BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A Discourse on Evolution (Pro) Vs Creationism (Con)

A Discourse on Evolution (Pro) Vs Creationism (Con): I will be assuming the stance of Pro on this topic, and my opponent will be delegated as Con. I also encourage my opponent to take this argument from a more objective stance rather than a religious one [To the extent that may be achieved]. [Note] This debate should be impossible to accept. Consequently, If you manage to do so, you automatically forfeit this discussion. Structure and Rules: [1] There will be five rounds. - Round 1 is ACCEPTANCE ONLY. - Within round 2 both sides present opening arguments. - Round 3 presents the opportunity for rebuttals. - Round 4 is the time allotted for final arguments. - Round 5 is specified for brief rebuttals and closing statements. [2] Equitable Conduct. [3] No profanity. [4] Empirical Evidence. Definitions: [1] Evolution - [Noun] The process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth. [2] Creationism - The belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution. Sources: [1] www.merriam-webster.com Please apply in the comments section.
Corporate Tax Should be Lowered

My argument is not based on any moral grounds. We have both agreed that, from the point of view of the law, the corporation is fundamentally an amoral entity. My objection is based on the following observations: The first is historical. The corporate tax rate has in fact been lowered over the past forty years. During that time, wages have stagnated and wealth has been redistributed from the middle class to a small handful of wealthy individuals. The causes for this redistribution are several, but it is clear that governmental policy favoring the rich has played a major role. For instance, deregulation of the financial sector and international trade agreements (NAFTA and TPP) figure most heavily into these changes. My objection is, secondly, based on my skepticism regarding the mystical faith in free markets to keep their operations in the U.S. Taxation, as we both have agreed, is only one part of the calculus that determines how a corporation will run itself. To simply lower the rate without closing tax loopholes would constitute a rise in the real amounts corporations pay to the federal government. What reason do we have that they would bring their business back to the U.S. if such a raise in the rate is imminent? That said, there are a number of more informed ways of going about fixing the corporate tax rate. One is to base it on the disparity between CEO pay and the average worker's wage. (A bill like this is being considered in the California state legislature.) That of course won't fix many of the problems, but it is a step in the right direction. The broader point is that the taxes a corporation pays is the only way for the public to maintain its interests against those of the corporation. Occasionally, those two interests coincide, but history teaches us that often they do not. You may believe that you are looking at this issue from a strictly political point of view, but observe the sorts of categories you are deploying when you say that if the government did not spend so much money, it would not have to levy taxes on people. The government represents the public good independent of the drive for profits that sits at the heart of the corporation. Both government and corporations are comprised of people--but from a legal point of view, they are essentially different. The corporation is bound to profit for its survival, against the interests of the collective. As we both agree, that has nothing to do with any moral judgment. The government, on the other hand, depends on other activities for its legitimacy. On a whole, it spends as much as it needs to spend to maintain the interests of the diverse population it represents.
Corporate Tax Should be Lowered

Your entire debate is based around a moral premise. It is factually undebatable that a lower corporate tax would equate to more jobs being created. Both theoretically and realistically, more money in the hands of the corporation would equate to more incentive for growth. The biggest argument that you lack to argue against is growth. Growth is the ultimate factor when looking at a corporation as well as any business entity, including a nation itself. All is subjected to growth or to stagnation. If you close these loopholes, then all corporations have to pay 35% tax rate, which is preposterous. Democratic Socialist nations have a lower tax rate than that. On the other hand, if loopholes are closed, but you evidently lower tax rate with it, then growth will occur. Unless we can compete with the laws of other nations, that many companies invest in, such as China or India, or even Switzerland, (low taxes in Switzerland) then we can attract more. This nation has safety as well as protection, and risk for investment is not high. In the end, we have 2 trillion in liquid assets overseas that we could bring back by lowering this tax rate. The point of government is not to take profits from people. I am also looking at this from a political sense, since I do believe that taxes lack constitutionality, and that the government's job is not to be authoritative and levy high taxes upon people, as it does not require this money, since it should not spend much in any sense.
Corporate Tax Should be Lowered

I will be arguing that Corporate Tax should in fact be lowered as to accommodate for growth as well as incentivize investment into our private sector. Rules are as follows: Round 1: Acceptance/Informal short summary of primary argument. Round 2: Statement of Opening Arguments. Round 3: Continuation of Argument and Rebuttal. Round 4: Final Rebuttal and Conclusion. Please, do not troll.
gay marriage should be leggalized in every country

1. Sir, did you realize that my counter to your argument about the different Christian groups was me stating that legalized gay marriage would cause conflicts among said groups and other people, not to mention politicians?2. Pro argues and seems to compare the gay rights movement to the african-american civil rights movement. It is all together way less important to give gays rights then it was to give blacks rights. Were gay men ever slaves? Were gay people ever attacked by dogs and blasted with firehoses just for being gay? The answer to these is obviously no.3. Exactly my point. Since there is such a large number of homosexuals that keeps growing, if marriage is allowed for them, they obviously cannot produce children. Thus, the population is halted, and even lowered as more and more people die. I know that marriage is not only about child producing, but is about love. I understand that gays feel the same love that heteros do, but I think that gay marriage should not be legalized."That argument is really hearth lose."I have NO idea what you were trying to say there.
gay marriage should be leggalized in every country

First conscesions that my opponent made: I do not need to make any arguments I should just prove that there isn"t any thing wrong with gay marriage . My opponents respond to my arguments : My opponent tries to make my argument that banning gay marriage oppresses religious freedom of these Christians groups just by citing the source as wikipedia and saying that it isn"t a valid source. But does not make any effort to counter the fact that those religious beliefs are being pressed so I will consider for the time being that he doesn"t consider this to be a wrong and that he consents to it. Now my opponent says that It would make not a war scenario conflict but rallies etc.. But that doesn"t really matter there were lots of time were gaining rights for minorities has maked for conflict (Like segregation in the U.S.). And even with all of these conflict we consider it to be right to give right to blacks even if some groups are very opposed to the idea .Why not the same for the gays? Now my opponent argues that the world population is going to descend if we allow gay marriage . But this is an wrong argument the gays would not have children even if there were not allow to marry so these argument is wrong. And even if this is true should we also forbid marriage with partners ho do not want children or that are impotent or infertile ? No of course not marriage is more than a baby producing machine. That argument is really hearth lose . Well God luck to my opponent.
gay marriage should be leggalized in every country

"First my opponent states that we should not legalize gay marriage in every country because it goes against some religions."Pro fails to realize that this was not the entirety of my argument. My argument was saying that since most religious people are conservative/republicans and most atheists are on the liberal side, we can expect a political conflict between the two if one is to get their success. It is best to keep things normal (not legalizing gay marriage) so both sides can remain peaceful, as there are some democrats who are against gay marriage. Pro then states a bunch of Christian groups, but again fails to realize what I just said in the paragraph above. And sir, I feel like you copied that off of Wikipedia, as I can see things like "[1]". Wikipedia is covered with those things. In a debate, you're supposed to use your own words and copy-pasting is frowned upon. Plus, Wikipedia isn't a very valid source in the first place. "In most countries where gay marriage has been legalize it has not been a major conflict. With major I mean a war scenario." In my arguments, never once did I reference or even think about legalizing gay marriage as becoming a war-causing conflict. By conflict, I meant things like rallies, protests, and vicious arguments and debates between citizens and politicians. And have you heard of Putin's launched "War on Homosexuals"? That's causing a pretty bad conflict. "Then my opponent says that if gay marriage gets legalize in every country than the Democrates are going to take over the U.S.First this is an argument for your case only if the voters are republican and it is one for my case only if the voters are democrats." I do not mean that the Democrats would literally take over the U.S. I am meaning that they would become the central and main party. "...only if the voters are republican and it is one for my case only if the voters are democrats."You do realize that I am talking about government and politics as a whole, not just elections, right? And finally you go on about laws. I know exactly what a law is, no need to tell me. Gay marriage is illegal because of the conflicting parties and the knowledge that there are many religious people in the world/U.S. who are against gay marriage for that reason. And now, I make my own arguments. The numbers added up for homosexuals in the U.S alone reach over 300 million. And that is just one country. Imagine adding all the other countries' numbers to that, and that is a staggering amount. If every country were to allow every single one of their homosexual citizens to get married, then the population would eventually lower. Since there is no woman in that marriage, the couple cannot reproduce. Also, like I said earlier about conflicts. If every country is to legalize gay marriage, then we can expect a worldwide conflict (again, I don't necessarily mean a WAR). And that obviously isn't good. Putin's "War on Homosexuals" is one of the big player in the mention above, and since Putin started that, he is definitely not one to allow gay marriage in his country.I leave the first argument in the next round to you, Pro.
gay marriage should be leggalized in every country

I will answer my opponents concerns about gay marriage. First my opponent states that we should not legalize gay marriage in every country because it goes against some religions .but there are religions where gay marriage is okay so if that is the only argument than countries ho use that as an argument to ban gay marriage are respecting some religious beliefs and banning others. What makes this not a solid argument. Religions that condone gay marriage: -Christian groups : Support and affirmation of marriage rights for same-sex couples increasingly come from certain Christian denominations that are theologically considered liberal. Some examples of religious organizations voicing their support for marriage equality include Metropolitan Community Church, the United Church of Christ "Marriage Equality and the UCC"., the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ),[1] the Episcopal Church of the United States, the Anglican Church of Canada, the Evangelical Lutheran Church In America and the Unitarian Universalists church which has long supported the rights of gays and lesbians to marry both in the church and through the state.[2][3] Numerous progressive congregations and organizations within mainline Christian denominations, that have not yet officially voiced official support for marriage equality, have spoken out themselves in support of equal marriage rights in the church and through the state.[4] -Liberal Buddhists -Liberal Hindus -Wicca Native American religion But the real argument is the one you put as if gay marriage would be legalized a big conflict would emerge between church and state what is true .But a state should not base their laws on religious beliefs . And big conflicts also happened when people defended other basic human rights(American civil war). In most countries where gay marriage has been legalize it has not been a major conflict. With major I mean a war scenario. Then my opponent says that if gay marriage gets legalize in every country than the Democrates are going to take over the U.S. First this is an argument for your case only if the voters are republican and it is one for my case only if the voters are democrats. Why didn"t I make a point to my case? Because laws are written are made to prevent bad things from happening murder, stealing" But laws are not written to ban things ho do not hurt any one and that do no bad to society . So it is your job to prove that gay marriage is wrong and my job is to prove their isn"t any thing wrong with it and if all your counter arguments fail than you have failed to prove Gay marriage is wrong . And if there isn"t any thing wrong with it why should it be banned in some countries? Note: This debate is about gay marriage in general not in the U.S.
gay marriage should be leggalized in every country

My opponent's argument clearly states that he believes everyone should have equality in marriage rights, and he leaves this to be my counter of his argument. However, Pro does not provide any facts, sources, or reasoning as to why he has come to this case for a debate. I will start with my first reason on why gay marriage should not be legalized.1. Church and StateMany people know that in certain religions, gay marriage is said to not be a good thing. In the Bible, a book that many people follow, for example, says that gays should be punished and that their marriage is not to be allowed. I'm not saying that just because of religious reasons gay marriage should be illegal, I'm just saying that a religious conflict would cross with poliical conflict and ultimately cause a very large conflict if gay marriage is made legal. You see, you've got the conservatives and republicans that are against gay marriage, Then you have the liberals and democrats that are for gay marriage. If gay marriage is to be legalized, then it is safe to assume that the democrats take full power over that matter. Then the republicans feel left out, and they try to take it back through their ways of politics. Since more creationists and religious people are republicans and more atheists or evolutionists are democrats, we have a religious uproar over gay marriage. This is clearly not a good thing because it has the potential to cause more problems within the US Government, and other countries around the world depending on their political parties, being liberal and conservative, as most are.More next round.
gay marriage should be leggalized in every country

I accept this debate on the grounds that I do not believe gay marriage should be legalized in every country. I ask, why must I forfeit the last round? I must tell you, Pro, I am not one who likes to forfeit. I like to stay true to my debates, as should you. And if you are to not write any arguments this round (Round 1), why should I? Most debates on DDO start in Round 2, as Round 1 is for descriptions and acceptance. I ask that in the next round (Round 2), you present your cases and evidence for your side of why gay marriage should be legalized in every country. Then, I will counter those points and make some of my own, and so on. The first argument of Round 2 is all yours, Pro.
The Houston Astros benefit their fans by not allowing outside food/drink in their ballpark.

With many thanks to Crazy4Steelers 07 for starting this debate, I should like to make the following arguments in favour of the resolution: Contention 1 -------------- Most Texans are extremely fat so anything that discourages them from stuffing their faces, even if it is just for a short time, is beneficial to their health. http://www.window.state.tx.us... Contention 2 -------------- Many Houston Astro fans are vagrants who are unable to afford the high prices of alcohol in the ballpark and would, if they were allowed, bring turps and methylated spirits to the game with them, and this would clearly present a fire hazard. http://www.homelesshouston.org... Contention 3 -------------- The locals in Houston tend to eat very messy food - shrimps in cocktail sauce, beef brisket with baked beans and packets of Fritos with chilli poured in are all favourites there. This means that if anything exciting enough to make the fans jump up ever happened during an Astro's game, unlike hotdogs and burgers, the Houston fans' food would fly in all directions and that would cost the supporters a fortune in laundry bills. http://chowhound.chow.com... Contention 4 -------------- Houston are currently rock bottom of their league and the extra revenue gained from sales of hotdogs and sodas will enable the Astros to invest in some decent players, thus providing the fans with a glimmer of a hope of a victory at some time in the future. http://mlb.mlb.com... For these reasons, I affirm that the Houston Astros benefit their fans by not allowing outside food and drink to be consumed in their ballpark. Thank you.
The Houston Astros benefit their fans by not allowing outside food/drink in their ballpark.

Okay, I didn't want to mention it earlier because it seemed like it would make too much of an easy win for me, but my opponent has been fairly ruthless and posted some very good points so I feel I owe it to myself to take this opportunity to point out the obvious: If the Astro's fans buy a hamburger from Wendy's or a bean burrito from Taco Bell or a Wagyu beef and teriyaki chicken bentobox from Benihana's or whatever, by the time they get to the ballpark it will be cold, stale and utterly inedible. The whole reason people pay good money to eat food prepared in the ballpark is that it will be freshly cooked and piping hot. Given the choice between suffering from acute nausea as the result of consuming a cold burger that is caked in congealed grease washed down with a tepid cup of coffee or a enjoying a "ginormous baked potato buried in cheese, loaded down with sweet pulled pork meat, doused in barbecue sauce, smothered in onions, and topped with jalapeï¿½o peppers" washed down with an ice cold beer, I know which I'd rather have and the Houston Astro's know that trips to the hospital with complaints of food poisoning are not beneficial to their fans which is why they do not permit food from outside to be taken into the ballpark. Thanks for a very enjoyable debate, my Steelers-supporting opponent and thank you for reading and voting Pro my dear DDO pals!
The Houston Astros benefit their fans by not allowing outside food/drink in their ballpark.

Ok, obviously fans defecting is not benefical, vot Con. On my airline point I was mostly speaking for US airline (Continental, Northwest) where it is common practice is America to allow people to take outside food (Namely McDonalds and Burger King) onto plans to munch on during the flights 'cause real airplane food here has become trash. Exstend the Ticket Prices should be cheaper argument from the third round, it went dropped and thus goes uncontested. Fans are not benefited by being offered lower ticket prices in exchange for not having outside food/drink. Thus Vote Con. At the point where my oppent didn't respond to my attacks on his contention, or my extention of my contention you have to move those to the con side. Furthermore, my opponent, as Pro is this debate has to present a reason why "The Houston Astros benefit their fans by not allowing outside food/drink in their ballpark" you have to vote con. My opponent has no offense, and if anything you have to vote on Neg presumtion; along with the overwelming number of arguments I've won/have gone dropped by my opponent.
The Houston Astros benefit their fans by not allowing outside food/drink in their ballpark.

My opponent made some very good points in last argument, indeed, it is difficult to fault him. However, he did write: "Think about when you go on a plane, they don't force you to have they're plane food, you can buy food at the airport and take it on the plane." Well, being used to flying business class (at the Company's expense) I was shocked and dismayed when I took a flight with United Airlines from Chicago to Tampa in Economy class. The flight was two and a half hours long but the grasping, tight-fisted con-merchants wanted me to pay for my booze and grub! http://www.united.com... It cost me $8 for a can of beer and a bag of crisps (chips). Bloody hell, what a flipping rip-off! But worse than that, some other passengers had brought their own food and drinks with them but the flight attendant told them that they weren't allowed to consume them on board. This 'no outside food' policy seems to be a trend though, and not just in the aviation industry. For as long as I can remember, nobody has been allowed to bring their own food or drink to football (soccer) matches in Europe and it would appear that the Houston Astro's are the first baseball club to adopt this ploy in North America - no doubt the others will follow suit in due course. Still, it is difficult to see how this benefits fans, apart from the reasons I have already outlined, but having said that, every cloud has a silver lining. I will never fly with United again (at least not in Economy class) and, similarly, the Astros' fans may be tempted to defect and support a better club instead. Alternatively, they may realise that motorsport events are much more exciting to attend than baseball matches (which are only played by schoolgirls here in England and are watched by absolutely no one except seedy old men in dirty overcoats) and they will spend their money on tickets for Nascar or Indy races instead. Thank you.