marriage in and of itself is a religious institution and should have no place in government anyway. The very concept of "marriage" is a religious concept that should be defined only by the church that is marrying the couple be the gay or straight. However civil unions are something that the government should regulate and endorse. These unions should most definitely be able to be between homosexuals as well as heterosexuals. Let's put marriage back where it truly belongs, in the hadns of the religious institutions that define it. Let each church and religion define marriage for themselves and let the religious marriages have no bearing on the civil standing of any citizen. That is mainly semantics yes but it is a very important distinction that must be made for this argument to ever be won or lost. The biggest issue that I have with your argument is that you fail to offer any real reasons for your stance. Yes you tell a wonderful story but in the end pulling the heart strings is no way to truly win an argument. Also the Constitution of the United States is still important no matter what good ole George W. would have you believe and nowhere in the Constitution is the topic of marriage addressed. Thus it would fall under the 10th amendment as something the states must decide for themselves. So a law that would mandate legalizing gay marriage across all 50 states would be struck down as unconstitutional by the supreme court. The only defense for your point is the whole issue of tax breaks for married people and again this issue is easily solved by instituting civil unions for both homosexual and heterosexual couples.
Gay Marriage

The struggle to illegalize what men and women do in their own bedrooms is sickening, and the religious right has far too much of a stronghold in politics. There should be full, unequivocal equality in marriage for same-sex couple. Gays and lesbians should enjoy the full set of rights that I experience in my marriage. This nation was founded under freedom of religion (or even freedom from religion) and on separation from church and state. Furthermore, those who claim that their moves to illegalize same-sex marriage are for "family values." However, I have seen more families destroyed in the name of "family values" than for any other reason. For instance, my friend since middle school was disowned by his father after coming out about his homosexuality. He committed no crime, but rather, he was only just being open about himself. I find the hypocrisy to be appalling. Prejudice and bigotry had dug itself into the American fiber and has not yet been uprooted. Only with the passing of a bill that legalizes same-sex marriage in all fifty states will we eventually uproot such rampant homophobia. In fact, about ninety per cent of Americans were against interracial marriage before the Supreme Court intervened and finally had the common decency to say that interracial couples could marry. I fail to see how same-sex marriage is really any different of an issue.
Blacks are More Racist Than Whites

I am not only using crimes to measure racism. Everybody thinks Martin Luther King Jr. was a hero and was so important. He wasn't. However, he has his own holiday now, people get a break from usual activities on that day! Why? Well, the only reason I can think of, well, he's BLACK. Martin Luther King Jr. is not important enough to have his own holiday, yet he does! He did what millions of people were doing: protesting segregation and slavery. I'd say that since King got his own holiday for doing that, that everyone who protests anything should get their own holiday. They don't, however, proving how King was not superior in importance as any other protester. "As well, the affirmative only attempts to provide means for measuring violent racism, while much racism is not violent, but rather expressed through words or even thoughts. There is no way of measuring these kinds of racism, and so we cannot come to a conclusion as to whether one group is more racist than another group." Very correct, there is no way to measure that type of racism. However, it is common knowledge that the more outspoken you are about a subject, the stronger you feel about said subject. I don't see any whites complaining about how blacks are horrible or evil. I do, however, see blacks complaining about how whites are horrible and evil. Thus, making them racist, or, at least, more racist than whites. And, as such, don't you ever wonder how blacks can insult other races or religions in a comedy act, when whites can't do such a thing? It's really common knowledge. It's simple, blacks are more racist than whites. Prove me wrong...
Blacks are More Racist Than Whites

Apparently suing only happens in Hollywood, and violence is more realistic. http://www.racismeantiblanc.bizland.com... In 2002 there were 466,205 cases of black on white violent crimes. There were only 100,111 white on black violent crimes. Once again, adressing 2002, 1,916,380 cases of black on white hate crimes were reported, and only 1,689 white on black hate crimes were reported.
Blacks are More Racist Than Whites

Blacks are not more racist than whites. The affirmative must provide evidence to support his/her claims that blacks are more racist. The burden of proof is currently on my opponenet's side, and the affirmative needs to provide evidence. The affirmative should (specifically) prove that blacks sue whites often for racism, and that these cases are often very successful. The affirmative should also specifically provide proof that white's lose more often on cases involving racism/hate crimes/etc. As well, the affirmative must prove that it is black people that are more racist, and not that the government or judicial system is more likely to hear one side of the story. The affirmative should also provide evidence supporting that whites who accuse blacks of racism are shunned and accused of racism. If the affirmative cannot prove his/her points, there is no reason to vote for him/her. The affirmative must provide a way to measure racism. I will take the stand that it is very difficult (if not impossible) for us to know (exactly) whether one group of people is more racist than another. There is no device that can measure racism, its intensity, or its quantity. It is difficult to decide what counts as racism, and much racism occurs within one's thinking process, never in the open. For instance, one group could be vocally racist while another silently so, how would we decide who is more racist? We should not! It is my opinion that such things cannot be measured, and so neither group can be more racist than the other.
Blacks are More Racist Than Whites

Okay, first things first, this is not a racist argument, nor am I racist against blacks or dark-skinned people. Blacks are more racist than whites! It's really simple, as a black can sue a white for racism and the black will have a very good chance of winning, happens all the time! If a white does the same, they get called racist and they have a chance of losing a case. They get shunned, insulted, and disrespected. This is in no way non-racist or a good example of equal rights.
Same sex schools are bad for all concerned (version 2.0)

Thanks for having replied, Amphia! I started this new debate because the time limit finished on the old one, but I want to keep discussing with you, so let's start with my answer... I think my ideas are so different from yours because of culture. Where are you from? I live in Italy and schools here are completely different compared to those I read about in your descriptions. For example, we don't have extracurricular activities, we've no clubs (chess, drama or poetry classes and so on). In my opinion, in same sex schools, violence and fights are rife because of jealousy and envy. The other opponent (who commented my old debate) said that "it just isn't the right age to fall in love". Well, I don't think there's a "right age" for that, even if obviously we can't talk about love during childhood; however we can say that from the teenage years. It happens when it has to happen =)
Border fence

No we debate the border fences provided not both. Keep this debate on America only. C1: environmental impactEnvironmentalists fear he hundreds of miles of fence will kill many animals as it will separate them from the rio grand, the only major source of fresh water on the border. [1]It could also kill animals and mess up their breeding patterns on the border as they would no longer be able to cross. [1]It also affects black bears :(. researchers say it is an obstacle for black bears [2]It says the Arizona black bear population north of the border will be affected my this fence, as it would separate them and destroy their habitat. They also say it will mess up their mating patterns as it would separate 2 big populations of these beautiful creatures. [2]Walls have caused environmental destruction, fragmenting crucial habitat for animals, including endangered species, funneling migrants and Border Patrol enforcement activities through fragile ecosystems, and triggering large-scale erosion. [6]C2: Costthis is the second most imortant argument. Rick perry said it would cost 30 billion dollars and 10-20 years to create [3].In 2009 congressional research said it costs 21 million dollars every miles of fence [3]San Diego border patrol says it is 16 million per square mile. Bu this low estimate still exceeds the billions when fully made. [3]The goverment accountability office has an extremely low estimate of 6.5 billion dollars over the next 20 years. [4]another study says 4 million dollars per square mile [5]The financial burden to U.S. taxpayers may well exceed $49 billion for wall construction and maintenance. [6]another study says it costs 7.5 million per square mile [7] C3: doesn't workIn fact, the Border Patrol's own statistics show that the border walls have not brought about a decrease in illegal entries. [7]And in the areas where walls have been built the amount of entry in those areas increase [7]The lowest break-in time was BEFORE the wall was constructed, not after. [7]Migrants were not stopped by border walls; they simply went around them. [7]Colin Powell is against the wall, saying that it just doesn't work. [8]Former NM Governor Bill Richardson, a border governor, said the border wall is a terrible symbol and doesn't work. [9]hey agree with the man for once. Physical barriers also have not reduced the rates of contraband drug smuggling into the United States [10]The planned border wall is remarkably ineffective at keeping immigrants out. [11]==conclusion==You and I agree we need to secure the border, this debate isn't about that though, it is about a dumb fence. I have proven a few things, 1. it hurts the environment, 2. it is costly and we do not need that cost amidst this debt, 3. it just doesn't work. Therefore I urge you to vote con.http://www.msnbc.msn.com... [1]http://www.nytimes.com... [2]http://www.nytimes.com... [3]http://www.cbsnews.com... [4]http://theweek.com... [5]http://www.no-border-wall.com... [6]http://www.no-border-wall.com... [7]http://www.breitbart.com... [8]http://www.usatoday.com... [9]http://www.newsecuritybeat.org... [10]http://rawstory.com... [11]
Border fence

Rebuttal: Damn it! How did I miss two rounds. Give my opponent two points for conduct. C1: First of all, the environmental impact is horrible but what matters more? The environment with all the details like you said or people dying because of illegal immigration. Both the uninhabited areas of the border and urban areas are where the most drug trafficking and illegal crossings take place. Crime is easy to find in urban cities like El Paso, Texas and San Diego, California because of illegal immigrants. The border is constructed of a series of short walls and virtual fence areas that are monitored by Border Patrol Agents through a system of cameras and sensors. In the last 13 years, over 5,000 migrant deaths occurred along the border according to a document from the Human Rights National Commission of Mexico. The conclusion is that the environment doesn't matter when matched against illegal immigrants, illegal drugs and alcohol, and bigger crime rates. . http://www.debate.org... C2: Would you rather people die everyday because of illegal immigration? Does Rick Perry saying the cost make any difference? We have illegal drugs and alcohol with more unemployed illegal immigrants without jobs or homes. The truth is that illegal immigration leads to crime. For instance, in Arizona, undocumented illegal immigrants represent 14.8% of state prisons even though they account for only 7% of the nation. 14.8% means 5,983 in prison! The new data also revealed for the first time a breakdown of crimes for which undocumented immigrants were incarcerated. Of all the prisoners serving time in Arizona state prisons for kidnapping, 40 percent were undocumented. Of those in prison on drug charges, 24 percent were undocumented. And 13 percent of those serving time for murder were undocumented immigrants, according to the new data from the Arizona Department of Corrections. This is why we need a border fence to stop illegal immigration. In conclusionIn the next contention,I will explain why it is needed! www. cbsnews. com/8301-31727_162-20011391-10391695. html? tag=contentMain;contentBody C3: Right now, the border fence doesn't work because it covers only 685 miles which means they can go around it but if it covers every mile, then they can't get around it! In the Tucson sector of Arizona alone, approximately 215,000-250,000 illegal aliens were apprehended by Border Patrol in 2010; however, estimates show that for every one person apprehended, approximately five go free, meaning there are likely over 1,000,000 illegal aliens entering through the Tucson Sector alone each year! If there is a 2,000 mile border fence, then the people can't cross to the States. It only doesn't work because the fence doesn't cover the whole thing. . https://www.buildtheborderfence.com... Thank you all.
Existence of God(s)

The time allotment was to only allow for one's own logic and not outsourcing. It is specific to this debate and should my opponent wish to debate again with a greater amount of time allowed, I accept. However, I do intend to continue this debate and due to the fact that you insist on inappropriately shifting the burden of proof, I will say this for you to defend: There is no evidence in the existence of God. Care to prove otherwise?
Existence of God(s)

"The belief in any god is both unnecessary and unjustified." My opponent made this claim in his first round, so the burden of proof lies with him. Claiming something does not exist, is still asserting a claim. My opponent also made each round 4 minutes, which is not even remotely reasonable enough time for an argument to be constructed. I request that he re posts this debate, challenges me, and makes the voting period at least one month, and the time allowed for response, 3 days.
The Gap Theory

We do know what the early Christians thought, as we have their writings. They universally agrees on a recent creation, and it was used as a main argument in bringing people to Christ, as they would successfully argue that the Jewish history went farther back than any of the other nations. God did not tempt Job, Satan did. But Satan was still allowed in heaven during Job's lifetime, which was after Genesis. The source my opponent gave gives references to mathematics that put the earth less than 6000 years right now. It must be noted that the Bible gives a pretty fair account of genealogies from Adam to Jesus, but there are some places that aren't as specific, which is why genealogy calculations won't be exactly precise, just relatively close. I have to admit that most of my young earth creation arguments are easily evaded by my opponent from his unique stance on a random gap at the beginning of genesis. I don't think my opponent gave reasonable evidences to convince that the gap is the correct intention of the writer of Genesis, and I think that my Young Earth Creation interpretation better fits the Bible.
The Gap Theory

Genesis 1:1-3 is a continuous text. There is no need to add a gap in betwee, and as I have shown, none of the earliest Jews and Christians have ever interpreted it this way. It is a modern theory to accomodate for an old earth. The passages you argue for Satan's fall are misinterpretations. These passages are speaking to specific kings, not to some angel that fell from heaven. One may argue that the passages have a dual meaning to them, but even if that is true, it would still not prove that there was a gap in between verse 1 and 2. Even at the beginning of the book of Job, Satan was still allowed in heaven. His fall had not occured yet, which proves that his fall was after Genesis.You argue that you do not see a desolate world, but the Messiah has not come yet. The earth is very close to six thousand years, but not quite yet, as Jesus has not returned for His Mellinial reign. It's not a failed prophecy; it is still a prediciton that is for a future event.Again, Barnabas said the world would exist for six thousand years from the beginning of creation for when the Messiah would begin the Millenial reign. It has not been quite six thousand years yet, but it is very close.Origen was not arguing with a Christian, he was arguing against a Platonism, which taught that the earth was tens of thousands of years old. This does not help your argument, as it shows only non-christians believed in an older earth, and Christians continually refuted that idea.Again, I will bring up what Jesus said. He put the creation of Adam and Even at the beginning of Creation. Not of a second creation, but of all of creation.
The Gap Theory

Starting with the introduction I would like to say I never denied the six days of creation as found in Genesis. I simply think that they happened after the earth itself was created. I think this is obvious because the earth is there before the 6 days are even mentioned. As for the passages of the Talmud it says that the world shall exist for 6 thousand years 7 thousand if the desolate years counted. Even young earth creationism must admit the earth has been around over 6 thousand years and even if we are in the 7 thousandth year I do not see a desolate world. Again I say agree that the six days in Genesis happened around 6-10 thousand years ago. Though, the Talmud is errant in its prediction regarding this, I see no way in which it connects to there being a gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. On to the early Christian writers. I will start with Barnabas. Again I grew that the 6 days mentioned in Genesis are 6 days. Though, what he says after that seems to greatly compliment the day age theory which goes against what either of us believe. He does mention that the earth will be destroyed in 6 thousand years. Is he talking about from the time of the 6 days of creation? If he is, that time has passed and the world is still here. Or,is he speaking of 6 thousand years from the time he is speaking which we have yet to see. I still see no correlation to how this refutes the Gap Theory. I see how Origen relates to this topic. But, this proves that even as far back as Origen there were disputes as to how old the earth was. So how do we know that Origen was right? As I see it, my argument has existed from very early times so it must have the same historical credibility as yours. The previous quotes while some were faulty, they were not biblical which leaves room for error. Your biblical texts that you have provided have nothing that I disagree with. The creation and recreation of some things happened within that literal 6 day window. This is why we have a 6 day week. As for what Jesus said, He was obviously referring to the beginning of time of time for humans. Because, humans were not created until the 6th day so they were not created at the beginning anyway. I fail to see how either of the scriptures apply to the Gap Theory. When the earth was obviously here before the 6 days of creation in Genesis. The only extra biblical proof you have that is even remotely relevant is an obscure quote by Origen which further proves the historicity of my argument.
China is deliberately buying America

:( How unfortunate and disappointing. Oh well. I'll take the burden of concluding both our points. :)CON China is more dependent on us. China's about to have an economically damaging baby boom. China and the United States are obligated economic allies. China's economic growth would help our economy grow as well. PRO There are Chinese companies in the USA. China prefers Iran over USA. China's like the USSR. China's about to have an economically damaging baby boom. (Not sure why this is Pro, however. ) The USA is in more debt. I hope I was unbiased. I tried my best. I tried to make both sides as presentable as I could based on my interpretation.
China is deliberately buying America

1. I have to admit that comparing China and USA to siblings is logical to make it on a simpler scale, but unfortunately it doesn't really apply anymore. Through recent history, it's been known to us that China would rather protect North Korea and Iran from invasion than USA. [1] In fact, China recently started to virtually attack and accuse the USA through cyber attacks and government espionage (sort of like a new USSR if you will). They may start a second cold war, but because China capitalized almost half of their economy it would be based on the economy itself instead of ideology. [2] 2. I know history very well, I got a 96% on my last report card in World History. Reality is, China loved the way the USA helped to weaken the Japanese so they can be liberated. But the fact is that they know that the Americans never actually liberated them, they believe that Mao Zedong did. After Mao died and the country was visited by Nixon, China started the concept of globalism and allowed US companies to enter China. Even after that, even today, there are still political tensions between China and USA. As long as the Peoples' Communist Party is in power, their political hate towards USA and even capitalism might continue. [3] 3. The baby boom. Did you know that nearly all of the children that were born then are growing up? That means that once they retire then they will depend on the government teat for welfare and social security. There's not enough of us youngsters to keep up with their demands, so that means we would have to borrow more (unless of course we cut programs). [4] 4. I'd like to compare the two country's debts. China is actually paying off it's external debt and public debts, but USA's debt to China is much higher than China's debt to USA. [5] 4. I'm very sorry it had to come to this, but I have to attack your sources. Why would you give us a website in the Chinese language (3)? Not to be prejudice, but you really should post websites containing English so we can understand them. I think that cracked (4) is not a reliable source at all, even though some information is correct it's highly unprofessional and has nothing to back up its own claims. And I'm really sorry but do you honestly expect youtube to be a good source? Let alone when it cites a video game? The rest of your sources have nothing to do with what we're talking about, only describing China's age gap and only support my claims that China can have a high dependency and still be expected to surpass USA in GDP by 2016 giving it the highest in the world [6]. 1. http://frontpagemag.com... 2. http://www.nytimes.com... 3. http://www.bloomberg.com... 4. http://www.washingtonpost.com... 5. http://www.usdebtclock.org... 6. http://en.wikipedia.org...