BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is it ok for my girlfriend to have a girlfriend (and yes have a sexual relationship with her)

you know you are abosoutly right this is a situation that could go either way. I will be sure to in the future to consider my options. I'll say this I think I will let her have a girl toy. That maybe once in awhile or for Pete sakes my birthday I will be invited to a threesome. If things start to progress I will prepare a plan to have make an ultimatum and as you said an exit strategy. If my wife or girlfriend and a sexual affair with a woman I would not be affected by it. I wouldn't think its a huge deal. my ex let a girl go down on her in my house I thought it was hot and not a big deal. you know what ok, if my woman had a mistress I would not care. If it did progress into a dating relationship I would have to start asking questions. Ok I guess what my friends back home were trying to warn me about was what if it developed into something more and that would be the problem.
Is it ok for my girlfriend to have a girlfriend (and yes have a sexual relationship with her)

Well... it depends HOW they're doing it. If they're sharing toys, exchanging fluids, or have sores around their mouths, then the STD risk is the same. Basically, the reason lesbian sex is normally safer is because it's non-penetrative. https://en.wikipedia.org... Whether she'll cheat depends on why she's doing this. Is she actually bisexual? A lot of girls say they're bisexual, but are really just doing it because it's hot, and are just as likely to bang a biker dude. And not just straight girls either; some lesbians bang guys for the same reason. Or, they date guys (i.e. you) because it's more socially accepted. Really, this all comes down to several things: 1. How much do you trust her? If you can feel in your gut that she's going to cheat, then she probably is. 2. Did she okay the lesbian relationship with you first? If she doesn't consider your feelings, that should be a red flag. 3. How often do these threesome invites actually occur, and do you get to bang her lady friend? 4. If your girlfriend had to choose, would she pick you over her lady? If not, then you're the third wheel, and that makes you a sucker. 5. Do you honestly have a future with this girl? If not, prepare an exit strategy for when the invites stop coming.
Is it ok for my girlfriend to have a girlfriend (and yes have a sexual relationship with her)

See now even my contender gives me a placard of reasons why the debate is a no contest. Does lesbian sex have a low HIV/STD rate? That would be cool to know as a fact. But yes that pretty much sums up my debate. see I wanted to bring people to this debate as I have some friends back home that thing I'm a fool if I ever let this happen. I just don't see the big deal. Again I would let this happen with the criteria listed above, my only thing is that I feel the girlfriend of my girlfriend if I didn't know anything about her might say hey lets go to this orgy, ok will there be guys involved? that's where I would have a problem. That's the only thing I would be concerned with. We also got to think lets say the other chick was bi-sexual as well. she had sex with a guy and she contracted an STD. Then my girl and her were grinding it up one day. crap what happens when it's my turn? Other than those two reasons I don't see a big deal
Is it ok for my girlfriend to have a girlfriend (and yes have a sexual relationship with her)

Reasons it's okay: 1. Your girlfriend has lesbian needs. 2. You don't have lady parts. 3. It would be selfish to deny her. 4. Hot, feminine women aren't a threat to your male territory. 5. Lesbian sex can't get her pregnant. 6. Lesbian sex has a very low HIV risk. 7. You get to have a MFF threesome. 8. There are no other dudes involved. Reasons it's bad: None. As long as reasons 1 to 8 are true, my opponent wins the debate.
Everyone who believes in God is Most Likely Delusional

Sorry, I used the wrong word, I must have been in a hurry to type it out. For good measure and a more robust debate I got the definitions from . http://dictionary.reference.com...;de ·lu·sion·al adjective1. having false or unrealistic beliefs or opinions: Senators who think they will get agreement on a comprehensive tax bill are delusional.2. Psychiatry. maintaining fixed false beliefs even when confronted with facts, usually as a result of mental illness: He was so delusional and paranoid that he thought everybody was conspiring against him. Good Luck! Does talking to imaginary supernatural beings constitute a delusion/ being delusional? Theists talk to God, have relationships with God and know God's opinions about various moral issues. If someone thinks they are talking to an magical being, but this is not actually happening, would they be delusional? Yes, they would. They would have a false belief that they are talking to someone, when actually they are not. Are most theists right or wrong? Most theists are wrong. Every theist has a different opinion about God, they cannot all be right. Some believe in Allah, Budah, Jesus. Some believe the Garden of Eden is in the USA, some do not. Some believe that God hates gays, some do not. Theists hold specific views about what God is right. No two theists have the exact same view. So, not all theists can be right. At most, 1 theist has the exact concept of God and the rest are wrong. Because most people are wrong about there perceptions of God, most people are delusional. SummaryIf you believe something imaginary to be real you are delusional,Every theist has a different view about what God is like,Only one view can be correct,Most views are wrong,Most theists believe something about God to be real that is actually imaginary,Most theists are delusional
Everyone who believes in God is Most Likely Delusional

Unfortunately people often make outlandish statements in the forums, & then refuse to defend them in debate, Kudos. (Voters can give him the conduct point for that alone. ) (Although he left out the words "most likely" in the forum, but included them here, at least he's willing to defend the general idea) Without further ado I will begin with my opening arguments, which, for this round will only address definitions. Unfortunately the definitions that my opponent provided is inccorect & I could win by pointing out that according to his definitions the resolution doesn't make sense. The definitions that my opponent provided (from . http://www.thefreedictionary.com..., & that should have been sourced, or actually they shouldn't, as his definitions are not what the dictionary said. ) are for the word delusion a noun, not the word delusional the adjective. (I know it says delusional on top of the definitions, but that's what my opponent wrote, that was not in the dictionary. )Never the less I'll let that go, (for now unless I need it :)), & I'll even use his source to define "delusional". (See how nice Christians are? not really. I'm agnostic of Jewish decent:p)Definitions:" Adj. 1. delusional- suffering from or characterized by delusions psychoneurotic, neurotic - affected with emotional disorder Based on WordNet 3.0, Farley clipart collection. © 2003-2012 Princeton University, Farlex Inc. " (1) & for good measure: "A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary. [1] Unlike hallucinations, delusions are always pathological(the result of an illness or illness process). [1] As a pathology, it is distinct from a belief based on false or incomplete information, confabulation,dogma, illusion, or other effects of perception. "(2) (1) . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... (2) . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Cameras in classrooms

I would now like to refute the arguments brought forth by my opponent. Honey, how old are you? Creeper. Things happen in school all the time, just ask teenagers I’m sorry, but I just asked a teenager and they said that this never happens in schools! My opponent has provided no proof that this at all happens in classrooms where teachers are often present. My opponent has not refuted this. This is the exact same as pulling out a gun in front of a police officer. Are you going to do it if you fear being arrested? Of course not! This point has gone completely unrefuted, my opponent has merely said that “this happens”, but has not proved it nor has he provided any evidence to support his blanket claims. The school would not have to worry about money, since Americans will more than likely be paying for it. Seriously? The whole point is that America doesn’t have any money to pay for this. Have you heard about the trillion dollar deficit lately? And you think we’ll have money to pay for $1000 cameras for EVERY classroom when we can’t even keep teachers on the job? Seriously, having teachers getting laid off, has nothing to do with this topic. Yes it does, it shows the complete lack of money in the system. This would be a safer place with cameras and I don’t see why you do not agree with me. Would you want your child going to a place with bulling, drugs, etc. going on without cameras or protection. As I pointed out (with sources and evidence) the cameras in place in schools aren’t supposed to instil a sense of safety. They shouldn’t a child feel safe because there is a camera nearby. Kids aren’t prosecuted if they bully someone in front of a camera. This place would not be safer, this place would lack privacy. Let’s put cameras in the washrooms as sex and drugs might occur there. It makes the place safer! But of course not, because of the massive violation of privacy! Privacy is important too! Whenever I pass this bill in the state of Kentucky Good luck with that. My opponent has provided no substantial evidence, attempted to change his plan, hasn’t refuted my arguments on privacy, cost, and ineffectiveness, and hasn’t responded to my challenge of this bill’s effectiveness in an elementary school.
Cameras in classrooms

Honey, how old are you? This world is not the same that it was ten years ago. Things happen in school all the time, just ask teenages (there is your proof). Whenever the teacher is writing on the board, students can always pass pills. The school would not have to worry about money, since Americans will more than likely be paying for it. Seriously, having teachers getting laid off, has nothing to do with this topic. This would be a safer place with cameras and I don't see why you do not agree with me. Would you want you child going to a place with bulling, drugs, etc. going on without cameras or proctection. Whenever I pass this bill in the state of Kentucky, then I will gladly message you and tell you how well everything is going with the cameras being in the classrooms. I have so much more to say, but I'm in a hurry. I will message you more later.
Cameras in classrooms

I would like to take this time to refute the arguments brought forth by my opponent. So how could I prove these experiences? It’s not like I have it recorded or anything, but I know that they happened, whether you believe me or not. That’s the point, in a debate personal experience cannot be proven, and as it cannot be proven it isn’t evidence. For all I know you could’ve made this up! But I did not mean that he/she just views them whenever a problem approaches. I meant, that when he/she is in his/her office then they can just see what is going on in every classroom. Do you think that a single principal would be able to concentrate on administrative duties and watch over 20 monitors minimum at the same time? ?? Of course not, either the principal would only be watching the monitors, thus taking away from administrative duties and slowing the entire school down, or will only be doing administrative work, not focusing on the monitors, thus rendering them useless. Another possibility is that the principal occasionally glances at the monitors, but in a 40 minute period there is a very short time frame. There has always been perverted things going on in school, people has had sex In a classroom? I didn’t think so. Oh, and doing drugs does not always have smoke, like actual pills In a classroom? No proof, I don’t think so. This is just like my police analogy (which has remained unrefuted). The reason why teachers are being laid off is because of our idiotic president This is unrelated, whatever the matter, schools do not have the money as teachers are being laid off. Over 132, 000 teachers were laid off in 2011 alone! [1] Most schools have money, so most wouldn’t be a problem. I have disproved this in the above source and argument. Oh, and most schools have cameras in the hallways The fact that schools have cameras in hallways has no bearing in this debate. The hallway and the classroom are very different, in a classroom the teacher is there to supervise, not in the halls. Also, the cameras are not there to catch anything per se, as said in the following source [2] the camera should never make it feel like if a person is attacked that they will be rescued. Thus, their effect in the hallway is minimal as well. Plus, I think it should be only for middle and high school. I’m sorry, but I posted in R1 the definitions as you hadn’t, and the definitions were from grade K – 12, you did not dispute this so it was accepted as the definition. Thus, this point (which is really just your opinion) is null. Bringing up definitions, we have focused this debate on junior and high school, yet what about elementary schools? Does my esteemed opponent think that perverted acts and drugs will occur in an elementary school? ? Clearly, the implementation of a camera system in elementary schools is a massive incursion of privacy and a massive waste of money. I beg my opponent to address this point in his final round. I have refuted my opponent’s arguments, defended my own, and have fulfilled my BOP. Thus, it is clear for voters to VOTE CON. SOURCES:1. . http://thinkprogress.org... 2. . https://www.ncjrs.gov...
Cameras in classrooms

So how would I prove these experiences? It's not like I have it recorded or anything, but I know that they have happened, whether you believe me or not. I was just saying earlier that the principal would not have to review the tapes after the end of the day. But I did not mean that he/she just views them whenever a problem approaches. I meant, that when he/she is in his/her office then they can just see what is going on in every classroom. But it would be good to have cameras in the classroom because just in case something does happened, and they could always go back to look at what really happened. There has been perverted things going on in the school, people has had sex and other disturbing things going on in the school. Oh, and doing drugs does not always have smoke, like actual pills. So you would not believe what goes on in the classrooms. The reason why teachers are being laid off is because of our idiotic president, so that is not our fault. Most schools have money, so most wouldn't be a problem. Oh, and most schools have cameras in the hallways, so it wouldn't be as much as you think. Plus, I think it should be only for middle and high school.
Cameras in classrooms

But the teacher is not always in the classrooms, with a class of 40 or more students it is not always easy to see what goes on with every individual student. True, but it is pretty obvious if you come into the room and see two kids in the back with clouds of smoke hanging around them what they’ve been doing. Awhile ago there was a basketball coach who cheated on his wife with a girl basketball player. There is no source proving this, this could be made up for all I know. If they put more cameras in the school, wouldn’t the school been able to find out a lot easier, instead of having to deal with lies? First of all, the resolution is cameras in CLASSROOMS and classrooms alone. Not other areas of the school. Secondly, my opponent has said that the principal would only review tapes if something was to happen, not every day. Thus if no one knew about this and it wasn’t reported then obviously the principal wouldn’t review the tapes. I know a guy that when the teacher was OUT of the classroom would go on the teachers computer and change his grade! There is no proof of this, only a personal experience, thus it is not evidence in a debate. I have heard of perverted stuff going on with students during school! Now that is just sick! Baseless assumption. Perverted actions (if they even occur) are still not likely to occur in a classroom, but more likely outside of school, behind the school, etc. This is through pure logic, will you commit a crime if you know a police man is coming? Of course not! So my parents have to pay the taxes which go to the public schools. Yet teachers continue to be laid off and economic struggles continue to weigh schools down. These cameras will only increase these debts. So it’s not like they are spending 20, 000 dollars a year. No, 20, 000 dollars for every class room every 5 years. I have refuted all of my opponent’s arguments and have defended my own.
Cameras in classrooms

Ok, I see your point. But the teacher is not always in the classrooms, with a class of 40 or more students it is not always easy to see what goes on with every individual student. 1. Proof Awhile ago there was a basketball coach who cheated on his wife with a girl basketball player. How does this have anything to do with it? If they put more cameras in the school, wouldn't the school been able to find out a lot easier, instead of having to deal with lies. I know a guy that when the teacher was OUT of the classroom would go on the teachers computer and change his grade! Yea, sometimes the teacher needs to go out in the hallways or go see the principal. 2. Privacy Yea, we all need privacy, but not all the time. We do need to be watched sometimes. Like I said, if the teacher is not there at the time, then a lot of stuff can happen in the five minutes that he/she is gone. I have heard of perverted stuff going on with students during school! Now that is just sick! 3. Cost I go to a private school, so my parents have to pay the taxes which go to the public schools. So can they not use the money from taxes to pay for the cameras? They can be updated like every 5 to 10 years. So it's not like they are spending 20,000 dollars every year.
Cameras in classrooms

I will now move on to refutation and provide my own arguments. just like if something was to happen, Just if what was to happen? The teacher is present at all times, would the camera catch something the teacher couldn’t? I believe that it would be able to decrease the use of drugs, bullying, etc. Does bullying and drug use occur in front of a teacher? Does somebody do drugs RIGHT IN FRONT of a teacher in a classroom? Will someone bully a child RIGHT IN FRONT of a teacher? Of course not, this camera would do nothing to reduce any illicit activity. My opponent hasn’t provided many arguments or evidence, merely an opinion. I have refuted his points, I will now provide my own arguments. C1: CAMERAS WILL DO NOTHING TO STOP ILLICIT ACTIVITY The teacher is already present, illicit activity such as drugs and bullying doesn’t often occur in a classroom. Why? Because the teacher is legally responsible to look over the kids. This is clear logic, would you do something against the law in front of a cop? Of course not. This camera will catch nothing and stop nothing, only invade kid’s privacy even more. C2: INVASION OF PRIVACY We don’t need to be so suspicious of today’s youth that we need to watch them wherever they are going to make sure they aren’t doing anything bad. We already can search a locker if needed, and teachers already preside over halls and classrooms. This camera will only further the feeling in kids that adults don’t trust them, that adults need to have them watched. We don’t want to foster this mistrust in schools. C3: COST CCTV cameras cost upwards of $1000 [1]. In Junior High and Senior High, students have Math, Science, Social, and ELA core subjects. These are generally taught by four different teachers in four different classrooms. That is already $4000 for a single class in a grade. Depending on the school, there may be 3, 4, 5 Grade 7 classes. That is minimum $12 000 on cameras that won’t catch anything! This is a gross misallocation of resources. I have refuted my opponent’s points, provided my own points and fulfilled my BOP. It is a clear and easy vote CON. SOURCES: . http://www.cctvcamerapros.com...
Belief Without Factual Basis is Fraudulent

My point is, where should faith be placed? To illustrate, there are many chairs in an abandoned house. Most are obviously in bad shape, so bad in fact, that if you tried to sit in one of these they would probably fall apart. However, attached to the floor is a chair that is brand new and is in perfect shape. Which chair do you sit in? Will you place your misplaced faith in the many chairs to hold you or would you choose the chair which may not move, and is not quite comfortable but is definitively safe? Similarly we can choose whatever we like with religion, but if it doesn't have a factual, safe basis, then what is the point? Believing in something without factual basis is the same as believing a lie. Taking the old song "I believe I can fly" is, without some kind of aircraft, humanly impossible. Believe all you want, but you will not fly. So what of ones who teach beliefs that they know to be false just to make money? That is the fraud. Taking a familiar name of Jim Jones as a teacher of false faith, what happened to those fooled by him? Religion is no toy or fantasy. It is a very serious decision that can either mean life, or death by some crazed cultist like Jim Jones.
Belief Without Factual Basis is Fraudulent

Belief without factual evidence is not fraudulent; it is faith. The term "fraud" usually implies some sort of deception or lie. This term is not applicable when used to describe sincerely held beliefs because there is no inherent deception taking place. Simply lacking a a factual basis is not grounds for claiming that someone is being deceptive when they describe their religion/philosophy. Such a belief may be illogical and it may be irrational, but if one sincerely believes it then it can not be said to be fraudulent. I will argue that holding a belief without factual evidence is a common part of life and that the word "fraud" does not describe such beliefs. Moreover there is a difference between teaching something that is not evidently true and something that is evidently untrue and I will seek to distinguish between the two in order to clarify what we mean when we talk about faith.
Belief Without Factual Basis is Fraudulent

I will show that any belief without evidence is fraudulent. To believe what you want to believe or what is comfortable is not reality. To explain this, establishments of business cannot legally advertise a product cheaper than it actually is. This would be, legally speaking, fraud. What though about religion? People do have the right to believe, I have no quarrel there. What I have a quarrel with is the people in charge of false beliefs, who know it to be fraudulent and blind people from the truth. People do have the right to believe, but they don't have the right to promise what they know to be false.