BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Incestuous marriages should be legal

I question why my opponent uses the Bible as reason against incest. I wouldn't consider it a reliable source, especially since there is at least one example of first-degree incest in the Bible that occurred that God didn't condemn in any way. Lot's daughters got him drunk and had sex with him, and God did nothing to condemn this act. Here is the passage from the Bible: "Lot and his two daughters left Zoar and settled in the mountains, for he was afraid to stay in Zoar. He and his two daughters lived in a cave. One day the older daughter said to the younger, 'Our father is old, and there is no man around here to give us children"as is the custom all over the earth. Let"s get our father to drink wine and then sleep with him and preserve our family line through our father.' That night they got their father to drink wine, and the older daughter went in and slept with him. He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up. The next day the older daughter said to the younger, 'Last night I slept with my father. Let"s get him to drink wine again tonight, and you go in and sleep with him so we can preserve our family line through our father.' So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went in and slept with him. Again he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.So both of Lot"s daughters became pregnant by their father. The older daughter had a son, and she named him Moab; he is the father of the Moabites of today. The younger daughter also had a son, and she named him Ben-Ammi; he is the father of the Ammonites of today. [1]" Not to mention, there is likely at least one other form of implicit incest at the beginning of the Bible. Adam and Eve are traditionally to be thought of as the first humans. Their kids had to have had sex either with each other or Adam or Eve in order to reproduce. This would have also been first-degree incest that God didn't condemn in the Bible. Then there are plenty more examples of incest in the Bible, most of which never condemned by God [2] So it would seem that God is inconsistent in his law about incest, since he seems to be okay with it in these instances, but later made a law against it in Leviticus. Thus, the bible is an unreliable source because it gives two different messages about incest. Also, I didn't say they have 2 times the chance of having birth defects. I said that the chances of children of incest to have birth defects is increased by between 6.8% to 11.2%, which is much lower than twice the rate of birth defects among non-incestuous reproduction(for it to be twice as much, it would need an increased chance of 100%). I don't see this as being a big enough concern to make it illegal since that means a vast majority of offspring of incest do not have birth defects or die. Sources: [1] Genesis 19:30-38 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org...
Incestuous marriages should be legal

In the U.S. every state has some form of prohibition against incest,and for many good reasons.Incest is immoral and the Bible condemns it.High rates of birth defects and even death affects the children of people that practice incest. Many of the laws in the United States originated from the Bible.We should take the advice of the Bible in this subject too.In Leviticus chapter 18,The Bible condemns all first-degree incestuous relationships.https://www.biblegateway.com... As my opponent has stated,children of incestuous parents have 2 times the chance of having birth defects,Why risk endangering these children's lives.If incestuous marriage he made legal,they would be able to have kids. One of the main reasons for marriage is to have children,So you can't ban married couples from having kids.
Incestuous marriages should be legal

The first point I wish to make, is that there is nothing wrong with love between two consenting adults. I believe everyone believes that, and I personally also would say there is nothing wrong with doing anything that doesn't do harm to someone else. I consider the burden of proof to be on con to show why incestuous marriages should be illegal. I don't see any legitimate reason why incestuous marriages should be illegal. The only objection most people have is a repulsive impulse that it's gross, but that is literally just opinion and there's no objective way to measure that something is "gross". It literally all depends on opinion, and if it is dependent on opinion, then there's no reason to make it illegal. Now, there is the argument that babies from an incestuous couple have an increased chance of having defects. However, this is a completely different matter. I'm arguing that incestuous marriages should be legal, I am not arguing that incestuous reproduction should be legal. I do personally think it should be as well, and if my opponent is going to bring this up, I wish to point out that for first cousin sex, there is only a 1.7% to 2.8% increase in chances of birth defects [1] and for first degree incest(sex between parent and child or between siblings) there is in reality only a 6.8% to 11.2% increase for birth defects.[1] I don't consider these increases in chances for birth defects severe enough to make it illegal. Now, some studies(4 of them) conclude that it's higher, at 31.4% chance increase, however there are problems with these studies that were not taken into account, for example only 213 children were used, which is not quite a large enough sample pool, then each of them had a "lack of paternity documentation, young maternal age, possible parental diseases and/or intellectual impairment, parental socioeconomic status or lack of reporting this variable, and complications of unsuccessful attempted pregnancy termination" [1] which all would skew the data to increase the percentage higher than it is in reality. The 6.8% to 11.2% chances of birth defects comes from amplifying the third degree(first cousin) incest appropriately for how much more related siblings and parents/children are. This would be more reliable, as it makes sense. I know of no study which has taken into account all variables that could affect the birth defect chance, and limited it to that the only difference is that the parents of the children are related in the first degree. Thus, it's not too harmful for first degree incest to occur, and there's not really any good reason why marriages between first cousins as well as siblings and a parent and offspring should be illegal. It should be also noted that in 18 states, first cousin marriage is completely legal in all instances[2] and I know of no huge problems being caused from the first cousins that are getting married in those states. [1] http://www.larasig.com... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org...
Abortion

This is a devil's advocate debate for me. First, what is the proper definition of "abortion"? ": a medical procedure used to end a pregnancy and cause the death of the fetus" http://i.word.com... what does the law say about abortion? After the supreme court ruling of Roe vs. Wade in 1973, abortion became legal in all 50 states up to the third trimester. A mother may also lawfully abort her unborn fetus after the third trimester if it poses serious health risks to her. There isn't a sound definition to what it means to be considered "alive." Thus, the courts came up with an "age of viability." The age of viability (~24 weeks into pregnancy) is the amount of time it takes for the fetus to reach a developmental stage to survive on its own if it was delivered from the mother's womb. Anything aborted after this 24 week period is not legal unless it poses health risks to the mother. Thus, my opponents definition is wrong and he hasn't shown that a fetus is "alive" nor considered a human being. Also, the law currently permits abortion. Back to you con.
Plagiarism should be punished on DDO

Since no terms were defined, I shall provide definitions. Punish-"to inflict injury on" Plagiarism-"the act of using another person's words or ideas without giving credit to that person : the act of plagiarizing something" I would like to note that inflicting injury on plagiarism is impossible, since plagiarism is only subjective. After all, you do state that "Plagiarism should be punished on DDO. (Debate.org) Acts cannot be punished. The Burden of Proof lies entirely on Pro to argue that we shall inflict injury on plagiarism on Debate.org. Sources: 1]http://i.word.com... 2]http://i.word.com...
If colin leslie dean debating his book is SPAM then so is JK Rowling' debating her new book SPAM

con says "If Rowling would debate here it wouldn't be spam as she would actually have something to discuss, she could come here out of egoistic agenda to discuss her own work without the need to promote it. If Dean is to debate here however he would be spamming since he isn't discussing his work, he's trying to get others to read it since it won't be read otherwise, something that would not apply to Rowling since her work is already read. reply con now again changes the goal post by now defining spam to be NOT having something to discus quote " Rowlings it wouldn't be spam as she would actually have something to discuss If Dean is to debate here however he would be spamming since he isn't discussing his work," in a previous post I showed how cons original definition of spam fitted both me a and Rowlings con has not refuted those arguments all he has done is change the goal post by now defining spam to be NOT having something to discus
If colin leslie dean debating his book is SPAM then so is JK Rowling' debating her new book SPAM

My opponent isn't really understanding what spam is. Spam has nothing to do with self promoting material. Self-promotion does not indicate spam and spam does not indicate self promotion. They can include one and other, but neither definition provided make the requirement of the other. The next point my opponent raises againis that Rowling would not be wanted (something unsolicited does apply to). I already showed you that this is incorrect: DDO has been talking about Rowling on thousand of occasions with HP being mentioned hundred times or so. If it where in deed unsolicited we wouldn't be talking so much about it. Her debates would have a superior purpose than advertising as I've pointed out due to the nature of her work: It is actually discussable. On a debating website debatable material that is a popular topic already isn't irrelevant nor unsolicited. However Deans work is irrelevant, it is not debatable as proved by the wast lack of interest by the half of the DDO community to discuss it without your initiation and I already showed that we do not like Dean's work, meaning it is unwanted on this forum, it's unsolicited. My opponent even conceded to that point in this round, that his work is not welcome on DDO. If Rowling would debate here it wouldn't be spam as she would actually have something to discuss, she could come here out of egoistic agenda to discuss her own work without the need to promote it. If Dean is to debate here however he would be spamming since he isn't discussing his work, he's trying to get others to read it since it won't be read otherwise, something that would not apply to Rowling since her work is already read. As I already said, DDO without the user-account “Rowling” would still give us a DDO site with thousand references to her and hundred HP debates. A DDO without my opponent would mean that Dean would not exist here, he'd just be a meaningless name.
If colin leslie dean debating his book is SPAM then so is JK Rowling' debating her new book SPAM

reply using cons own definition I show both Rowlings and me fit cons definition thus if my debate are spam so would be Rowlings if Rowlings debate would not be spam then my debates would not be spam con says "Actuallly, my opponent isn't realising what the resolution is. The resolution is that if J.K Rowling would come here to debate her work it would be spam as opposed to Dean. He then tries to change the definition of spam to make it include self promotion, something not even mentioned in the definition: "irrelevant or unsolicited messages sent over the Internet, typically to large numbers of users, for the purposes of advertising, phishing, spreading malware, etc." con says" He then tries to change the definition of spam to make it include self promotion, something not even mentioned in the definition:" reply spam means self promoting advertising material thus if Rowlings debated her new book on here it would be self promoting advertising material" con says "irrelevant or unsolicited messages sent over the Internet, typically to large numbers of users, for the purposes of advertising, phishing, spreading malware, etc" 1)if Rowlings posted a debate on here about her new book it would have been unsolicited -thus fitting cons definition 2)if Rowlings posted a debate on here about her new book it would typically to large numbers of users, for the purposes of advertising-thus fitting cons definition i have posted debates about deans work which fit 1)unsolicited -thus fitting cons definition 2)would typically to large numbers of users, for the purposes of advertising-thus fitting cons definition so both Rowlings and me fit cons definition thus if my debate are spam so would be Rowlings if Rowlings debate would not be spam then my debates would not be spam thus what is good for one must be good for the other
If colin leslie dean debating his book is SPAM then so is JK Rowling' debating her new book SPAM

con says point 1) "Readers of the debate, my opponent has failed to make a valid case in his opening round, for not only did he make an oversimplification fallacy but also misread and misinterpreted the dictionary definition provided in this debate." reply I have shown that cons definition of spam WOULD FIT JK Rowling' if she debated her new book on here point 2) con says "To conclude: "Dean isn't a well published author" reply con changes the gate posts here and trows in another argument that was not in his initial argument cons original definition of spam did not include the idea of being a well published author spam is -self promoting adverting material it is a term that is used by people like con to disparage authors they dont like and als not aplly to the elf promoting adverting material of authors they do like I say in conclusion con has not disputed my claim he has in effect shown himself-by his initial definition of spam that JK Rowling WOULD FIT ' cons definition of spam if she debated her new book on here
If colin leslie dean debating his book is SPAM then so is JK Rowling' debating her new book SPAM

Icon says point 1) "In this debate I'll make the case between promoting ones own book in a reasonable way as opposed to promoting it in an obnoxius way that does not have an effect." reply i have not been obnoxious you seem to imply any spam YOU do not like must be obnoxious point 2 definitons of self promoting: "the action of promoting or publicizing oneself or one's activities, especially in a forceful way." reply if JK Rowling debated her new book on this site that self advertising fits this definition point 3 spam: "irrelevant or unsolicited messages sent over the Internet, typically to large numbers of users, for the purposes of advertising, phishing, spreading malware, etc." " as i dont spread malware nor does JK Rowling that point does not apply to me or JK Rowling- it thus is up to you to prove i spread malware thus in reply if JK Rowling debated her new book on this site that self advertising would fit this definition I have shown that based on YOUR definition if JK Rowling debated her new book on this site then that would be spam
If colin leslie dean debating his book is SPAM then so is JK Rowling' debating her new book SPAM

Since this debate was indirectly addressed to me I'll guess I'll have to accept it.In this debate I'll make the case between promoting ones own book in a reasonable way as opposed to promoting it in an obnoxius way that does not have an effect. standard DDO rules and conditions apply, no forfeits, no plagarism, common manners and standard round setup: (opening case: Rebuttals: further rebuttals: closing case without rebuttals from Con) at the risk of 7 point loss with violation.definitons of self promoting:the action of promoting or publicizing oneself or one's activities, especially in a forceful way.spam:irrelevant or unsolicited messages sent over the Internet, typically to large numbers of users, for the purposes of advertising, phishing, spreading malware, etc.debate:a formal discussion on a particular matter in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward and which usually ends with a vote. In this context it is also a debating thread on DDO akin to this one.you may make your case.
If colin leslie dean debating his book is SPAM then so is JK Rowling' debating her new book SPAM

Its argued on here that colin leslie dean debating his new book is SPAM IE YOU CAN SEE HIS FREE POETRY BOOKS HERE http://www.scribd.com... oculus_de_logica says http://www.debate.org... quote "Stop self promoting your poetry" then if that is so then JK Rowling' debating her new book is also SPAM SPAM is self promoting advertising so why can it be acceptable for J K Rowling to promote debate her new book but not acceptable if colin leslie dean does it I argue if it is bad for one ie colin leslie dean then it is bad for the other ie JK Rowling
Racism in America has always been white/non-white, not black/non-black or black/white

Slavery has taken a major effect in our society, Not true... racism was bought to America because Europeans (especially Protestant and Jews from Northern European countries) had feelings of superiority towards other races, white lead them to oppress the Native people and steal their land.but to argue your point, in history white men and women have been slaves. Sir, read my question. It's about white racism against non-white (hence "white/non-white") as opposed white or non-black racism against blacks ("black/non-black";"black/white")During the period of slavery there was nearly 10,000 free black slaves, which most of them owned black slaves themselves.It's not the issue at hand here sir. Racism has affected all non-whites in America All non-black victims of white lynching.I didn't add any black photos cause the main emphasis here is other races who were victims of lynching.
Racism in America has always been white/non-white, not black/non-black or black/white

I will be arguing that white racial hatred in the USA was directed at all non-whites, not just blacks. All non-whites received the worst end of the stick. People of all non-white races got lynched. From the unpunished 1891 New Orleans lynching, the 1930 unpunished Indiana lynching, to the unpunished attacks on Japanese homes in California, to the unpunished lynching of Charles Thurber in North Dakota, 1882, to Lincoln's wars again Sioux and his attempt to deport non-whites, bigotry was geared towards all non-whites.
Horse vs. Tiger

The tiger is the largest cat species, reaching a total body length of up to 3.3 m (11 ft) and weighing up to 306 kg (670 lb). It is the third largest land carnivore (behind only the polar bear and the brown bear). For food they sometimes eat Buffalo and Pythons.A case where a tiger killed an adult Indian rhinoceros has been observed, although adult rhinoceroses are often ignored as potential prey due to a combination of very large size, a short temper, and very thick skin, which render them a laborious and very difficult kill. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org... Tigers are very smart animals and can even be taught to ride horses. ( I thought it was hilarious)
Horse vs. Tiger

http://www.youtube.com... http://www.indiadivine.org... April 23, 2002 Source: Apple Daily, The Sun, The Oriental An accident happened in zoo located in Shenzhen. A tiger bit a horse to death after a loud roar. The tiger is kept for observation. Poster's note: Details of this zoo can be found at: http://www.aapn.org... - scroll two thirds down the page to
Legalize Marijuana for ALL uses.

I wouldn't have made such polar arguments like my first 2 if I didn't have some evidence to back it up. The myth that Marijuana is not safe is one of the biggest. There has not been one single overdose from Marijuana, and in fact, Marijuana does NOT cause respiratory problems like Tobacco does. From personal experience, Marijuana actually opens my bronchial tubes (you'll just have to take my word). This study concluded Marijuana does not cause lung trouble. . http://ajrccm.atsjournals.org... Marijuana is VERY healthy. In fact, it's been found to REDUCE cancer rates in the lung and brain. Just read these: . http://www.webmd.com... . http://www.ehponline.org... . http://americanmarijuana.org... Marijuana doesn't make you stupid either. In fact, it makes your brain work harder. What you choose to have it work on is up to you. (again, this is from personal experience) It also is not linked to psychological problems. . http://men.webmd.com... Marijuana is what you make of it. It is safe if YOU are safe and unlike alcohol, it doesn't impair your judgment of being safe. On Marijuana, you are in control at all times. Marijuana's health benefits have been known for a long time. Marijuana was made illegal by Richard NIXON. If it wasn't made illegal for being unsafe or unhealthy, then it was made illegal to fight against the hippies. To fight against American culture. People of all ages, professions, income levels, and backgrounds use marijuana, so it does NOT limit one's role to function in society. Also, because of how harmless Marijuana is, the punishment for having it is outrageous! Possession can result in fines going up thousands of dollars and prison terms lasting YEARS! All for what? Marijuana is SAFE and HEALTHY and its criminalization is thus UNJUST. I know many people who would never break any REAL laws, so why should they be thrown in jail along with the rest of the criminals just for smoking or selling Marijuana? You said that interacting with people who sell marijuana (and assumably other drugs too) puts you at a higher risk for trying harder drugs. Well, if Marijuana was sold at Walgreens, you wouldn't be mingling with those characters. In fact, they'd be out of the job. And finally, the price of Marijuana is way too high. I can get into how legalization will actually benefit the economy, but I'm not going to. Yes, I am a US citizen too. I am a marijuana user. I am in control of Marijuana, not the other way around.
Legalize Marijuana for ALL uses.

For the record, I am for the legalization of marijuana for medicinal purposes - NOT for recreational use. Marijuana is not completely safe. Period. It's not. When smoke enters your lungs, your alveoli shrivel and die - they can no longer be used. The effects of smoking marijuana for a long period of time are no less serious than smoking cigarettes for a long period of time. Cardiovascular disease and cancer are still risks, not to mention decreased mental capacity whilst being high. For your second point, re-read what I just said. I fail to see how "The illegality of Marijuana and criminalization of Marijuana users is an unnecessary and harmful restriction on American culture and its citizens." I am a citizen of the United States of America. I have been since birth. Never once have I thought that marijuana restriction has hindered me or any of my friends and family. There is no doubt it is a "gate-way" drug - by associating with people who have the means of obtaining cannabis, you are most like associating with people can garner other drugs that are much more dangerous. And frankly, do we want to be part of a culture that condones drug use?