BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay Marriage

Why must it benefit society? Society does nothing but cause problems for gays, and such other groups of people. The reason Gay marriage isn't allowed is because of society. It shouldn't be anyone's business but that couple's, whether or not they get married. It should be a choice. We shouldn't be able to limit it, at all. Just as we shouldn't ever be able to keep blacks out of restaurants that white people are in. It's the same thing. Gay marriage protests are going to be in the history books just like segregation was. Equal rights for men and women. It's against the constitution to attack one group of people, and not allow them to have the same rights as anyone else. The only reason it is not allowed, is because it is against the bible. But using the bible as the rulebook is also unconstitutional. What is it to you if a man and man, or woman and woman want to get married? They aren't marrying you, are they? What they want to do in their bedroom is their thing. They should atleast be able to have the rights to each other if something happens to the other one. If a couple that has been together for, let's say, 60 years. A gay couple, that is. And, one of them dies, and they weren't allowed to get married. Let's say the house, the car, and others were in their partners name, and so there fore, they aren't entitled to what is rightfully theirs. It's wrong.
Gay Marriage

First off: I am female, thank you. One: Does a marriage have to benefit society? I see no law, no rule that says: Marriage must benefit society. If marriage is just for procreation, then what happens if a male or female in the relationship is infertile? Does that mean they're not benefiting society either? Should they not be allowed to marry? What if a couple doesn't want to have children? Should they be factored out as well? Marriage isn't just simply for procreation. That is the definition of marriage according to the bible. Again, the bible does not rule the country. The true definition of a marriage is this : the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.No where does it say that procreation is a factor. That's the bibles definition. Two: Gay marriage doesn't have to involve children. This isn't even part of the arguement, but i will state my opinion on this, too. Gay parents are no different from heterosexual parents. I have seen many terrible heterosexual parents that shouldn't be allowed to have children. First off, If two people that love each other decide that they would like to adopt a child (Gay or straight), any adoption agency isn't just going to give away children to people who cannot handle it. Adoption parents are almost always beautifully fit to be parents. Especially gay parents who want that baby so much. Imagine how many kids there are without homes. Gay people take them from the sheltersand bring them into a warm, loving envirnment. I think that definitely is a benefit. They take the unwanted children, and make them feel wanted. Second, there are so many terrible straight parents out there that shouldn't be parents, but are. So don't limit bad parenting to gays. Last, it's not up to 50% of all marriages are likely to end up in divorce, gay or not. Again, this isn't a matter of gay or not gay, this is a matter of bad coupling. You cannot limit that to gays. Many children go through a divorce. I wouldn't say it's a good influence. But, it isn't just the gays, its everyone. Maybe if gay marriage wasn't so rough for the gay population because of people like you, then maybe they wouldn't have that stress and wouldn't divorce. Imagine everyone attacking you for your lifestyle, wouldn't that put stress on you and make you want to give it up? Conclusion: Marriage doesn't need to benefit society in any shape or form. Procreation is not a factor of marriage that is needed, we are not all following the bible here. Gay parents are definitely a benefit to taking in children who do not have what they need, and should have. Source: http://dictionary.reference.com...
Gay Marriage

Because he is new here I will go easy on him. Point 1: Homosexuals do Not Benefit SocietyYes, we all know that the Bible does not exactly run the country. There is a separation of church in state. However, that is not the argument here. The argument is if homosexuality should be legal, not if it is immoral. Keep in mind that the government chooses who and who should not be married. It actually makes sense for homosexuals not to be married and here is why. Heterosexual marriages have a special priviledge. This priveledge is that they can benefit society by producing more people to keep society running. In the government's eyes, marriage is about benefiting society by procreation and and the production of offsring. [1,2,3,4]Point 2: Homosexuals are Not Good ParentsIt is a fact that homosexuals do not tend to be good parents. They usually have more uneeded sexual content while their adopted child or children would be present. Furthermore, homosexuals tend to divorce more often. This can be seen through the two graphs I have provided. [5] Heterosexual Marriage Graph What this shows is that most heteroseuxal marriages have remained intact over many years. This means that they are generally good models for children. [5]Homosexual Marriage Graph This graph shows that a large amount of gay marriages never can remain intact over years. In fact, many barely make it to the 8 to 11 years mark. Would you say a divorce is a good influence for children? I don't. [5]ConclusionHomosexuals simply do not benefit society and should not be allowed to get married. They are also a bad influence for children. Sources1. William C. Duncan, "The State Interests in Marriage" Ave Maria Law Review (2004)2. "PROTECTING AMERICA'S IMMUNE SYSTEM: A REASONABLE ARGUMENT AGAINST HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE" by Frank Turek3. "Same Sex marriage: Should it be legalized? " By Alexander Adams, Sandia Preparatory school4. "Straight is better: Why Law and society May Justly Prefer Heterosexuality" By George W. Dent, Jr.5. . http://www.frc.org...;
Gay Marriage

I really just needed to shove my opinion out there. What is the problem with gay marriage? Don't tell me the bible says no. The bible has nothing to do with what any man or woman should be allowed to do in their homes. The bible doesn't mean anything to non Christians., and not every American is Christian in the united states. We are not supposed to be based on one religion, so why does the bible have so much control? It shouldn't. So when someone says, the bible says marriage is between a man and woman, I just want to scream. I'm not Christian, the bible doesn't mean anything to me! So why should one dumb book be allowed to control so many people's lives? We don' t outlaw pork just because Jewish people don't eat it, do we? No no no. We are a free country. The bible isn't supposed to be allowed to control us, especially the non Christians, and the Christians that do believe homosexual people should be allowed to marry. Marriage is between two people who love each other. Whether it be a homosexual marriage or a heterosexual marriage. Civil unions should definitely be in place as well. If two people are together their whole lives, and one of them dies, they certainly have the right to take what's rightfully theirs. I see no problem with gay marriage, and I'm not gay. I think the problem may be the older "traditional" generations. Well, what's traditional to them, isn't so much as what traditional is today.. Times change, and I believe it's time for the older generations to shut up, and let us younger people take control, because everything is indeed changing, and their holding us back from what is getting closer to the way things should be. On to my opponent.
On balance, people who act obscenely/ are disruptive should not be treated as respectfully.

I will give everyone a deal; they can attack me for being disrespectful and arrogant, after they attack the actual disrespectful and arrogant types: prideful parents, prideful children, authorities, patriots, business dogs, politicians and presidents. Until then, I am invincible within these double standards. You cannot disagree with me without resorting to hypocrisy. You think I am the tragedy? Life is the tragedy. I'm just role-playing it for everyone else. I do not care what people think of me, as long as they do not care about the world they exclude in responsibility. People are lazy cowards that want you to respect them for doing nothing - absolutely nothing with their lives, while judging everyone else's lives. They are nothing - they will always be nothing. Think I went too far? Nonsense. Every leader of every country is the sole reflection of our fellow men's current status - considering our leaders are running our country into the ground with greed and power is a great start. We vote them in by believing their promises because the fellow men today are nothing except impressionable sheep that wonder why passionate men like me do not care about their well-being when they are the ones that let that go years ago. While I am the bad guy for speaking the cold truth - people are more than idiots - they are accomplices to every error in the history of mankind. Wars? Wouldn't have happened if people weren't so easily herded. Serial killers? Wouldn't have happened if people weren't so fake and easily manipulated, wondering what happened to what they thought to be the nicest man in the world they could trust. People today seem to have focused more on their inner lemming instead of focusing on their way of living. Yes, keep asking for respect and courtesy, while I look at the face of this society built on lies and broken promises, blood and the death of our families. You are the child that worries more about their feelings over the futures we are losing day by day as this world continues to accelerate into its last moments. You'd think the people would learn from what happened to Rome, but frankly people do not understand that stupidity is dark matter - it doesn't matter if you seen the mistake before - as long as you convince yourself that what you're doing is not the same as what they were doing, it's futile. The only way for people to accept their calamity is to be crushed metaphysically until they realize that they are nothing - they are a joke - they are the sole reason why this world is going to hell. I will continue to make people feel bad and the pain they denied throughout their life for temporary desires, while wondering why everything is on fire decades later doing absolutely nothing with their opaque lifestyles. I see this world for what it is - you and others see the world for what you want it to be. In turn, you want me to respect and be polite. Man does not fake passion. Man always fakes politeness. Welcome to hell, children
On balance, people who act obscenely/ are disruptive should not be treated as respectfully.

Thank you for your time, Aerogant, even though you disregarded the acceptance round and the "constructive cases only" request. Since the rules of this debate have already been broken, I'd like to refute one of the statements Con is making. He states that "1)The turd floats when it's healthy and sinks when it's not healthy, so when you're sinking below other people (which is why you whine and say someone is better than you), it's because you have a lot to learn from the turd". What he fails to realize is that floating stools are a sign of high fat content, which can indicate malabsorption, a condition in which you can't absorb enough fat and other nutrients from the food you"re ingesting. It"s associated with celiac disease or chronic pancreatitis. Therefore, his 1st contention is negated and he cannot use that analogy, because it has been proven that in actuality, floating stools are actually "not healthy." http://www.everydayhealth.com... With that being said, I do think that people who act obscenely should not deserve to be treated as respectfully, whether it's their appearance, or it's the way they act. People need to realize that these factors will influence the way people will perceive them. If you choose to present yourself, or act in a way that is obscene or disrespectful to people, these people should not have to treat you with as much respect. They will respect you again if you can clean up your act first. Vote Affirmative.
On balance, people who act obscenely/ are disruptive should not be treated as respectfully.

Oh my, what a Catch 22. This debate is all about behavior like mine (well, to anyone that has more than a hate and love switch attached to their brain, they can see that my 'unappealing' nature is admirable compared to say some of the real buffoons out there). Therefore I can either listen to the redundant man and his 'acceptance' rule, or I can break it by being "disruptive", while also at the same time being "productive", hence there's a button that says "accept", so what is the point of fearing that your opponent has "an edge" - I never fear this because nobody on here is worth being taught by; hell, the people on this site could learn a lot from a turd still, for an example: 1) The turd floats when it's healthy and sinks when it's not healthy, so when you're sinking below other people (which is why you whine and say someone is better than you), it's because you have a lot to learn from the turd, 2) The turd is one of the important symbols of in with the new; out with the old, but considering that you're lazy and resort to sarcasm and your own desire that lasts temporarily, you're not taking in the new - you're not freeing yourself from your old habits, which is to say that you are a very ancient turd, 3) The turd offends people, but it's something that they produce themselves, however they judge other people's turds forgetting their own turd, which is called a Disloyal Flush. How strange, I managed to argue the redundant man by simply making fun of him. Then again, people that don't kill off their old habits are nothing except predictable. Here's a principle: "He who must toil with a toilet has toiled with the wrong toilet." Flush or fold, that is the question and the answer. After all the fecal matter you've throne, we may need the ace of spades! Aerogant: "Combining two entirely irrelevant topics, bringing it together to flush out ancient turds since ever."
Girls are better than boys.

My opponent did not put forth a clear definition of the word better so I will take the liberty of doing it myself. "Better" will be defined as: "Of a more excellent or effective type or quality" Let's agree to not play any silly games of semantics as I feel like this is a topic that leaves many openings for such. No new arguments may be presented in the third round. I urge the viewers from making any comments that can help or hurt either party, and I also urge that you all vote based on who presented the best arguments, not which view you personally agree with. Kumite
Girls are better than boys.

Girls are better than boys. Look at it from this perspective. Girls are very neat and tidy, as well as well mannered and respectful. Boys, most are naughty and get in trouble more often than girls do. Girls are the only one who can have kids to grow the population.Also I got in Brisbane High and so did all the other girls did but not one single boy did. Boys are stronger but that doesn't always mean power and the best. Girls come and stand and show what we are!!! Creativity for one is a special talent girls are brought up with. Fluency is perfect. Pretty hair and a much better taste in fashion and cooking, and obviously a better person!! Girls are what we call the first class. There is a saying 'Ladies first' but no 'Men first' in any of our everyday language.Girls make better choices, for the future and cares about others as well as themselves. Girls have a good will to be who they are and have a true spirit. Not many girls steal or do any thing bad unless told. They have a mind which is well used. Girls have a talent of their own. They have a spirit. Come on girls! Show the boys who we are!
Girls are better than boys.

Thanks to Pro for the quick response. As you can see, pro has just admitted that she copied her 5 points from her friend. She also claims to have done a survey on the resolution, but she again fails to provide any evidence of such. Surely we are not expected to take her at her word here. To top it all off, my opponent started off as Pro for the resolution "Girls are better than boys" but then she finishes her last round by saying "My point is, now that I see that both girls and boys usefulness, I agree that boys and girls are equal and that without them, we will not exist." She has negated her own resolution by agreeing that Girls are equal to boys. Who was she agreeing with? I never said anything about both sexes being equal, but nevertheless, Pro has essentially lost this debate with her last few words.
Girls are better than boys.

Very Perspective... The points made below may be copied, but are my friends work so do not disrespect them. I have to prove my points done a survey. It wasn't a very big one, but exceptionally fair. I have asked random people to vote. Of course I have surveyed, 25 girls and 25 boys to make this fair for everyone. Surprisingly 5 boys voted that girls were better for certain reasons. Others voted for their gender. The 5 boys interested me in a very strange way. They did not say anything about talents or being powerful or usefulness. The five boys said, "As far as I know, over the past years, I've made many mistakes, all fixed by girls, for they knew how to overcome my problems." All the five boys said similar statements. My point is, now that I see that both girls and boys usefulness, I agree that boys and girls are equal and that without them, we will not exist.
Girls are better than boys.

Thank you for your speedy reply Pro. I would like to point out that Pro really did not make any arguments of her own. Pro s own words: "Girls, on the opposite is creative, have a better taste and is very tidy. Boys use power as girls use their brains. But look at it from this way. If we had no girls there will be no children. Also food is important and girls can cook the best. Normally mums cook instead of dads." She stated that without girls there would be no children, but she seems to forget that a baby sprouts from a diploid cell that is comprised of two haploids, sperm, and egg, each coming from the mother and father respectively. Without males, there would also be no children. Her points about girls using their brains, cooking better, being tidier, and more creative, are completely objective and she doesn't provide any sources to try and back them up. Her following statements don't deserve to be recognized because they clearly aren't her words. She appears to have copied and pasted her 5 points on why girls are better than boys from some Internet source, and she didn't even source them. I hope Pro is aware that the BOP is on her here and she's going to have to come up with some solid proof as to why her claim is right, otherwise she will lose this debate.
Girls are better than boys.

Fair words. This would definitely be an interesting topic. To start let me give you my reason of 'better' I believe that the word 'better' means a person who is helpful and is worth more than the other person. So lets look at it from this perspective. Boys are strong, helpful at work, good at lifting heavy things around the house.Girls, on the opposite is creative, have a better taste and is very tidy. Boys use power as girls use their brains. But look at it from this way. If we had no girls there will be no children. Also food is important and girls can cook the best. Normally mums cook instead of dads. So are boys better or girls?Five Reasons Girls Are Better Than Boys 5. Girls perform better at school Girls are more likely to achieve higher grades than boys at GCSE and A-level. Among the suggested explanations for this disparity is the tendency for girls to mature earlier than boys, and therefore to be easier to teach. Adolescence for girls usually begins at age 12, whereas boys start to mature, on average, two years later at age 14. Boys are also more prone to hyperactivity (ADD) and dyslexia, which may affect their performance in school. Are girls better than boys? What's your view? Join the discussion on our message board! 4. Women live longer UK life expectancy figures have increased dramatically over the past century (men and women born in 1901 were only expected to reach the ages of 48 and 51.6 respectively). But the gap separating the sexes still remains prominent. Figures for 2008 show life expectancy for men to be 77.2 years, while the average woman can expect to live until she is 81.5. Men are also much more likely to commit suicide: three-quarters of the suicides in 2007 were committed by men. This has been blamed on social expectations for men not to verbalise their emotions. 3. Women make better citizens In the UK, women make up less than 6 per cent of the total prison population (2005 statistics). It has been argued that the substantial gap between the number of male and female prisoners exists because judges show greater leniency towards female offenders in order to avoid separating mothers from children. Yet the nature of the crimes committed by women"the most common are shop-lifting, fraud and drug offences"differ from those committed by men, and suggest that female offenders pose less threat to public safety. More on Encarta " Top 10 Natural Remedies " 10 Things You Didn't Know About Chocolate " How Does Your Sat Nav Work? 2. Women are safer drivers Contrary to the popular stereotype, women are in fact safer drivers than men. In 2006 an overwhelming majority, 97 per cent, of motorists convicted of dangerous driving were male. While women are more likely to make low-level mistakes, such as stalling at a junction, men are prone to taking greater and more life-threatening risks, such as drink-driving or speeding.
Should students be made to go to school till the end of high school

Pro challenged me to this debate. He should have then followed through with well-researched arguments, and he should have not have forfeited the last round. It's disappointing because the topic is a good one. As it is, my six arguments made in the first round stand unrefuted by logic or data. The US has a serious problem with drop outs, but attempting to force students to attend school for many more years won't make them learn much, won't motivated them, and won't ensure they ever get a diploma. Japan has an enviably low drop-out rate despite having the last three years of school optional. The problem must be solved by attacking the problem of society having a low regard for education. This can be done by community leadership, encouraging parents to put a higher value on education, and through more counseling of at risk students. Requiring attendance pointlessly spends precious resources on the wrong approach. The resolution is negated.