BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Polygamy should be legalized in the United States

The doubling of American support for polygamy is certainly interesting, and it may very well be indicative of a broader trend, but extrapolating and assuming that this naturally means that in time most Americans will support it isn't really a sound argument. Even if it was, the fact of the matter is that right now, only a very small number support it. If at some point in the future this were to change, the law could be reconsidered, but at this point it doesn't make any sense to legislate in terms of how people might feel in a couple decades. You seem to have a pretty optimistic view of how divorces work, but the reality is that dividing assets between even two people can be an extremely arduous and costly affair involving complicated legal deliberation. Attempting to arbitrate a divorce between three or more people would be even more of a disaster. In terms of your points on the comparison to gay marriage, I take issue with your claim that the concerns of most religious people were that their clerics would be forced to marry gay couples considering that's patently false (https://www.au.org...). Case in point, gay marriage is legal now and priests aren't being forced to officiate gay weddings. The reason people take issue with certain forms of marriage being legalized is because they see them as being an affront to their religiously-based idea of what marriage is supposed to be. Sure it may not be fair, and sure it may not affect their lives, but that's simply how a large portion of the population feels. The opposition to gay marriage was forceful enough, and that's something that over 50% of Americans are in support of at this point, so it's not unreasonable to assume that public outcry would be extremely strong.
Polygamy should be legalized in the United States

First I would like to bring up this article on your point that not many Americans morally accept polygamy. According to http://www.thedailybeast.com... while polygamy is only at 16% the morality of the action has doubled in support from 7% in other words day by day it grows more acceptable and popular among the American people. Yes there are complications about polygamy such as the things that you have brought up but those are easily solvable by splitting up the assets accordingly just as you would do with a divorce. You are acting like women would not have rights if marriages were polygamous if a spouse doesn't like another spouse she can simply leave and take a percentage of whatever the husband/wife they are married to and be done with it. People raged over same-sex marriage not because it was gay marriage but because of the fact that the law was throwing away the religious beliefs of the people and forcing priests to marry gay couples. This would not be the case since you could just get a marriage by the state most of the moral outcry about polygamy wouldn't and shouldn't matter because it is effecting no one else's life but those involved
Polygamy should be legalized in the United States

Polygamy may seem like an appealing option on the surface, but there are a lot of muddy details that make it unfeasible for legal implementation. For one thing, there is the issue of a death in the family. If one spouse is to die, how is it determined which of the other spouses receive their assets if no will is drafted? Additionally, in the case of plural marriages with one man and multiple women, the male often takes a patriarchal role in the relationship in which all of the women are effectively his spouse, but not spouses to each other. If this male figure is to pass away, how is the legal status sorted out of the remaining living spouses? And what if one spouse wants another person to enter into the marriage but the others do not? Would unanimous agreement be required, or would it only take a majority of the spouses to agree? The legal implementation problems alone make polygamy a tough sell. This, however, pales in comparison to the moral outrage that a majority of Americans would exhibit. A mere 14% of Americans consider polygamy to be morally acceptable, according to Gallup. If so few people can stomach the idea of plural marriage being legal in their country, how would they react if it was allowed? The public outcry would be overwhelming. The rage exhibited by the religious right after the Obergfell v. Hodges Supreme Court decision which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide was strong enough; imagine how these same people would react if what they viewed as the "sanctity of marriage" was trampled once more.
Polygamy should be legalized in the United States

I believe that polygamy should be legalized because making it illegal is the same way as saying you can't have multiple husbands/wives because the state and country said so. This is the country of the free and home of the brave. We have the right to cheat so why do we not have the right to be married to multiple people. Maybe multiple people like one person but since that person can only choose one what about the other one or two. I believe most disputes about marriage can be settled if they legalized polygamy.
Polygamy should be legalized in the United States

I don't necessarily feel that it's fair to put the onus on married people to accept the possible consequences of divorce when getting married, especially not in the case of plural marriage when the desire for divorce of one partner in the relationship could adversely affect multiple other members even if they had no desire for such a divorce. The greater number of people involved, the more likely it becomes that individuals will be forced to face legal and financial hardship for something that is not their fault. This, to me, does not seem fair, especially when considering the complexities that come along with divorce. TV indeed portrays more than one example of happy polygamous families through the use of reality shows, though as we all know, these shows are often far from reality. The image of a happy unconventional family is what people want to see, and the networks have motivation to portray them as such for ratings and financial gain. Using a program like Sister Wives to exemplify why polygamy should be legal is sort of like using a show like Will and Grace to promote gay marriage. Culturally influential in increasing tolerance of social behaviors previously (or currently) considered taboo? Most certainly. But not valid basis for any legislation. It is without question that polygamists desire marriage the same as anyone else does. From the inside looking out, it is easy for them to feel this way. But America is a democracy, and it is the government's responsibility to represent the will of its people. When the vast majority of Americans are against the idea of legalizing plural marriage, the government's hands are tied. There is simply no way they can sell the idea of legal polygamy to a country so vehemently against the concept. With that, I close my argument. Thank you as well for an engaging debate.
Polygamy should be legalized in the United States

Since this is the last round of the debate I would like to state your point in divorce being complicated but the fact that the people involved knew the consequences that they were getting into when they decided to marry then they should know what consequences would come with divorce, but I digress back to the main topic I would also like to bring this up as an example of polygamous marriage if you have watched TV you may have heard of the popular reality show Sister Wives in which one man is not legally married but in a relationship to four other women. In the show they had their hardships and disagreements like any other couple but they still came out strong and together just like any normal family would. Polygamous marriage while not accepted by the majority of Americans as of yet is still growing popular and desired. Polygamists have welcomed the support of gay marriage and in turn should get the support for their marriage if all marriage should be noticed than why not polygamous it is a human right and therefore should be a national right. I say this in my closing argument thank you and thank you for the exciting debate on this topic.
Cap-and-Trade Will Bring Upon the Ruin of the USA

Unfortunately, my opponent forfeited Round 2. I hope he can post an argument for the next round. Extend all my previous arguments. Despite its irrelevance, I would like to challenge my opponent's point B. The Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan organization, estimated that a cap-and-trade program such as the one in H.R. 2454 in 2020 would cost the average household in America $175 annually. [1] This is not an increase of almost 90%. The report also stated, "Households in the lowest income quintile would see an average net benefit of about $40 in 2020." This means that energy costs for Americans in the lowest income quintile would actually drop. The analysis didn't take subsidies into account, which encourage energy efficiency and developing new technologies. The Center for American Progress estimates that a clean energy standard will save Americans $95 billion in energy costs in 2025. [2] There are more benefits to a cap-and-trade system. The Center for American Progress estimated that spending on clean-energy investments could generate 1.7 million U.S. jobs. [3] They estimate that 16.7 jobs are created for every $1 million spent in clean-energy investments. They contend that fossil fuels only generate 5.3 jobs for every $1 million in investment. I have shown numerous advantages of having a cap-and-trade system. A cap-and-trade system will ultimately help our environment by lowering pollution. It will help us become more energy-efficient as we move toward renewable energies. It will generate many jobs and much revenue. What I have not seen is that it will bring upon the ruin of the USA. There's no evidence to back this claim, and my opponent has failed to affirm the resolution. The resolution has been negated. [1] http://energycommerce.house.gov... [2] http://www.americanprogress.org... [3] http://www.americanprogress.org...
Cap-and-Trade Will Bring Upon the Ruin of the USA

Cap-and-Trade is a Bill that has sadly made it through the House of Representatives. It is a bill that has been created to "combat global warming" and to "lower the dangerous levels of CO2 in the air". To do this Cap-and-Trade will set up a hugely bureaucratic system that would assign tax credits to a certain amount of CO2 emmisions. Say a factory is producing 50 tons of CO2 a day (this is just a made up scenario based on no actual figures) Cap-and-Trade would say that this company has to pay 25 million dollars for every 10 tons of CO2 released, so theoretically this company would have to pay 125 million dollars that day. They would literally be taxing emmisions. Also though companies can earn "Green Points" for doing "green" things. I do not know what this entails but it is in the bill. I'm assuming that means if a company does something like install solar panels they get a "Green Point" but I do not know what these green points do. Also companies can trade or buy "green points" from other companies. This is my understanding of this bill. I would like to make a few points: A- Global Warming doesn't exist. I think this bill is especially stupid because it is based on a theory that doesn't exist. Even if global warming does exist (which I don't believe) it has not been sufficiently proven and supported with evidence. B- It has been studied and said that this bill will raise American energy prices by almost 90%. Gas will raise by 55%, natural gas by 56%. This bill is going to raise the price of energy so that it almost doubles. This will crush what is left of our measly economy and force hundreds of small businesses and factories to close. The American consumer and average American family would have to put a lot more money forward to pay for gas and utilities grinding spending to a halt. This is going to sink the economy. C- It will shrink production by 3% each year. 3% is a huge number of factories and businesses across the country. Why I think this bill will ruin America? With the economy already in shambles this bill will destroy it. Americans wont have money to spend on anything but utilities which will use the money to pay for the new taxes. With production and jobs down who is going to pick up the pieces? China of course. If American production sinks it will only boost Chinese production. China is not going to be abiding by these new environmental rules so they will be producing just as much if not more Co2 as they always have rendering this bill useless. This will lock up all US money and give it all to the already too big government grinding everything to a complete halt. This will knock the US off the top seed in the world as other countries will pick up our slack. The ruin of America.
Radiometric dating is reliable

Definition: a method of dating geological specimens by determining the relative proportions of particular radioactive isotopes present in a sample.http://oxforddictionaries.com...Radiometric dating: How does it work?Some atoms are unstable, which causes them to emit rays which can be both alpha, beta or gamma rays. This makes them change depending on the ray they emit, they change accordingly. But different atoms have different rates in which they decay, these decay rates are called "half-lives". For example, the common radiocarbon dating method has a half-life of around 5730 years, meaning, thats the time it takes for the amount of carbon-14 to decay half of it away, for example 1 kg to 500gr. After another 5730 that 500 gr. becomes 250 gr and so on.With this knowledge of a certain half life, we can measure the amount of isotopes, and see their relative amount to each other, and then look at its half-life to calculate the age of the given thing you date.Of course, different methods have different places in which it will yield good results and bad results. For example, the Argon method gets reset when the given material gets reheated to a molten state, for one. Besides, when you do measurements you want to pick the correct radioactive isotopes compared to the age that is most likely for the given thing. Meaning, radiocarbon should not be used on some dinosaur bone which has no radiocarbon left. Or an isotope with extremely long half-life shouldn't be used on small ages, because the relative difference would either not exist, or be too small for measurement.Radiometric dating: Should we trust it?Yes, because it gives consistent dates when used correctly. For example, a lot of different datings upon meteorites all shows that the solar system is around 4.5 billion years old. What more could you ask for than consistent results across different radiometric datings?http://www.talkorigins.org...
Radiometric dating is reliable

Objective or not objectiveMy opponent rightly points out a flaw in my typing, but not my argument. When I pointed out that we objectively know that the world is round, I meant to enclose objectively in quotation marks to denote that I was using it somewhat capriciously. I would like to highlight a few statement in my opponent's response."I agree with him that we will never be able to confirm whether or not something is "capital T-Truth"" - My opponent has admitted that objective truth is inaccessible."Something does not have to be true, to be reliable." - But if something is not objectively true, how do we know it will not change? Also, how do we know when the scale becomes "unreliable." If we know that newton's law of universal gravitation is wrong, then our measurements are not correct... they are simply not precise enough to show us the error. If the equation doesn't work, it doesn't work. At what point does radiometric dating become incorrect? 10,000 years? 100,000 years? 1,000,000 years? How do we know? And if we don't know when it becomes unreliable, how can we trust its reliablility? What if we think it is reliable at a given point but we are wrong about that?"Radiometric dating has been done with such isotopes as carbon-14 on material with known ages" - If we cannot know anything objectively (which my opponent has conceeded to above), how can we say it is a known age? What if all of our memories of the past are part of the computer simulation we are a part of? What if the alien fell asleep 5 minutes ago, but his dream includes an entire history?I could go on, but I think my point has been made. The simple fact, and a fact my opponent has conceded, is that we cannot know anything objectively. Allow me to close with a syllogism that I think will be helpful.A) In order for something to be reliable, we must be able to rely on it.B) In order to rely on something, we must objectively know it is reliable.C) We cannot know anything objectivelyD) We cannot know a thing is reliable objectivelyE) We cannot rely on anythingF) Radiometric dating is a thingG) We cannot rely on radiometric datingH) Therefore: Radiometric dating is not reliable.Thank you.
Everyone should have an equal and fair start in life.

Currently there's a lot of inequality worldwide. The richest 1 percent of the world has the twice the amount of money as the poorest 50 percent. And there's said that inequality is growing(World Inequality Report). I think if people out of every country have the chance to educate themselves, the global world will have a huge advantage out of it. Because if inequality shrinks then poor countries can join more in the world trade, which offers new opportunities. With this topic I don't want to say that everyone should earn the same amount of money. But I want to say that every child should have the same start from birth on, or anyway a more equal start. And this should maintain the same rights for everyone. If everyone around the globe could have the same start, great talent could rise and it would give an opportunity to countries to invest more in other problems as climate change. If you have a different opinion on this topic please share it.
The Trinity is not biblical. Totally a man made false teaching.

Just because the women was from Nod does not mean she was not Cain's wive I mean years after Cain's banishment EVE had many children and Yeas later one of those children could of meet Cain in Nod. Adam was not God no where in the Bible dose it say Adam was God You would think Christ would say that something about it wouldn't you. The Creation story in not a alagory that would mean that the religions leaders were fooled that Cain and able were fooled that all the people and theologians are fooled and the apostle Paul was fooled. That would also mean that if Adam was God then God must not be God if he SINED which is something God cannot do He cannot sin along with the two other things he cant do which include God cannot change and God cannot let sinners into heaven. Second Thing I think I proved that The Trinity is a biblical concept which is why I accepted and was the original subject. So good bey and Good day.
The Trinity is not biblical. Totally a man made false teaching.

However my message is too advanced for my opponent to understand. I am sorry if the meat of my message choke"s the bottle feed baby. I refute you false statement that Gen.1 & 2 are the same story of Adam. I refute your false statement that I am off subject! The subject is One God vs Trinity. The Spirit of God created the World. The Father is Adam the man in the Royal Line of David, The Son is Christ who was crucified and rose on the third day! 1. Your religion is wrong about Adam and is wrong about your trinity. 2. The Christian religion teach a different Jesus. 3. Christ claimed to be the root of David, meaning that Adam is the first man in David"s bloodline. 4. Cain was not Adam"s son. Cain did come out of Eve. 5. Cain has a different bloodline other than Adam. Why? Cain not Adam"s See Gen 4. Also Cain did not marry his half sister. He married a woman from Nod. Gen_4:16, And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. Gen_4:17, And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch. 6. My opponent shows more ignorance by this statement: 'Second think We think Mosses wrote Genesis so for other people to relate geographically he had to reference places and nations that were obviously not nations and people at creation So he was basically laying out a map to people to try to tell where events in the Bible took place that fit with what was back then modern scocity. " I will refute and educate my opponents"s refuting his false claim: Eden was where the Tigris and Euphrates river"s meet. For the record the Euphrates nor Egypt nor Ethiopia has ever moved or changed. My opponent speaks on what "WE THINK"? Who is WE? Why do you blindly follow the crowd? Mat_7:13, Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Mat_7:14, Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. Mat_7:15, Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Mat_7:16, Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Mat_7:17, Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. Mat_7:18, A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Mat_7:19, Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
The Trinity is not biblical. Totally a man made false teaching.

Um my opponent seems that he is off the original Trinity subject now. My opponent still has not given any rebukes for my argument about in the Name of the Father and Of the Son and of the Holy Spirit nor any of the verses I just put out about the Trinity. I would love to get back to Trinity please. In the meantime through..... Cain would have married one of his sisters the Bible dose not say that Cain after being banished got married right away it could have been several years latter that he married. Second think We think Mosses wrote Genesis so for other people to relate geographicaly he had to reference places and nations that were obviously not nations and people at creation So he was basically laying out a map to people to try to tell where events in the Bible took place that fit with what was back then modern scocity.