BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Atheists should be allowed to marry.

So are you saying that atheists dont believe in science? Lets debate about THAT :DMy point was about how Con threw away the intention of my argument. It wasn't that I was claiming atheists didn't believe in science, but that it was not the only factor that made an atheist an atheist. So maybe a minute fraction of costs of weddings go to the churches. My point stands. More weddings = more money. Thanks, Con. Churches are private property when it comes to marriage and they have the right to decide who gets to get married in them through whatever criteria they set up. Just saying so doesn't make it true. .. .Well of course atheists should be allowed to marry, what idiot doesnt think so? Actually, there are many people who don't believe this, just google it. I only initiated this debate hoping that there was someone that actually believed that atheists should not be allowed to marry. I know one person in particular that believes that marriage, no matter where it is, is holy. Therefore, this debate was not for an easy win. Con just made it seem that way by not actually arguing. I merely hijacked it and took a hit to my win percentage so that this debate wouldnt clog up the challenge section like all the other debates also geared for an easy win. Again, this was not made for an easy win. Someone that disagreed could have easily accepted it. Con just did so before anyone who could've been serious about this debate could. Votes:Con continued to troll. I posed actual points, Con did not refute them. Con went off topic, and didn't cover the actual resolution. When Con mentioned the resolution, he claimed it to be in my favor.
Atheists should be allowed to marry.

I found Con's definitions of church to be quite hilarious, however unproductive they are to his argument.Awww you, I live to please ;DCon mistakes atheists again, but this time for people who believe in science. So are you saying that atheists dont believe in science? Lets debate about THAT :DJust because of this fact, does a church really have the RIGHT to ban them from marrying? No. Just saying no doesnt make it true....Wedding receptions cost a lot of money, and of course, money is paid to the churches. Because churches are generally non-profit, revenue from a wedding is just the way to keep running. More weddings = more money. Therefore, the more people that are able to marry, the more money that is given to the churches themselves.Churches are swimming in cash flow from people who think that a $20 donation will forgive all of their sins however mundane or severe they may be. Also the Churches dont sell them the wedding gowns, the food, the decorations, the furniture, etc, that comes from other companies so maybe a minute fraction of costs of weddings go to the churches. Also some churches arent non profit, and you havent even addressed the fact that Churches are private property when it comes to marriage and that they have the right to decide who gets to get married in them through whatever criteria they set up. "Athiests have a right to marry" is what Con says, and I agree. That is exactly what this debate is about, and therefore it will be counted as a concession to the resolution itself.Well of course atheists should be allowed to marry, what idiot doesnt think so? I merely tried to take this resolution geared for an easy win for you and tried to make it humorous so that people would actually read it rather than dismiss it as an easy win for the pro. Besides what actual argument is there against having atheists marry that actually holds water? Whether or not Con has continued to troll is up to the voters, but I beg a default win because the rule was that if he were to, I would win this debate automatically.You were gong to win this debate automatically from the start since its geared for an easy win. I merely hijacked it and took a hit to my win percentage so that this debate wouldnt clog up the challenge section like all the other debates also geared for an easy win, while at the same time debating somewhat about how atheists shouldnt be allowed to marry in Churches.....
Atheists should be allowed to marry.

Con drops the rest of pretty much everything I've just said, and argues only one point, that I claimed insignificant to this debate. As I am the framer of this resolution, and I told Con that this point could not be the only one, and will not hold up in this debate, I am defaulted the win if Con only uses this argument about churches. I found Con's definitions of church to be quite hilarious, however unproductive they are to his argument. Con mistakes atheists again, but this time for people who believe in science. This will not hold up in this debate, but I thought it was interesting, as that is in no way a definition of an atheist. I would also like to point out that atheists are not those who always insult religion, or are opposed to the idea of religion, but just people who don't personally believe in that religion. Just because of this fact, does a church really have the RIGHT to ban them from marrying? No. Wedding receptions cost a lot of money, and of course, money is paid to the churches. Because churches are generally non-profit, revenue from a wedding is just the way to keep running. More weddings = more money. Therefore, the more people that are able to marry, the more money that is given to the churches themselves. "Athiests have a right to marry" is what Con says, and I agree. That is exactly what this debate is about, and therefore it will be counted as a concession to the resolution itself. Because Con concedes to the entire resolution, he concedes to everything I've said in this debate. Whether or not Con has continued to troll is up to the voters, but I beg a default win because the rule was that if he were to, I would win this debate automatically.
Atheists should be allowed to marry.

"I will debate that atheists should marry in churches" Excellent >:) - In the Christian religion, a church is a building or structure to facilitate the meeting of its members according to Wikipedia. According to priests a church is the thing you go to every Sunday and if you dont then you will burn in hell forever. - According to anyone on the West Coast Church is that thing where you have to race through it so that you can get home in time for kickoff when it is during the NFL season. - According to the members of the Westboro Baptist Church a church is a free pass towards being ignorant a**holes and getting away with it - But to most of us church is simply the thing where you go to for 2 hours where the most interesting part of the service is getting the little holy Potato-Chip thing halfway through the ceremony. Regardless of where you live though churches are religious institutions that have the right to be able to decide who can marry inside them. Churches have the right to not allow gays, atheists, hindu's, buddists, jews, muslims, or black people to get married because these people either have contrary faiths to what the church practices and condones, or are black. Athiests can be a religious people but since they are neither members of the church they wish to marry in, nor even recognize that God exists, and actually believe in science, Churches have a good reason to not allow them to marry inside a church. Imagine if two Jews tried to get married in Hitlers front yard or if two black people wanted to get married in Jimtimmy's front yard, obviously the owners of those houses would not be pleased with what is going on and would much rather see them dead, and they have the right to not allow a couple to get married on their property because its their property. Athiests have a right to marry, but the location of where they have a right to marry becomes an issue because two athiests getting married in a church would be like both of them giving Christianity a vicious prostate exam, and that isnt right because we all know that only priests should be able to decide what they shove up someones a**hole whether it be their finger or something else....... The Pro hasnt made any arguments yet so I cant really rebut anything, so Ill end here for now. Athiests shouldnt be allowed to marry in Churches because churches have a right to choose who can marry
Atheists should be allowed to marry.

I will leave this round for the voters to do with, I suppose. However, the resolution stated "marry" and I mean "marry" in general, not specifically in church. I also will still be debating about atheists, not these athiests that Con keeps talking about. I will debate that atheists should marry in churches, but the resolution stands, and in this debate the only arguments that should gain votes from the voters are about marriage in general. The burden of proof rests on Con to prove that atheists should not marry (anywhere) at all.
Atheists should be allowed to marry.

I apologize for not knowing what the Pro meant by "definitions" I was thinking of something COMPLETELY different. As for the Pro's definitions to the words "Atheists" and "Marry" That Ive never heard of, Ill roll with it even though we all know what they really mean, so lets all pretend for a bit that athiets are people who dont believe in God and all that..After reading the Pro's argument I must say I applaud the Pro for managing to almost out-troll me and completely re-rail the debate I tried to de-rail in the first place, so I encourage people to give the Pro the one point of conduct as my own token of good will :)"I will leave it at these two contentions, making the purpose of this debate clear. I urge an immediate Conduct vote to Pro if Con continues to troll this debate."Dont worry I shall not troll anymore, I respect you know for doing what you did and now I shall debate the resolution about why Athiests should not be allowed to marry........................ In Church. I'll begin my arguments in the next round :)
Atheists should be allowed to marry.

There is to be no arguing of definitions, but the pro didnt give definitions of anything so now I can go ahead and give definitions and the Pro has to accept them since he cant argue the definitions. Athiests as we all know is an anagram thingy that stands for:AbnormallyTimidHedgehogsIndigenous toEasternSomalianTributariesSo Athiests are defined as Somalian Hedgehogs who are always pissed off and live only in the Somalian river tributaries....Marry is a word that we all know also is an anagram which stands for;MaimAllRepublicanRight-leaningYouthsSo this debate will be centered around why Somalian hedgehogs should have the right to decapitate, castrate, maim and gang-bang Republican children in America. The Pro has the BOP.First round is acceptance only. No non-semantics rule was given.Game on. Strap in folks because its going to be a wild ride ;D
Atheists should be allowed to marry.

My position is Pro in this debate and I believe that atheists should be allowed to marry. I have seen this debate around the Internet for some time now and figured I'd give my opinion on here before it explodes like the gay-marriage thing did.Rules:First Round AcceptanceNo aruments of definitions. If you debate this topic, you accept my definitions.No arguments in the last round.Cases may be longer than 8,000 characters, rebuttals may not, but it must be reasonable (the opposing side must be able to argue all points effectively).
Marijuana should be legal, and tobacco should be illegal.

Your argument has two contentions: tobacco should be illegal and marijuana should be legal. I disagree with half of it. Marijuana should be legal as well as tobacco because one can grow these naturally, and it not being interstate commerce, the federal government has no right to prohibit what one can ingest. You stated that tobacco is the second leading cause of death in the world (this isn't completely true, and it's mainly in the developed world- where people live long enough to die of cancer or respiratory disease), but what is the number one killer? In the US, it's heart disease! And this is caused in large part by the morbid (pun intended) obesity in America, and the unhealthy dietary habits caused by high-fructose corn syrup, saturated fats, and processing foods. Before I go to work (I work in a disgusting food establishment), I'll smoke a cigar to relax. And at work, I will serve 400 pound creatures food that will only increase their odds of heart failure. But food should be no more illegal than the cigar or cigarette I smoke on the way to work. If the government decided to regulate every industry that did harm, we'd likely have no industry. Now, the government should be able to regulate the tobacco industry because they are participating in commerce, which requires regulation. But as far as me growing a tobacco plant on my property, or a marijuana plant for that matter, they have no business doing so. As for your argument about second hand smoking, I understand your contention, and to an extent agree- but again, only the businesses where smoking takes place can be restricted. What someone does on their own property is beyond the government. And for your argument about the government making money, I don't care. They are corrupt and I have no sympathy for them losing money over the industry. Tax the CEOs higher than 18% capital gains. As for marijuana, I basically agree with you. But the government shouldn't sell it, and should only regulate the "industry" if one developed.
Marijuana should be legal, and tobacco should be illegal.

Thank you for accepting my challenge, and I enjoyed our debate last time as well. I believe it was a topic that not many people really want to touch on, but you stood your ground and you did so very well. This debate, I was simply bored and though it up, but I will go through it as planned . So marijuana should be legal and tobacco should be illegal. I say this simply because tobacco is more harmful to those who smoke it, as well as those who don't smoke it (second hand smoke), and if people are going to smoke marijuana is a healthier choice. Lets start off with the health factors. According to sources, http://www.mjlegal.org..., nicotine is highly addictive and is the active chemical in tobacco. The government does not want people to be addicted to drugs, especially those which are dangerous and harmful, therefore why does the government continue to allow tobacco products to be sold? Tobacco is the second leading cause of death in the world. People can not really escape being effected by tobacco. Even if one doesn't smoke it, they could become ill from second hand smoke. If you walk past people smoking outside, that effects you. If you walk past an area in a restaurant that is for smokers only, that effects you. If your family member, friends, or associate enjoys smoking and they do so around you, that effects you. Both of you could become ill, and it quite unfair to the person who has never smoked a day in his/her life. Now I know that I can not point the finger directly at tobacco for having health risks. Yes marijuana has health risks as well which include, impairment of thinking, heart problems, respiratory problems, and potential hallucinations. This health risks increase when the marijuana is not pure due to it being illegal, and drugs dealers change the natural state of the product. Natural marijuana has great health benefits, and is used in certain areas of the United States for health purposes. One could argue that tobacco was once used for health benefits with breathing problems and such in older times, but tobacco has also been altered by society itself in its legal state which has caused much harm to society in return. Trade If the government wants to make money , and is afraid to lose money from tobacco products marijuana would be a good replacement. It could be smoked, and many people if not more like it more than cigarettes. Marijuana could also be used for others things such as baking lol. It would also cut down on the crime rate because people would no longer have to worry about smuggling marijuana. Like I said, Im sorry for being lazy with this argument lol. I don't think it's a very strong one but I tried to put a lil effort into it instead of being lazy and forfeited. Go ahead buddy, your turn ;)
Sexuality is a Choice

My opponents spectacular failure to reproduce even ONE piece of evidence that I have EVER stated that 'sexuality is a choice' clearly negates the challenge itself, let alone his 'argument'. I accepted the challenge with the sole purpose of exposing his dishonesty. I am happy to have done so. The question from the forums remains and will NEVER go away: Does one become a homosexual after the very first desire for relations with a member of their own sex? YES or NO? How any of you vote is of absolutely ZERO interest to me.
Sexuality is a Choice

"I have never said that 'Sexuality is a choice'. My opponents gigantic failure to produce evidence to the contrary bares me out on this. " With respect my opponent chose to argue from this position when they accepted the debate challenge. It is not relevant to the debate whether or not my opponent ever argued this. They chose to argue as Pro on the issue that sexuality is a choice. "Sexuality refers to the mechanics of reproduction. The mechanics of reproduction include desire, action and biological processes. " Sexuality does not refer to the mechanics of reproduction. . http://www.dictionary.co.uk... The context in which the word sexuality was being used was defined in my opening argument. This was accepted by my opponent. "As members of the same sex CANNOT reproduce they cannot have a true sexuality between them. " This is incorrect as human sexual activity is not solely restricted to the reproductive act, for instance masturbation, oral sex, the use of contraceptives. To take my opponents statement to its logical conclusion would mean that true sexuality can not exist in pairings where one or both partners are infertile. This is clearly not the case. In any case my opponent should have attempted to clarify the terms prior to the debate. He has accepted my definition of sexuality and so this line is moot. "Heterosexual acts are a choice. " True, but we are discussing desire. "Heterosexual reproduction is a choice. " True to an extent. "Heterosexual desire is not a choice. " My opponent has rejected his own position and has conceded the argument. "So I would agree with the resolution (in this context) two thirds of the time. " The premise of the argument was 'Sexuality is a Choice'. I have taken Con, my opponent has taken Pro, if he admits that any form of sexuality is not a choice (which he has) then he has conceded the argument. I appreciate the fact that my opponent has ended up debating a position which he is unwilling to or unable to, but he had ample opportunity to ask for the terms of the debate be refined. "I wish to ask my opponent ONE question: Does ONE single solitary 'homosexual' desire make one a 'homosexual'? for life? " This question has no bearing on the argument and is poor conduct as it simply part of an ongoing 'flame' from the forums. It is inappropriate there and totally unacceptable here. In conclusion my opponent has failed to defend his position, and has actually rejected and argued against his position.
Sexuality is a Choice

I have never said that 'Sexuality is a choice'. My opponents gigantic failure to produce evidence to the contrary bares me out on this. Sexuality refers to the mechanics of reproduction. The mechanics of reproduction include desire, action and biological processes. As members of the same sex CANNOT reproduce they cannot have a true sexuality between them. Heterosexual acts are a choice. Heterosexual reproduction is a choice. Heterosexual desire is not a choice. So I would agree with the resolution (in this context) two thirds of the time. I wish to ask my opponent ONE question: Does ONE single solitary 'homosexual' desire make one a 'homosexual'? for life?
Sexuality is a Choice

"Please reproduce IN FULL where I have EVER said that sexuality is a choice. I NEVER have. " Well I understood that you had, and by accepting this challenge you have agreed to debate from that position. "Homosexuality (which is a misnomer as people of the same sex cannot breed which is what sexuality refers to) is a choice. " Sexual orientation is not dependent upon reproduction. All you have done is to reiterate without defence your position, that you are claiming that homosexual desires arise from a deliberate choice. Is this consistent with any experience, logic or facts. "ANY sexual act is a choice" This is irrelevant to the debate as we are not discussing acts but feelings. "Unless my opponent can show that I HAVE argued that sexuality is a choice he does not EVEN have a challenge, let alone an argument. " No, by accepting this challenge you have agreed to argue that sexuality is a choice, it is now irrelevant whether or not you have actually argued this previously. You could have asked for the terms of the debate to be changed, but you accepted them. In conclusion my oppoent has failed to argue for the Pro position and is in fact distancing himself from these views. Thus my opponents position is negated. Thank you.
Sexuality is a Choice

~"My opponent claims that a person's sexuality, that is to say the trigger of sexual feelings is decided by deliberate choice. Decide to be gay, and you will find yourself feeling sexual desire for people of the same gender." Please reproduce IN FULL where I have EVER said that sexuality is a choice. I NEVER have. Homosexuality (which is a misnomer as people of the same sex cannot breed which is what sexuality refers to) is a choice. ANY sexual act is a choice. Sexuality (heterosexuality) is not a choice but a default setting. Unless my opponent can show that I HAVE argued that sexuality is a choice he does not EVEN have a challenge, let alone an argument.
Sexuality is a Choice

My opponent claims that a person's sexuality, that is to say the trigger of sexual feelings is decided by deliberate choice. Decide to be gay, and you will find yourself feeling sexual desire for people of the same gender. I have argued consistently that is utterly false. The following arguments spring to mind, I, nor anyone else can remember a previous asexual period where we made a cold calculating deliberate choice to establish our sexuality. From what I can tell from personal experience sexual feelings arose unbidden. My opponents argument denies the existence of homosexuals who are wracked by fear or guilt and so keep their sexuality hidden. If sexuality was a choice why would they just select one more pleasing to their friends, family, or society. If sexuality were a choice might not certain liberally minded people chop and change on a whim, or choose permanently to be bisexual to experience as much as possible? What of paedophiles who are able to understand that their sexuality is 'wrong' and so demand treatment, or beg not to be released at the end of their sentence. If sexuality were a choice why not simply choose one more becoming? My opponent however is adamant that sexuality is a choice, so I look forward to his argument and rebuttal.
Guns... US

Full resolution: "Conceal carry laws reduce violent crime, and bun bans increase violent crime" I ARGUE CONCEAL CARRY REDUCES CRIME, AND BANNING GUNS RAISES CRIME My opponent argues the liberal side. BOP even. Definitions: Conceal carry = being allowed to carry guns Banning guns = no more private ownership of guns. This argument is on crime, not the constitution. Pretend the constitution is gone now. Also, I argue first only conceal carry, and then refute his case. His case is only on gun bans, and he only refutes my case. So out case is on one issue, then we have rebuttals. I wanna try that format, so we really only argue one subject, and rebut another. No semantics, trolling, etc.