BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Kimo vs. Pono; Social issues, gay marriage

Whoa, the point is, you should have been doing your own research instead of mining the ideas of other people. Come up with your own logical arguments. You are essentially plagiarizing our thought processes (not verbatim, but you get the idea). You should thank me directly because this debate topic pertains to this specific link and is only between you me and the viewers. If this were an open discussion forum with many contributors actually VISIBLE to everyone, then your expression of thanks would be fitting. However, since I am not privy to this, I deserve your thanks because the other contributors are not here to take the thanks. I am the only one here so I should be the only one thanked. It's like saying: "Thank you everyone who helped me do this" to one person in a solitary room. I digress. My opponent has failed to address my points against gay marriage and has, therefore, lost this debate. Con receives offense from having to do a debate against a dummy target that did not even intend to give any logical argument to unsupported statements. Conduct to con. Con obviously exhibits the use of better spelling/grammar overall. This point also goes to con. Con's contentions are completely uncontested. Argument goes to con. Both sides have no sources: Tied in this area.
Kimo vs. Pono; Social issues, gay marriage

Just to let you know I don't plagiarize. I will even include everything that had to do with this website and there were a couple other debates on gay marriage so this is not the only one mentioned. "On an online debate(debate.org), many people are debating whether or not gay marriage should be legalized and some are against, but, some without good arguments or sources, are in a way like Pono. But Pono said even though he was against gay marriage, he would let the states decide what they wanted to do about it. Pono would most likely agree with the forty four percent of Americans who believe same sex marriage should not be legalized and that it is unconstitutional." As you can see I have not plagiarized, one because I do not wish to fail my class and two because I do not want my work plagiarized so I do not do that to other people. I did not thank you directly because other people have contributed by having other debates about the same topic.
Kimo vs. Pono; Social issues, gay marriage

"It may not be neccesary at all. I do in fact kow that two people can live together and be in love and whatnot, for example dog the bounty hunter and whatsherface. As i stated in the beginning i needed this for an essay. Thank you those who contributed." Why don't you just thank me directly? Asides from a little editing you will be prone to do, your essay is nearly completely made by my contribution...I think I deserve more credit than this. Plagiarism, while maybe tenable in high school, will not last you through college. The ultimate benefits of plagiarizing my work will not culminate into anything intellectually or ethically beneficial for you in the future. By agreeing to the fact that gay marriage is not "neccesary at all" (necessary is its the correct spelling), my opponent has conceded to my points.
Kimo vs. Pono; Social issues, gay marriage

There are several reasons gay marriage should not be allowed. One of the key reason gay marriage is not explicitly allowed in many legal codes is the immense base of opposition against its acceptance into said codes. To input such a code against such an army of opposition would incite discord. Recall the civil rights movements several decades earlier. Violence and hate exploded when demonstrators took to the streets in open proclamation for their cause. Unlike this gay marriage civil right, racial civil rights affected millions of people. The racial issue was much more pressing because it affected the people on a more fundamental level than does the gay-marriage issue. African Americans were forced into harsh living conditions and low waged jobs by discriminatory statutes. Many lived in poverty and had very little opportunities to succeed. The racial civil rights proponents fought for a worthy cause that elevate the living quality of millions who languished/suffered in horrid conditions. The gay marriage proponents fight for a trivial cause. Marriage is only legal contract binding two people. In older days, marriage was political and were used for economic/political unions (E.g.: the marriage of an Austrian princess and a French prince to solidify relations between the two nations). Instead of improving/saving the dreary lives of millions, allowing gay marriage only serves to give a small group of people the satisfaction of having a piece of paper binding them legally. The ends, however harmless, do NOT justify the terrible processes necessary to its implementation. Furthermore: Marriage is not absolutely necessary. In fact, you could do very well off without such an inhibition. A relationship in which you live with your loved partner without legal restrictions...if it doesn't work out, then both parties can consent to a termination of said relationship without the difficult legal process/repercussions. It would also rid of the greedy spouse (those who marry for money). "Lets just say you or I were gay, would you think it would be right marry he one you love?" Once again, the proponent's goal is not to establish whether or not gay marriage is right because I already agreed that it IS right. My opponent has the burden of proving gay marriage to be something that should be implemented; show me that it is absolutely necessary.
Kimo vs. Pono; Social issues, gay marriage

Fair enough. Same sex marriage should be allowed because it is a civil right. Lets just say you or I were gay, would you think it would be right marry he one you love? Most likely not. Personally it is like arranged marriage, or at least it seems like that to me. This is because congress is saying 'no you cant marry so-and-so because you are the same gender'. I personally think we need some gay congressmen and women if we dot have some already.
Kimo vs. Pono; Social issues, gay marriage

I did not say I think it is wrong. The marriage of gay couples is, in itself, harmless. Marriage should be allowed. There are several very practical reasons for this. I would like for you to explain why gay marriage should be allowed. State the reasons (That marriage is harmless in itself is not a reason. EG: Jumping is harmless in itself, but jumping off a cliff is very harmless) Before inputting supporting arguments, I would like to hear your reasoning for marriage.
Kimo vs. Pono; Social issues, gay marriage

Ok my laptop screwed up. But what is wrong with gay marriage? If you think it's wrong give me reasons. I did say I need it to finish a paper. I need others opinions, I don't care if nobody agrees. But if you post thx. Back to the point is there is nothing wrong with gay marriage, when you get married to some one you love them,(hopefully), and the gays out in the world most likely love their partner too!
Dogs are more loyal than people.

I assume that my opponet did a little research on the loyalty of dogs and probably agrees with me too, because he, unfortunatelly, forfeited this round. That was, of course, sarcasm, but what do you know, Joe, maybe it is true. I hope you will be replying with some arguments in round 3, so that people who are reading this debate will be able to vote fair. Best regards, Artpop.
Dogs are more loyal than people.

I was not relating to ALL dogs, and to ALL people, I think I've made that clear. And even if it was as you've said, that dogs are programmed to follow their leader, you've almost aproved my point that they are, IN GENERAL, i repeat, more loyal than people are. Even if you take best friends as an example, in most cases people will NOT be by your side for better or worse, but dogs will. When helping people, they are NEVER thinking of benefits, they just help, because they have a big, rich heart. They're so awesome, they even heal with love, which is sciently aprooved. They can even dedicate their lives to helping someone in exchange for affection! They are also always happy to see you. Even if you leave your house for 5 minutes, when you come back, he will be extremelly happy you're home! They are never to bussy to be there for you. They sence your pain when you're sad and they are completelly commited to their owner. Dogs won't leave you when times get rough. They also always protect their people! And as for loyality, a classic example of immense loyalty is the story of Hachiko: In 1924, a professor in the agriculture department at the University of Tokyo, took in Hachik!3;, a golden brown Akita, as a pet. During his owner"s life, Hachiko greeted him at the end of each day at the nearby Shibuya Station. The pair continued their daily routine until May 1925, when Professor Ueno did not return. The professor had suffered from a cerebral hemorrhage and died, never returning to the train station where Hachiko was waiting. Each day for the next nine years Hachiko awaited Ueno"s return, appearing precisely when the train was due at the station. Now the station has it's statue! If you haven't seen the movie about the dog Hatchiko, you must. And you will be convinced.
Only the educated should be allowed to vote.

The problem with allowing everyone to vote is that it will lead to demagogues (a politician who appeals to desires and prejudices of the common people just to gain power.)Hitler is a pretty good example of this, he was democraticly elected by the way, he managed to convince Germans that he knew the source to their problems by blaming it on the Jews and that he would pull Germany out of their economic depression and bring back the glory it lost after WW1. We all now how that turned out.Another example of this is Alcibiades, a rich, charismatic, smooth-talking wealthy man during Ancient Athens who got rid of basic freedoms and helped to push Athens to its disastrous military adventures in Sicily. Again if only people who aren't easily swayed by words and actually look at issues and understand them were allowed to vote, Alcibiades wouldn't have easily gained power.You see if the government had some sort of test to see whether you choose your decisions based of emotion or logic stuff like this like this may have never have occurred.Before ending my argument I'll tell you reason why the Greek philosopher Plato was agisant allowing everyone to vote.He compared the government to a voyage on a ship, and to make a safe trip the ship needs a captain. Who should choose the captain? Random commoners who know nothing about sea travel, or people experienced in sailing and know what it takes to run a ship? Why the experienced sea travelers of course, why should this be any different than electing a leader for our country?
Only the educated should be allowed to vote.

Every citizen, whether they are educated or not, deserves the right to vote. Our country decided to fight a war to secede from the British because we were not given our rights of representation. An alien government was making decisions that could harm or benefit our welfare. Without the right for all citizens to vote, aren't we simply repeating the same thing over again? A government should represent the people, and no government could properly do that if they weren't even elected by the people. Everyone who is affected by the decisions of the government should be given the right to at least decide who is making decisions for them and representing them.
Science caused more suffering than good for humanity

There are obviously a few cons about science which I can think of. The first con, is the fact that there is a lot of money and effort put in certain researches, while in the end, when there is no result at some projects, there basically is thrown a lot of money over the bank, not knowing where it all went to, and not getting it back. Secondly, animal lovers argue about the fact that there are animals being used to test projects. A lot of actions and disagreements are around all over the world, 'cause there are animals dying while it isn't even necessary. Many animals don't survive the tests, which is a pity for the animal lovers out there. As a 3rd reason, I'd like to say something really cheesy. People try to prove everything these days, even the smallest things, with science. A lot of the things that are being set as facts in this world end up with 'oh yeah, that's science'. Which is actually not quite true, I think. I've read that people are saying that even love is a science. In my opinion love is more like a choice, if you like someone, you like someone. If you start loving them, you do, but there's no science about that. I agree, some of the projects in science really made a change in the world these days, but it also caused sadness and dissagreement. The discussions and arguements these days are a lot about science. You can compare it to the simplest things in life, for example, the Internet. pros: we find information quickly, we can purchase things online, etc. cons: we can be able to use it for criminal purposes. I think that there are pros and cons in this subject, however I'm strongly on the cons side, as it has brought a lot of confusion and arguements in everyone's life these days.
Yo mama debate

Thanks, brainteaser.1) Yo mamma is such a pervasive that she looks at nekked babies2) Yo mamma is so poor, she can't even afford to PAY ATTENTION!3) Yo mamma is so poor, she waves a popsicle stick and calls it "Luxury air conditioning"!4) Yo mamma is so white she makes snow look black5) Yo mama so dirty that she was banned from a sewage facility because of sanitation worries!6) Yo mama so dirty that you can't tell where the dirt stops and she begins. 7) Yo mamma is so ugly, she made YOU gay! 8) Yo mamma is so ugly, the crippled man in the wheel chair ran away! 9) Yo mamma is so perverted, she thinks Jesus is the hottest guy around 10) Yo mamma is so stupid She was locked in a grocery store and starved to death!
Yo mama debate

Thanks MilitantAtheist Yo mama such a dirty whore that they're having to paternity test the whole state of Texas just to find out who yo daddy is! Yo mamma so old that in the back seat of your car, kids don't say 'Are we there yet', they scream, 'Is she Dead yet!' Yo mamma so ugly, yo daddy would rather kiss her asss before going work everyday. Yo mama so ugly when she looked out the window she was arrested for 1st degree murder. Yo mama like a shotgun - five c0cks and shes loaded 7 Yo mama's so ugly, she made a blind man cry! 8 Yo Momma so damn fat the Police where going to use her as an emergency air mattress when Michael Jackson started dangling his baby. 9 Yo Mama's so damn ugly that she turned your dad gay. 10 Hey, your Momma is so sluttie I'd call her a hoe but hoes' get paid
Yo mama debate

Oh really? Well, that's NOTHING!Joke 1Yo mama so stupid it took her 2 hours to watch 60 minutesJoke 2Yo mama so stupid she stole free bread.Joke 3Yo mama so stupid she watches "The Three Stooges" and takes notes.Joke 4Yo mama so greasy Texaco buys Oil from herJoke 5Yo mama so lazy she's got a remote control just to operate her remote!Joke 6Yo mama so stupid that she puts lipstick on her head just to make-up her mind!Joke 7Yo mama so stupid that she sold the car for gas money!Joke 8Yo mama so stupid she thought a quarterback was an income tax refund!Joke 9Yo mamma so fat I took a picture of her last christmas and its still printing.Joke 10Yo mama is so UGLY Bob The Builder said "even we can't fix that"
Yo mama debate

Thanks :I Yo mama so fat when her beeper goes off, people thought she was backing up Yo mama so fat her nickname is "Lardo" Yo mama so stupid she put paper on the television and called it paper view Yo mama so stupid she thinks taco bell is a mexican phone company Yo mama so greasy she used bacon as a band-aid! Yo mama so greasy she sweats Crisco! Yo mama so greasy Texaco buys Oil from her Yo mama has so much hair on her upper lip, she braids it. Yo mama has one hand and a Clapper. Yo mama has green hair and thinks she's a tree.
Yo mama debate

Joke 1Yo mamma is so ugly that Rice Krispies wouldn't even talk to herJoke 2Yo mamma is so old, her first job was assisting God in creation! Joke 3Yo mamma is so stupid, she stated "2+2=5"Joke 4Yo mamma is so fat that she causes the days and nights! Joke 5Yo mamma is so ugly that her poo is happy to escape! Joke 6Yo mamma is so tall that the entire earth can see her! Joke 7Yo mamma is so old that she is the original history teacher! Joke 8Yo mama like a parking garage, three bucks and you're inJoke 9Your mom is so ugly that Rice Krispies wouldn't even talk to herJoke 10yo mamma so stupid she, walked into an antique store and said 'what's new'?
Yo mama debate

.. . she left her purse on Noah's Ark. Jurassic Park brought back the memories. .. when she ran the 100 metre dash, they timed her with a sundial. she still owes Moses a dollar. when she was at school. .. there was No history class! she uses her hot flushes to heat her cup of Tea she co-wrote the 4th Commandment. when I asked for her ID she handed me a rock she even made Yoda jealous. she recalls when the Grand Canyon was a ditch.
Yo mama debate

What the heck, this looks like fun!Joke 1Yo mamma is so old, she was taking a shower, raised her breast, and a PILGRIM fell out!Joke 2Yo mamma is so stupid she gave birth to you!Joke 3Yo mamma is so fat, she had to be baptized at sea world!Joke 4Yo mamma is so dirty, she turned the local swimming baths into the dead sea!Joke 5Yo mamma is so old, when God said "Let there be light", she turned the light switch on!Joke 6Yo mamma is so stupid, she took a spoon to the super-bowl.Joke 7Yo mamma is so poor, the burglers leave money for her!Joke 8Yo mamma is so fat, she ran into a bus and the bus said, "OOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWWWWW!"Joke 9Yo mamma is so stinky, she makes onions cryJoke 10Yo mamma is so ugly her birth certificate is an appology letter from God!
The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument is sound

Let's leave P1 alone for now, though I may return to it later as it has problems of its own. Jumping straight into P2. "If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God." This point and its defense "If something is created, it must have a creator. If something is designed, there must be a designer. The Universe was created. Therefore, God exists." are fallacious for the following reasons. 1. Begging the Question: Pro uses the existence of god as a given within a logical argument for the existence of god. 2. God of the Gaps: Pro ignores the possibility of other explanations for the existence of the universe (which there are, both scientific and mythological) but even if there were not, using god as a blind assertion is the definition of this very fallacy. 3. Blind Assertion: I reject Pro's defense of P2 as being unsound, as he simply asserts that the universe was created and designed without providing any argument or evidence to support it. P2 fails and the argument is not sound. If I were feeling smarmy, I'd ask Pro to actually defend P3, but this claim is never seriously challenged, and we happen to agree, so moving on. P4 and P5 Can not stand without the supporting weight of P2, as P2 makes all the assumptions necessary to claim P4 and P5 without defending them. I shall, in the interests of completeness refute them. P4. "Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3)" Perhaps it does. Perhaps not. This will be brought up during my refutation of P1 if I am required to debate that far. My main contention stemming out of P2, and having refuted it, I feel no need to refute P1 at this time. P5. "Therefore, the explanation of the existence of the universe is God (from 2, 4)." Since I have refuted P2, P5 does not stand. I should also point out all logical fallacies in P2 are present in P5, which makes sense as P5 really is just an extension of P2. During my refutation of P1 and P4 (should I go there) I will show the possibility that the universe has no cause, making the entirety of the argument pointless as it's base assertion is that the universe MUST have a cause. As it stands, the argument is not sound due to the refutation of P2. I wish Pro good luck in round 3.
The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument is sound

The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument P1) Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause [A version of PSR]. P2) If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God. P3) The universe exists. P4) Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3) P5) Therefore, the explanation of the existence of the universe is God (from 2, 4). Defense of Premise 1 Suppose I have a sheet of paper. Where did that come from? I shear leaves. I created it. I am the cause. HOWEVER, suppose I have an apple. Where'd that come from? I planted a seed in fertile land, watered it consistently (Daily basis), it grew into an enormous apple tree, an apple fell from it, and I grabbed it. THAT is natural. Defense of Premise 2 If something is created, it must have a creator. If something is designed, there must be a designer. The Universe was created. Therefore, God exists. Defense of Premise 3 This is self-explanatory. Defense for Premise 4 & 5 I have evidence to back up this claim (From Premise 1 & 2). I await my opponent's set of arguments.
The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument is sound

Rules 1. BoP (Burden of Proof) is on me. 2. No trolling. 3. No plagiarizing. 4. First round for acceptance only. Failure to follow these rules will result in a 7-point forfeiture. Definitions Leibnizian Cosmological Argument - 1. The Universe came into existence, therefore must have a cause 2. That cause is God 3. Therefore, God exists Sound - a belief turning out to be true
The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument is sound

Pro posts no arguments or defense this round. I extend all my arguments. Summation of arguments: P2 "If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God." and its defense are fallacious for the following reasons: 1. Begging the Question: Pro uses the existence of god as a given within a logical argument for the existence of god. 2. God of the Gaps: Pro ignores the possibility of other explanations for the existence of the universe (which there are, both scientific and mythological) but even if there were not, using god as a blind assertion is the definition of this very fallacy. 3. Blind Assertion: I reject Pro's defense of P2 as being unsound, as he simply asserts that the universe was created and designed without providing any argument or evidence to support it. P2 fails and the argument remains unsound. I await Pro's post for round 4.