BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay descrimination is illegal but is still happening and should be stoped.

"When you implied that a gay person is not easily recognized because there is no homosexual dress fashion so to speak, I have to disagree. One who is gay may show signs in character, habits, or yes even clothing tastes." That is a stereotype and not true. If a man is a metrosexual, he is not automatically a homosexual. If a woman enjoys playing basketball, that does not make her a lesbian. "if you are a religious person who is against homosexuality, you may be prone to suspect one is gay just by these qualities. And, if this religious person happens to be the man or woman that is interviewing you for a job, it is likely discrimination will occur." How do you know this? Provide some empirical evidence to make such a libelous claim. "Based on studies, if a potential employer believes that someone is gay, this person is forty percent less likely to succeed in getting the job." The case study you have provided does not indicate that. The academic claimed he was the "treasurer of a collegiate gay organization" on his resume. Nevertheless, how does he definitely know he wasn't rejected for other things he listed on the resume? This is a deceitful tactic that academics like to play on occasion. Correlation is not causation. He has not provided the fact that he was not hired because he associated with a homosexual organization. I could use his statistics in reverse. I could say that since he was part of a homosexual organization, he was 60% more likely to be hired over the other potential candidates. "So to conclude this argument, although there is no official law, some local government protect the rights of homosexuals. " Then it is not illegal according to Federal law to discriminate against homosexuals. You have refuted your own claim that it was illegal in the United States. "I believe that our government should add the protection of gay rights to the Constitution." This is a debate for another time. No, the Constitution should not be amended to protect homosexuals. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 should be amended to include sexual orientation. Why protect homosexual rights and not bisexual or heterosexual rights?
Gay descrimination is illegal but is still happening and should be stoped.

I would like to point out that even though there is no national law against homosexual discrimination, many states and local governments try to protect these citizens" rights. When you implied that a gay person is not easily recognized because there is no homosexual dress fashion so to speak, I have to disagree. One who is gay may show signs in character, habits, or yes even clothing tastes. if you are a religious person who is against homosexuality, you may be prone to suspect one is gay just by these qualities. And, if this religious person happens to be the man or woman that is interviewing you for a job, it is likely discrimination will occur. You stated that one must know the person is gay to then discriminate. The arguments in my last paragraph that one can assume a man or woman is gay by observing behavior, clothes, etc. Based on studies, if a potential employer believes that someone is gay, this person is forty percent less likely to succeed in getting the job. So to conclude this argument, although there is no official law, some local government protect the rights of homosexuals. Also, because it is actually easy for one to assume one as gay, the possibility of discrimination occurring is high. I believe that our government should add the protection of gay rights to the Constitution. Sources: www.dailymail.co.uk/.../Gays-need-apply-Research-shows-homosexual-r... www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/.../LGBTPublicSectorReport1.pd...
Gay descrimination is illegal but is still happening and should be stoped.

I accept. I would like to thank the Pro side for hosting this debate. As the pro side, I will be arguing gay discrimination is not illegal. I think discrimination against sexual orientation is morally wrong but it is not illegal. There should not be a surprise that discrimination against someone's sexual orientation is happening. But that would be a hard legal case to prove. When I go down the street I can see if someone is a Caucasian American or an African American. I can distinctively observe if someone is a man or woman (hopefully). Also if someone is wearing a hijab, I might assume they are a Muslim. If a man is wearing a Yamaka, I will assume he is Jewish. But when I go down the street I can not know if someone is a homosexual or not. I can have my assumptions but why would I suspect it unless they reveal it. This is why discrimination against sexual orientation is hard case to prove. You have to show that the person discriminating actually knows the other persons' sexual orientation and intends on discriminating because of it. Nevertheless, discriminating against sexual orientation is not illegal as you falsely claim. Sexual orientation is not covered under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The act covers national origin, race, gender, and religion. To quote the actual Civil Rights Act of 1964: "Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin[1]." Sexual orientation is not covered now. Maybe in the future it should be extended to protect sexual orientation. It is a really a question of group rights and whether someone is being discriminated because of their group(race, religion, gender) or as an individual. To quote the actual Civil Rights Act of 1964. [1]http://www.eeoc.gov...
Gay descrimination is illegal but is still happening and should be stoped.

I believe that the homosexual population of the US is being discriminated. there are those who are not being accepted for jobs or are even being fired after "coming out of the closet" so to speak. Politicians or people of high influence instantly lose their power when admitting to this harmless lifestyle. this is wrong and should not be allowed to happen. a person should not be judge on relationship preferences but on ones actions and character not involving sexuality.
Gay descrimination is illegal but is still happening and should be stoped.

" I was trying to say that a religious person might use anything to discriminate a person if he/she presumes him or her to be gay. " Again, how do you know that? The statement above is presumptuous about how a religious person may behave. "You, on multiple occasions, quoted the constitution. " Why is my opponent intentionally lying? I have not quoted the Constitution a single time in this debate. "One of the constitutions main goals was to form a more perfect union without such discrimination, but you insist that gays should not be protected by the document. " No, the Constitution does not protect group rights at all. The Constitution protects individual rights but not group rights. For example, freedom of association, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion. Why should the Constitution be amended to open the floodgates of litigation? Here is an example of one of the problems with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. If someone is drunk then comes in to work and urinates all over their office cubical. Then goes on to their managers' office to punch their boss in the face. That person will be extremely difficult to fire because alcoholism is considered a disease, not a choice. However, there could be a criminal case because of the violence inflicted upon their boss. But they can not be fired on the grounds of their behavior while drunk. . http://www.niaaa.nih.gov... Lawsuits claiming discrimination for sexual orientation will be abused like the other protections of the Civil Rights Act. The Constitution should not be responsible for this abuse of law. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 should cover sexual orientation. Again, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects groups from discrimination in the public or private sector. The Constitution should not be held liable. The Pro side has admitted in round 3 that there was no official law to protect the right of of homosexuals. We are discussing Federal law and not state laws. So in essence, the Pro refuted their own claim.
Technology will be the undoing of humans

As we speak, the Russian government has an emp weapon orbiting over the earth. When detonated, the blast could effect the entire United States and part of Canada. What would the citizens of the United States do in that case? We rely so much upon technology that are very lives depend on it. Most teenagers and adults can not go without wifi, which leads to less face-to-face interactions and common courtesies between people. Think back to when people were not consumed in electronics, they got along just fine and perhaps even better than we do today as far as social lives. By technology, I mean as far back as the 1950s, when America grew commercially and mass produced many things. As far as communication from one country to another, telegrams get the message from one place to another efficiently. I am not arguing for no technology, just for modern technology. Education has been very much possible through thousands of years. Great thinkers arose from schools in ancient eras and the renaissance. As far back as I can recall, books do just fine when teaching students and technology is needed to train a mind in the way it should go.
Technology will be the undoing of humans

I will be arguing that technology will NOT be the undoing of humans.Technology will not be the undoing of humans due to the fact that if we didn't use technology that would be the undoing of humans.If we didn't have technology education would be a lot worse and harder to teach.Also countries communicate using technology.Example:If one country was under attack and needed help and the messenger didn't get there on time then the other country could be conquered.Also if we didn't have technology medical care could not have the technology to provide patients with the proper care.And if a war happened then we didn't have the proper medical care then a country could lose a war due to the fact that to many people were dying in the treatment of their own medics and surgeons.Also people could not have long distance relationships leading to society being more introverted.We will be fine as long as people do the right thing with technology.
long word in the English langue debate

Pro's word is rather long, but it is somewhat boring and useless since it's only a strain of proteins...Prefer this: Hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia-fear of long words [1]Not only is it long, but it has hippo in it! :)I don't always use long words, but when I do, I prefer hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia.Vote CON! 1. http://dictionary.reference.com...;
Militant Ignostic Weak Agnostic Atheism!

I wrote this up a long while ago. I want someone smart to come in here and attack weaknesses in the logic of this thing, because that can only lead to good things! Either I end up with more confidence in what I believe, or I end up revising what I believe because it's wrong. It's win-win =D Militant: You should believe what I believe, because I'm more right than you. And your certainty on religions, or atheism, or others, is hurting people. It's, at the very least, enabling those who can and do hurt people/society/culture/humanity. Ignostic: What do you mean by the word "god"? If this is spinoza's god that reveals himself as the natural world and universe itself, then sure I believe because that fact is infallible - the universe obviously exists. The belief is merely philosophical. If we're talking about a supernatural being, omnipotent and omniscient, and the creator of all things... that's a very different definition of "god". Also very different are the definitions of the word "god" in regards to christianity, hinduism, ancient greek or roman religions, ancient egyptian religions, mormonism, scientology, etc. etc. etc. For some, footballer Diego Armando Maradona is "god". There is an actual church and religion dedicated to him. If their definition of "god" can be Maradona, then god exists because maradona does. His existence, however, doesn't mean he is supernatural in any way. The word "god" must be clearly defined first before you consider the question "does god exist?" Weak Agnostic: I'm agnostic because some things are beyond our understanding at this moment, as many things have been all throughout history. We should be humble enough to admit when we just don't know with any level of certainty, rather than to claim something as absolute truth. But I'm willing to change my position on the matter depending on new advances in science, philosophy, or etc. which may present new ideas or evidence. This is as opposed to a strong agnostic who would claim that we don't know and never will. Although unlikely, it's still a false absolute truth to claim there is zero possibility we might know something else in the future we didn't in the past. Agnostic Atheism: In regards to a personal god, or any other definition of god that is more specific than what is knowable with certainty... it's possible but unlikely.
Militant Ignostic Weak Agnostic Atheism!

There's no way anyone will read this debate anyhow my opponent again made it difficult for me to respond by: 1. Disorganization: I asked: "Please put a title on your responses and be specific (very, very specific). " Did my opponent improve ? No. 2. Conduct Well, just read this: "seriously, is this a joke? am i being trolled here? i came on this site hoping for a delightful battle of intellects from opposing perspectives, instead i get something not much better than youtube-comments-banter." In any case Ill give my best shot: "- I concede to you defeating those statements, however, not the "militant" part." I only need to show flaws in your statement -""Now I can't defend the teachings of Islam but I can defend Christian ideology." - go on?" There's nothing for me to defend, you show me something I should defend. From there I prove you wrong. "- You still needed an organized belief system to tell you that" No, I don't need anyone to tell me that. "An atheist would contend that atheism wouldn't teach, people would." Im afraid people generally speaking are materialistic and not altruistic ; secular kids learn from the media . Even if presumingly they are - there is no reason to assume that an atheist would be as devote as an theist. -"- One can be certain about something. That doesn't mean they 'know'." What does know what one experiences. -" we both have biased opinions" I don't -" another opinion statement with no strong supporting arguments or proof." He provided no refutation. -"- try and prove what i said there isn't correct." Its not what I am supposed to do...Did you admit that you're taking a side. -" 'god started it all' or 'something else did' " Obviously the one with baby eyes would take the more likely one as truth (God) from his perspective.
Militant Ignostic Weak Agnostic Atheism!

Ill spare you the ado and begin though I must mention that this debate is a bit bewildering - there's no organization whatsoever: Militancy: I shall address he "But to specify" section - "It's not the logical thing to do" Indeed. - " terrible things organized religion has been responsible for in the past" Please be more specific as to what you mean. Do you mean the system, the people or the religion itself? No vague statements please. Also " My position is that claiming to follow certain belief systems like Christianity or Islam for example, only empower those that have the power to inflict negativity to the world." Is this what you want to debate ? Present your case in the next round. -"someone who behaves that way because of fear of supernatural punishment?" What ? When did I say that ? Please be more organized in the next round. Ignostic: - " 'supreme being' can still refer to countless different supernatural characters and interpretations." Your point ? Just what are you talking about ? - "specific = less chances of being right... unspecific(broader definition) = more chance of being right." Broader definition ? If it does not include the Christian God, I argue that its less likely. -"believing that you know" I do know from reasons and recent personal experiences. I RECOMMEND STARTING AGAIN IN THE NEXT ROUND BECAUSE THIS IS THE FIRST TIME WHEN MY OPPONENT IS SO UNCLEAR THAT I DON'T KNOW WHAT I AM DOING. WHAT ARE WE DEBATING ? PLEASE BE CLEAR AND SPECIFIC (EMPHASIS ON BEING SPECIFIC). Thank you
Handicap Debate - God Exists

MOA1.Shifting BoP is not an argument. Metaphysical possibility of God needs to be demonstrated2.The reverse premise:“It is metaphysically possible for God to not exist”Entails the reverse conclusion “God doesn’t exist” via. the reverse MOA by exactly the same logic. It’s both epistemically & logically possible via. possible worlds with only one particle obeying a time-dependant Hamiltonian (e.g.).3 See below: Godel OA1. Pro’s axioms and theorems are all bare assertions2. Existence is simply arbitrarily designated as ‘positive’ – question begging. ”Positive” must be justified objectively, not subjectively by Pro to be valid3.Definition 1&2 assumes Cartesian essentialism is correct, however existentialism & nihilism are possible & exclusive, the latter most parsimonious. Thus the definition are question begging of coherence.54.Axiom 5 assumes existence is a predicate, which entails absurd expectations ( $1,000,000 necessarily existing in my account is “positive"...yet I’m poor)KCA P11.Pro drops P1 (no justification given) & misses point of 0-energy hypothesis. It’s completely *logically consistent* with *existing laws*, even if unproven - refutes his assertion that it’s scientifically impossible2.Rest is gibberishP21.I never tried to refute BGV theorem, I challenged Pro’s interpretation of it. His interpretation relies on underlying assumptions (presentism, classical space-time on all scales) which are false2.In eternalism, the universe no more “begins to exist” at the first-moment in time than a ruler “begins to exist” with its first inch. Past present & future all exist at once and all are part of a tenseless wholeTA1.Doesn’t prove God as defined & Bible is irrelevant to TA2.Pro ignores prescriptive/descriptive distinction3.Evolution via. natural selection is a way to generate descriptive “telos”. Descriptive telos can be attributed to anything e.g. mountains exist for camels to itch their backs Ref3 http://goo.gl...5 http://goo.gl...;
Handicap Debate - God Exists

AffNo God is most likely to be true via. law of parsimony, the simplest explanation is a priori most likely.1NegMOAThe MOA depends on a highly specific definition of “possible” to be valid, which in possible world semantics (which the MOA is derived) is metaphysical possibility.2 It is completely different to epistemic possibility, which is a representation of subjective possibility, or a statement of “possible for all I know”. Thus, Pro must argue that a necessary being (God) is metaphysically possible, but he has not done so, thus P1 is unsound. To illustrate, the Goldbach conjecture is an unproven theorem in mathematics, it is thus “epistemologically possible”, however that is insufficient to conclude it is logically/metaphysically possible, especially given it is a necessary truth IF true.8 Given we cannot prove mathematical theorems this way, epistemic possibility is simply not sufficient (which is what Pro tries to affirm).KCA1.Law is conservation of mass is falsified by mass-energy equivalence, allowing for hypothesis such as zero energy universe to remain logical consistent with existing laws.6-7 The Earth doesn’t explode since it’s bound by the physical laws which themselves are part of the universe. Sans physical laws as well as time we no longer have reason to believe things need causes, since we have no time directionality, nor physical constraint. 2.Pro’s interpretation of BGV theorem relies on the assumption that space-time remains classical and the presentism ontology of time is correct. The former is dubious in light of quantum gravity, and the latter in light of general relativity, which entails four-dimensionalism & eternalism.9 TA1. This argument doesn’t argue for God, thus is irrelevant to the resolution.2.Pro equivocates between telos that is prescribed and telos that is attributed. Pro needs to prove the former. 1 http://goo.gl... 2 http://goo.gl... 6 http://goo.gl... 7 http://goo.gl... 8 http://goo.gl... 9 http://goo.gl...;
Handicap Debate - God Exists

*Debate is closed, leave message in comments to accept*BackgroundI am strongly of the opinion that 10,000 characters is plenty to present a decent case for virtually any position. Thus it infinitely irritates me when people claim that the debate limit is insufficient to make their case. I call this argument ad verbosium. [. http://wiki.ironchariots.org...] To demonstrate this point, I am picking a common topic, where I will use 5x fewer characters than my opponent. While this debate is about God's existance (one of my favorite topics), the underlying purpose is regarding word economy. Thus, I expect my opponent to use as much of his character space as possible, and give a best possible case for the existance of God, which I will attempt to refute. I recommend my opponent be as unethical as humanly possible in this debate, abusing character-wasting techniques such as Gish Gallop, etc if he so wishes. Voters should vote based normally but not deduct conduct for application of these techniques.
Jersy shore should be banned.

Good rebuttal, I do agree that censorship does open the door to much nastier things. Censorship is like telling a man he can't have his steak because a baby can't chew it. In regards to it being the parent's job to watch over their children; what about the careless parents whom allow their children to watch garbage like Jersey shore? Those children then go to school and spread the Ideas, and mimic the actions of the cast of Jersey shore. That negates good parenting to a point because they are still indirectly exposed to Jersey shore. In regards to the 1st amendment, the FCC can still ban it, use the gun principle, a loaded gun with the safety on is still a loaded gun, and therefore dangerous.
Jersy shore should be banned.

The main issue we're wrestling with is the constitutional freedom of speech. Do you or I or even a majority have the option to curtail someone's freedom of speech or expression? The answer should always be no. Jersey Shore is now in its sixth season which proves that there is an audience that enjoys the content and there's a station willing to run it. Any adult citizen should be able to listen to, read, watch or voice whatever speech or form of expression they wish provided no laws are broken in the process. You mentioned young people. Young people's exposure to media should be regulated mostly by what their legal guardians deem permissible. Obviously congress has enacted legislation that forbids broadcasting obscene and offensive behavior on public networks, but this is different. Television, like any medium, cannot replace good parenting. Your personal belief should not dictate what I can or cannot watch. If we categorically ban things that some people deem tasteless, it opens a door to state mandated censorship. This isn't a good thing.
If gays could have openly served in WW2, "Saving Private Ryan" would have been 1.37 hours shorter

1. The battle scene took 27 minutes. However, the rest of the movie was not simply about the mission to save Ryan; some time has to be allowed for the plot to be set up before it. Hence the movie would still be longer than 1.37 hours (which is what Pro has to prove).2. Even if Pro is right on all counts, there is still no guarantee that homosexuals might have taken less than exactly an hour to find Ryan. He has only proved that they wouldn't take more than an hour. In conclusion, there is absolutely no way in which Pro has fulfilled his burden.