BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Rights of lesbian mothers

Simply put, I feel that by stating you are pro Gay Rights, yet not on the subject of parental rights is completely contradictory to the position you are taking. I am in no way indicating that because your opinion differs with mine it is in any way less relevant. I am arguing however, that I do not see how a person can say they are pro gay rights yet pick and choose what rights should be afforded. In my opinion, either you are pro gay rights or not.
Rights of lesbian mothers

I will be taking the stance on the rights and well being of the children. I will argue from the prompt, in saying my position is that homosexual relationships, including lesbians, have no right to raise children. I will include in my debate for the sake of the posters specific scenario, but will also expand the reasoning to cover all homosexual couples. I will include before the debate that I am pro gay rights in matters of being recognized as a union, and that they should have the same rights as any other married couple in terms of insurance policies and other financial matters. But I also believe that homosexuality goes out of the boundaries of seeking truth through God, and goes out of the boundaries of scientific design. I will then pose my main argument that children should not be able to e brought up in any unfit environment, which in my argument will include a homosexual run household.
Without God there can be no absolute morals.

Please Everyone who reads this look up how an if then logical statement works. My opponent is falling prey to the fallacy of denying the antecedent. Or look at how the truth table for the if then statement works. the only way to prove without God there can be no morals is to prove that there could be morals without God X , Y, X>Y T, T, T T, F, F F, T, T F, F, T Your difference is only based on why the person says they are acting. The only difference between an egoist and an utilitarian is that an egoist won't let himself be hurt for the greater good. I have a distaste towards moralism and would like to see it eradicated. I never claimed that people didn't actually exist. But to you they never exist as they do to themselves, that is to say as people, they only exists as objects in your perception. Empathy is you putting yourself in their place not putting them in your place. It assumes that they feel the same way as you do. Some people do feel empathy towards objects. You can perceive what its like to be outside of yourself, but you can never know if your perception is right. "if the lives of humans depend on each other - something my opponent does not contest - then you do have an absolute duty to them." This is unproven. My life depends on water do I have a duty to water? 8. If you're computer never receives a program. Then to your computer the program does not exist. 9. I don't know maybe God is part of who you are. 10. Yes, Yes, there are no rights. My point is not that small moral dilemmas have no solution, but that all moral dilemmas have no solution. 11. God does not exist in the universe I am positing so he can't be the source of anything. 13. Fine then we are in agreement over that. 14. There are many forms of power but yes it is. They still make choices however heavily influenced they are. 15. Well it is a reason why people value their existence and happiness over others. But I agree it isn't that important anymore. 17. A carnival is a bad example because it is not itself a made up social construct that purports to be a prescription of how you live your life. Basically everyone is saying act this way, I am saying that we don't need to listen. 18. Looking from outside your perspective is impossible. I too assume people are real, but they still aren't in my mind, and I still selectively care about them. 19. I am saying that a moral dilemma where acting moral helps you is not a problem for the immoralist/ammoralist. they can act in their own interest even when it helps others. 20. If people are just objects to your perception, then you don't have moral duties to them. people are just objects to your perception. therefore etc. 21. I thought we were here to become better people or enjoy ourselves not quibble over rules. My opening responds to the rest.
gun control

Too many criminals purchase guns legally and use them to commit crimes. Buyers that purchase firearms through private sales in the U.S. don't have to pass a background check before obtaining possession of the weapon. This includes sales to criminals, felons, and people with a history of severe mental illness. Close to 33,000 Americans were victims of gun-related deaths in 2011 and an average of 268 citizens are shot every day. Having a legal gun doesn"t mean crime is going to stop those that have them legal are going to commit crime too, I know is not possible to get rid off of every illegal guns but we also have to get rid of those that are legal in the wrong hand.
gun control

Most violent crimes are committed with guns, but Illegal ones! 90% of those violent crimes are committed by guns that are already illegal so how exactly is making 100% of weapons illegal going to help? This would be counter-productive. If you think the violent crime stats are bad now just wait until there is not deterrent to prevent criminals from committing these violent crimes. The sad truth is that there has been violent and evil people since the beginning of time and they are not going away. The police are not always going to be there. The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to have a good guy with a gun. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Spoons don't make people fat and cars don't drive drunk, people do! Also, someone who is suicidal will still find a way to kill themselves if they don't have access to a gun. People need to be better educated on weapon safety to prevent accidental shootings. A well educated gun owner is a lot safer than the rest.
gun control

Most violent crimes are committed with guns; thus, restricting gun ownership will likely reduce the number of such crimes. Lunatics, bullied school kids, disgruntled workers, and others can inflict mass casualties with guns that otherwise wouldn't be possible. A crime victim who has a gun may be in more danger than an unarmed person since the criminal may kill in perceived self-defense. Suicides and crimes of passion are higher with gun availability, as it's much easier to act immediately on your impulses when a gun is available Legalized gun ownership means guns have a greater chance of falling into the hands of kids, potentially resulting in some deadly accidents Guns are not safe. There are too many accidents involving children playing with guns or accidental discharges due to careless or inexperienced adults.
gun control

While firearms may be the leading cause of homicide, only about 3 to 11 percent of murders and crimes are committed by people who purchased their weapons legally according to a study done by MSCNBC's Joe Scarborough. If Americans are forced to hand over their weapons, only the good citizens are going to turn them in leaving criminals with overwhelming firepower. Two thirds of the people who die from gunfire are criminals being shot by other criminals. 60% of convicted felons admit they avoid committing crimes when they KNEW the victim had a firearm and 40% avoided it when they THOUGHT the victim had a firearm. Since 1950, every mass shooting, with the exception of one, has taken place where citizens where banned from carrying guns. Europe has some of the strictest gun laws and is home to 3 out of the 6 worst schools shootings ever. It is every citizens right to own a firearm for their protection if they choose. Also, a government should have a certain fear of its citizens to keep things fair. There is a reason the 2nd amendment was created and it is to allow the common person the right of self-protection and the resistance of oppression.
gun control

Making gun control more restrictive is not the answer to a safer way of life. The second amendment was put in place to allow citizens the ability to protect themselves and their assets. Outlawing guns will only prevent the law abiding citizens from having access to firearms. Criminals will always find a way to get their hands on what they want. Most drugs are illegal but there are still drug addicts. By taking away the ability for good people to own guns you also take away any deterrent that criminals may see. If a person plans to shot up a school or a hospital, simply posting " no guns allowed" isn't going to stop them. However, if there is a chance someone in that area has a gun, they might think twice. .
It is more probable that God exist than that God does not exist

If I understand correctly, your first main argument is that a deity must have created the universe. But, The First Cause Argument, or Cosmological Argument is internally contradictory and raises the following questions: Who or what created god? Why can't the universe be causeless? Why should a hypothetical ‘cause' have any of the common attributes of a god? Why is the ‘cause' a specific god? and most importantly: Why rule out all other possible explanations? Your second argument seems to be Argument from ignorance, a common attempt to shift the burden of proof or ‘make room' for a god. Yhis represents a type of false dichotomy that excludes the fact that there is insufficient investigation and the proposition has not yet been proven either true or false. The failure to disprove the existence of something does not constitute proof of its existence. I raise my own point, that the existence of this God is irrational because of its strange disappearances. Why is it now that we have developed rational inquiry we hear only a deafening silence from a god who once supposedly engaged regularly in human affairs? Why does god not simply speak to us or appear before us as he supposedly used to? Why are we the losers in the dice roll of time? If a god places such a high value on us worshipping and believing then why not simply make its existence obvious to us? Also, If one accepts the prevailing scientific understanding of the development of the universe, but also believes in one of the major religions, then presumably a god sat idle for 13.7 billion years –waiting as the galaxies, stars and planets formed. Then it watched with complete and utter indifference as modern Homo Sapians evolved, struggled and died for a further 100,000 years. Finally, a few thousand years ago, this god suddenly decided to reveal itself to several people in the most primitive, illiterate and remote portions of humanity in a completely unverifiable way –and then simply disappeared. Belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims because all such claims would need to be believed implicitly.
It is more probable that God exist than that God does not exist

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing?Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing?Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing?Then why call him God?" –Epicurus Thank you for allowing me this oppurtunity, and good luck to you, Sir. Please present your claim.
It is more probable that God exist than that God does not exist

Seeing as I have repeatedly said that the God you speak of is a paradox, and a contradiction that can not exist, I am surprised that you can say I believe in him. Your ball and pillow example is illogical. Where did the ball come from? If I took the ball of the pillow would it still be indented? Perhaps the pillow is merely bowl shaped, meaning the placement of the ball is frivolous. In order for the indention to be an effect of the ball, the pillow must exist without a dent before the ball was placed. If the pillow has always and will always have a dent, then the pillow's characteristic has nothing to do with the ball at all. Unless one is causing an effect on another, there is no relation besides proximity. If God existed, then we would have factual evidence because he would leave traces of his work. if God is eternal, then evidence could be found in all time periods, because he has been there always. if there is a God, then you would be able to prove he existed, because there would be solid evidence. If there is no God, you could prove he was possible, but not factual, because both sides are only presented with a void of invisible possibility. We've been arguing over whether or not there is a giraffe sculpture in the block of clay. Maybe, but until you prove it, there isn't. I appreciate the chance to discuss. Your points are recognised, but I don't believe they are enough to change anyones mind. I thank you for your time. Bonŝancon.
It is more probable that God exist than that God does not exist

The argument that all things have a cause continues to move in circles. You say God has no cause, and then say that in order for something to exist it must have a cause. You in your own words are proving God to be nothing but a paradox. Further more Even if "everything must have a cause" necessitated the existence of a god, the fact that "energy and mattercannot be created or destroyed" (the First Law of Thermodynamics) would necessitate an un-created/eternal universe. Theists can't cherry-pick physical laws to prove their god'sexistence. Even if there was a first cause, how is this a proof of a god? The only characteristic such a "god" would have is that it was the "uncaused cause" of everything else. You can't say anything about whether it still exists, is intelligent, cares about humanity,or any other purported characteristic of the kinds of gods worshiped by theists. The law of cause & effect is described as: 'when an effect is caused, the cause must occur first.' It is a temporal rule defining the terms cause and effect. As stated above, an effect does not require a cause; merely if there was a cause, then it must occur first. Not everything has a cause. God is only one large mess of contradicting characteristics. Every thing whose concept is contradictory does not exist. The concept of God is contradictory. Therefore, God does not exist.
The United States is on the Verge of Civil War

yes i have, People used to be able to sit down to thanksgiving dinner with members of their family of all shades of ideology and party, There are numerous reports that the polarized nature of public dialogue has effected holiday dinners people will no longer be in the same room with members of the opposing party, Also we have armed militias, Trump supportes with pipe bobms trying to kill democrats nazis killing jew and black cause trump says its okay to hate. . We even have rabid socialists in congress now! antifa is just a bunch of goofy kids that mean well they want to fight the nazis but don't know how. . They are not armed or organizedBUT GIVE THEM TIME
The United States is on the Verge of Civil War

Your initial argument lies on a few assumptions A. The United States has surpassed a healthy level of polarization so much so that the only remaining option is civil war. B. The leader ship is so corrupt the only choice is to remove them by force to "restore democracy" C. Democracy must be restored, Meaning we no longer have democracy D. That the majority is responsible for restoring democracy via armed revolution. E. There is no other alternative to armed revolution F. Armed revolution is a feasible option G. There is a majority that would take up arms in revolution A. First can you please provide evidence or at least supporting logic that the United States is polarized beyond a point of return and that civil war is justifiable. B. Secondly, Can you do the same for the statement about corrupt politicians. C. Not sure if you witnessed the recent midterm elections but I believe they demonstrated a reassuring picture that our democracy is working at the very least good enough to justify not having a civil war. Both parties reaped gains and loses which is an effective demonstration of the separation of powers preventing a single party from having supreme control indefinitely. While there certainly were issues surrounding these past elections overall, The democratic process has maintained at the very least its minimum standard legitimacy. D. The purpose of an electoral college is partially to prevent the tyranny of the majority therefore it would be rather ironic for the majority to take up an armed revolution to "restore democracy" (not quite sure what you mean by this) as this would be in direct contradiction to the idea's America's political system was founded upon. E. Can you please elaborate as to why armed revolution is the only choice? F. Why is armed revolution a feasible option and against who exactly? G. Which majority is it exactly that would take up arms in revolt against. . . Whoever else?
Morals Exist Without Religion

Your argument does not make any sense. Objective morals do not exist. Religion was created by man, therefore man created moral. An atheist can be just as moral as a christian. Someone who has never even heard of religion can be just as moral as a religious person. There was a time before religion. Did morals not exist during this time? Morals are created by society and man. Religion just presents rules and orders, not morals.
Morals Exist Without Religion

Well first off I am not doing this to win or lose, I am looking for a intellectual conversation in which we can both learn. You also have not provided sources and your argument still does not make sense. Your entire argument is flawed due to the fact that you believe morals are an objective truth that exist. This is not the case and their is no evidence for this at all. Morals are always changing and they differ based on how society changes. Morals are created by man in order to serve an agenda. Religion does not provide morals that can be followed today or that provide positive outcomes.
The Sony Playstation line vs Microsoft's Xbox line.

First of all, I would like to ask what year are you living in? I do agree that the PS2 far best the original Xbox, but that changed vastly coming in the newer generation consoles. I believe "and know" hat the Xbox 360 console beat the PS3. It's graphics were worse on the benchmarks but it didn't blur out the backgrounds like the PS3. The Xbox also came with a sleek design and a nice user interface. You may say that "PlayStation is better because they don't charge you every month" , you cant argue that point because were talking about the product not money. Back to your beginning statement, why does sales even matter? I'm sure it looks like it would make a small impact in their future, but it actually doesn't. Thanks, Cinnamon BTW: PC master-race!!!
The Sony Playstation line vs Microsoft's Xbox line.

I will be arguing for Sony. Please give reasonable evidence. First off let's start with monetary advantages. PS2 sold 155 Million units The Original Xbox sold little over 24 Million. PS2 Has already won in terms of selling, but let's get deeper into this PS2 was released one year before Xbox. On march 4th, 2000 the PS2 hit shelves, almost making it an instant classic. On November 15th, 2001. The Xbox also hit shelves, it's selling was underwhelming, to say the least. PS2 Win by choice of the public. Any opposition?
Should life imprisonment be abolished

Firstly, I would like to quote the opponent in which they said, "a system that is often corrupt and prone to error in judgement. " However, although the legal system may get it wrong there may always be a way out for the innocent. In the last 30 years just in the U. S. over 100 people have been released from a life sentence due to DNA testing and evidence to support that they were innocent. Although I do agree with the opponent that crimes in which may get someone a life sentence are caused because of a misunderstanding or accident, are all of the crimes resulting to a life imprisonment REALLY accidental or a misunderstanding? Here's a list of crimes in which may lead to life imprisonment if the criminal is not innocent: murder, severe child abuse, rape, high treason, drug dealing, or human trafficking, or aggravated cases of burglary or robbery resulting in death. We can pardon high treason and robbery resulting to death or such as there may be reasons behind those actions whether it may be the criminal is in dept or passion for one's country. BUT, there is no reason for rape in which is purposeful and is done just for the criminal's satisfaction or drug dealing and human trafficking in which is manipulation of OTHER people in NEGATIVE ways just to make themselves a profit. As for severe child abuse, this may be caused because of hate, irresponsibility or just pure evil. It's quite safe to say that these crimes listed and explained are surely not just "heat of passion, or as pure accident. " Moving on wards, figures have revealed that more than 80, 000 crimes are committed in under a year by people who have been RELEASED and have served their sentence however long it may be. Does this really show that criminals change through just a few years in jail. If the figures were constant then this means that more that 219 crimes are committed DAILY by only the people who have been released. In conclusion, the life imprisonment serves its purpose as a reminder to the criminal that what they have done is unjustifiable, evil, and scars their victim for the rest of their life. The criminals who perform these heinous crimes indefinitely deserve this punishment.
Should life imprisonment be abolished

Nobody has the right to take someone else's life.Especially a system that is often corrupt and prone to error in judgement.The aim of any judicial system must be to correct the criminal, not to penalize him, as the damage that was done cannot be reversed by the criminal's suffering. The fact that the severity of the punishment does not act as a deterrent to crime is evident from the fact that criminals have always existed in societies with draconian laws and harsh punishments. Take a look at Saudi Arabia where sharia'ah law is followed.The punishment for theft there is public amputation of the right arm(the actually chop it off in the middle of a plaza). Yet crime is worse than countries like Sweden. Many crimes are performed in the heat of passion, or as a pure accident. I do not see why anyone would need to be incarcerated their entire lives for that.Thus to make someone truly understand their crimes and to 'teach them a lesson' they need not be imprisoned for life. Whatever anybody may do to the criminal, the damage is going to stay with the victim nevertheless.This is why the death penalty was abolished.The same can be said about life imprisonment,which i feel is a worse fate than death.The primary aim of the judicial system must be to correct the criminal and make him realize his mistake,not to penalize him.More emphasis must be laid on compensating the victim and correcting, rather than punishing the criminal. Thus,Life imprisonment does not 'teach' anyone a lesson, nor does it compensate the victim.The only thing it ends up doing is ruining the lives of people who may have made a mistake and condemning them to a life worse than death.
Should life imprisonment be abolished

Reasons why life imprisonment should not be abolished:1. This is to teach someone a lesson in which what they have done is out of the question in which leads to their eventual punishment of a life sentence. This is to ENSURE that they understand the depth of their sin and wrongdoing whether it be murder, rape, drug dealing or such. Some people just don't get the message and just keep on repeating their crimes in which may affect individuals or whole communities at times.2. The sinful acts in which the criminal inflicted on the victim may scar/damage or stay within the victim's memory forever. By issuing a life sentence, it is a compensation to the victim for the traumatizing experience in which they had to endure through in which may have psychologically, morally or physically injured them for their entire life time.