BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay marriage should be legalized

My opponent states that heterosexual marriage has been the only practice on Earth before the year 2000. Yet, that's not a valid reason not to make it legal. It doesn't matter that gay marriage hasn't occurred in the past; what does that have to do with the present? Doing something unique that gives us an upgrade in civil rights isn't an issue. My opponent also states that I'm Catholic with an abundant amount of Catholic information that would make me look like a fool for contradicting myself. My response to that is that my profile never stated that I was Catholic; it said "Christian-Baptist". As a Christian, I am contradicting myself with the beliefs in gay marriage. Here's the thing about my type of Christianity; I believe in majority of the Bible, but not all of it. The Bible was inspired by God, created by men. Men are bound to sin; there's no work that a man can create without imperfections to it. Gay marriage should still be a right, despite my religion. Saying that gay marriage shouldn't be illegal because of religious objections is absolutely hypocritical for this country. This country promotes freedom of religion; not everyone's religion states that homosexuality is wrong. Our country's main argument with banning gay marriage is the Bible; since when did this country stuck to one religion? But, my respect goes out to my opponent for his Catholic research. Let's see if he can pull off the same type of research for my correct religion.
Gay marriage should be legalized

Con sees it necessary to quote from the Bible in future rounds, acknowledging the fact that both Pro and Con believe in the Bible. Con points out the history of heterosexual marriage and how it has changed only in recent decades. For thousands of years, humanity has practiced heterosexual marriage. Before the year 2000, there was no law anywhere in the world that allowed same-sex marriage. This small group of homosexual partnerships over only a little bit of time suddenly declares that they can define marriage for the entire world. Their claim to marriage does not comply with the fact that no such marriages have ever existed in the history of Earth. . http://en.wikipedia.org... Con points out that Pro's argument is invalid in the sense that it contradicts her own religious beliefs. By supporting gay marriage, you are going against your own religion. Your profile states you are Catholic. According to the American Catholic website, "The Catholic Church opposes gay marriage and the social acceptance of homosexuality and same-sex relationships, but teaches that homosexual persons deserve respect, justice and pastoral care. The Vatican and Pope John Paul II are speaking out against the growing number of places that recognize same-sex marriages. " . http://www.americancatholic.org... Although Pope John Paul II is deceased, the next pope, Benedict XVI, also condemns gay marriage. He states that the Roman Catholic Church "cannot approve of legal initiatives that imply a re-evaluation of the life of the couple and the family. " Even the current pope, Francis, denounces same-sex marriage. In a conversation with Rabbi Abraham Akorka, ". .. Francis said same-sex marriage is a weakening of the institution of marriage " that has existed for thousands of years " and is 'forged according to nature and anthropology. ' " . http://www.breitbart.com... So. .. what? You don't believe what your own church believes? Who are you to speak out against it? I haven't even said anything from the Bible but have yet shown that your religious beliefs don't make a whole lot of sense. Former President Clinton, who is Catholic, passed the Defense of Marriage Act, which reads, " "In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word "marriage" means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word "spouse" refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife. " " Can Pro deny what has been said? Con awaits Pro's response.
Gay marriage should be legalized

Gay marriage should be legalized because this is a step forward to more equality. Gay people should have the right to formally be able to call the love of their lives their spouses. The Bible might state that gay people shouldn't be married or even together but the Bible and a few Christians have a few twists with this statement (I'm a Christian myself so don't take this to heart ). There will be elaboration on these statements but I'm interested in my opponent's response.
Gay marriage should be legalized

In conclusion, I would like to say that gay marriage legalization will uproot America. Birth rates will decrease, the family structure will be weakened, and redefining this sacred ordinance will lead the indoctrination of what children are taught. Same-sex legalization will encourage other practices that are now considered immoral, such as pedophilia, incest, and bestiality. It will only take a matter of time before people begin to consider equality as the legalization of all lewd methods of sexuality that have ever been practiced. Soon homosexual marriages will be forced upon churches by the government, dismissing the separation of church and the state to what we now behold as being "politically correct". We are beginning to see the irony of what equality is as demonstrated by same-sex marriage supporters: we will need to tolerate homosexuality, but homosexual activists will not have to tolerate our views. I believe I have won this argument. I have provided more sources, more arguments, and debated all 5 rounds, whereas my opponent provided less sources, less arguments, and forfeited the last round. Unlike my opponent, I will admit I made a few mistakes, but I corrected them in later rounds. I thank my opponent for the debate and wish her luck in future debates. May the best debater win.
Universal Background Checks are NEEDED on ALL gun purchases both Public AND Private

MOST Americans believe that SINCE we have to REGISTER our CARS, gun owners SHOULD have to REGISTER their guns. SINCE we have to acquire car INSURANCE, gun owners SHOULD have to acquire GUN insurance, SINCE we have to pass a WRITTEN and a PHYSICAL test to be ALLOWED to drive, gun owners SHOULD HAVE to go through (and PASS) a Written and Physical TEST to be ALLOWED to get a Gun LICENSE (which you should Also HAVE to get)
Universal Background Checks are NEEDED on ALL gun purchases both Public AND Private

The poll that my opponent is citing is false. It makes no mentions of expanding background checks, it only states support for having checks in general. Rumours that it was for expanding them have been debunked. (1) Again my opponent makes no argument to back up his statements and continues to fail to explain why checks are needed-- the resolution he created in the first place. Source: (1)--http://www.newsbusters.org...
Universal Background Checks are NEEDED on ALL gun purchases both Public AND Private

Ad hominem attacks assuming I have a gun obsession whereas I do not own a single firearm. Since my opponent is still failing to make any cohesive argument I am going to make an assumption that he is a troll, and a poor one at that. You also make zero sources to back up your claim, and you're using a hasty generalization fallacy stating that EVERY country that has strong gun laws has less harm. As a matter of fact, there is little proof that that stricter gun laws even work (1) SOURCE: (1)--http://people.howstuffworks.com...
Universal Background Checks are NEEDED on ALL gun purchases both Public AND Private

as much as FIFTY PERCENT of gun sales and transfer of ownership takes place on the PRIVATE market. That is a HUGE LOOPHOLE for people to buy guns. Why have ANY background checks at all if FIFTY PERCENT of the guns acquired do NOT have to go through a background check? We NEED the SAME types of regulations as for cars. We need to REGISTER the guns JUST like a car. They should have INSURANCE JUST like a car. And you SHOULD have to PASS both a WRITTEN and a PHYSICAL test JUST like a car
Universal Background Checks are NEEDED on ALL gun purchases both Public AND Private

My opponent states that background checks are needed for all public gun sales, but such a system already exists in the form of the NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Check System) program. Its paternal establisher, the Brady Bill, covers all public gun sales. (1) As for private gun sales, I do not disagree that background checks are not needed for privatized selling, but it would be immensely difficult to regulate, as any potential system could still be overcome via the black market or other illegal importing/smuggling. SOURCE (1)-- https://en.wikipedia.org...
Animals should be kept in zoos

First of all when I mean its ok to kill animals I mean its ok to kill but humans should limit the amount they kill because humans are also part of the food chain and they have to kill some animals but they should only kill a few not a lot that they will become extinct. I will attack my opponents cases with these reasons. Resources: http://wiki.answers.com... http://www.whyguides.com...? http://www.globalanimal.org... http://www.wisegeek.com... Now I will attack my opponents case with some rebuttal 1.My opponent says zoos are much more pain for them. This statement is not true as in the resources above zoos help animals who are injured, lost of habitat, or poachers. In the world now elephants have been traded for there ivory. Studies also showed that animals kept in captivity live a more longer lifespan then how they would do out there in the wild life. 2.He tries to rebuttal my statement 'But it says always. So it has some which is a lot for a life. They do have a negative effects and I have shown you that zoos kill animals and sell them!' True that they do kill and sell them and trade, but don't forget zoos and sanctuaries are basically but sanctuaries give more space, but zoos do not harm animals rapidly as how a poacher would. Zoos do beneficial things for animals like breeding programs, animal donations, Help injured animals who are on the verge of extinction. Zoos are educational to people and lets them see animals up close so scientist are able to make studies easily without going to another country. 3.Like I said from before its ok to kill them but not like a lot each day that they would become extinct. And yes of course it could unbalance the food chain in many ways if animals like tigers are decreasing there would be more and more of there prey and it unbalances the food chain. 4. I stated a fourth reason and it has not been rebuttal. Anyway good debate and now after my opponents argument the voters will choose
Animals should be kept in zoos

To attack my opponent case: He said: 1. Many animals are becoming exstinct from poachers and have been traded or selled at black markets and black markets sell illigel items animals in the other hand must be kept safe from harm of harmful poachers. About zoos not letting animals go outside in the wild life doesnt really mean anything but keeping there coupd keep them out of exstinction and from poachers and from being traded to markets for there skins and other parts of there body for money. Fist first of... There are sancuaries.... Zoos are too much of a pain for them. Sacntaries have been successful and that is my other way how animals can be kept safe and that totally destroys his first point. He also said: 2.Zoos do not always have a negetive effect on our animals. My opponent gives a senerio about being caught in the wild and sent to prison. The reason they do that is because a animal population will become exstinct and it unbalances the food chain which is part of our life. Manatees have been dying from canals and by humans who kill them rapidly.Many people do this because they want to which is not fair. But it says to not always. So It has some which is a lot for a life. They do have negative effects and i have shown you that zoos kill animals and sell them! He also says that is unbalances the food chain but No, there are sancuatries which basically destroy every argument because the topic says only that zoos but i define another way. My opponent also says: 3. Animals are losing there habitat from human population. The komodo dragons who once roamed in there habitats but there is a few of them now because of human population. Its ok to kill animals but not to the point where they would become extinct. But my opponent says it is ok to kill animals but as ia said Sanctuaries also help. Well to go on, Sacntuaries destroys my opponents case...
Animals should be kept in zoos

Animals must be kept in zoos for many reasons and here are why 1. Many animals are becoming exstinct from poachers and have been traded or selled at black markets and black markets sell illigel items animals in the other hand must be kept safe from harm of harmful poachers. About zoos not letting animals go outside in the wild life doesnt really mean anything but keeping there coupd keep them out of exstinction and from poachers and from being traded to markets for there skins and other parts of there body for money. 2.Zoos do not always have a negetive effect on our animals. My opponent gives a senerio about being caught in the wild and sent to prison. The reason they do that is because a animal population will become exstinct and it unbalances the food chain which is part of our life. Manatees have been dying from canals and by humans who kill them rapidly.Many people do this because they want to which is not fair. 3. Animals are losing there habitat from human population. The komodo dragons who once roamed in there habitats but there is a few of them now because of human population. Its ok to kill animals but not to the point where they would become exstinct. 4. Zoos help people find animal easier without traveling and are good friends with zookeepers. You must be mistakend for a farm. I hope my reasons help
"Cheese" is, on balance, detrimental to video games

I'll be taking the position that cheese is not detrimental to video games. My opponent will take the stance that cheese is detrimental. Cheese is defined as a non-meta strategy that typically focuses on abusing a certain aspect of the game or an aspect of something in the game to easily win. Some examples would be the recently remodeled Master Yi in League of Legends, as well as the infamous Cannon Rush in Starcraft II. Meta is defined as popular and/or effective strategies to winning a game. BOP is on my opponent, and as such he can use the first round to put out some arguments. If he chooses not to it's not that big of a deal, but y'know xD GL HF
"Cheese" is, on balance, detrimental to video games

"Unfortunately, after taking a look at my opponent's debate history, I fear that this last two sentances from him will be all that we will see from him in debate. In preparation for the worst, with hope for the best, I'm simply going to outline my points. If he forfeits, I will re-hash them in short manner so that minimal time is wasted." My, my, aren't you the hypocritical piece of s h i t.
"Cheese" is, on balance, detrimental to video games

Here's how 90% of cheese games play out - noob does a cheese strategy. Cheese strategy fails. Noob quits. Well the first five minutes of the game are the boringest, and cheese players are forcing us honourable strategic minded opponents to live through them time and time again. Just because they can't hack it in a real game. Sad. Sad sick nerds. How much creativity does it take to do some lame unorothodox strategy you copied off youtube or from the dude who beat you with it? Not much. The real creativity is in handling the mid game demands of a legitimate game. Figuring out how to defeat your opponents army. That takes creativity! Do you try to force them to engage from the low ground? Flank? Bide your time and counter? Harass their expos? And on the defensive side as well. O M G you went out and built a barracks in the middle of the map, which has been done a million times before. What a precious little genius. My opponent's points are all vague, unsubstantiated and generic. Frankly this is why I seldom finish debates - people come up with the most idiotic arguments and it's like beating up a retard. You just start to feel sad for them after a while.
"Cheese" is, on balance, detrimental to video games

Unfortunately, after taking a look at my opponent's debate history, I fear that this last two sentances from him will be all that we will see from him in debate. In preparation for the worst, with hope for the best, I'm simply going to outline my points. If he forfeits, I will re-hash them in short manner so that minimal time is wasted. If he does show up, I shall treat this as a normal debate and go into detail for my reasons. But for now, the summary:1. Cheese allows for player creativity within gameplay.2. Cheese allows for added layers of strategy and counter-strategy to certain meta-strategies. 3. Cheese allows for further game balance by correcting inconsistencies and imbalances.
In 4 sentences or less, I can write a creepier short story than you!

Yep! Here goes! Mirrors are so strange, they follow every single one of your moves. I waved my hands in front of the mirror in my room, finding the double of myself amusing. I then put my hands down and saw my double smirk. The double raised his hand in glee, and I reluctantly followed. I guess that ends my first one, a bit low on the creepiness scale, but I thought it was pretty good. Mirrors creep me out.
In 4 sentences or less, I can write a creepier short story than you!

So, this is basically to start the whole thing off. The first round is just to have someone accept. Basically, you get three chances (rounds 2, 3, and 4) to write a creative and original story in four sentences or less that is creepier than my story (of course, I will be creating original stories as well in each round)! You will need to write a new short story for each round. This is just to have fun, but also, try to keep things reasonable. No extremely long sentences just to fit something in, but I am open to somewhat long sentences, just within reasonable bounds. I want something that will be quick and easy, but will haunt my dreams! Please do not plagiarize. We will let the voters decide who had the creepier story. Thanks!
In 4 sentences or less, I can write a creepier short story than you!

Tommy settled down into bed for a good night's sleep. Suddenly, he felt a tingly feeling in his mouth; so he got up and went to the bathroom. When he opened his mouth, a bright red ant scurried out. Tommy, paralyzed by fear, watched as a second ant crawled out of his nostril. A few moments later, Tommy began writhing in pain as ants emerged from all parts of his body, slowly consuming him alive.
In 4 sentences or less, I can write a creepier short story than you!

My strange grandmother died last week, so I put up a small picture of her in her wheel chair, as a memorial. Coming home from work, I stopped by to get some meat, which was extremely cheap today. I heard they closed a orphanage just yesterday, I wonder how they got everything out so fast. Anyways, getting home and seeing the picture, its been weird; my grandmother seems to be getting closer and closer to the cameraman in the picture.
Stable nations are a greater threat to the U.S that stable nations

"This resolution talks about both failed and stable." Wrong. Look at the top of this page, at the words between my opponent's picture and mine, above "Add to My Favorites," "Report this Debate," and "Share with My Friends." There, you will see the resolution. I have copied and pasted it below: "Stable nations are a greater threat to the U.S that stable nations" Failed nations are completely irrelevant. They are not in the resolution. We are comparing stable nations to stable nations. "Most stable nations don't pose a threat because they are allies to use so there for they do not pose a greater threat." Well, it doesn't matter, because A = A regardless. "Failed nations do pose a greater threat..." Despite my opponent's reasons why failed nations may be a greater threat than stable nations, we are only comparing stable nations to stable nations. Therefore, my opponent's contentions are to be ignored, and my syllogism is to be extended. Good luck.
Stable nations are a greater threat to the U.S that stable nations

This resolution talks about both failed and stable. Most stable nations don't pose a threat because they are allies to use so there for they do not pose a greater threat. Failed nations do pose a greater threat to prove my point I will list some reason *failed nations cause other nations to fail * they hold high nuclear power for example Pakistan * These failed nations create conflict for the U.S because of our unfavorable so there for these failed nations are a over all problem http://en.wikipedia.org...
Stable nations are a greater threat to the U.S that stable nations

My opponent's only paragraph talks about failed nations. However, this debate concerns stable nations and only stable nations. My syllogism will demonstrate why the resolution is negated. 1. Assume that "the threat of stable nations" = A. 2. A = A [1] 3. The comparison "greater" is an inequality. [2] 4. A can be in an inequality with A iff A =/= A. (Definition of "inequality") 5. A cannot be in an inequality with A. (The conclusion of 4 is shown to be false by 2, so the premise of 4 is false.) 6. The threat of stable nations cannot be in an inequality with the threat of stable nations. (Substituting A with "the threat of stable nations," as allowed by 1) 7. The statement "Stable nations are a greater threat to the U.S that stable nations" is an inequality. [2] 8. The statement "Stable nations are a greater threat to the U.S that stable nations" is false. (6,7) 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Stable nations are a greater threat to the U.S that stable nations

Failed nations are a greater threat to the U.S because of the lack of government control, also lack of territory control, and not being able to interact with other countries as a whole. These failed nations are posing several physical threats to the U.S because of all the nuclear power being help by them. Failed nations are also safe havens for terrorism to expand. www.gale.com/harvardinternationalreview
Chrome is better than Firefox

Hahahahaha - You were playing the game with convenience so I decided to jump in also. 1) When I was talking about browser speed, I mean that if you put Chrome and Firefox on the same model of computer with the same RAM and memory, etc, then it would run faster. It also takes up less space. 2) I was kidding about the logo :P 3) Well, Firefox has these also. So it's not like Chrome is the only one.... 4) Okay, I take that back, but only to some extent. A small amount is fine. Who wants to go to their settings every time? No one. But honestly, Chrome has overdone it. 5) Okay, it's a big pain in the _____ to go find all of your tabs again. So it sort of is convenience, but this is one of those more important things that are actually relevant unlike this grease monkey thing you were talking about. 6) Well, taking up data is fine to some extent, but when your computer is hitting 100% CPU usage when using Chrome, something is obviously not right. 7) Never said it was safe..... Can't imagine saving your passwords being safe on any browser. lol 8) Well, it is convenience so according to you, it does count. 9) Exactly. We trust Firefox, not Chrome. 10) Convenience again! 11) Ooops....Didn't know that Firefox did that..... Again, this is my first debate, so thanks! Just need some practice. And I wasn't exactly the most informed person on the subject....