BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Same Sex Marriage is a Basic Civil Right, and Should be Allowed in All Countries

My argument is simple, if it is accepted that any marriage is a civil right, and it is accepted that homosexuality is not a choice, then it is discrimination to deny that right to anyone, based on their sexuality, in much the same was that it would be discrimination to deny rights to anyone based on race, religion, colour of skin (yes it's spelt colour), etc. Therefore I believe that any argument against this statement must dispute either that being allowed to marry is a civil right, or that homosexuality is a choice. Based on this I would dispute that the burden of proof is solely mine, as it should be the burden of whomever is making a claim that is not intuitively obvious, (see Russell's Teapot) and thus the burden should be on my opponent just as much. The notion that sexuality is a choice is a myth, as no direct cause (not a fan of that phrase, makes homosexuality sound like a disease) has been discovered, the simplest way to prove this is by virtue of a thought experiment. If homosexuality is a choice, it is not a choice that anyone would take, being homosexual in any society, no matter how liberal, causes more difficulty in life, due to discrimination, and the inability to do something that is central to most people's lives, having children. This seems to wrap it all up for me, I'm sure my opponent thinks otherwise. The floor is yours.
Same Sex Marriage is a Basic Civil Right, and Should be Allowed in All Countries

I accept. Thank you Pro for starting this debate and I hope for an interesting exchange.Resolution: Same Sex Marriage is a Basic Civil Right, and Should be Allowed in All CountriesBOP:My opponent has the Burden of proof because he has made claim. Pro needs to provide reason why same-sex marriage is a civil right and should be allowed in all countries. Con needs to show that Pros claims are invalid. Definitions: Same-sex marriage - is the practice of marriage between two males or two females. http://dictionary.reference.com...... Civil rights - A civil right is an enforceable right or privilege, which if interfered with by another gives rise to an action for injury. Examples of civil rights are freedom of speech, press, and assembly; the right to vote; freedom from involuntary servitude; and the right to equality in public places. http://www.law.cornell.edu... Allowed - to admit; acknowledge; concede. http://dictionary.reference.com... Should be - used in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency. http://www.merriam-webster.com... All countries - http://www.state.gov... Rounds: 1. Round one is for acceptance 2. Pro presents their argument. Con may present their own argument or they may just rebuttal Pro. 3. Additional arguments and rebuttal 4. Rebuttals only 5. Final rebuttals and conclusion Rules: 1. No semantics or trolling 2. Round structure must be followed 3. Definitions must be followed I suggest my opponent decide just what he is arguing and establish it in his opening argument. Civil rights are as defined are American rights and it would a defenseless position for him to take on all countries. Otherwise, I accept and I await my opponent's argument.
Changing Australia Day's date

You talked about the deep loss of family's and the destruction they witnessed. That was many years ago and if we were to talk about all the wrong doings in that time it would be endless. In conclusion to the previous arguments changing Australia day"s date will not change the meaning behind the date and the history behind it. Changing the date of Australia day will make the day pointless due to the commemoration having no meaning behind it. So the date of Australia Day, the 26th of January, should stay that same.
Changing Australia Day's date

You stated that the history for the aboriginals will never change, but it definitely will change! Their families and friends all suffered from this horrific tragedy that happened when the British settled. Their culture and diversity all got ruined and destroyed. From this terrible destruction, their lives were basically done! They had nothing to do with Australia and couldn't do anything about it then and now. To conclude this statement, I definitely believe that Australia Day should be changed to another date besides the 26th. Changing the date would send a better message to everyone, which intends ALL Australians to celebrate.
Changing Australia Day's date

You stated how the aboriginals were suffering from hurt and sorrow which is quiet understandable but Australians have done all we can to help move on from this damage caused. We have held sorry days while marching over bridges, deeply payed our respects and even properly granted aboriginal rights and blocked mining projects of huge economic benefits to all Australians. Changing the date of Australia day will not change the meaning to aboriginal people because they we still be reminded of what had happened and how Australia first started out. To them a date means nothing because history is facts and facts do not change, so changing the date of Australia day wont change the way aboriginal people think of it and how there culture was effected by it.
Changing Australia Day's date

You wrote that if Australia wasn't on the day, there would be no meaning to do. I disagree with that. The day will always have a meaning to it as it is especially for Aboriginals and Indigenous people in the regards of invasion. However, stronger examples exist that prove my claim! Imagine words coming into your mind as an aboriginal or indigenous" Racism, Incentive, Sad, Suffering and Hurt. These words aren"t just words, these are cruel judgements and feelings that Aborigines feel about Australia Day. This day is sincerely for them to reflect on the treatment and the deep loss of their families, sovereign rights of land and right to practice their culture, not celebrating by cooking a barbecue with friends! A kid in 1988 said that "200 years from today, white men came and started to destroy my people of this land." Australia isn"t a multicultural towards Aboriginals as they invaded and basically didn"t include their say in anything! "White people" never treat those well-known with long experience with disrespect, living or dead, but the truth, Aboriginals shouldn"t be treated that way either.
Changing Australia Day's date

We celebrate Australia day in memory of when our colony was taken formal possession of by none other than Captain Arthur Phillip. It is a very important day to us Australians as it is the day Australia was marked as "Australia". If this date was changed, it would no longer be Australia day because the day would not have any meaning behind it. There is a reason why we have Australia day on that date and changing the date would remove the value and true meaning behind the celebration.
Changing Australia Day's date

Australia Day is a day that is considered to be celebrated with the thought of "what is great about Australia and being Australian?" Well, many people in Australian society strongly believe that Australia Day should be changed from the 26th of January. Imagine if your ancestors were disposed, slaughtered and had their land and children stolen, would you celebrate the date on which it began? I don"t think anyone would. The 26th of January marks the coming of Australia of the white people, in 1788 and "it"s not a date particularly pleasing for the Aborigines," quoted by Michael Mansell. Invasion Day, Day of Mourning, Survival Day and Aboriginal Sovereignty Day are just a few names that the original people of the land call this day. Aboriginal people had been living in Australia for at least 50,000 years before the British came to settle, so there was no need to make this date Australia Day. If the British weren"t the first ever people to step on this land, then why call it Australia Day? A guy called Michael Mansell, who is still living today, once believed that Australia celebrates "the coming of one race at the expense of another." Meaning that no matter how many people were in Australia, the British were always going to take over Australia. In my opinion it is ridiculous! The Aborigines were the original people that discovered Australia and we wouldn"t be able to live here if it wasn"t for them. If we want to consider Australia as a "vibrant multicultural nation" and is we want to regard Indigenous people as a core part of the modern Australian identity, then it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to have Australia Day on this date.
these bible verses are contradictory

In Hosea 12:2-5, the prophet Hosea recounts Jacob's encounter with the man whom he wrestled with: 2 The Lord has a charge to bring against Judah; he will punish Jacob according to his ways and repay him according to his deeds. 3 In the womb he grasped his brother’s heel; as a man he struggled with God. 4 He struggled with the angel and overcame him; he wept and begged for his favor. He found him at Bethel and talked with him there— 5 the Lord God Almighty, the Lord is his name! Hosea takes it a step further and identifies the man as non other than the LORD God Almighty himself. Very clear that this man was God in human form. Another thing to take note of is the fact that Hosea also refers to the LORD as an Angel that Jacob met a Bethel and talked with him there. This is significant because Jacob in Genesis 31, talks with the Angel of God at Bethel, who is in view here: 11 The angel of God said to me in the dream, ‘Jacob.’ I answered, ‘Here I am.’ 12 And he said, ‘Look up and see that all the male goats mating with the flock are streaked, speckled or spotted, for I have seen all that Laban has been doing to you. 13 I am the God of Bethel, where you anointed a pillar and where you made a vow to me. Now leave this land at once and go back to your native land.’” (Genesis 31:11-13) Notice, the Angel of God calls himself "the God of Bethel", showing you that he is claming Diety for himself, which is blasphemy if he were a mere creature. He is not a mere creature, but rather, God himself. The same Angel whom Jacob wrestled with, and the same Angel whom Hosea applied the name YHWH God to, even though he can't be the Father. Therefore, this Angel of God who wrestled with Jacob is non-other then the pre-incarnate Son, Jesus. This can't be the Father because the figure is called "the Angel of God". Meaning he is sent from God, therefore, he must be distinct from God the Father who sent him. And by the way, the hebrew word "Malakh" which is translated as "Angel" simply means "messenger" and tells us nothing about the nature (created or uncreated) of the messenger. It's simply a title denoting "a sent one"; it tells us absolutely nothing in terms of whether or not the sent one is a created being or God himself. John 1:18 again sums up everything I just said above: no one has seen God the Father, but people have seen the Son who is God in a visible form. Therefore, according to the clear testimony of the Bible, the man Jacob wrestled with is Jesus making a pre-incarnate appearance.
Slavery is never actually suggested, supported, or otherwise condoned in a positive manner by Yahweh

Exodus 20 says nothing on slavery being allowable or supported. Non-sequitur. Con admits to failing to prove his claim. Con fails to stick to the claim that Yahweh asserts slavery as a condonable action and again makes clear note that the matter is instead regulated by Yahweh (which is an implicit argument of acceptance and therefore unacceptable) as a matter of sociological behavior. Ultimately the claim is still unproven even at the end.
Slavery is never actually suggested, supported, or otherwise condoned in a positive manner by Yahweh

I've created this debate based on a quotation given by my opponent in an opinion. I'd like to see if they can justify their comment.We can start with direct commandments about slavery:Leviticus 25:44-46Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for lifeExodus 21:20-21Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.1 Peter 2:18-20Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. 19 For it is commendable if someone bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because they are conscious of God. 20 But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God.Or we can look to indirect commandments about war that mention slavery:Deuteronomy 20:10-1410 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace.11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you.12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city.13 When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it.14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies.So basically: ask people if they'd like to be your slaves... if not, kill the men and take the women and children as slaves.Or you could look to Numbers 31... God instructs Israel to take vengeance and kill kill kill. They did this, but spared the women and children (read "took them as slaves", rather than "spared"). Anyway, that shizzle was not effed up enough for God and Moses, who demanded that they kill ALL the people including young boys EXCEPT the young virgin girls... wouldn't want to waste those tasty young virgins, eh? What do you think they became in the story? Bloody sex slaves is what. The bible is a filthy and vile steaming pile of dirty dung that portrays a sadistic monster called Yahweh who loves slavery, torture, rape and genocide. Get over it. If you want moral instruction, don't take it from some Bronze Age peasants in the Middle East!
The Christian God VS Everyone else: Morality, Logic & Reason and Epistemology.

cont... What I was trying to say about Fuzzy logic is that every thought or proposition can be reduced to a binary statement if we make the definitions more specific. For example. "It's cold." We can make that statement absolute if we define "cold" as 65 degrees Fahrenheit and below. You no longer need fuzzy logic. Also note that we are talking about the laws of logic as the very axiom of our thoughts. We are not talking about engineering and what not. We are talking about epistemology and how we can gain knowledge of reality. This is a discussion about worldviews. An electric fan with 5 fan speed settings is irrelevant. In your worldview where logic and morality is produced by man. An alien race with a different system of logic and morality can simply start killing us, raping us, etc and we really have no reason to say that they are doing something wrong. When we don't even really have a reason why we say it's wrong. We also can't all of sudden adopt a system of logic where, it's not the case that a bunch of aliens are killing and raping everyone.   Epistemology I would falsify other religion's position the same way Im falsifying your worldview, and the same why I told you how to falsify mine, by using it to refute itself. Anything that does not reflect reality can be falsified. By the end of the day only one reality exists and Im here to argue that it's the Christian one. God really exists. You really are a sinner. You really do need a savior. Jesus really died for your sins and resurrected. It's hypothetically easy to refute my worldview if my worldview is indeed wrong. But Im claiming it will be impossible since it's right.   You can demonstrate or falsify the statement "The remake of True Grit is a superior movie" by defining what "superior movie" is. Likewise since I am very specific with my claim of God's existence by telling you which God I am claiming exists, it is falsifiable.  You're still not addressing the fact that if logic is produced by man, then you're epistemology is circular and is actually impossible.
Education Should Be Free to All

Hello, and thanks for started this debate! I will explain my contingencies, then label them alphabetically. Contingency A. When something becomes free, quality drops. This is because there is no money to be made. If music legally downloaded on iTunes was free, then artists would stop making music, simply because there is no money to be made. Contingency B. Education above a high school degree isn't something that you are entitled too. While it would be nice, it's not something essential to survival. Student loans were designed with low interest rates to help students pay for college. While we need to work on bringing the price of tuition down, making it free would be detrimental. Contingency C. There is no such thing as 'free'. The money has to come from somewhere. It may not directly be coming out of person A's pocket, because now it's coming out of ours. While I believe there are times where it is appropriate to use government money to make essential things free or cheap, this is not one of those times. Yes a higher education is important, but it's a privilege, not a right. I understand that education is an amazing thing, but there is no simple way to make it free. If free education is an option, then everyone will take it. You can live off a high school degree. While it may not be much, people do it. What's next? Should we pay prisoners bail? If the government has to pay to put people through college, the quality of education will drop, and the federal deficit would explode. Thanks, I now stand open fro cross examination.
Education Should Be Free to All

The topic for our debate is that education should be free to all. I define this topic as education that is funded not through tuition fees, but through taxation or charitable organizations. I, the affirmative person believe that this statement is true. For the first round, I will be talking to you about the importance of ensuring that the next generation has a proper and comprehensive education. My first point is that the next generation will be the ones affecting the world we live in, so we must ensure that they are making decisions and choices that have a knowledgeable basis. This is because education enriches the minds of the people whom will get employed and make changes to our world. If the generation is widely uneducated, the possibility to stall and even set back our efforts in bettering and helping the world increase drastically. Not only that, but if they make uneducated decisions, it could lead to political, social, and economic conflicts which will then carry on to affect the following generation in negative ways. Now to my second point which is that their decisions and choices will carry on to the following generation and impact them. This is because any turmoil and conflicts that arise with uneducated decisions have the possibility to affect the following generation in extremely harmful ways. It could break country alliances and lead to mass wars, lead to genocides because of uncultured decisions, and cause major debt and bankruptcy because the generation was never educated in finances. What one generation does causes a ripple affect. These issues are complicated to solve, and may not be solved in a reasonable amount of time. Thus, one generation's mistakes and conundrums are then passed on to the next generation which could prolong the process of solving them and even worsen it. So, in conclusion, I believe that education should be free to all because an uneducated generation can and will make unwise decisions leading to negative effects.
War isn't needed.

I shouldn't have said that this topic is stupid, I probably ruined the debate. I will rebut my opponents opening statement Conflict: Conflict is the answer when millions of people are getting burned in ovens. Money: I would pay one million dollars to save innocent people, wouldn't most of us. I will also open some new arguments Population: Throughout history two things have kept the worlds population down, germs and war. As we can clearly see now, if one of those two is eliminated our human population will consequently skyrocket. When populations skyrocket bad things begin to happen. With the population on such a high increase since we eliminated many diseases, many scientists believe that there will be areas on earth with severe overpopulation, lack of drinking water and lack of food. Or in english, poverty is going to skyrocket. With poverty on the skyrocket the people in poverty are not going to be very happy and we are just going to plant further seeds for conflict and eventually conflict. So in short, the war cycle is going to go on forever because of mutual conflicts for a varied amount of reasons and this war will perform the scientific neccesity of keeping an organisms population low enough so it is not overpopulate the world and destroy other organisms previously unaffected. Vote Con!!!! (or pro it is really your opinion)
War isn't needed.

War is bad for mankind & is putting the U.S. with more conflict & debt. Conflict: War is not needed, it is utterly unsuperior to create war over something such as religion, we all in this world want to spread the word of our religon. Most wars are caused because of revenge. To most human beings conflict is the key to winning. Conflict was used to conquer freedom but Martin L.K Jr. was a believer in Ghandi. The both used non-violence acts to get freedom. Talking is the key, is what most say. Conflict is never the answer. Money: A side winder costs average of 1 million dollars,includes maintenance of weapon(s).A nuke can cost in the 10 million+ dollar range including maintenance and storage costs. Costs to develop ,maintain and training to use maintain and develop: 5.5 trillion. Just the entire cost of war since 2001 increases every single second. The cost of war increasing right now is about $1,305,421,780,928. As of said before, the cost increases more.
Women equal to men.

"IF THERE WERE NO FEMALES YOU WOULD BE EATING GRASS OFF OF THE FLIPPING GROUND!!" I'm close to the ground anyway. I don't see you women mowing lawns. "AND ANYWAYS YOU WOULDN'T BE ALIVE BECAUSE YOU WERE BORN FROM WOMAN!!!! SO IF THERE WERE NO WOMAN YOU WOULDN'T BE ALIVE AND NONE OF YOUR FRIENDS EITHER!!!" Without sperm, you wouldn't be alive either. Leave my friends out of it. "YOU SHOULD BE GRATEFUL IF ANYTHING THAT THERE ARE WOMAN ON THIS PLANET AND ITS NOT FULL OF IGNORANT, SELFISH, UNCARING, STUPID, MEN!!!!" Men who fight and die in wars (99% of war casualties are men). Men who do all the dirty, unpleasant things for women, like taking out the trash, shoveling excrement from the barn, bailing your kid out of jail. Would you like to take over some of those duties? "No insult meant to anyone but I get extremely mad when men say they are dominant and were not equals. Not all men are stupid just the male chauvinists who think they are better than everyone and don't care about the world issues of our planet." So you don't like real men, just the effeminate types? Real men care about world issues. The difference is that real men don't cower in the corner or run from a battle. The stand and fight evil. They fight for truth, justice and the American way. The effeminate types think like you.