BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It's time Mattel released a Barbie and Kim gift set

A few years ago I bought my young niece a Barbie gift set. It cost over $100, but as the salesman explained, the price I paid was fair because it was a special "Divorced Barbie" gift set and the Barbie doll came complete with Ken's house, Ken's car and all Ken's money. Now it appears that these estranged plastic partners have settled their differences and are, once again, all loved-up. http://shop.mattel.com... Of course, this is all just clever marketing on the part of their manufacturer, Mattel, who are cynically attempting to drum up extra sales and are, in the process, reinforcing the stereotypical notions of heterosexual romance that little girls are expected to conform to as they grow up. In so doing, Mattel is ignoring the fact that many females develop lesbian tendencies through puberty and beyond. That's why I propose that Mattel should release a Barbie and Kim gift set and modify their website to include a page similar to this: http://www.debate.org... This way, the indoctrination of young girls with stereotypical sexual preferences will begin to be broken down so that, by time a girl becomes an adult, should she develop any physical attraction to another woman, she won't feel that she needs to be ashamed about it, or to hide any same-sex affair, but rather be open about her sexual plurality enough to invite her boyfriend to join her and her gorgeous, bi-sexual girlfriend in a steamy, three-in-the-bed sex romp. Yes please…I mean, thank you.
Gay marriage is a Civil rights issue

THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSEMy opponent mentions the case Murphy v. Ramsey (1885) in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Utah’s bigamy and polygamy by defining marriage between one man and one woman. This was done as purely numerical in nature, so no marriages of 2 men and one woman or 3 women and 1 man, etc.. Also, if the supreme court defines marriage as such through any ruling for the sake of argument, it is not passing that statement into law or depriving homosexuals of ever achieving marriage equality. Also, this contention doesn’t touch on the due process clause. Most of my opponent’s case is comprised of large quotes that show that marriage is an issue of civil law, and thus an individual’s right to marry exists, and gay marriage is a civil rights issue. He implicitly affirms the resolution,The Purpose of CIVIL Marriage:“The traditional view of marriage is based on the anatomical possibility or ‘natural teleology of the body’”There are numerous flaws with this argument including the infertility, transvestites, and older couples who no longer have functioning of their sexual organs. This fails for a variety of reasons, and you didn’t tie it into the resolution. Most likely copy and pasted from another debate... Traditional marriage as you conceive it is not traditional marriage. Traditional marriage followed this forumla: a person said “I marry you,” then the other person said, “I marry you.” Then they were married. Marriage hardly ever took place in the church, and only knew about it because many kept records.“Procreation and rearing of children is a biologically driven act that happens in nature.”Yes, but nature also features 1,500 animal species that engage in homosexual behavior and homosexual relationships. If we look at your argument from nature, the natural teleogy argument assists gay marriage due to homosexual relationships existing in nature. Natural law then would achieve and uphold equality for all people.The Optimal partnership theoryAs far as family is concerned, gay parents actually raise children better on average than heterosexual parents, because 50% heterosexual parents have a child on accident, whereas homosexual parents actively choose to adopt and think about the decision.[http://people.virginia.edu...]EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSEDoesn’t address law.Sex EqualityIrrelevantSexual Orientation EqualityIf you were for sexual orientation equality, you would be for allowing gays to participate in a basic civil right: the right to marry.My CaseMy opponent dropped all of my contentions, as he forfeited the debate. Take away all of the religious, social or other considerations, and look at it plainly: the word "marriage" is used on every level of government to describe how we are taxed, hold property, inherit property, establish credit, etc. That fact cannot be changed. The government treats married people differently than it does single people. This is a part of civil law, and treating homosexually gay people differently than straight people violates equality and makes it a civil rights issue.I urge a strong Pro vote on this resolution. Thank you.
Is the rationality of Pi known

I'm glad you have started, as there are only three rounds. I would really love to understand how the rationality of pi can be determined so I wish you the best of luck finding a simple proof though I don't think you will find one that I will understand. I have watched which is Ivan Niven's proof but even this seems too complicated for me. However if it still makes sense after I have made my points then I will trust you on this. The thousands of years people have been trying to work out pi is partly why I believe it's rationality is unknown, and when people say that pi's trillionth decimal place has been calculated it doesn't make me think we are any closer in finding out whether Pi is rational or irrational. I have worked out how to estimate pi without string by "straightening" the circumference so it can be measured with a ruler but if you draw an ever smaller section of an ever larger circle it will never completely straighten the circumference. Pi is most commonly calculated by using Archimedes method with polygons [1]. A value which is called "Pi" can be produced to an infinite number of decimal places since you can place any sided polygon inside a circle, and obviously there are an infinite number of numbers. But. .. Pi = circumference/diameter A circle with 1 side is not the same as a polygon with infinite sides even if it appears to our eyes it is. What we call "Pi" is actually equal to an approximation of the circumference divided by diameter OR is the exact circumference divided by an approximation of the diameter. This makes "Pi" or 3.14. .. . an accurate approximation, nothing else, even if we calculate Pi to infinity, at least in my opinion anyway. If the true value of Pi is unknown then how can anyone know whether it is rational or irrational? I look forward to hearing your reply. sources: [1]
Is the rationality of Pi known

I hope that you don't mind my using Round 1 to get started; if you're not happy, just ask and I will forfeit the last round in lieu. It strikes me as an almost done deal that pi is known to be irrational. I say almost because I can see a very, very tiny room for debate about what the word "know" means. Many independent proofs of the irrationality of pi have been provided over the years that mathematicians have been studying it; these proofs have all been subject to scrutiny from other mathematicians in a process of peer review. .. I would say that one can trust any one of these proofs with almost complete certainty; when there are so many of them, even if they are too complex for your current understanding of maths to confirm for yourself, that almost complete certainty approaches perfect certainty as close as I feel merits the description that we know it's irrational. I think that in order for you to argue that we don't know, you would have to tighten the definition of knowledge so far as to become a solipsist. Either that or you would have to suspect a conspiracy of mathematicians from all over the World who are all lying about their professional opinion that the matter is proven beyond contention; this seems unlikely in the extreme because I cannot fathom what their motive could possibly be! But it goes further than that. .. pi is one of the rare examples of a known transcendental number; all transcendental numbers are irrational and many proofs have been given that pi is transcendental. To question pi's irrationality is to question it's transcendence. It seems to me quite mean to wish to strip everybody's favourite mathematical constant of it's special properties! I've had a look at some proofs and have to concede that most are too complicated for my current level of mathematics for me to be able to confirm them easily myself, although I am most of the way working through Niven's and will have confirmed it to my own satisfaction soon. I'd like to draw your attention to the fact that we have calculated pi to literally trillions of decimal places; nobody has yet spotted a pattern in that sequence of digits (but not for lack of trying! ). And that leads me onto the point which I'd like to finish on: with the irrationality of pi being a mathematically accepted fact, imagine the kudos that would be awarded to anybody who could show otherwise! I am personally totally convinced (and will be more so when I get to the end of Niven's proof) that pi cannot be expressed as a fraction. .. but would not the failed attempts of thousands of years of trying also count as extremely suggestive? Finally, I'd like to say thank you for bringing up such an interesting question that has to a degree challenged my own assumptions, trust, knowledge and confidence in the field of mathematics! Over to you. ..
Is the rationality of Pi known

Given Con's concession, it would be rude to harp on about the debate at hand, so I shan't. I will note, however, that it is interesting how the infinite can come into a discussion about something so seemingly finite as the area of a circle. Understanding infinities is one of the great steps that one must take when learning maths - it is a bit of a leap of faith at points, at first... but it's a rewarding study. Bear in mind that when 0 was first proposed, people (even mathematicians of the day) baulked. Then for negative numbers. Then for imaginary numbers (do they exist? No, but then neither do numbers exist - they are darned useful for getting real answers that are otherwise unattainable, though). People doubted that irrational numbers really existed even when the Greeks had a proof that the square root of 2 was irrational. Maths is often at odds with our fundamental intuitions. But that's why we love it!
Is the rationality of Pi known

Okay, so, we're getting somewhere: Con says: "having read your arguments I will accept that if 0.9999... equals 1 then Pi has been calculated exactly, and is "known" even if we can't ever write down all of the digits." But Con then offers two proofs and accepts mine that 0.9999... equals 1! I'm a little confused. However, I can only assume that Con does not accept any of the presented proofs that nought point nine recurring equals one, since Con later rejects them. Con also clearly understands something important when they say that 0.00...1 is the same as 0.00...2 which is the same as 0.00...3 which is the same as an infinitely small number (which is the same as 0). Or, does Con still disagree with this? Okay, let's look in more detail at what the representation "0.999..." means. It is simply the sum of the following infinite series: 9/10, 9/100, 9/1000, 9/10000, 9/100000, 9/1000000, etc. It's basically like starting with 0.9 and then repeating the step "now get 90% closer to 1" an infinite number of times. Infinite! That means you never stop getting 90% closer. Yes, when you start at 0.9 and get 90% closer to 1 an infinite number of times you arrive at 1, despite the false intuition that there must therefore always be 10% left. 10% of what? 10% of nothing is what! Not convinced, still? Well, how far away from 0 is it? It's less than a tenth, less than a hundredth, less than a thousandth, less than an infinitieth.. and that really is 0. It's just a different way of writing 1, when all is said and done. A bit like 1/2 is another way of writing 0.5. The underlying value that we are using this odd human notation to denote is the same thing! 0.999... is not just equal to one, it's the same thing!
Global Warming is Real and is Manmade!

I disagree with my opponent's assertion. The following information will prove that global warming is a false theory. 1. The 20th century warming of 1-1.4"F is within the +/- 5"F range of the past 3,000 years. A 2003 study by researchers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics shows temperatures from 1000-1100 AD (before fossil fuel use) that are comparable to those from 1900-1990. 2. Rising CO2 levels are a result of global warming, not a cause of it. As temperatures increase, CO2 is released from "carbon sinks" such as the oceans or the Arctic tundra. Measurements of ice core samples show that over the last four climactic cycles (past 240,000 years) periods of global warming preceded global increases in CO2. 3. The increased hurricane activity over the past decade (1995-2005), including hurricane Katrina, is not the result of human-induced climate change; it is the result of cyclical tropical cyclone patterns, driven primarily by natural ocean currents, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) testimony in the US Senate on Sep. 20, 2005. 4. The general consensus that the earth has warmed during the 20th century is based upon flawed temperature measurements. These measurements, taken from surface monitoring stations set up by the National Weather Service (NWS), are often contaminated by the "heat island effect." According to a Mar. 2009 study published by the Heartland Institute, 89% of NWS monitoring stations are too close to artificial heat sources such as large asphalt parking lots, air conditioners, heaters and other sources of artificial heat. 5. Theories of naturally caused climate change are often ignored by "mainstream" scientists and organizations because many research scientists are more interested in maintainining the flow of federal grant money for climate change research than in questioning the basic theory of human causation. From 1998-2009, nearly $25 billion in federal funds was allocated for climate science research. Researchers who question human-induced climate change often do not receive grant money for research projects. Your turn. Sources: 1. Arthur B. Robinson, PhD, et al., "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" (3 MB) , Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Fall 2007 2. Willie Soon, PhD, and Sallie Baliunas, PhD, "Proxy Climatic and Environmental Changes of the Past 1000 Years" (660 KB) , Climate Research, 2003 3. Anders Moberg, PhD, et al., "Highly Variable Northern Hemisphere Temperatures Reconstructed From Low and High Resolution Proxy Data," Nature, Feb. 2005 I will have a more complete source list in the comments section.
Prior reference to Morality

So to get my general point of view out of the way, let me state that I believe morality to be completely subjective. Therefore any argument I make regarding morals will be on morals that are generally accepted to be "good" or "evil" and not objective morals that most religious people tend to support. So on to the first point, no. Just no. Our perception of good and evil is definitely not based on religion. By our current standards or morality, there is a tremendous amount of "evil" acts in the bible that are apparently justifiable as long as you believe that your chosen deity is the "real one" so to speak. Like I stated in the original opinion piece, cherry picking just the stuff you agree with, isn't a good way to go about basing any morals on. An origin of a word doesn't have any bearing on it's use today. Just look at the original meaning of the word "gay" for example. Secondly, stating that a book is really, really old does nothing to give it credibility. Just because something has been preserved over many years does in no way prove anything about the validity of its content. On to your point of the concept of morality always referring to biblical doctrine. If an old book mentions a topic and many people choose to believe in it, it once again does not in any way prove any sort of validity. Also, stating that morals are based on biblical doctrine implies that no one had morals before the bible was written, which is just not the case. It also implies that people who have not been exposed to our society, eg. some tribe in the Amazon for example, don't have morals, since how could they if they never even heard of the bible. So on to my main argument. I think that our morality is primarily based on societal pressures and evolution in general. Being good to one another is beneficial to the species in numerous ways, such as allowing us to build complex societies, not killing each other to the point of extinction and many other reasons. Then once we have societies, their shared experiences and knowledge transfer enable us to create and adapt new sets of morals, like how most people agree now that slavery and abuse is morally wrong. So just using that last example of slavery, we don't consider that moral now, but in biblical times, it was just a normal part of society, so it wasn't regarded as morally wrong. So in conclusion, old texts should not be a basis for any moral judgements, rather think for yourself and base it on the abundance of knowledge our species has gained.
Prior reference to Morality

You've stated that we shouldn't base any sort of morality on texts that don't adhere to our current, general set of morals but the fact remains that our perception of good and evil is solely based on religion. I advise you to use simple etymology and research the word "Good", you'll find that it's origination is from Genesis and Genesis is the oldest recorded "Book" in the history of the world. There are a few texts that can be confirmed as older than Genesis but they aren't books and certainly aren't codes of morality in today's society. So it stands to logical reason that when you reference "Morality", you're actually referring to a Biblical doctrine of what is good or evil, right or wrong. One "Might" argue that morals in today's society are different but then you'll find with a little research that the society of the United States originated with Christianity...proof is in the Declaration of Independence with the reference to our unalienable rights given to us by our "Creator". I can't see the logic in stating that morality shouldn't be based from texts that originally defined morality. God is referenced as the supreme moral authority for a reason.
Should I put my phone up my butt

Whether or not you actually decide to stick a phone up your butt is irrelevant to this debate. The question is "Should I put a phone up my butt", and the word "should" refers to correctness of your actions [1]. I already explained why you shouldn't stick a phone up your butt, and you didn't provide evidence that your rectal muscles are immune to pain. Your claim is highly improbable. I suggest finding a male prostitute or an object of less width to suit your needs.
is the Illuminati

Unfortunately, all Pro comes up with is a contradiction. Although, there is one fatal flaw. He had the BoP, and yet he still didn't argue for the Illuminati being real. I also have two points to make about my source: a) The source could be unreliable or reliable depending on its moderation, but simply saying it's unreliable without giving reason for it isn't sufficient to counter the source. Since wiki is known for both, you must analyze the source and prove it's unreliable, rather than just stating otherwise. b) If my source is unreliable (which you didn't prove), this means that the Illuminati NEVER existed. In that case, that doesn't strengthen your claim. You only attempted to prove that the Illuminati didn't exist in 1700's rather than come up with a case of your own to prove they *still* exist. And since you didn't come up with a case, and didn't give a reason for the voters to believe that the source is unreliable, my argument stands.
Abortion

Hey I'd just like to say before I start that I'm a beginner, only 14 so please go easy on me :P But I must confess I am pretty good at arguing so I discovered this site and decided to give it a try. I mean, why not? Abortion : the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy. (according to the dictionary). Pt1) Abortion is murder Picture a young girl named Lily. Imagine her holding out a gun and murdering someone. This was done by her own actions, and this is wrong as well as against the law. Now picture her pregnant, and having an abortion. Now see that there is not much difference between these two stories. Both involve one main thing, 1) Murder. Abortion is for a fact the act of killing a child at your own will. Now how is this not murder? Definition of murder:the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another I believe abortion fits murder very well. You cannot deny the fact that in the end, no matter how quick or painless the abortion is, the child still dies, and the mother has decided to do it. Pt2) Why do women want an abortion in the first place? Chances are because they didn't want a baby in the first place. Well It is they're own fault anyway. They brought this responsibility upon themselves, and they should face that responsibility. All women who have abortions are cowards, too scared to face challenges that life offers to them, too afraid to fix what that they have caused upon themselves. Abortion is killing a child, because you do not wish to take care of it. Would you kill off a guest, which you have invited into your own home, because you do not wish to care for him/her? Having a baby when you're a teen sucks. But that's life and you should learn from your mistakes. Not by having an abortion but by nurturing a child. Your child. Pt3) The unborn child is innocent, and does not deserve this. It did not wish to exist so you have no right to blame the problem on the baby, and yet the mother chooses an abortion. I believe that every human being, no matter how SMALL, deserve a fair chance in life to live. Abortion is the act of WILLINGLY wanting to murder an innocent child, who won't ever be able to experience what you and I have experienced. To see, smell,taste, hear and touch. To never be able to do what you and I have done in our lives. Therefore, the conclusion is, Abortion should not be legalised. Nobody deserves to be treated this way, it is inhumane. So that sums up exactly what I think of abortion. I didn't use any sources except for the dictionary, and this site which I found : http://www.abortionfacts.com... It is totally irrelevant to the topic really, but I checked this out as I didn't know how babies were aborted. I cried. This is so sad...