BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I believe some people on this website are incompetent in making propositions.

As con, my position must be that I believe some people on this website are competent in making propositions. There are many members on this site who actually do a good job at making their propositions and follow up arguments. Some members I personally admire for this are as follows: joze14rock Randomknowledge clsmooth kvaughan Logical Master repete21 Harlan mikelwallace dairygirl4u2c Los_Altos_JW answermate FalseReality Fenrir bsergent Miserlou And those are only a few of them. Having read several of their debates, and debated with some, I find them to be superior to the average debaters, who not only word their propositions clearly and in a non-confusing manner, but also back them up using examples, evidence, etc. They form valid arguments in the first round, rather than the all too familiar "two sentence trap" where they will state only their proposition, waiting for a member to accept, and then bombarding them in the second round with information they failed to give. So there are members on this site who are competent in making propositions. While many members could use some work on their own propositions, they too are sometimes able to give valid arguments within a paragraph. Thus, I would have to say many members on this site are good proposition makers, and only a minority are a waste of time.
Same-Sex Marriage

The first and most important thing I would like to mention is that the Affirmative has dropped all arguments in the round. This means that I would win by default. No point the Affirmative has made is still standing. The only thing TrumptTrain did is answer my questions. I will respond to each one. 1. In the dilemma I presented, TrumpetTrain claimed that the Christian should quit his job if he really believed in God. However, the job and the belief in God don't have to conflict. My point is: It's wrong for the government to impose this new law. The person should not have to give up their job and the law is at fault. TrumpetTrain avoided my point so it still supports the negative. 2. In this question also the Affirmative avoided my point and attempted to twist it around to his side. I've already made my argument against this but I will say again: legalizing gay marriage prohibits many people from defending their own opinions. Most people have opinions and all should be legally permitted to defend them. His example is weak and I certainly hope TrumpetTrain isn't so stubborn that he wouldn't take conservatives as customers! Also, if you own a store, you can't just quit... it's your livelihood. No one should be forced to quit. This point flows to the Negative side as well. 3. Yes, judges, it is true that all humans have certain unalienable rights. These rights SHOULD BE upheld. Owning slaves has changed but the freedom to defend one's own beliefs has not. The Affirmative made no point here. 4. Opinions are important and we all should be able to defend them without the fear of losing our jobs. Again, this point flows to the Negative. 5. Irrational tolerance, as I've said this entire round, is a violation of human rights. Consequently, the Affirmative did not make any point here so this last point flows Negative. In conclusion, every argument made in this round supports the Negative side. The Affirmative has made arguments that advocate the violation of human rights. TrumpetTrain has not proved his point or supported his side with any substantial arguments. Please use discretion when voting and I strongly urge a Negative decision. It's been a pleasure debating, TrumpetTrain.
Same-Sex Marriage

Okay, I'll answer the questions if you stop whining: Would you be happy about giving up your job or the thing you loved to do most because of a government law standard? This question is invalid because it's a choice. A good Christian wouldn't put their job before God, because the truth is, if they DID love God, then they would quit their job, as their job is forcing them to sin. Simple as that. If you really weren't a sinner, you wouldn't put your job before god. Do you want to be free to defend your opinions? Yes. I do. And a good Christian would simply give a gay couple flowers, but say, "You know, you're sinning, and that's terrible." Also, if a Republican Conservative Against Gay Marriage walked into a flower shop, and I owned it, I wouldn't deny him. I would realize that people have different opinions, and though I disagree with those opinions, I still have to do my flipping job, and if I don't want to do 5% of the stuff in my job, I quit. Do you believe humans are entitled to certain unalienable rights, as defined by The Declaration of Independence? Well, a lot of rights have been taken away since 1776, like the right to own slaves, so technically, yes. Do you Have Opinions? Yes, I do. And if a Republican were to walk into a flower shop that I owned, I wouldn't deny them, because my opinions are my opinions, and though I disagree with people, I actually have this crazy thing called, "tolerance." Do you agree that gay marriage invokes the tolerance of other people? Yes. People need tolerance.
Same-Sex Marriage

My opponent has dropped my point about cherry-picking verses out of the Bible by not responding to me so, technically I would win on this point. He responded to my second and third points. Also, he answered none of my questions which means he agrees with me as far as those points go. Let's talk about his statistic responses first. I used a (valid) source that said 61% of Americans are Christians. TrumpetTrain countered that using http://www.pewforum.org... which says that 55% of Americans support gay rights. The thing to be noted about his source is that it does not mention the number of people polled, it may have been far less than the number of people polled in my source (800). Also this website is not a reliable statistic for how many people support gay marriage/rights. But my point was NOT that since the majority opposed gay rights, they should be outlawed. On the contrary, I was saying that there are still MANY people, a good percent of the population, whose rights and beliefs are offended by legalization of gay marriage. Even if I had used his sources, my point still would have been made. As far as the Hindu argument goes, there is nothing wrong with them being denied their service because the flower shop owner has opposing beliefs. That is not unconstitutional in the least. What is unconstitutional is the flower shop owner not having the freedom deny them. Judges, this one point is enough to warrant a negative vote. All unconstitutional standards ought to be outlawed. TrumpetTrain, at this point you cannot introduce any new arguments. You may still respond to my questions.
Same-Sex Marriage

Okay, so such a religion does not exist, where heterosexuality is opposed. BUT, in the Hindu religion, Homosexuality is supported. Heterosexuality is supported. Basically, both are seen as normal, so if a Homosexual were Hindu, and they were to go to a flower shop, then being denied their service is against THEIR religion. Also, your argument about how 61% of Americans oppose same sex marriage is obviously not valid, because according to THIS WEBSITE, DEBATE.ORG, only 27% of Users Oppose it, and their are many websites that say that homosexuality is supported by the majority of the population, http://www.pewforum.org... , and on the link I just listed, as of 2015, 55% of Americans support gay marriage rights.
Same-Sex Marriage

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it" --Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence. Already the Affirmative has proposed ideas contrary to that of our Founders' and in violation to basic human rights. To start off, I will organize the arguments my opponent made and then respond to all of them in order. I will conclude with some questions. Here are the arguments my opponent presented: 1. Christians cherry-pick only the verses out of the Bible that suit them. (Probably in response to the verse I used). 2. If we let religion dictate, any person can come up with any religion they like and say there can't be laws opposing it. 3. If a person's beliefs are violated, that person should change their job. Let's talk about the first point, that Christians cherry-pick verses. I agree that some other people who call themselves Christians like to choose only some verses out of the Bible, but not me. It just so happens that I used the verse in perfect context and in keeping with my point about Christian beliefs. See for yourself that I did not just "cherry-pick". https://www.biblegateway.com... I challenge my opponent to find any verses that I have overlooked. On to the second point, that of the dangers of religion. This is kind of a no-brainer. According to LifeSiteNews, 61% of Americans do not want gay marriage. https://www.lifesitenews.com... I challenge my opponent to come up with any statistics on how many people don't support heterosexual marriage. So far, TrumpetTrain, in the real world, such a religion does not exist. The last point the affirmative made is that if the flower shop owner felt his beliefs were violated, then he should quit his job. Forcing a person to either conform to things opposing their beliefs or quit their own job violates the Constitution as can be seen in Amendment 5 and the Declaration of Independence! This man owns a flower shop! You can't force anyone to give up their beliefs or their livelihood. That is basic human rights. No person should have to live avoiding all situations where their beliefs will be offended. Anyway, 83% of all people are Christians and it's not just flower shops where these new laws are infringing on their beliefs. Again, I have sources supporting all of my arguments. Finally, I have a few questions for TrumpetTrain, the first of which being: Do you believe humans are entitled to certain unalienable rights, as defined by The Declaration of Independence? Do you have opinions? (haha but we already know the answer to this one) Do you want to be free to defend your opinions? Do you agree that gay marriage invokes the tolerance of other people? Would you be happy about giving up your job or the thing you loved to do most because of a government law standard?
Same-Sex Marriage

Okay, you made a smart argument that I understand, but here's the truth: I'm sick of Christian Cherry-Pickers. Stop choosing which bible verses to follow and which to ignore. And basically, with your flower shop example, let's say MY religion says heterosexuality is wrong. Then I can not let you get flowers from my shop for marrying a woman. The truth is, Christians divorce ALL THE TIME. Kim Davis was on like, her 4th husband when she wouldn't let he homosexuals have their marriage license. I'm sick of the cherry-picking. Now, also, at a flower shop, if that guy is being forced to give a gay couple their flowers, here's a crazy idea: DON'T WORK AT THE FLOWER SHOP With this logic, an abortion doctor can deny EVERY abortion that comes his way because, "The Bible says it's wrong." If your going to be THAT ENTITLED to our opinion, that your going to deny people their service because your beliefs about some random thing written 3,500 years ago in a book is so important, quit your job, and find a job where you DON'T have to, "violate," your beliefs.
Same-Sex Marriage

I'm glad my opponent is very opinionated as this will prove to be an exciting debate. I will be courteous as long as my opponent is, too. I will focus on the religious and legislative aspects of this issue. I will argue why same-sex marriage is wrong and why it shouldn't be legal. If either side's ideas involves a violation in human morality or human rights, I would ask that the other side win automatically. That being said, best of luck to my opponent. TrumpetTrain has presented a two-part argument. 1. There is nothing offensive to Christianity about two people of the same gender having a "worthless ceremony". And then, 2. Conservatives have no problem with other sins being legal (like divorce). By his second point he has already given away that he agrees that Christians believe gay marriage is a sin. While it's true that gay marriage is a sin and that many Conservatives believe it should be outlawed solely because of that, I will not be arguing that way. Let me get some things straight. Gay marriage is a sin. But it also is much more than a sin between two people and THAT is why it should be outlawed. The Bible is clear that people are allowed to make their own decisions even if they have consequences. Paul, when he talks about sexual immorality in 1 Corinthians 6:12 says, "'I have the right to do anything,' you say-- but not everything is beneficial." Divorce, like my opponent said, is legal and conservatives are OK with it because they themselves know not to divorce their spouses. But what makes gay marriage legalization different? The answer to this question is how I will respond to my opponent's first point. My point is: 1. Gay marriage invokes tolerance of other people. Let's say a gay couple is getting married. They want to buy flowers from a certain flower shop. But the man who owns the flower shop doesn't support gay marriage. He doesn't want to supply them with flowers because it goes against his own, personal beliefs that he is entitled to. However, BY LAW this flower shop owner cannot turn them away. This is the difference between same-sex marriage and divorce. Other people are being obligated to support gay people against their beliefs. I have evidence for all my arguments available upon the affirmative's request.
Heroin (and other opioids) should be dispensed legally

Pro's argument is that we should actively distribute these illegal substances instead of simply making them legal. He argues that we shouldn't even try to get addicts to quit taking these illicit substances, but let them keep doing it since they will eventually enter 'spontaneous remission' anyway. Knowing this, my grounds for opposition will be to argue that we shouldn't encourage others to use these illicit substances, but that we shouldn't prosecute them for using them either. Instead the solution is to simply make usage of these substances legal and allow the market and society to solve the problem itself. Before I get into my arguments any further, I should note that my opponent has failed to provide any evidence for anything he has state thus far. Evidence is not always necessary for a debate, especially when there are premises that both sides openly agree on. However when the likes of 'Spontaneous Remission' are made, legitimate evidence is necessary to show that said claims are true. I challenge Pro to provide evidence for the arguments he has already made in this debate in his next round. To make this claim fair, I will not source my arguments until he does so. With that out of the way, my argument is that we should in no way encourage use of such dangerous substances, but we shouldn't prohibit either. The natural precedent to look at for such an issue is prohibition. After making this substance illegal the nation entered a period of immorality and high crime rates. It should be interesting to note that substances such as heroin and other opiates were once legal as well, but when they were outlawed the reaction was not as severe, but we'll get to the impacts of that in just a moment. The attempt to regulate morality here backfired and prohibition was eventually repealed. Since then public concern and social movements have done a much better job at lowering usage of alcohol than policing morality ever have. If we were to allow heroin and other opiates to follow this precedent, then we would also leave such social programs in place to take care of this problem. Making it legal would take the danger out of heroin usage, but still provide an outlet to treat addiction as an issue of public health.
Heroin (and other opioids) should be dispensed legally

Current policy combating drug use and drug addiction has had catastrophic results. Crime is rampant, stemming from both the organized groups currently controlling the supply of drugs as well as the addicts who seek alternative sources of revenue to feed their habits. Death and disease are rampant as users must cope with a wide range of issues stemming from the black market, including drugs cut with dangerous substances, lack of dosage consistency, lack of proper sanitation, and dangerous misinformation spread by both the government as well as users. The answer is to dispense opioid drugs within a legal framework directly to users safely and for a low price. This would solve most of the issues caused by the black market. Drugs would be pure and consistent, greatly reducing the chance of overdose or dangerous contamination. Users can be encouraged to use clean equipment for injection and provided with fresh gear for each use, reducing infection as well as the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. With a cheap supply of their drug of choice, addicts are far less likely to commit crimes for their drugs as opioid consumption reaches a plateau once a certain threshold is reached, allowing addicts to stabilize and maintain at a set dosage. It is likely that even the spread of opioid use and addiction would be reduced, as a large portion of new users come about as a result of having the drug "pushed" onto them by a friend or acquaintance who is selling to feed their own habit. With drug dealing impossible to profit off combined with the fact that addicts would no longer need exorbitant amounts of money to keep a heavy habit in check, pushers would practically disappear, limiting the exposure to the uninitiated. With a system that encourages stability and health rather than abstinence, users are no longer marginalized or dehumanized. Opioids use does not cause significant long term health effects and a habit can be maintained for decades without much consequence. Rather than pushing users to quit, we should be pushing them to integrate with society, find suitable jobs, stay healthy, and avoid crime. A large percentage of addicts who quit do so not as a result of rehab or direct intervention, but rather as a result of "spontaneous remission". The longer an addict is addicted, the better chance per year they have of experiencing "spontaneous remission" and quitting of their own accord. An addict cannot experience spontaneous remission if they are dead. Current policies result in very high mortality rates for addicts. By reducing mortality rates with humane policies, addicts can be kept alive and healthy for far longer, greatly increasing their chance of remission and living a sober life. Feel free to contest any of my points or raise your own.
Woman in Islam Protected(Pro) or Subjugated(Con)

In the name of God Most Gracious, Most Merciful..Its one of the most discussed topic regarding Islam and one of the most criticized issue of today's age. We now have Feminism Womenism and many other Movements Rising for the Rights of Woman Liberation and Their Stand in Society.. but I believe Unknowingly and Knowingly People Ignore the best laid laws & systems which are ultimate to protect the dignity respect and status of Woman in society! So Here My Argument is that Islam has given Women the best Possible Status on This Earth .. and People are not aware of it..Rules: Con must be a dignified learned person who have faith in liberation and Respectfulness. No Hatred but Better Understanding. Con can present BOP or ask BOP No Arguments in Last Round. Evidence can be History, Proven Facts, Fair Logic. No Talk without Proof or evidence. *Debate is about Status of Women in Islam* not how people are following it please do not go out of context. Purpose: Well the purpose of my previous, this and up coming debates is never to hurt any personal or private feelings of anyone I believe the purpose always be to learn and seek knowledge and establish Truth & the right facts for the people out there and to make people understand the difference between Rational & Irrational Thoughts.
This House would return all cultural and national treasures to the country of origin

To start off I feel that if the artifacts were kept in one large museum in a big city such as London or New York it would be accessible to tourist, scholars, historians. To add do you really think that 3rd world countries like Zambia would take are of these priceless artifacts? Obviously not . they are under going worse things. It would be much more safer in well protected museums. Also where do you think these artifacts would be more appreciated? Bring it on!! :)
The Newfoundland seal hunt should not be abolished.

It is indeed true that Australia kills, eats and exports kangaroo in an even worse way than the seal hunt, but I don't support it anymore than I do the seal hunt. I also object to your calling animals "natural resources". Humans are technically animals too but it's illegal to use humans in any similar way. Other animals are not there for us to use as resources. They are here for the same reason we are (no philosophical debate intends to be started with this) instead of to be used for our benefit. I misunderstand you not so I would plead one last time that you stop saying that. Just because the seal hunt is 300 years old doesn't make it any less wrong. Not to mention that this is not 300 years ago, this the year 2008 and things have changed. As for being the natives' food source, that is slightly more acceptable because it would have been one of the only sources of food. As a source of jobs for the locals however, I think anyone cruel enough to take a job killing seals deserves to be out of work. And if the seals really are running out of food, how about trying a different tactic, say, relocation of the seals. (As I rightly don't live there I'm not sure that would necessarily work but I am sure there must be a better way). The baby seal I was referring to was the one that was killed. Furthermore, your province can find a different investment. There are more important things than money unless you happen to be a very heartless person. I can see the importance of the seal hunt but I don't see why you don't regret having to murder living things and try to find any possible alternative. A rifle would look just as cruel to me anyway so I guess that haqa' pik is the best way but... "The bullets could very well ricochet and hit a hunter or another seal" - and of course that would be a terrible tragedy for the hunters, right? "This is a common misconception due to the frequent pictures in anti-seal hunt slide shows of cute little baby seals covered in white fur." - while I understand this and agree and do indeed mistrust such things, I do believe they do sometimes at least kill the cubs as well. The point is, murdering a seal is no less cruel than murdering a human. While the need for jobs/money etc. is clear, the seal hunt should not be the way to go. And although human nature seems to dictate such a thing, it doesn't mean we have to stick to it.