BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
principle of neutrality and particle physics

If you claim that symmetry will always occur, I ask for an argument in that direction. If you claim that symmetry will not always occur, I ask for an argument that will support why symmetry do occur in the speific examples Pro provided (Matter-antimatter and mass-antimass), as well as an argument for why symmetry should not always occur. Otherwise I don't see what arguments I'm supposed to refute, but you are welcome to shed light on the matter.
principle of neutrality and particle physics

We all know, charge can neither be created nor be destroyed, it can only be transferred from one object to another. We have got proton,electron as well, clearly speaking net charge(diversion) remains zero. Because there is matter, why don't we agree for antimatter? Symmetry is the argument! There is mass, why don't we agree about negative mass? Symmetry answers what we seek. surely, we don't have instruments and technology to detect their trace.Point is that they exist!
Gay Marrige

Our current religious systems and majority religions tend to be very much against same sex relationships. These as a general rule teach against it and call it many things, unnatural, sin, and sometimes try to break people of the habit so to speak. While all of this is accepted belief it is not necessarily correct. Marriage is a social institution that brings many privileges, not least of which is the financial aspect. The governments of most countries offer tax breaks to married couples, as well as recognition of dependents in welfare systems. Marriage also ensures next-of-kin rights if one partner is incapacitated or dies, property rights and affects some parenting rights. Marriage also has important social aspects. Marriage is traditionally a public recognition of a couple's commitment to each other, and their acceptance as a family unit into society. Preventing gay couples from marrying is seen as a way of separating gay people from mainstream society – the exchanging of pride rings would ensure a gay couple's place in society. The issue does not just affect homosexuals. Transgender people can be prevented from marrying the person of their choice, if that person is the same sex as the trans gender person's birth sex.
Gay Marrige

How exactly does me being religious have to make that point bias? How does it? And now my opponent is telling me the definition of bias. First of all, let's har my point again, that my point of "religions I have stated in my first argument do in fact ban gay marriages, so how is this a bias point?" You have stated that it is a bias point, why did you think i asked "so how is this a bias point?" You should be learning yourself what the definition is! You are also deny the ways of the religions, sting that everything is a lie, well that is just crazy, whether you thinks it is personally or totally. Also, all i stated was the definition of marriage, i did not say yours was false, nor did i change the overall definition, all i said was the definition. Proposition 8 is what decides whether gay marriage shall be allowed in a state, so please tell me how it is irrelevant? Without prop 8, how would we decide whether it will be legalized? And yes, excuse me for stating that gay sex will be taught, but yes gay marriage will be taught in schools, which is just as bad. You have no proof that people are born gay, nor the source of that statement, making it out of this debate. Thus making his last point of this debate leaving my points standing tall. Now to my points- And according to balancedpolitics.com, gay lifestyle should not be encourage because of numerous researches that concluded that it leads to a lower life expectancy, psychological disorders, and other problems. According to godandscience.com, homosexuals had an average life expectancy of less than 50 years - more than 20 years less than the overall male population. The main reson why they live shorter is because of the disease HIV. So not only is gay marriages not producing anything, it also shortens the lives of the couples. So I ask you this- is it alright that people live shorter just because they are gay? And let's not forget about smoking, drinking etc, which shortens their lifespans even more
Gay Marrige

My opponent stated that he is religious, which COMPLETELY makes his sin point bias! I do not see how this can not be bias. He has also stated that "religions I have stated in my first argument do in fact ban gay marriages, so how is this a bias point?" I believe my opponent does not know the definition of bias, bias (defined by dictionary.com) is "a particular tendency or inclination, esp. one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice." and I believe that someone who has called himself religious, quotes religions, should be considered bias. -Also he said that my definition of marriage is irrelevant, but since this debate is about marriage I do not see how this is irrelevant. Also my opponent stated his own definition of "marriage" but he is the contentder AND con so he has NO POWER whatsoever TO CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE. Also my opponent brought up Proposition 8, which is very irrelevant because this debate is over gay marriage in general, not 8 AT ALL! Finally- My opponent brought up the point about gay sex being taught in schools, this is a completely outlandish and insane notion as this will never happen, only gay marriage will be taught in schools, not gay sex, Con's point on that is completely insane and should be disregarded. Now what this debate is really about is America, is america FREE if we don't allow gay marriage, NO! Is america brave, if we cannot tolerate people who were born different? NO! Also, it has been proven by countless scientific studies that people are BORN gay,but they only notice it during puberty, because this is the time when this kinda stuff happens. Imagine this, IMAGINE YOU WERE BORN GAY, but you don't notice it until puberty, and you are called a sinner for something you can't control, excluded from society by people like my opponent, who just can't tolerate difference in a society. I ask my opponent this: you tolerate people of different races, but not of different sexualities? VOT
Gay Marrige

I will first like to refute my opponents points- He has stated that "it is a sin to be gay in many religions" as a bias point. First of all, I am in fact religious. So is everyone else. You are religious, Obama is religious, and everyone is religious. And I am not speaking in my point of view- The current religions I have stated in my first argument do in fact ban gay marriages, so how is this a bias point? Your point of stating the definition of marriage is completely irrelevant. I have stated that it is a sin to BE gay, and the definition is "the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law" and clearly your definition does not help you win your debate. Also pro has stated that my point of gay marriage being taught in schools is completely irrational and irrelevant. IF so, then why do we teach our kids about sex? If proposition 8 failed, than the PROP 8 clearly states that Gay marriages shall be taught in public schools. And how are people "born gay?" It is completely irrelevant to this debate. Please explain how a child can be born gay! And yes, your point is "a completely bad point" Pro has also stated that America is Land of the free and home of the brave, so it is, but then wouldn't gay marriage be allowed anywhere? Please do tell me why it's not legalized completely in the US if we are indeed "the home of the free". And what does being brave have to do to call gays sinners and demons? It makes no sense therefore is irrelevant to this debate! Who stated that quote about how gay marriage should be allowed? Gay rights activists claim that these marriages should be allowed because it doesn't hurt anyone, but it could start a chain reaction that destroys the whole idea of marriage. If someone wants to marry his dog, why shouldn't he be able to? Or his doll or have 10 wives? Unless we develop some firm definition of what a marriage is, the options are endless
Gay Marrige

First I would like to refute my opponents points: My opponent has stated that "IT is a SIN to be gay in many religions" this proves that my opponent is religious, which clearly makes his point of view bias. Also he used bias sources such as "wikipedia (which can be edited by anyone)" and stateline.org which are his ONLY sources. And really, in a debate on morals, do you need sources? Con repeatedly states that it's a SIN to be gay and a SIN to be married gay, but yet the memiriam webster dictionary defines "marriage" as "the unification of two individuals, civil, or religious" so this is another reason why I've won this debate. Also con states that "If we allow gay marriage, then homosexuality will be taught in schools." this is a completely irrational and irrelevant point because this is an assumption, and this is a very bias assumption, also off the fact that people are gay at birth, but only realize it during puberty. So this is a completely bad point Also, America is the LAND OF THE FREE, and the HOME OF THE BRAVE, is everyone "free" if they can't marry as they choose? NO! Are we brave, if we are so intolerant as to call gays SINNERS and "demons" then how are we brave? Dignity & respect: "The institution of marriage conveys dignity and respect towards a couple that make a lifetime commitment to support each other. "Same-sex couples deserve this dignity and respect." Equal rights: Denying marriage to same-sex couples removes from one group a fundamental, important human right -- the right to marry the person that one loves and to whom one has made a commitment. That is unfair and unjust in a democracy. Financial & security: Denying one group the right to marry has many adverse emotional and financial consequences. Examples are Social Security, Medicare, medical leave, and other benefits; property inheritance; the right to visit their spouse in hospital, and make medical decisions if they are incapacitated; security of the couple and of their childr
Gay Marrige

First of all, my opponent has not stated any sources. Second of all, who thinks that gay marriage is right?? IT is a SIN to be gay in many religions, such as Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, Zoroastrianism. This quote is from vendidad, the ancient texts of Zoroastrianism.. "The man that lies with mankind as man lies with womankind, or as woman lies with mankind, is a man that is a Daeva [demon]; this man is a worshipper of the Daevas, a male paramour of the Daevas." These religions think that is is in fact, a sin, like the way People are not supposed to be gay. The way of life is not to be gay- it is to be straight- man with woman, not man with man. Nothing is produced between them. You can't make babies, so technically you are no longer performing the act for the right reasons. So, infertile couples and post-menopausal women should lose their rights and responsibilities too--they aren't procreating, so their marriages are useless. And even with gay marriage- Only a few states allow it. Until 2004, same-sex couples couldn't wed anywhere in the country. Now, gay marriage is legal in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, Maine and most recently New Hampshire. It was illegal UNTIL 2004. Less than 6 years ago. So, before, the people must have thought it was wrong to have gay marriage, until now. (source is stateline.org) Gay marriage threatens the marital institution: Oh yeah it does. So does the high divorce rate among the legally-allowed-to-marry heterosexuals. By allowing gays to marry, it takes away from the number of people who marry with little attraction to the other person. Even some people who divorced from marriages turned to being queer. If we allow gay marriage, then homosexuality will be taught in schools. Yes, the schools. Since it will be allowed it will have to be taught in schools. do we want our children to know about gays? they themselves may become gay, and do we want that? (Kansan.com) for these reasons, opp has won this deb
there should be universal background checks on gun sales

so someone who continues to use guns to kill and do violence should get access to a gun? where do you draw the line if any? shouldn't a line be drawn? they've killed and abused the right before. it's like exceptions to the first amendment that are well estabslihed, there can be some reasonable exceptions to the right to bear arms. so con insists that one hunred percent of people who are denied a gun will go out and get one? that is quite a claim. it's an all or nothing argument, which at least usually are known to be fallicious. can you clearly state that for the record?
there should be universal background checks on gun sales

Everyone should have the right to defend themselves, even convicted felons who have already been punished for their crimes; this is why free societies protect the right to bear arms. The difference between a law against crime and a universal background gun law is that the former prevents a crime, while another prevents gun ownership, even though you can not legally use a gun for crimes in the first place, since there are already crime laws. If someone follows the crime law, no one gets hurt; if someone follows a background check law, and they are denied a gun, they have no chance if someone threatens their life with a gun, even if it is by a convicted felon, who broke the law to get the gun. Gun control does not save lives from criminals, who get the guns illegally, it only makes it extremely difficult for law abiding citizens to defend themselves, which is why there is more murder (per GDP, per population, whatever) in places with gun control, and less in places where the criminal knows people are free to defend themselves with a gun if the criminal attacks them. Why make it less risky to attack someone and punish law abiding citizens? A convicted felon should not be forever punished with the risk of being helpless to a person threatening his life when they have already been punished for their crimes.
there should be universal background checks on gun sales

Everyone should have the right to defend themselves, even convicted felons who have already been punished for their crimes; this is why free societies protect the right to bear arms. The mentally unstable should also have the right to adequately defend themselves, with the same consequences of murder they would receive if they were to pummel someone to death. "You can't just define yourself into a victory here with saying criminals who use guns will just go get one illegally. this may be true, but if we stop some people who might otherwise commit crimes with a gun, we will have prevented some crime and death." I do not know what you are arguing; you said criminals will just get guns illegally if they want them, which is a fact, but then say stopping some people from having guns prevents crime and death. Who else is going to use a gun for crime besides criminals who by definition commit crimes? If you believe taking away someone's right to defend themselves just because there is a possibility they will use their weapon for something other than defense, you might as well be the one threatening their life. Besides, banning someone from using a gun makes no logical sense, even if there were no guns in the world, people would go back to bows and swords, and if the same is done for those, they will use any physical object they can find, and then their fists. Weapons do not kill, people do, and nothing will prevent them from doing so, if they intend to, except some form of punishment; however, taking away someone's weapon of any kind, so that they can not defend themselves if threatened with one of equal or greater power, is cruelly burdening them with a constant risk to their life, which is why the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, not the right to bear muskets, not swords, not non-assault weapons, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
there should be universal background checks on gun sales

con acts as if taking away gun rights can't be part of the punishment. sometimes, someone might be bad enough to not get gun rights, but not so bad they should spend the rest of their life in jail. it's not an either or situation. then of course there are those who are too mentally unstable to get guns. we should have checks just for those people, at the least. you can't just define yourself into a victory here with saying criminals who use guns will just go get one illegally. this may be true, but if we stop some people who might otherwise commit crimes with a gun, we will have prevented some crime and death. the simple act of having a gun causes some people to be more likely to commit a crime. if they didn't have the gun to begin with, they wouldn't commit the crime. or, do you unequivically deny that that would be the case? again either the all or nothing stuff if you disagree.
there should be universal background checks on gun sales

Someone who uses a gun for criminal purposes are given a punishment equal to the crime, determined by the law and/or the judge's discretion. However, if the punishment has been given, then as soon as it has been fulfilled, the convicted should retain all rights protected under the law. Punishments for repeated offenses are more severe, and, in the case of murder, rape, ect., eventually lead to the death penalty or life in prison, preventing them from committing further crimes, while also not sentencing them to a life where they can not adequately defend themselves. I never stated that everyone denied a gun will get one; I stated that all those who would use a gun for criminal purposes would get one illegally when denied one for their previous criminal acts, since, logically, criminals break laws by definition. One petty law is nothing compared to those they intend to break with the gun they were denied. Do you believe someone who wants or is willing to murder someone and already has committed crimes will obey a gun control law? This, of course, does not apply to all past felons, because not all will want to commit another crime and risk being punished again, hence why we have punishments, as an incentive to prevent people from committing crimes, and to discourage convicted felons from reoffending.
Nonprofit "news" in America

I am not in favor of banning people, I never said that. I said they should not be considered as 501c3 nonprofits. They should pay all the taxes that everyone else does. How can free speech exist if the news agency itself moderates comments and chooses to delete the ones it dislikes, while publishing those it does like? That's free speech for them, but for anyone else, not so much. Call VtDigger, a "not for profit" news agency and ask them what their comment policy is.1- 802-225-6224 is their office phone number. Beware, they are pretty socialist, and will likely erase the comments of anyone with a libertarian streak.
Nonprofit "news" in America

First off, I would like to point out the hypocrisy in your argument, if you ban a group of people for saying they don't support the right to free speech, then you aren't giving them the right to free speech. Secondly, censorship doesn't violate free speech, their right to free speech entitle them to not show certain parts of things on there programming, as the freedom of free speech protects the right to not say something if you don't want to. Thirdly, not-for-profit, doesn't mean propaganda, as you are implying, and propaganda is technically free speech by the government if that is the case. Finally, I would like a more specific example of this, to see where this could possibly be an issue.
Our existence on Earth is pointless.

Yes to be honest Im just a high school student, I have so much homework I dont even have anymore time to post a long debate. Besides my oppenent has a great upper hand, I didn't have much knowledge on the subject in the first place. My apologies for accepting I debate I knew I wouldnt have much chance in. I was also unaware of how. .. rather bad my skills at debating are. With more practice I will continue debating, until then I think I should lay this website to rest. Yeah.
Our existence on Earth is pointless.

Yet again my opponent is making some good points, but on the other hand there are some that I don't understand. He says I failed as a con to refute any arguments, but all my arguments are in some how wrapped around the debates topic. I agree that we are not arguing over whether or not there is an after life, but it seems to me like our reasoning for life is well based on our afterlife. Pointless and useless are defiantly not two different things because they are tied together, if something has no use it also has no point. You are telling the voters that our existence has no point. Regardless of the religion you base your life on other than Atheist. There will be an afterlife and that is the point and/or use of your life. I have made my own point and I will not continue to argue my opponents points for this round. Call that bad conduct, but it is also the truth.
Our existence on Earth is pointless.

Alright, my opponent is saying that our existence is useless. He is also stating that we are harming our own existence by polluting, wasting, etc. Although he makes valid points, I strongly disagree. If our existence was useless then why are we here? It was not an option for us to exist. It had to have happened for a reason, although those reasons are not clear. We can not change the fact that we exist, nor can we take back the damage done to our earth. Granted there is a lot of pollution, fossil fuels are only lessening as time goes on, and people are killing themselves and ichthyology. That does not make our existence useless; just harmful. Everyone on this earth has a destiny, a place to make a metaphorical footprint on the face of the earth. It is also true that Earth was a lot more natural before we came here. I ask, why would God want such a beautiful Earth, with no uses for it? What else could he have done with planet Earth other than create humans? To answer my own question I am going to say nothing. He states that there is no afterlife and that basically if he can be proved wrong then he will stand corrected. By saying that there is no afterlife, you are also implying that there is no God. If there is no God, explain the bible. There is also the "ghost" theory, that your spirit either goes to hell, heaven, or remains here on the earth. There is reasonable proof of a said "ghost" or spirit. There are demonic possessions, haunting, so on and so fourth. The bottom line is I do believe, along with many other people that there is an afterlife. What happens to you in your afterlife is based on your actions as a human on Earth. That alone could be the reasoning for existence. There is also a lot to see in the world, a lot to be happy about, and a lot of lessons to be learned. Though the world is not at its best, or as good as it once was, its still a beautiful thing. I think that God or whoever it is the voters believe in, wanted something to explore this earth and kind of see what we can do with it. That is my opinion on the reasoning of our existence as humans.