BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Breast feeding in public should be embraced by Americans, and excepted.

Well well well my good friend Candice lets take a look at what we have here, before I begin let me point out I am in no way an expert on this topic but I accepted this because of your loathing for me. Lets begin, First of all I should say I do not think that pregnant women should be allowed in public. Also don't you hate it when you go out with your family and friends to a nice dinner and you can hardly hear anything because a undisciplined little brat is screaming its lungs out while its moronic mother just sits their enjoying herself while she ruined everyones evening by bringing her infant child out.It would be nice if restaurants could lower the oxygen level in their establishments so kids would just zonk out immediately upon entering. haha anyway I get the entire "proud" to be a mother crap but its simple curtesy no one wants to see you breast feed your little rat in open public I mean come on. We get it your a mother you love your kid and your proud to breast feed ya ya ya just spare us the embarrassment for you and keep the public displays in private. I mean whats a bathroom for? and besides that if your planning to go out to a public place do your business before you go spare every one else.
Breast feeding in public should be embraced by Americans, and excepted.

Other countries around the world are very comfortable with breastfeeding. I recently saw a picture of Hugo Chavez talking to, and embrassing a Venezuelan citizen openly breastfeeding. What do you think George Bush would do if he saw a woman breastfeeding while shaking hands? Why are American's so closed off and sometimes offended by women feeding they're babies naturally? Breastfeeding is the healthiest choice for your infant. There are no antibodies in formula. The fat's in breast milk help babies brain and eye's develop better than those of a formula fed baby. This helps with the protection against disease, and allergies. Why would our advanced society deny a hungry baby food? There's NOTHING sexual about breast feeding, and if your offended, perhaps your staring at the person's boob to long. Here's an idea... don't. If you feel strange inside because your not comfortable with a breast feeding mommy showing love to her baby, look the other way! Personally, I refuse to feel embarassed about what my boobs are for! My daughter hates being underneath a stuffy blanket. It makes me hot to. We live in the dessert. Women would probably feel more comfortable with breast feeding if society didn't attach negative, or dirty vibes to it. When my baby is hungry, it's hungry... and I feed her. Don't be offended about something so natural and right!
Gay Parenting

My last attempt to debate this was taken on by a non-serious debater, so I'd like to try this again. Many arguments against the legality of gay marriage include the sanctity of the family. According to social conservatives, gay people are deranged, perverted or otherwise unfit to provide a safe, functional and/or loving family environment in which kids can be raised successfully. At the very least, they argue that a proper home is strictly defined by having both a mother and a father. As such, despite the fact that lesbians can still get pregnant and gay couples can adopt, many people are opposed to same-sex headed families and think they should be discouraged if not outright illegal. In this debate, I will be arguing that gay and lesbian couples can on balance raise children just as well as straight couples. For all intents and purposes, just as well will essentially be defined as according to the same standards of wellness and success under similar circumstances. For example, if Con argues that kids with straight parents are likely to attend college, Pro will have the burden of proving kids with gay parents are also likely to attend college (or provide an otherwise equal measure of success). This is not meant to turn into a debate about semantics or trivialities, but discuss legitimate concerns regarding same-sex parenting. My opponent is free to make opening notes in R1, as I intend to start the debate and make my affirmative case in R2. However if he or she would like to post first, they may do so. Thanks and good luck.
NEW FACEBOOK TOURNAMENT READY FOR SIGN UP! (Advertisement debate inside)

My stance is simple, advertisements are unnecessary and the annoyance that they provide outweighs the lack of benefits. A) Advertisements are unnecessary. Krispy Kreme is the most popular donut maker in the world has NEVER advertised in any commercial or advertisement, ever! If they don't need advertisement, then why are we being annoyed with this crap? B) It's annoying! Um, ya, IT IS ANNOYING! Besides this, I really don't see why you need any more proof. It's simply no benefits, cost of annoyance.
NEW FACEBOOK TOURNAMENT READY FOR SIGN UP! (Advertisement debate inside)

THERE IS A NEW FACEBOOK TOURNAMENT READY CURRENTLY IN THE SIGN UP PERIOD. If you are interested in judging or debating LD or Policy (for the upcoming topics) so SIGN UP! The format of the tournament is as follows: -4 "Prelim" Rounds with 2 judges for each debate. -Every debater with 5 or more "votes" gets into a seeded single elimination bracket until there is a winner! The link to the Group on Facebook is below. Be sure to join the Group AND to sign up in the discussion board labeled, "Tournament 2 Sign Up." If you want to be a judge, sign up in the appropriate discussion board. http://www.facebook.com... Sign up today! P.S.- I'll answer any questions in the comments section. ================================= Now, since some people don't like these advertisements, I will turn this into a debate: Resolved: The benefits of advertisements outweigh the costs. Beginning with my first argument: I. Knowledge -One of the most important things in today's society is the knowledge of the world. However, without advertisements, knowledge is at a loss. The only thing that advertisements do is give people knowledge of a product that they may or may not want. II. Economic Gain -Another important thing that advertisements help is for companies to flourish and in turn, help the economy. In a state of economy such as today, any benefit is useful so when advertisements are taken away, people will only rely on what they actually see in the products AT THE STORE and you gain no knowledge of other product "out there" and in effect, stores will fail to meet what other company's may have (supply and demand lessens)… III. Advertisements only offer "when you run into it" benefits. -If I were to NOT do advertisements such as this, few to none people would be able to enter since few to none would ever just "happen to run into it"… The fact of the matter is that these small annoyances are actually worth and therefore the benefits outweigh the costs. I await the next speech.
NEW FACEBOOK TOURNAMENT READY FOR SIGN UP! (Advertisement debate inside)

Thank you for accepting. Although my opponent makes some good points as to why advertisements are SOMETIMES unnecessary, you fail to prove that they are always unnecessary. You have yet to argue ANY of my arguments directly. For example- I bet that after this is seen by several people, that the tournament numbers will go up. Therefore, the amount of people that will get to enjoy the thrill of tournament competition is increased by the cost of only a few peoples "annoyance"… Please flow through all of my arguments as they still stand. Knowledge goes up and people STILL have the freedom to say yes or no, but AT LEAST they have the CHOICE of what to do. My opponent should have just said no rather than complaining and taking 5 times longer (of his time) by complaining.
Gay

Liberal are idiots? Dude, we need to have a chat. Also, if you read my profile, you'll know that I'm gay...and yes, to use your own terminology, you're "comments have been pretty offensive." I am not one of the stereotypical gays your referring to, but I do firmly believe in everyone's right to dress, talk, and behave as they wish, and that we shouldn't just ship people off to Madagascar because they're "flamboyant." If you ever want more information about gay people, just PM me--maybe I can *gasp* convince you the liberal gay-rights agenda isn't so insidious after all. Okay, but on to the arguments...I shall rebut Con's case, point out some drops Con made, and Crystallize the Round. REBUTTALS The "black man in a hoodie" argument is racist, just as the "transvestites are disgusting and scaring children" argument was unacceptably homophobic. If you agree that the hoodie examples was an exercise in ridiculousness, then so too was the argument about gays scarring children--both are motivated by irrational prejudices. Re: Wyoming...lol...just...lol Con seems to have tread away from his biblical arguments, saying that "if gay people want to marry too than that is fine too." So, he basically concedes that the bible should not be the basis for legislation. DROPS - People have the Constitutional right to freedom of expression; i.e. Gay people can be as flamboyant and fabulous as we want - Abandonment of this freedom, or a move to derogate the rights of certain "undesirable groups" is totalitarian and unjustifiable CRYSTALLIZATION Please vote Pro today because Con has, in essence, made a series of warrantless claims based more on prejudice, disgust, and personal dislike than reason. Con has dropped every issue of substance on the flow, and has misunderstood several of my attacks. Thank you and thanks to Con!
Gay

Ok well I have been getting owned in this debate so far and rightfully so as my comments have been pretty offensive but then I saw my opponents profile and saw he was an avid liberal so I said to myself "oh I didn't realize I was debating against an idiot so the rest of this should be easy". First of these "black man in hoodie" comments seem pretty racist to me if u automatically think of gangs if u see one. Also Wyoming is a nice state with great people how dare u say that. Also Abraham married his sister and no one else as they loved eachother as husband and wife even though they we brother and sister. Present day this would be severely frowned upon yet gay marriage isn't anymore. I understand the consequences of 2 siblings reproducing but if that is what they want then fine and if gay people want to marry too than that is fine too. The differnce is that the siblings that married would not go around making sure I knew that they married eachother while some gay couples make sure I know that they are gay. Yes there is no reasonable or possible way to prevent this because it is not only morally wrong it's just against the law so I guess this debate is just me saying to the men who wear bikinis..... Please don't make me vomit anymore.
Gay

Con says that clothing is not the focus of this debate. I could not agree more--it is about the right to freely express oneself in a nation that views itself as a "free society."Really, transvestism? Okay, so lets use the example of the black man in a hoodie lstening to rap music. Suppose I am a parent, and I see someone fitting that description on my street. I feel as if this individual, by his appearance, is promoting pro-gang and anti-law sentiments that may negative impact my child. Can the state justifiably compel this person to change his appearance, or can the state forcibly deport him to Madagascar? NO!He has the right to present and express himself however he chooses. Con never addresses my Constitutionality arguments, which clearly support this. Whe a nations begins to tell people how to act or how to dress or how effiminate their voice can sound or whatever, that nation is acting in an unjustified and illegitimate fashion. Direct comparisons can be draw to East Germany, the USSR, China (esp. the Cultural Revolution), etc. That is not the type of society the U.S. should become. Just because a few people are disgusted does not justify the violation of a large groups rights. Moreover, Con's assertions that "children are scared" is more a dogmatic, warrentless, bigoted claim than a fully developed argument.As for Leviticus, he also advocated stoning adultresses. Did you know that Abraham was a polygamist? Unless Con is willing to say that we should practice polygamy, stone women who cheat, not eat pork, not allow women to marry unless they are virgins, etc. then we can dismiss his religious arguments because he is cherry-picking those quotes which support his own beliefs. It's a perveted form of confirmation bias he's employing here. He's selectively choosing those portions of the Bible he agrees with, and ignoring those other portions he doesn't agree with.Also, in the U.S. we respect religious diversity, and not all relgions share those fundamentalist views. That is why we have Separation of Church and State, so no one religion dominates and so that our democracy does not morph into a theocracy.Maybe we could solve Con's problem by sending Con to some remote place in Wyoming. He won't find any gay people there--in fact, he won't find any people there. Presto! Problem fixed.
Gay

Ok first of I would like to begin with that clothing is not the main issue of this debate it is the openness that certain gay people show that not only do I sometimes find wrong but many times disturbing. Seeing a male in womens clothes is just disgusting and can scar childrens minds. Now im still not completely against gays but I do believe in God and follow the teachings of the Bible. The Old and New Testaments condemn Gay marriage as Leviticus 18:22 says ,,"A man shall not lie with man as with a woman, it is abomination." the topic of gay marriage was not popular 25 years ago and all before that but now that they have slowly been given rights it seems they are abusing the new "acceptability" of open gayness and blatantly showing to me that they are indeed homosexual. If I were to walk in a clothing or make up store or even just walking on the street (mainly in NYC and San Francisco) I would most definitely encounter a male wearing makeup with pink or purple hair and he would attempt to speak very loudly with a feminine tone. Now I know many gay people are not like that but this discussion is for them only and to leave I mean go to Madagascar or some remote island instead of scaring children. also I have not included females in this debate mainly because they do not ever display disturbing actions like some men do
Gay

So, as I understand it, Con's issue is not with gays themselves, but rather it is the stereotype of the gay male that he finds irksome. He calls upon them to quote: "leave. " This term is rather vague insofar as we don't know where Con wants them to go to, but I think this is largely a non-issue. We can affirm very simply by asserting that everyone has the freedom to express themselves as they see fit. This includes being a "flamer who walks around wearing gay clothes and talking like an idiot. " Firstly, this right is guaranteed by the Constitution, which grants every person with the right to freedom of speech and expression. If I wanted (thought I really don't) to wear garish brocade pattersn and relish in my sunshine gay fabulousness, I could, and there would be nothing you could really do to stop me. The right to freedom of speech and expression is vital to having an effective government and a fair society. The second we beginto descriminate against particular groups as being unacceptable or outlandish, is the second we begin to restrict freedom in our society. We might just as easily say "I don't like blacks who wear hoodies, dewrags, and listen to rap music. Let's do bad stuff to them. " Eventually, we reach a point where society uses force to compel conformity and compliance, something analagous to Stasi in East Germany or Big Brother in "1984. " This is clearly undesriable. Secondly, we can ask how much authority should a society be able to exercise? If we acknowledge that each individual wants to maximize their own freedom, we can use the paradigm put forth by Mills, that so long as you're not infringing on other's freedom, you're free to do as you wish. Society cannot compel someone to dress or behave in a less "flamboyant" fashion, because how I dress is not an imposition on you, but dictates ot me about what I can wear are certainly impositions on me. At this point, I really see no choice but to vote Pro. While I do not conform to the "flamboyant" stereotype, I do strongly believe that people, be they gay or straight, have a right to wear whatever they want, and to comport themselves in whatever fashion they so choose. Thank you!
Free will is an illusion

I see your point, But I disagree. 1. On your first point of "one cannot be author of their own conscious desires or thoughts". I don't quite understand that, Becuase no one is telling/forcing someone to think a specific way about something. For example: if i'm walking down the street and I all of a sudden want to think about birds and their are no birds in sight or anyone telling me to do so means I chose to think about birds which constitutes as free will as I have the leisure to freely think
Free will is an illusion

One cannot be the author of their own conscious desires or thoughts. One cannot have control over their wants and needs and impulses. Any decision you try to trace back can only be traced back to some unconscious process over which you had no control. “How can we be “free” as conscious agents if everything that we consciously intend is caused by events in our brain that we do not intend and of which we are entirely unaware? ” - Sam Harris "Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills. " - Arthur Schopenhauer
Free will is an illusion

You just said it right there! "Outside could include everything rooted in nature/nurture which are largely internal". You literally just stated that everything outside of what we know is interbal meaning these are things within our own concious thus showing it's our own minds triggering what we think abouy at anytime also you stilk never explain an unknown mechanism as to our free will. Choosing my parents literally has nothing to do with free will as sperm you are not a body of conscious so. .
Free will is an illusion

That makes very little sense. It should be patently obvious that you can"t trigger anything outside of your own conscious. Yes you can throw a rock but only because the desire to do so arose in your mind. "Outside" could include everything rooted in nature/nurture which are largely internal. HOWEVER you had no control over the parents to whom you were born or how they raised you. There"s determinism, Randomness, Etc. Happy to discuss in another debate but here I"m just dismantling free will.
Free will is an illusion

But that's the thing, YOU trigger this outside conscious desire that you keep talking about, Becuase its something you want to think about and it triggers when you want it to. It's not random this desire is brought out at a certain time during a certain event that activates when your brain wants it to. 2. You Keep talking about an outside force, But you haven't explained what that entails. Your arguement is" there is no free will, But an outside force. " How are you going to prove that?
Free will is an illusion

I fear you are fundamentally misunderstanding the argument. To your example, The point is that you can't possible control the fact that you "all of a sudden want to think about birds. " That desire arose from somewhere outside of your consciousness. Any reason you might give for thinking about birds, Selecting THAT reason to think of something wasn't according to your free will. If you honestly trace this or any thought process back, You will see it had nothing to do with volition.
Cannabis hemp is the best crop choice to provide food, shelter, and clothing.

I've never come across the Moringa Tree before now, defleppard1691, and thanks for bringing it to my attention. It is quite a plant, indeed. However, Cannabis is the best crop to provide food, shelter, and clothing. The main reason is that Cannabis grows in all the arable regions of the world, whereas the Moringa is limited to tropical areas. My source for info on Cannabis Sativa L. http://www.jackherer.com... My source for info on the Moringa Tree http://www.echotech.org...
The 'Young-earth' "theorists" take the bible literally and the earth is no older than 6,000yrs old

I actually already had a website ready to show how far away the stars are from the earth and how long it would take light from them to reach this planet. You did a fantastic job of explaining it. Much better than I would have done. Yes it would take millions of yrs, in some cases billions of yrs, for light to reach our planet from some stars. When GOD created Adam and Eve He created them fully grown. He created the Earth with fully grown trees, fully grown grass, and fully grown animals. When GOD said "let there be light" there was light immediately. Light from the sun takes roughly 8.3 hours to get here. The Bible doesn't say that GOD said "let there be light" and 8.3 hours later there was light. It happened immediately. It is perfectly logical to believe that it was the same with the stars. GOD created them "fully grown" for lack of a better term. He created them as if they had already been shining for millions or billions of yrs so that their light was already reaching Earth. This fits in perfectly with the Biblical time line. Here's a link that provides other evidences that the Earth is around 6,000-10,000 yrs old. http://www.answersingenesis.org...
The 'Young-earth' "theorists" take the bible literally and the earth is no older than 6,000yrs old

First, you ask me to prove to you that the earth is no more than 6,000 yrs old. The only way for anyone to prove to anyone else something about the earth's origins is for the person trying to prove their point to be all knowing and the person whom they're trying to prove it to must accept that the other is all knowing. If I asked you to prove to me that George Washington was the first President of the United States you couldn't do it. (I believe Washington was the first President just for the record.) Since I wasn't there and didn't see it for myself the only way for you to prove to me that Washinton was the first President is for me to accept someone else's account of what happened. Since you were not there when the earth began (unless you accept someone else's account of things) it is impossible to prove to you that the earth is only 6,000 yrs old. So, what I am assuming you want to debate is which view has more evidence. You say that people who believe in a young earth believe this despite all the evidence. You do not however, provide any evidence for your view of things. All you provide is that "all the science says that the earth is much older." I would very much like to read the evidence you have. I believe in a young earth because that is what the Bible says. Plain and simple. I wasn't there. The only way for me to know what happened is to accept someone else's account of things. I can either put my faith in imperfect men doing science experiments or I can put my faith in A perfect GOD. I choose to accept GOD's account of things rather than imperfect men who weren't there.