BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God Exists

In your argument, you commit the "God of the Gaps Fallacy," essentially, I don't know, therefore God, for example - "I don't know how the solar system is possible, so God must've done it." To answer each of your points, "I don't understand how life is possible without a life giver," is not proof of God. If we were to accept this argument as true, than you have only established Deism, and you have given no evidence as to why this life giver must be a personal being who loves each and every one of us. Furthermore, you commit a special pleading fallacy, as the God you believe in is 'alive' so by your logic, he would also need a life giver. Secondly, you said that "the information contained in a human zygote would fill the libraries of the world." This in no way proves theism, so why bring it up? "How is the solar system possible?" Well, the solar system is possible because all objects has mass, and the more mass an object has, the larger its gravitational pull. The suns mass is so large that its gravity keeps 4 rock planets and 4 gas giants orbiting it. If you wanted to know how It was formed, use this source https://www.windows2universe.org.... Finally, the idea "that the universe has no beginning originates in Hindu pantheistic thought, not atheism," has no bearing on what is true or false. The disbelief in God doesn't necessarily mean that the Universe has no beginning, and most Atheists would agree that the Universe as we know it began at the Big Bang.
My opponent picks the topic.

Welcome to the debate. This is a special debate, with special formats as follows.FORMAT1st round-Pro Introduce the parametersSelf-explanatory1st round-Con Provide the possible argumentsProvide ten possible arguments for me to choose from. Do NOT try to define or explain the arguments, as I can interpret the arguments any way I wish. Anything here should only be greetings or topics. I decide which side I wish to be, IGNORE the fact that debate.org says that I'm pro. The debate topics have to be somewhat different, to prevent ten rewording of a single topic. I can change the topic you provide slightly as well for the debate to be a fun experience. At the start of round 2 I will underline and bold the confirmed topic. 2nd round-Pro Argument & selection of topic.I will provide a confirmed topic here, define the topic and supply my arguments as necessary. My side (pro/con) will also be clearly stated here. Please cite all research and arguments. Please provide evidence for all arguments.2nd round-Con Argument & Rebuttal.Provide your arguments and rebuttal in this round. Again, please cite research provide evidence for arguments.3rd round-Pro Argument & Rebuttal.Provide your arguments and rebuttal in this round. Again, please cite research provide evidence for arguments.3rd round-Con Argument & Rebuttal.Provide your arguments and rebuttal in this round. Again, please cite research provide evidence for arguments.4th round-Pro Argument & Rebuttal.Provide your arguments and rebuttal in this round. Again, please cite research provide evidence for arguments.4th round-Con Argument & Rebuttal.Provide your arguments and rebuttal in this round. Again, please cite research provide evidence for arguments. Pro Conclusion & Rebuttal.5th round-Con Conclusion & Rebuttal.Rebut arguments and provide a conclusion in this round. No new arguments.5th round-Con Conclusion & Rebuttal.Rebut arguments and provide a conclusion in this round. No new arguments.No abusive language please. The topics that con picks should not be abusive. The topic has to be debatable worldwide. "My opponent picks the topic." is only a placeholder for real topic, so you may NOT post "I am not posting any topics, therefore I win" or something along those lines. Also, please post topics that are easy to debate on both sides.Failure to follow the rules and format stated above results in a full 7-point forfeit to the opposing team.I hope we have a good debate. Time limit for each argument: 1 day.Character limit: 5000Thank you.
Gay Marriage is Harmful and Must be Opposed

Rebuttal 1: Damage to Religious Folk Pro argues that homosexual marriage 'may cause harm to those who believe in God'. If Pro were able to establish damage done to religious folk of half the argument would be there. Not only has Pro neglected to give us citation as to how it does, but Pro hasn't even offered a hypothetical as to how religious folk may be harmed by homosexual marriage. Rubuttal 2: Unsubstantiated Speculation1) "Same-sex couples will cause stress and conflict to a child. "2) Opposite sex arguments are "not the same as a man and a man arguing or a women and a women arguing. "3) "Fathers and mothers teach respect to the opposite gender. "4) "A married father is substantially less likely to abuse his wife or children than men in any other category. "5) "Boys and girls with married fathers in the home learn, by observation, how men should treat women. "6) "There are centuries of proof that a child should be raised by a man and a women. "7) "Single parent statistics count for dual same sex parent statistics" (may be paraphrased)Rebuttal 3: The Parent Trap. .. 2? Pro argues yet again that children grown up in the context of single parent home may suffer harm. This fact even if true does not prove harm is caused by two same sex parents. Pro would need to prove that the lack of a specific male father and female mother is harmful to children. Conclusion:Pro has failed to provide any substantiated scenario where harm was caused by a same sex marriage.
Gay Marriage is Harmful and Must be Opposed

The fact that one does not believe in the existence of god or a god does not automatically mean same-sex marriage will not cause harm to those who do believe in god or a god that opposes same-sex marriage. Same-sex couples will cause stress and conflict to a child. As well as straight marriages, but it is not the same as a man and a man arguing or a women and a women arguing. Fathers and mothers teach respect to the opposite gender. A married father is substantially less likely to abuse his wife or children than men in any other category. This means that boys and girls with married fathers in the home learn, by observation, how men should treat women. There are centuries of proof that a child should be raised by a man and a women. Yet there is merely a few years of unreliable evidence to show that a same-sex couple can raise a child. May I include that statistics show... 60 percent of America's rapists came from fatherless homes 72 percent of adolescent murderers grew up without a father 70 percent of long-term prison inmates are fatherless Gay marriage or same-sex marriage is in fact harmful and must be opposed. http://www.citizenlink.com... http://www.ucg.org... http://www.cfcidaho.org... http://www.crosswalk.com...
Gay Marriage is Harmful and Must be Opposed

Every child should be raised by his natural mother and father. this rule is confirmed by the obvious difficulties faced by orphan children. A child who lives in a same-sex union environment is never going to have his biological mother or father. He is always going to be missing his mother or father role model. Through this, we can see that the homosexual movement downgrades and discards motherhood and fatherhood as something necessary for a child, even when children themselves naturally crave for a mother or father. I myself always wished I had a father. Not just around but involved. In the name of the "family"... "same-sex "marriage serves to validate the homosexual lifestyle in all of its bisexual and transgender variants. Civil laws are structuring principles that guide society. Laws shape the life of society, and as such can mold the perception of right and wrong. That is why I oppose the legal recognition of homosexual "marriage", because it obscures basic moral values, devalues natural marriage and weakens public morality. This is the most important reason. Whenever one violates the natural moral order established by God, one sins and offends God. Same-sex "marriage" does just this. Accordingly, anyone who professes to love God must be opposed to it. Marriage is not the creature of any State. Rather, it was established by God in Paradise for our first parents, Adam and Eve. As we read in the Book of Genesis: "God created man in His image; in the Divine image he created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them, saying: "Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it."" (Gen. 1:28-29) The same was taught by Our Savior Jesus Christ: "From the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother; and shall cleave to his wife." (Mark 10:6-7). Genesis also teaches how God punished Sodom and Gomorrah for the sin of homosexuality: "The Lord rained down sulfurous fire upon Sodom and Gomorrah. He overthrew those cities and the whole Plain, together with the inhabitants of the cities and the produce of the soil." (Gen. 19:24-25) You can't say it is not harmful to Christians when it offends god. God does not hate homosexuals themselves just the act.
Gay Marriage is Harmful and Must be Opposed

Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed by natural law. Natural law"s most elementary precept is that "good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided." By his natural reason, man can perceive what is morally good or bad for him. Thus, he can know the end or purpose of each of his acts and how it is morally wrong to transform the means that help him accomplish an act into the act"s purpose. Any situation which institutionalizes the circumvention of the purpose of the sexual act violates natural law and the objective norm of morality. Being rooted in human nature, natural law is universal and immutable. It applies to the entire human race, equally. It commands and forbids consistently, everywhere and always. Saint Paul taught in the Epistle to the Romans that the natural law is inscribed on the heart of every man. (Romans. 2:14-15) 14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them. It can be harmful since gays can't procreate because instead they will likely adopt a child. It is essential that a child must have both a father and a mother to be raised properly. Men and women think very differently. Men are more simple and to the point. Women are more emotional and complicated. Studies have found that girls with homes without a father are more likely to be sexually active and start sexual activity early. Also another study shows that girls raised by lone parents are twice as likely to leave home by the age of 18 as girls with intact homes were 3 times likely to. Other areas of evidence can include a child's education performance, committing suicide, etc. A house divided will not stand. Two men instead of a man and a women? A child will not likely receive emotional support due to the fact that both men are still men. Again men aren't as emotional as women are. Just because they automatically choose to be gay doesn't mean they are going to start "thinking" like a women. The reason of bringing in sodomy is because if a gay person was a virgin then he would most likely have sex when he got married. Gay people tend to use sodomy has a form of pleasure. In this case it will be harmful due to health risks. http://billmuehlenberg.com... http://www.webmd.com...
Gay Marriage is Harmful and Must be Opposed

You argue that gay marriage is harmful because they've no capacity to procreate? Am I to understand that heterosexual relationships where a partner is sterile for some medical reason should be denied as well? More importantly, the inability to procreate does not make a marriage harmful to any party.You claim that some "natural law" is being broken by a homosexual marriage, you must prove this natural law's existence and more importantly that the breaking of this natural law will cause harm.Regarding you're claim about a male father and female mother, I would argue that considering there is no evidence that a child1) Needs two parents to be healthy mentally and physically. (damage from divorce is not a relevant argument).2) Needs those parents to be specifically male and female and will otherwise sustain damage to their physical or mental health.A side note regarding procreation:We have more children needing parents than the reverse, as is evident by the existence of orphanages (apx 153 million ). (1) Homosexuals could give a great many of these children a home due to their lack of ability to procreate that you claim is damaging, quite the opposite it seems.Proving sodomy has health risks does nothing for your argument. Staring at this computer screen arguing against the rights of homosexuals has proven health risks to your eyes, we would prohibit 95% of human activity if we did so based on health risks. There are risks to heterosexual intercourse including but not limited to heat attack, stroke, sexual headaches, urinary tract infection, and STD's, should it too be banned? (2)1) http://www.ccainstitute.org...;2) http://www.everydayhealth.com...
Gay Marriage is Harmful and Must be Opposed

.. The reason for marriage is for the procreation of children which is a foundation of society. How can two men make children? Gay "marriage" is just a miss use of marriage. It is harmful because first off it is not marriage, it violates natural law, it always denies a child either a father or a mother, it validates and promotes the homosexual life style, it turns a moral wrong into a civil right, it does not create a family but a naturally sterile union, it defeat's the states purpose of benefiting marriage, it imposes it's acceptance on all society, it is cutting the edge of the sexual revolution, and not only all of the but it mainly offends god. I can keep going on and if you want we can bring sodomy into this and I can tell you how many health risks it has.
Should Gay Marriage Be Legal In America

First off, James Madison only said that to imply that the state has no control over the church, and the church is free to worship and do as they please. And if the America was built on "escaping" Christianity, then why does our currency say "In God we trust" and why did the Founding Fathers (that were Christians) talk about God so much. And why did the Pilgrims leave England in the first place, not to escape Christianity but to escape the king that was telling them how to worship. With that said, marriage is NOT just two social security numbers. Marriage is sacred between a MAN AND WOMAN. Where two people become one until death. And the Government does care more than a tie to taxes because according to the constitution they can't favor a religion. They are afraid of the diversion that will come. Between now and next Tuesday, Congress will decide if gay marriages will be legal nationwide. The thing they don't realize is how much it will effect America. Hell is going to break loose. There will be judgment. What happened to all the historic cities like Israel who disobeyed God. They were destroyed. So obviously, the Founding Fathers were into God and Christianity, America was based off of Christianity. And the Bible talks in several different places that gay marriages are evil, one of them being 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Corinthians 7:2, (please look these verses up) so why would we let that overcome our country? Why would you let evil come into your heart with open arms? Personally I would like to know why you think gay marriages are okay, outside of this debate. God Bless!
'The Interview' is a disgusting film and should be banned

Urgh time left me so I did not get a chance to write an argument. As this is the last round I cannot provide any arguments that is true, but I can provide refutations. Negative cases, even new refutations, are allowed.[1] So while Conduct points should go to my opponent, I believe I do still win this debate. The reason is that my opponent never fulfilled his burden of proof. The resolution places the entire burden on my opponent, and he never really gave an argument. He may have given an introduction, but never an argument. Since the rule follows "onus probandi incumbet ei qui deciet, non ei qui negat" I have no burden of proof. My opponent is affirming the resolution, is the Proposition, and is giving the positive legislation. He is also the one wanting to change something. In the end he never talks about "value" (I summon hither the Spirit of Zaradi). He never shows why there is greater value in banning the film, and does not give any sort of an argument altogether. I am not going to spend a lot of time here, in short the resolution uses the word "disgusting" let us see how this word is defined. disgusting d=8;sG2;ɡA2;st=8;!1;/ adjective arousing revulsion or strong indignation. By the resolution my opponent has to show that this movie viz. "The Interview" is necessarily disgusting for everyone. He had to show that this arousal of revulsion and strong indignation comes to every single person, being and thing. Well I watched it, and I did not think it was disgusting at all. My opponent defends North Korea, and talks about world terrorism, stuff I cannot anwer to because that would become positive. I can onlyy offer burden of proof analysis as pure negative criticism. Thing is, I still win. Consider this, and this alone, has my opponent successfully shown that the movie arouses this sense of revulsion in everyone. If he has then has he shown why this feeling of revulsion should warrant banning. If he has, hand him the win, if he has not, I win. I know I am playing with semantics, but its the truth. The burden my opponent took upon himself was one he never justified, by that order I win this debate. Thank you. [1]http://schoolsdebate.com...Ajab
'The Interview' is a disgusting film and should be banned

Imagine if an Eastern super power like China created a film that utterly sucked every piece of credibility out of a Western country like the USA or the UK. What would our reaction be if a film was made depicting the assassination of one of our leaders, and done so in a comical fashion? North Korea are not a terrorist country - they aren't in any way affiliated with the war on terrorism, 9/11, the war in Eastern Europe or the Taliban - they're simply a strictly governed country that sustains a different political structure to us. The East will never understand democracy and we will never understand anything that isn't democracy - just because North Korea have a dictator doesn't mean we need to ignite a war over it. 'The Interview' is an act of war, and a very explicit one. North Korea have every right to defend themselves, and have every right to blow the Western world into oblivion after this disgrace of a film. Of course, North Korea have done the sensible thing and contacted the United Nations, who incidentally have done nothing. The world's goal should be to unite all the nations, end war, finish hunger and demolish hatred. But with the US (and other countries) continually bouncing that ball of hatred across the world, we're hastily distancing ourselves from that goal. Although the film is comical and 'just a joke' that shouldn't be taken seriously, 'The Interview' is a film that conveys terrorism (the same method of terrorism that happened to JFK) to be a humorous ordeal.
should hazing be allowed in fraternities

First off, I have to conclude that your motivations stem from a hatred of fraternities rather than any concern about hazing. Frat boys have worked diligently to foster and earn that hatred. If you wanted to end fraternities on college campuses I would support that. But I cannot abide an attack on the traditions of hazing if it is simply out of misplaced animosity. Hazing, to one degree or another, exist in sororities, street gangs, sports teams, military units, religious sects and traditional cultures across the world. It is not about manipulating desperate people, you are thinking of religion. Hazing is a Right of Passage, an initiation, a way to make and reinforce bonds and a sense of belonging. The reason so many groups do some form of hazing is because it is in the interest of the group to nurture a sense that belonging to the group is special and had to be earned. People don't feel the same sense of loyalty when membership involves nothing more than joining. Add some competition, humiliation, challenges and a chance to earn the respect of the members of that group, now you are looking at some Esprit de Corps. The college campus today is populated by students who were raised in a world where everyone gets a trophy, They have been coddled in mind, body and spirit. Their playtime was scheduled and supervised, they have been robbed of the independence and exploration afforded previous generations. They weren't allowed, or required, to get dangerous jobs, play with dangerous toys or wander out of the protective vision of a carefully screened adult. Now more than ever, young people on campus need a chance to go beyond their comfort and safety zones, they need to prove to themselves and peers that they can face a challenge with no guarantee of success. They need to be able to want something and take risks to get it. College campuses today need more hazing not less. To be clear, hazing doesn't have to be reckless or immoral, ideally it isn't. Rather than ban fraternities from hazing pledges/initiates, why not set up some guidelines that limit particularly stupid activities.
should hazing be allowed in fraternities

Lets take a close look at my opponents arguments and I will show that they are invalid. My opponent stated that hazing is not manipulation. But it is true that 9 of 10 people being hazed don't know they are being hazed. This is manipulation. If you can convince someone that they are not doing something dangerous when they are doing something clearly dangerous that is manipulation. The comment about religion manipulating desperate people is not true and I would love to argue that but that is a whole different debate. But back to hazing. If you were to come up with a challenging, risk free way to be initiated into a fraternity, that would be a better option than manipulating them to do life threatening things. The other argument my opponent mentioned was that hazing establishes loyalty within a fraternity. My opponent said that without hazing, fraternity members don't feel that same sense of loyalty. Let me start out by saying that there are better ways to make the fraternity members feel loyalty without having them do life threatening things. Many hazing ideas involve excessive beverages, being beat up, being humiliated, being held under water for a long time, and many others. These are cruel things that result in serious injuries or death. A reason hazing should not be allowed is because there have been over 60 deaths in the last 5 years. These deaths have come from too much of a beverage, getting beat up, or drowned. Even some of the ideas that don't seem so bad such as exercises have caused severe injury. Hazing should not be allowed because it has resulted in death. Another reason hazing should not be allowed is because it has a long term affect on people who have been hazed. This is a good reason why hazing should not be allowed. Even if it doesn't kill the person, it has negative long term affects on you. These are such as insomnia, depression, anxiety, illness, loss of self control, lower grades, and PTSD. These are horrible effects that can last the rest of your life. In conclusion hazing should not be allowed. It has killed people, and has had many negative affects afterward.