BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It's none of the government's business whether gays should get married or not.

I want this to be a straight forward debate. If you have many points to make, make them all! But do not give me 50 lines to explain ONE of your points of view. 1) It is against a democracy to diminish the rights of a minority. Gays are a minority and they are not being given the right to be married to a person of whatever sex they like.
It's none of the government's business whether gays should get married or not.

It isn't the government's job to form policy based on popular connotations and granting homosexuals "marriage" wouldn't stop the prejudice or the funny looks, it would just diminish the original significance of the word. It can teach tolerance, but it cannot rob the term of marriage of its initial marriage. "Gay-marriage" was just an example. Homosexuals may call it whatever they wish even something like "love-union." The phrase isn't important as long as it is different. I took this debate as con because I think the term marriage is valuable of it's own right and should be defended as it is. I'm sorry that I didn't represent the perspective you wanted to debate against. Well, at least you saw a diffent take on the whole argument. I encourage you to start this debate again with someone else. I'll watch it.
It's none of the government's business whether gays should get married or not.

Then if it is fine to call it "gay marriage" why should it not be fine to call it just marriage? As a heterosexual I don't believe it diminishes the meaning of marriage simply because the people being married are of certain gender. Making sure that the person you speak to knows the marriage was between homosexuals causes discrimination of minority because unfortunately, people are most likely to think "ew, homosexuals" than to say "how great, a happy gay couple getting married". Also, this debate was about whether gays should be married, if you say "gay-marriage" is fine, then I don't understand why you took on the debate as a contender.
It's none of the government's business whether gays should get married or not.

It makes a difference to those who get married. Marriage is for men and women. Civil unions are the binding contract. If homosexuals wanted to call their civil unions "gay-marriages" that would be fine. The terminology is the government's concern because it is important to those being married. The argument applies both ways. If homosexuals had defined marriage as a union between two members of the same sex, then heterosexuals would need to make their own term for their unions. In my opinion, the government should only have the distinction of civil unions, but since this isn't the case, its job is to preserve the original terminology.
It's none of the government's business whether gays should get married or not.

Homosexuals should have all the same rights as heterosexuals. In this case they do, homosexuals can marry women. There is no law banning homosexual marriage. The problem occurs when homosexuals claim the term marriage as their right. They should be entitled to civil unions that have all the same legal effects as marriage, but the term is and should be reserved for civil unions between men and women. It would be an injustice to rob the term from those who gave it significance.
The Australian education system should united and be the same level as the Nsw education system

Welcome ladies and Gentleman to the last round of this debate This round is for summary and to present our last argument I apologies for all spelling mistakes i have made throughout the debate as I am used to debate via the use of speech rather than writing. My resolution is as follows which i am changing or the last time - Australia should have a national education system which would be equivalent to the current NSW education system I have chosen The NSW education system because it is harder than all the other Australian education systems but not too hard as i would like the students to cope to a harder education in minimum possible time. Cost of this policy has 2 sides - profit and loss Profit - As Australia has one education system then there would not be a point for one education system per state - The people that lose their job will be trained to the new system and then will replace the old teachers Loss - Training for the new education system but that will be paid from the money of the education departments which are suspended My case has boiled down to 3 main points If the current education system stays - Gifted and Talented Students from other states will suffer - HSC students will suffer - Students from all states except NSW students will suffer I would like to finish my case with some rebuttals and a glimpse on Con's case My opponent has started his debate with a contradicting resolution which supports both sides. I have proven that in round 4 and Con has not rebutted against that claim meaning he agrees. Con's resolution - The Australian education should remain the same and have a variety of styles with education. Con's Argument has boiled down to 2 main points
The Australian education system should united and be the same level as the Nsw education system

Before I start my case i would like to point out some flaws in the opponents arguments. Con has clearly proven that he doesnot know the education system of NSW or may have misinterpreted the meaning of education systemi would like to define a key words to clear some misinterpretation which the opponent as had in Round 1Education system - It is a system which educates and caters for all students of all abilities. Thusit should be obvious that thegifted and talented students will be doing harder things and extensionsatschool whilst the students with disabilities would be doing things whichwill be compatible with their abilities.This means when the opponent assumed that GAT students and students with a learning disabilities won't have different education systemhe/she was wrong which means its first 2 arguments were wrong and a result of an innocent and rushed assumption.The opponents have stated that immigrants will struggle with thenew education systembut the reality is all immigrants still suffer with the current education systemas its different education system to the one they(immigrants) were used to in their home country. Therefore the last con's arguments is also pointless.Now iwould like to start my casei agree with the definitions conhas made but disagree with""one education system" for all students currently in Australia" implification.Firstly the main reason why australia education system should be united to make all student equally learned. There are many Gifted and talented students (GAT)around Australia but they are not equally smart as they allgo through a different education system depending on th state they live in.So are all the GAT students in Australia equally smart ? Yes and NoYes, Because if GAT students from NSW travel elsewhere theystillwill remain GATas theyStudy the hardest education system but No for all the rest of The Gat students.Same sort of things happen with Hsc students UAI and ATARwhen they travel to different states for University admission. There score will either increase or decrease depending on the state theyare travelling to. But if the education system was equal throughout the nation Then the problems stated above will never occur. Thus The Australian education system should be united.Second and the last argumentAs per the PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment ) Australian education is 3 years behind. This information has some defects asnot all the students in Australia learn the same thing. It is also highly likely PISA have used NSW education system for their assessment. Thus chances that other state government education system are more than 3 years behind is very likely. Hence if every one used Nsw education system then that state will start producing more smarter and maybe hardworking learners.
The Australian education system should united and be the same level as the Nsw education system

Australian education system is different throughout Australia In this debate I will try to prove that Australian education should be same throughout the nation As the affirmative i define the topic as a possible way to change australian education system for the good of the nation At the moment NSW students have the hardest eduction system which means the rest of Australia students are not capable of being equivalent to Nsw students. If Australian donot study the same things they would not be capable of moving out their particular state as the education system in that state maybe too hard for the students to adapt. If you donot want your students (Non Nsw students) to suffer support The unification of the Australian Education System
Same Sex Marriage

One could also argue that there is no "use" in finding a mate.Most people say that the reason that the human population is here is to reproduce and continue the species, but what's the point if there's nothing special about the species to reproduce? The thing that separates humans from most species is that we are able to do activities and things that don't have to be about our survival. Homosexuals can adopt or find someone to carry their baby for them; there are plenty of kids that are born that people don't even want, so arguably what's the point of those couples? I know plenty of couples that are well into their fifties or sixties and have gone through their entire lives, and just don't want kids. Plus, with current overpopulation of our species today, isn't it fair to say that by not being able to reproduce it's even helping? Finding someone isn't completely based on reproduction. If it was, then we wouldn't have emotions, and people wouldn't be having sex for fun as well as reproduction. There are plenty of examples of representations of people having sex without the intention of reproduction.
Same Sex Marriage

The use of finding a mate is to reproduce gays can not do this do to biology. So in evidence one must say it defeats the whole purpose of "mating". Gay marriage in the art of bringing on a stronger and better species is a harm. Genetic diversity is needed and marriage was first began for this reason. If one is gay genetics stop here being with one another is then a wasted effort as if one wants to have children the couple have to look elsewhere. It would be just easier to find one you can bring genetic diversity.
Same Sex Marriage

Okay, I take back my argument that it just doesn't happen. Lots of things happen with humans though, and lots of people are born different ways. Some are born sexually attracted to even cars. However, that doesn't make it legal because the animals have no way of actually telling us that they are mutually okay with marriage. Even in that video when they talk about the stallion, it doesn't speak a language. There's no way of it contacting them about marriage, which is the topic at hand here. In same sex marriage, they can both agree to it. Good argument! I'm excited to see where this goes.
Same Sex Marriage

I accept and will agree that religion has no place in this debate. If men start marrying men, they'll start marrying animals!- That's wrong. Scientifically, no animals mate with other species of animals, so why would humans do the same? People have begun doing this. There are things like bestiality this is when a human has intercourse with a non-human creature. http://www.youtube.com... Traditional marriage is between a man and a woman, not a man and a man. That's how it's always been.- Also wrong. Men have been gay since the beginning of time; in native Americans tribes if you were gay you were celebrated and were considered sent from the gods. This is true. I know this is to be true in my study of history.
Same Sex Marriage

Okay, this is my first debate so I'm not actually 100% sure how it works, I just wanted to debate someone. I was just in the mood. So here are some common arguments against gay marriage, and my responses: The bible says- I'm going to cut you off right there. The bible says lots of things, I don't think that we should use that as a reference. But god thinks- I'll cut you off there, too. Our nation was founded on the seperation of church and state, and incorporating religion into politics is purely unconstitutional. If men start marrying men, they'll start marrying animals!- That's wrong. Scientifically, no animals mate with other species of animals, so why would humans do the same? Traditional marriage is between a man and a woman, not a man and a man. That's how it's always been.- Also wrong. Men have been gay since the beginning of time; in native Americans tribes if you were gay you were celebrated and were considered sent from the gods. So there ya go. Just four that I could think of.
Same Sex Marriage

The process of legalizing same sex marriage will create a civil unrest, protest and even illegal beatings of gays will ensue among the public. Proof of this will be in our very history among the civil rights acts. Prejudice is wrong but the chaos and disorder it will cause the United States of North America at this point will create a bad situation (our public order has been declining in this economic hardship). Ex. Protests of Wall street. There is no point in legalizing till the government has stabilized. Still even then the governments definition of marriage will have to be changed. Even so change in government is rare and won't occur many believe that marriage should remain the way it is as gay families will never be considered the norm the the confusion it can cause children and so forth. Same sex marriage though not immoral is rationally not needed with the many more important issues. The constitution does not protect the rights of gays but it also does not prohibit the issue. I believe I have shown the reasons for holding out on this issue in government.
Same Sex Marriage

The purpose of all species is to attempt to thrive. We do this by learning about our environment it is what makes us the dominate creature. Physically we are not the strongest or fastest so we focus on knowledge. Everything is for the betterment of our race as a whole. The recognition in the states for marriage is with a man and women those citizens who are gay are not included with this marriage is narrow and do not include and never have included same sex couples.
Same Sex Marriage

But humans aren't on the earth just for mating. We're here to have friends, learn about the earth, have fun, etc. The thing that separates humans from most other species is that we are able to do things that aren't primarily for our survival, as previously mentioned. We're not here only to mate. As it is, the ratio of homosexuals to heterosexuals is 1:10, but the expected ratio including what we think are closeted is 1:3. That means that ether way, we still have a larger heterosexual population than homosexual. The human species will still carry on, and irregardless of whatever argument there is, we are still denying humans in our society their basic rights, which goes against literally EVERYTHING that our country was founded for.
Same Sex Marriage

The special ability of genetic diversity gives people an edge in the concept of basic survival both in intellect, strength and protection from environmental hazards like disease. In this we better our race as a whole. If the outcome is not in the better then a individual with less ability is born and becomes less able to succeed in finding a mate. If homosexuals adopt or look elsewhere for the use of creating a child then they are not combining there genetic code with there mate but with another. Either way the genetic of this partnership are never joined. I agree with my rival that human population is over expanded. I agree people like myself have sex for pleasure but that is different from mating. Sex is the act of doing the deed with another for fun. To find a mate is to find a life partner to share life with. A mate that cannot give a child is a useless concept for humanity.
perception and its manipulation is ultimate power

You are correct in the fact that turning off your perception is a defense against perception manipulation, as much as never turning on you computer is a defense against computer viruses. You have to turn off the mind for its perception to not be altered good or bad. Instead of going into a coma, why not train your mind to alter its own perception? I find perception manipulation to be ultimate because its only defense that leaves the user functional is itself. By your logic that makes it ultimate.
perception and its manipulation is ultimate power

I am a strong believer in the samurai philosophy that the worst way to kill an opponent is by his/her own blade. But I'm sorry that I must resort to turning your resolution into a paradox. It is in fact the ONLY way (believe me, I've tried desperately to find another way) in which to highlight its very fallacy.In the realm of debating 'power' we must see that every offence has an available defence which MUST BE automatically more ultimately powerful than the offence if it is to cause the one it is defending to receive no damage whatsoever from the offence.Thus IF, of all offensive powers, Manipulation of perception is ultimate power then AUTOMATICALLY the ONLY logical conclusion can be that an power which completely and utterly is able to deflect all that ultimate power MUST be the MOST ultimate power and thus automatically takes the claim.Manipulation of power being ultimate immediately causes it to get nudged down to second place by the ability to never have one's perception manipulated.Your round two attack was that the mechanism of this makes it near-impossible to achieve since by having perception one automatically is manipulated. But then this AGAIN is a paradox since if everyone's perception is manipulated, even the perception manipulator is having his own perception manipulated meaning that if his power is the ultimate one, he/she is automatically a victim to the most ultimate power and a self-destructive power is not the ultimate power since the more you use and rely on it the more ironic your use of it becomes considering that you, the entire time have been under the influence of power. This is like saying, if everyone is ageing all the time then the ability to make people age is the ultimate power. Well that is self-destructive and pointless since it is inevitably causing the user to become victimized by the ultimate power since he is always under it! How can such a power be deemed ultimate if deeming it ultimate makes the user the victim of ultimate power?
perception and its manipulation is ultimate power

It is appreciated. I do not find freedom from perception manipulation omnipotent because of it requires one to stop perceiving entirely. Everyday how an individual sees the world is being altered by what is happening to the individual that is perceiving it. Physical stature, the people in the individual's immediate environment, the food the individual eats all alter their perception of the world around them. With something so dynamic how can it not be manipulated? The only way to be free from this perception alteration is to completely isolate oneself. As a defense for having an individual's perception manipulated by possibly malicious forces is for the individual to manipulate their own perception.
perception and its manipulation is ultimate power

So I believe that the power to manipulate perception in today's society is ultimate power. Be it the masses or our own, you can conquer the world or help usher in a better tomorrow. If you can control how the majority of the populace is perceiving things, you then have power to spin any item to conform to your agenda. If you can manipulate your own perception, you can possibly see all sides of a situation and. that when combined with some empathy is what I believe is the path to a better tomorrow. This is a fundamental believe of mine. I look forward to having it challenged.
Britain should retain its Constitutional Monarchy.

To say the Monarchy serves no role in society is definitely erroneous. The whole point is Monarchy brings people together in celebration, irrespective of politics and social class. When you see people gathering at occasions such as the annual Trooping the Colour or the Royal Wedding in 2011, nobody even considers each other's social class because it's such a uniting force.Whilst it might not be intrinsically correct to say a Monarchy enhances a country's growth, it's certainly true that it has absolutely no negative effect on it. You mention the Monarchy encourages class divide, well this is also untrue. You only have to look at the world's republics to know that this is the case. America, for example, has huge class divides and none of this is to do with Monarchy - to say that there would be more equality just because the head of state is a president is simply wrong.In the UK, there is a vast lack of enthusiasm for politicians, which is one of the reasons the Monarchy does so well. People really don't want another politician as Head of State. And what's to say an elected person would do a better job anyway? Monarchs are trained from birth for their role and have a lot of time to accrue experience, wisdom and understanding of the country they're head of state of - just because somebody's elected, doesn't mean they'll do a better job!Your last argument about the Monarchy creating public instability is also unfounded. For over 350 years, the United Kingdom has remained incredibly stable politically and to this day, it remains more stable than many republics and other countries where the head of state is elected.Her Majesty The Queen is all things to all people, a politician can only ever be one thing - and that's political. Wherever The Queen goes, vast crowds turn out to see her, whether that's in the UK or overseas. She is both a global icon and a living breathing reminder of what makes Britain great and why we don't have to be like other countries.Republicanism in the UK is, quite simply, a solution looking for a problem.