BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay marriage

Religion No longer is it true that gay marriage restricts your freedom of religion as there are now many churches that accept people with all sexual orientations. . http://www.youtube.com... Now the only thing that is restrictive is the fact that there are still too many people of faith that are too blinkered to move into this century and accept that it is morally incorrect to marginalize people in this way. Human rights Human rights, as the name suggests, should apply to all humans. Gay people are still very much part of humanity. They are not aliens. All humans have to have equal human rights. When this doesn't happen it attacks the fundamental nature of having human rights in the first place. Safety Young people are being driven to suicide just because of who they love. This is morally wrong. A few facts from The Trevor Program website paint a startling picture of the reality of being a gay youth in our society especially where gay marriage is not recognised. 1. Suicide is the third leading cause of death among 15 to 24-year-olds, accounting for over 12% of deaths in this age group; only accidents and homicide occur more frequently (National Adolescent Health Information 2006). 2. For every completed suicide by a young person, it is estimated that 100 to 200 attempts are made (Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance Survey 2003). 3. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth are up to four times more likely to attempt suicide than their heterosexual peers (Massachusetts Youth Risk Survey 2007). 4. More than 1/3 of LGB youth report having made a suicide attempt (D'Augelli AR - Clinical Child Psychiatry and Psychology 2002). By legalising gay marriage we can change this suffocating view that too many societies have that is driving so many young people to take their lives unnecessarily. It has to change. So, because there is absolutely no reason why gay marriage should not be recognised and that by legalising it we allow young gay people to not feel suicide is the only option gay marriage should be legalised. No one should be bullied and marginalized for loving someone. . http://www.thetrevorproject.org...
Gay marriage

Straight forward debate on gay rights. Men should be allowed to marry men and women should be allowed to marry women. My opponent will argue that this is not only heterosexual couples should marry. Set up Round 1 = acceptance Round 2 and 3 = arguments and rebuttal Round 4 = closing speech (rebuttal but no new arguments) Rules Forfeit and you lose conduct. New arguments in R4 and you lose conduct. No "shouting" or bad language Think that's it. I look forward to hearing my opponents points.
Simpsons are better than Family Guy

Family guy has some original jokes and the character Stewie is very well developed and most of the characters have original characteristics. Tom Tucker: A bit of breaking news. A local family is forced out of their home by ghosts. Who are they gonna call? Diane Simmons (sighs): Ghostbusters, Tom. Tom Tucker: No, Diane. Their insurance company. That's just stupid what you said. This is an example of how the creators of Family Guy develop thier characters nicely. See how the relationship of Tom and Diane makes it so easy to be humorous. Stewie: Did you hear that Meg? Guys can marry other guys now. So...this is awkward, but I mean, if they can do that, that is pretty much it for you, isn't it? I mean you as well pack it in. Game over. Another example of how stewie rips on meg and meg has an interesting personality. Peter: By the way Lois, I got a piercing over there. I'm not going to tell you where but I will give you a hint--it wasn't on my nose or my ear and it was one of my balls. Peters personality showed here, the punchline is extremely funny. Family guy is very original, the fact that thier both families doesnt mean thier copieing, thier different types of humor. Sometimes when Family guy can be a bit random but that is to suit the audience and it is controlled.
Homosexuality in Humans is a Choice

Ajab requested that I delay posting for 48 hours. I've done that. I would ask the judges not to award Ajab an auto-loss due to his forfeiture, but to instead grant him a second chance to post his constructive. Given the shortened debate however, the structure should be amended to the following: R2. Pro's Case R3. Con's Case, Pro rebuts Con's Case R4. Con rebuts Pro's Case, Pro defends Pro's Case R5. Con defends Con's Case, Pro waives I feel it is important that the person making the claim be the one to open arguments, and also, per rule 7, Pro must go first. So, I will not be making any arguments at this time and will instead defer. Over to Pro...
Homosexuality in Humans is a Choice

PrefaceAjab and I have discussed this several times before, and I feel, at this point, it is important to debate this directly. This debate was sparked by this thread: [http://www.debate.org...] I sincerely hope Ajab accepts, as he was the one who suggested this debate was necessary.As this issue is one that is particularly controversial, I have made this a judge only debate. The judges are phantom, Raisor, Wylted, Cermank, thett3, debatability, and whiteflame. If Ajab objects to any of these judges, or wishes to add judges, he may PM me beforehand.Full TopicOn balance, human same-sex attraction is a choice.TermsSame-Sex Attraction - having a sexual attraction to people of the same sexChoice - based or caused from features which one has no control over, and which cannot be willfully undone or willfully changed over timeFree - the ability to make choices without coercion, fate, or some other factor forcing or preordaining the outcomeOn balance - with all things considered.Rules1. No forfeits2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling or semantics6. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add definitions7. Pro must go first and must waive in the final round8. No "kritiks" of the topic or its set-up9. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a lossStructureR1. Pro's CaseR2. Con's Case, Pro rebuts Con's CaseR3. Con rebuts Pro's Case, Pro defends Pro's CaseR4. Con defends Con's Case, Pro rebuts Con's CaseR5. Con rebuts Pro's Case, Pro waivesThanks......to Ajab and I hope he accepts.
Sea lions are seals

As pro's dictionary definition present, sea lions have different characteristics than seals. They have ear flaps, males have lion-like manes, and they also have different flippers, while seals have stubby flippers, sea lions have skin covered, long, different facing flippers.Seals are also more adapted to live in water than on land, being generally smaller and more aquedalic than sea lions. Sea lions also have different coloured fur than ordinary seals.Seals are much less social than there Sea lion counterparts. Seals are also less vocal, often having much quieter grunts to communicate. These differences between seals and there "second cousins", sea lions, proves that they are, in fact, different. oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/seal-sealion.html
Proffesional Sport Stadiums in the United States benefit their local community

I would first like to rebuttal my opponent's rebuttal and his 1 small contention. First my opponent said that private investors are investing more than the public, but what he failed to do is give any form of evidence. You cannot believe that without a reasonable evidence. Also my opponent says that high schools and colleges bring back the revenue. Again, no evidence what so ever. Would you believe that Ebola was a deadly virus without getting percents and statistics? Also, why would high schools and colleges invest in sport teams? That is completely irrational. Is your local high school funding a professional sport team? Most likely not. Finally, my opponent said that it actually brings in money. But what he didn't mention was that sport stadiums result in an average of 1,924 jobs. This clearly shows that businesses are losing money which results in layoffs of its workers. opponent has rebutted my 3 contentions by giving 3 ideas. No statistics what so ever. Now onto my opponent's case. My opponent has claimed that stadiums promote charities. He gave an example of a stadium in the country of Wales. Now the resolution states, professional sport stadiums IN the United States. Therefore, this example does not hold as it does not fit the resolution. His last part of small scale fundraisers was also supported by 0 facts. Now even if the stadium was in America where is the money going? Is it going to local communities or other places? The resolution states local community so if the money is going to other areas, then that example will be thrown out. Since none of my opponent's contention stands and my contentions still hold, this is why the Con should win this debate.
Proffesional Sport Stadiums in the United States benefit their local community

I will be rebutting my opponents arguments and adding a new argument. Your first contention says that public funding is bad. Well, in the more recent times, private investors have been investing more than the public on stadiums. Also, your second contention says that "building stadiums divert money away from important areas, such as education." It does not do that. High schools and colleges are basically investing in their sport teams which, in turn, bring in revenue to cover up the costs. Lastly, stadium funding does not take away money from businesses. It actually helps them in a positive way as they can advertise and also sell their products in the stadium. Player endorsements add to the positive effect as they basically bring in a significant amount to the player who can use it towards helping his/her school. My argument is that professional stadiums promote charities and help raise funds. For example, recently, the Millennium Stadium helped Welsh Charities raise 4 million pounds, which is well around 6.3 million dollars. Also, small scale fundraisers are also successful as many raise a ton of money for their needs. And these are the reasons as to why the pro should win.
Proffesional Sport Stadiums in the United States benefit their local community

I strongly negate the resolution resolved: Professional Sport Stadiums in the United States benefit their local communities. To clarify the round, I offer the following definitions. Professional Sport: a person or governmental entity that sponsors, organizes, schedules, or conducts a competitive game in which one or more professional athletes participate, mainly the NFL, NHL, MLB, and NBA. Benefit: a significant advantage or profit gained from something If I can prove that building and maintain sport stadiums bring more harm than good to the community, then I must negate today's resolution. It is the affirmation's burden to prove that public subsidies bring more benefits than harm to the city. My first contention is that sport stadiums are funded by the public, which means that it harms the local community by forcing them to spend ridiculous amounts. According to the voiceofsandiego.org, around $340.5 million dollars will be spent over the next 11 years in order to keep their stadium, the Qualcomm running. To make things worse, this money will be funded from the taxpayers, which basically means the local community of San Diego, is paying roughly $31 million dollars per year, just to keep an old stadium running. As time goes on, taxpayers will be paying more money, as the infrastructure will deteriorates. According to the Pacific Standard Magazine, the PPL Park (Philadelphia sport team, soccer) cost around $117 million dollars. 97% of that amount, came from the public, which means every person on average had to pay $3,340.90 in taxes which is crazy. Why would people want to live in an area where you would have to pay thousands of dollars just to build a fancy new stadium. My second contention is that building stadiums divert money away from important areas, such as education. According to the International Business Times, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emaneul cut school funding, in order to build a new basketball arena and a hotel. He took over $55 million which could have been spent to help build or improve schools. That $55 million dollars could have definitely been spent better, for education purposes. Also according to the Atlantic, the Minnesota legislature took $506 million dollars from taxpayers, to give to the Minnesota Vikings. That money could also have been much better. $506 million dollars given as a gift. My last and final contention is that it drags away money from important businesses. This is also known as the substitution effect. When a new stadium opens, people will be spending their money at the stadium, in the form of tickets, accessories, or food. While they spend their money at the stadiums, they won't continue to spend as much to other forms of entertainment. According the New Bureau of Illinois, a study conducted by the college students, show that creating a new stadium results in an average loss of 1,924 jobs in the local area. This clearly shows that stadiums suck up all the money, which results in other business losing money, causing layoffs. Therefore, I urge a vote on the negation side of this debate. Thank you.
Resolved: I can explain the meaning of life, justify my claims and protect them with 500 characters

I'm too sexy for my love too sexy for my love Love's going to leave me I'm too sexy for my shirt too sexy for my shirt So sexy it hurts And I'm too sexy for Milan too sexy for Milan New York and Japan And I'm too sexy for your party Too sexy for your party No way I'm disco dancing I'm a model you know what I mean And I do my little turn on the catwalk Yeah on the catwalk on the catwalk yeah I do my little turn on the catwalk I'm too sexy for my car too sexy for my car Too sexy by f
Resolved: I can explain the meaning of life, justify my claims and protect them with 500 characters

Life is a predictable cycle of events and feelings that cloud the average unintelligent human mind so much that they don't look at the clear path in front of them. It is for the best, the path is blank. We have no purpose, no meaning, no direction, the only things we do are petty tasks to stop us from not doing anything. Therefore, our only meaning is to find what enjoys us. Sex, drugs, love are basics because they are so easy to see and perform, but there are deeper ones inside, just look.
Gay Marriage

No I'm not saying all sin should be legalized I'm just saying if you want to look at it that way then yeah why not legalize them all I mean no sin is greater than another, and if you're not going to take religious arguments then why post on a debate listed in the religious section? QUOTE: "I think I'd have the intelligence in this situation to change my belief for a brief amount of time to save my life, even though you probably would not." If you 110% believe something with your whole heart without a shadow of doubt you wouldn't change your mind. The way I see it is this... you're simply putting down my ideas because you know I'm right and you don't like it you're one of those I know I'm right no matter what you say kind of people, so why even be on this site?
Gay Marriage

Again, let me perform quote by quote analysis on the somewhat remote attempt on a convincing argument above (although I have no clue what his argument is). QUOTE: "1. I shouldn't have to list conditions of this argument its [sic] simple for or against it [sic], that's the whole point of this website." Let's look back at an argument that demonstrates what happens when there are conditions or definitions. http://www.debate.org... QUOTE: "2. I didn't say I was against it I said it was a sin re-read that bub [sic] 'Yes gay marriage may be a sin but I'm NOT against it' [sic] There is a difference in being against something and thinking it's a sin just because I think it's a sin doesn't mean I'm going to judge anyone for it or put them down. [sic]" Let me remind you \*facepalm*\ that you are supposed to be arguing for the highly controversial subject of Gay Marriage. Saying that you are not against it does not even imply that you are for it. I laughed out loud when I saw that you called me "bub". QUOTE: "PUT it this way if you believe in something 110% and someone holds a gun to your head and says change your belief or I'm going to shoot you, [sic] ...." I think I'd have the intelligence in this situation to change my belief for a brief amount of time to save my life, even though you probably would not. QUOTE: "you're not gong to change you belief if you honestly believe it and that's what you're doing when you try to tell gays they cant marry. [sic] They believe in it so their not changing their [sic] mind why should you tell them its [sic] wrong?" I not telling gays that they can't marry, but I'm voting against it. That's all I have to say about this useless banter. QUOTE: "3. I'm talking about sin as what god [sic] defines in the bible that Christians shouldn't do, some that are legal include drinking, Getting [sic] tattoos, Even [sic] eating selfishly." I'm an athiest, and that means I do not accept religious arguments. That being said, some people do. You are essentially arguing that all sins should be legal, by using other sins that are legal as justification for another sin to be legalized. Should we legalize murder and rape? According to you the answer is yes (at least based on this argument). QUOTE: "In summary 90% of your argument was invalid." \* Another facepalm *\
Gay Marriage

Okay. 1. I shouldn't have to list conditions of this argument its simple for or against it, that's the whole point of this website. 2. I didn't say I was against it I said it was a sin re-read that bub "Yes gay marriage may be a sin but I'm NOT against it" There is a difference in being against something and thinking it's a sin just because I think it's a sin doesn't mean I'm going to judge anyone for it or put them down. PUT it this way if you believe in something 110% and someone holds a gun to your head and says change your belief or I'm going to shoot you, you're not gong to change you belief if you honestly believe it and that's what you're doing when you try to tell gays they cant marry. They believe in it so their not changing their mind why should you tell them its wrong? 3. I'm talking about sin as what god defines in the bible that Christians shouldn't do, some that are legal include drinking, Getting tattoos, Even eating selfishly. In summary 90% of your argument was invalid.
Gay Marriage

For the purposes of this argument, in order to win this debate I find it unnecessary to provide any justification against the controversial subject of gay marriage (at least for now), but to point out some elementary flaws on how you make the argument above... 1. You do not set the guidelines for this debate (agreed definitions, conditions, etc.) 2. As part of your pro argument, you claim to not be against it. All textbooks aside, this is probably the weakest way to make an argument, or any debate for that matter. Perhaps you should not be arguing in favor of a controversial subject such as gay marriage if you simply do not have a sufficiently adversarial opinion. 3. "look at all the other sins that are legal", such as what. Define sin. Give examples of legal sins. This is vagueness. 4. "religion needs to stay out of the constitution". The "Constitution" is the work of the founding fathers that establishes the ground of America. We cannot automatically assume that you are talking about state constitutions because you use the singular form which refers to the most acknowledged work, so in most peoples' minds, one glance at this statement might destroy your validity. In summary, I do not need to even argue against gay marriage when there are such fundamental flaws in the way the initiator made this argument. Why spend a substantial amount of effort with sources and such when the person making the claim in the first place didn't bother to do even 1/100th of that.
Warren Harding is a vastly underrated US President

1) the 5 permanent members dont have all the power, thats why its called the United Nations not the United Top 5 Nations. .. . Also the fact that China and the US have some friction doesnt matter at all. .. . (for the record i dont exactly see fox news as a reliable source) . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://www.un.org... The idea that the UN doesnt get much done and only makes things worse is purely the pro's opinion too, the UN has done much good for humanity. . http://www.un.org...= . http://www.un.org... . http://www.foreignpolicy.com... . http://e-pao.net... 2) Yes America would have had to assist war torn Europe, we did the same thing following WWII and in that scenario France and the UK were back on their feet in no time. Following WWI both nations were still reeling from the war and had slipped into a devastating economic recession where in any one nation unemployment topped 20%. .. . So WWI with no UN = Europe in shambles for a long time with no relief at all WWII with UN establishment = European countries back on their feet in not even 2 years. .. 3) As for FDR, the point was that if you do enough good for a country then one slip up isnt going to derail your legacy. Harding though didnt do anything clearly beneficial for the country but his administration was rocked with scandals and bad choices. .. 4) FDR's actions are a different debate, but we both already agreed that it was NOT Harding who managed the economy well, it was secretary Mellon who did that, "I do give Andrew Mellon credit for the economy" As for WWII, you didnt really acknowledge that. .. 5) I believe it was Eisenhower who got us involved in war with Vietnam, JFK just continued it. I think it could be assumed though that a war with Vietnam is a far lesser evil compared to all out Nuclear War with Russia In Conclusion, this is why i think that Harding deserves to be ranked near the bottom. 1) He provided no large benefit to the country and any benefit that was present came from his advisers who were actually qualified for the positions they held. 2) His policy of isolationism turned America's back on the war torn nations of WWI in Europe, which then sled quickly into a worldwide devastating economic setback. 3) Harding kept the US out of the League of Nations, the older brother of the UN, and in doing so may have helped allow the rise of Mussolini, Hitler, and Japanese aggression against China, the seeds for WWII 4) Harding appointed many of his own unskilled friends to high positions in his administration who were notorious for committing or submitting to acts of fraud, bribery, embezzlement, etc.