BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
its ok to be gay

It is nasty to be gay. Why? Because to men having sex involves one of them putting his penis into the whole the other guy stools out of. It can't be clean to put ones penis in such a usually dirty place. Some gays actually end up sticking their penis into excrement that has not yet come out and drill out the brown stuff, ewwww...Its also not ok to be gay because homosexuality is offensive in that it shows lack of morals, hence, most societies do, and have always viewed it as taboo. Now as for all those people fighting for gay rights, let me as this. Where do we draw the line? If homosexuality is acceptable, then are we to accept bestiality as well? If not, why not? Once we blur the lines of morality and claim that such acts are ok, it allows for a whole host of other abominable practices. If all humans we homosexual our species would die out; that should tell us that something is wrong with this practice. What is more; the word of God, the Holy Bible, says that its wrong. I find it odd that the Islamic countries have no problem ruling their state by their religious tenants and the Quaran; why then should Christians fear to rule with the tenants of the Bible? After all, even the declaration of independance was founded upon the Biblical teaching that all men are created equal. Sure, they guys who fight for gay rights are considered great by Pro, but greatness is just a subjective point of view. Some German's considered Hitler Great; go figure.
its ok to be gay

resolve: Being Gay is perfectly fine and normal in todays society. great people are gay including neil patrick harris, ellen degenerous, and alexander the great. many great people have supported gay rights such as Lady Gaga, and President obama. In todays society it is totally normal to be gay. and gay people should not be discriminated for any reason. im bi sexual and i know that gay guys go for gay guys not straight men. and the factor of religion should not even come in to play since this country has freedom of religion
Should capital punishment be outlawed.

I hope that my opponent has not suffered a misfortune.Lacking any debate from Round 2, the only argument that I have to rebut is my opponent's opening statement that, "I think that this be shouldn't be illegal if this is then criminals will have no fear of committing crimes."Taken at face value this is simply silly. Capital punishment is never going to act as a deterrent for crimes that it isn't applied to, down to and including shoplifting. The alternative, instituting capital punishment for all crimes, is equally absurd. I might be more receptive to the idea if it had gotten rid of Wesley Crusher in Star Trek: TNG but that's merely a matter of personal preference.I hope that my opponent won't mind if I reinterpret his opening statement a little to mean that 'If capital punishment was made illegal then criminals would have no fear of committing brutal and violent crimes (e.g.: murder).'To start, there are a variety of other punishments that are commonly employed for violent criminals, up to and including life in prison without parole. In the absence of capital punishment they will still have ample incentive not to maim, rape and kill.As I noted in Round 1, there isn't any solid evidence that capital punishment does serve as a deterrent against murder or similar violent crimes that it is applied to [8]. In some cases the murder rate has actually been observed to drop following the abolition of the death penalty [17]. States that have abolished the death penalty typically have lower murder rates [18] and lower rates of murder of police officers [19].Capital punishment fails to serve as a deterrent for murder for a variety of reasons including: - The majority of murders are not pre-planned. They occur in the heat of the moment with little or no thought for the consequences. - Murderers who plan their crimes don't believe that they will get caught. - The death penalty is rarely sought and even more rarely carried out. Despite 10 to 15 thousand murder convictions in the US annually [20], the number of executions never exceed double digits [21]. Only one conviction in 300 leads to an execution. - The time between the crime and the execution is years or decades, producing a profound disconnect between the event and the consequence. - Most felons are unaware of executions. The criminals simply aren't the people attending the executions.Deterrence cannot be used to support capital punishment as there is no good evidence that capital punishment deters violent crime.Sources[17] http://nccadp.org...[18] http://www.amnestyusa.org...[19] http://www.deathpenalty.org...[20] http://www.bjs.gov...[21] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...
Freedom of speech should not have limitations

As citizens of the United States it is our constitutional right to have freedom of speech. But take apart the word freedom. Criminals could have freedom to commit murder and steal as much as they want in a free country, terrorists could kill innocent people and cause chaos if they were free to. And a child can go to school and degrade and torment another student without punishment. When a little girl comes home crying because another girl called her ugly, there is nothing that a mother can do legally that will make the slightest difference, but if a man slanders a word on his Facebook about the president, he will disappear from society without a trace. That, is protected under our first amendment. The first amendment states that congress shall not make a law respecting an establishment or religion, or prohibiting the free exercise theroff, or abridging the freedom of speech. But we live in a society based on freedom only, Americans choose what they want to respect and want they want to disrespect. We live in a society where somebodies sexuality is immediately shot down by somebody elses religion. We live in a society where a group of people can stand on a street corner and protest the funerals of war veterans. The Westboro Baptist Church is a religious group that consists of daily songs about how they hate America due to the amount of gays that walk the street, and they plan pickets for the funerals of soldiers because "god has struck them down". No police are called, nobody can do anything about it, and why, because of freedom of speech. Two years ago, in Springfield Middle School, a rumor was spread by a few students and teachers, that two special education students, were commiting sexual acts in the restroom. The whole school believed that it was true. And its not only because their story wouldn"t make a difference, but that everybody wants to believe the more interesting story. They were helpless in a situation that they could not get out of. If a rumor is spread about an innocent person, no law is there to stop it, but there there is a constitutional right that is there to protect it.
A nuclear bomb on Isis

The problem with the them or us attitude is that millions of innocent Muslims will perish for nothing but being Muslim. A solution to ISIS could include a military invaison and total occupation, drone strikes and starving ISIS out of resources, ceasing foreign aid to countries that are sympathetic to ISIS like Turkey and Pakistan, all the while working with English, Austrilian, Canadian and French forces to track down and kill all ISIS members. But dropping a WMD won't solve anything.
Private Property is nessesary for a sustainable modern society.

Well I take it you meant that private property is necessary for a modern society we can sustain indefinitely yeah. Ok then. How do you know that modern society is sustainable? Just because it hasnt crashed yet doesnt mean it wont. Like you cant say something can be sustained indefinitely just becuase it has lasted so far. Like as you said "the social system communism does not exist today" and "Since it collapsed it gives evidence showing that it was never sustainable and never can be sustainable"......Will we find Democracy to be the same should it collapse?
Private Property is nessesary for a sustainable modern society.

Private property is essential for a sustainable modern society. We see the emergence of private property in our biological cousins the chimpanzees which maintain primitive forms of private property. Private property has evolved with us and is seen through all societies. To reject private property and to claim that it is not necessary is just as absurd as saying humans do not place value on objects. Institutions such as the state violate property rights and must be abolished.
America is a rape culture

I'm glad that my opponent has accepted my definitions. I'm equally not glad that my opponent doesn't accept my research. The U.S. consumed 5.3 billion pounds of rape based oil in 2015 and this number is increasing, indicating our demand for and acceptance of rape as a crucial component of our gastronomic culture. http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu... Like I've mentioned, rape is everywhere in our culture, from the food we eat, to the food we produce. We fed our cattle and pigs 4.8 million tons of rape meal in 2015, which means that anytime you went to an American cultural event (parties, ball games, weddings, holidays) and anything fried in vegetable or canola oil, any type of beef, or any type of pig was served, rape was involved and appreciated. http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu... The authentic American cultural creations like chicken wings, southern fried chicken, fried catfish, and home fried potatoes, all use rape oil to create and satisfy American cultural demands; we love rape here. I maintain that America is a rape culture, because statistics indicate our cultural demand for rape, and rape at cultural events is almost unavoidable; at most cultural events one can find pig, beef, or fried cultural items. On to Con...
America is a rape culture

I understand completely where you are coming from. Rape is huge, and I understand that. I, too, find it often in my life. Regardless, It's still hard to say we live in a culture of rape. First of all, rape is hardly the most common used crop. There have been numerous reports of men who have made jokes about rape and got fired because their bosses don't like the taste. This shows that our society is anti-rape. We don't like the crop. Sure, it's useful in other foods. If you combine chemicals that are confirmed to give you cancer and AIDS. Our society is so anti-rape we put carcinogens in the foods that contain said crop, along with the rare, but sometimes occurring, SUPER AIDS TRAIT which means you'll have SUPER AIDS within one tablespoon of the substance. I refuse to acknowledge your research because I know I'm right. Also I'm probably cooler IRL than you so good luck winning this.
America is a rape culture

Thanks Con for this debate. These days it seems like it's everywhere. I order some fries at the baseball game, rape. I order wings at the bar, rape. Fried turkey on thanksgiving? Up to our ears in rape. My wife and I got some dinner the other night, and wouldn't you know it, rape was inevitable; fried catfish was the special. It's like all I see are advertisements for McDonald's using rape to entice new consumers, companies finding new innovative ways to use rape as a means to attract investors, and fields and fields of rape throughout this great country; hey, pigs gotta eat too, right? Don't get me wrong, my wife and I love rape as much as the next guy, but isn't there another way to meet our needs? You can try changing your preferences, but as an American, in a culture dominated by different foods, you're bound to get rape; we live in a rape dominated food culture. I'm not as upset about it as the women in Con's video, but I agree that our rape culture is existent. Come on, you can't even go to a simple party these days without rape; chips are a party staple. The US actually supports rape to the fullest, by constantly allowing for it to be a normal part of the everyday american cultural experience; the US is responsible for tons and tons of rape. http://www.usda.gov... I also don't really understand Con's use of rape as a verb or the laws that punish people for doing said verb; what does rape have to do with normalized male sexual violence? Oh yeah...since I found explicit definitions for neither the word "rape" nor the word "culture," in round 1 of this debate, I shall supply my own. culture - the customs, arts, social institutions, and achievements of a particular nation, people, or other social group http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... rape - a plant of the cabbage family with bright yellow, heavily scented flowers, especially a variety (oilseed rape) grown for its oil-rich seed and as stockfeed. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... Rape is really just a plant... http://www.ars-grin.gov... ...and it's used to make canola oil. http://www.canolacouncil.org... The foods described are cooked in canola oil, which is made of rape, and pigs eat rape oil leftovers in a stockfeed mash. I affirm the resolution, because America is clearly a rape culture given rape's ubiquity in the American culture.
America is a rape culture

America is NOT a rape culture. A rape culture, as defined by the WAVAW, is a term created by feminists. It was designed to show the ways in which society blamed victims of sexual assault and normalized male sexual violence. Rape culture is nonexistent in America because laws exist that to punish anyone who is proved to have raped another person. Simple as that. The large majority of people in our country agree with the government and absolutely hate rape, and would never support it. People get shamed for even joking about the subject. Lauren Southern's video on the subject explains this greatly, and in the process embarrasses those who actually believe we live in a rape culture.
Batman is better than Superman

Yes, Batman witnessed his parents death, but Batman had Alfred who raised him as his own son so therefore Batman had a "parent". While Superman thought he was the last of his kind. Batman bought his gadgets with his money while Superman was born with his powers and even in the world today there are people being born who have incredible powers like the worlds strongest man he doesn't have to used steroids unlike a lot of body builders. So, therefore Superman and Batman are both great, but Superman is better.
Batman is better than Superman

Batman had not had anybody from his childhood other than a humble butler. His whole life he had been a man without money who was out to seek revenge. Batman is also consistently popular only because he was the one super hero who actually behaves like a human being and a person who needs constant advice to keep going. Superman on the other hand despite losing an entire planet, at least had a mother and father who cared for him. Batman had none of these things. Batman even witnessed his parents death right in front of him. Two things even superman had never known about to feel the pain and agony. This just shows us that Batman is truly better than superman as he is the most influential character on our society today.
Batman is better than Superman

Though we all are being orphaned everyday batman proves to be a more worthy person. Having villains who constantly toil with his emotions, it shows us that batman is actually a hero who has gone through more tragedy than any other comic book character. Take a look at various issues and others, it is clear that Batman has not only lost his parents but Jason Todd, Barbera Gordon and in the movies he has even lost his best friend Rachel Dawes. When comparing that with Superman we understand that Batman has lost more in life and yet still sacrifices more to save his beloved city from the deadly hands of evil.
Batman is better than Superman

Batman is definitely the better character when comparing to superman clearly because he is more relatable and human like. Though dressing up like a bat may not be what humans generally do, the back story of fear and tragedy to why he becomes the bat of gotham touches all of our hearts. Though you may say superman is more powerful, you must face the fact that one weakness of superman always slows him down. But in batman's case we get the idea of a man more relatable to humans and bearing the same burdens we all do in life.
1 = 1 (must have 25 characters)

The only reason I took this debate and felt I could win is because you didn't bother defining one. Therefor, using dictionary.com I define it myself. 1: adjective 1. used of a single unit or thing; not two or more; "'ane' is Scottish" [syn: one] Which leads me to my first point: 1. The number 1 is an adjective. It is used to describe a unit or thing. You cannot see the number one, you can see the symbol we have given to represent 1 but you can't actually see one itself. One is an adjective used to represent how much of something exists. Therefor this resolution must be evaluated in a context. Or with a context it can be evaluated. My opponent offers you an absolute truth in his opinion. 1 = 1. However I contest that this is not always true, sometimes maybe, always never. Examples that my opponent believes are true: 1 orange = 1 apple 1 pie = 1 cake 1 bad debater = 1 good debater 1 fish = 1 fish 1 man = 1 man (twins maybe.... naa) 1 Jesus = 1 Hitler As these are obviously not true we can see my opponents point at times does fall. Second point 2. The resolution doesn't say anything about alternative universes, hypothetical situations, or subjectivity. In an alternative universes 1 does occasionally does not equal itself. By alternative universes I am talking about video games and books. Also hypothetical situations. Ever get that math problem in school where it said 1 = 2 now solve? Exactly. Also also, I would say the world was subjective and contains no absolute truths. Descartes couldn't even prove he necessarily existed. "I think therefor I am".....I hope. In others perspective perhaps 1 = 2 on some days and 1 =3 on others. Or better yet 1 always equals the time of day rounded to the nearest 10th. Ooo la la! Third point 3. My opponents case: "1 = 1 "Fancy math" does not change this constant. Any given number equals that same given number." First, no, debate on debate.org has not incorporated "fancy math" to attempt to change this "constant". All they have done is simply ignore the natural laws of math that humans have thus far created. Primarily this has been done by ignoring the "can't divide by 0" rule. Secondly, you don't specify any rules which I must follow or look to in your evaluation that 1 = 1. Conclusion: Your resolution was very vague. I think next time it should say "Under the current laws of math presented by man 1 = 1". Without such a specification 1 does not necessarily have to equal itself.
Love is the cure to evil

Although I have appreciated and found your argument very entertaining and almost a beautiful read :) I fail to see how a novel proves that love cures evil when we looking at the reality, even if the novel has some degree of realism. You also only using an example of prisons but there is no evidence to suggest that it cures evil. Immoral or wicked behavior isn't necessarily always punishable by a prison sentence. The evidence in the world remains that evil exits and many people who even commit some evil acts do actually come from good and loving homes. I don't say all. Love conquers evil, doesn't cure it. To cure would mean that evil and love can co exist, but somehow evil would have lost 'it's evil' - even the statement is impossible. Evil is an absolute and it's not curable.
Love is the cure to evil

The current approach to dealing with 'evil' people in the developed world is to place them in prison for a number of decades. The reoffending rate in the USA, after completing a full prison term, is higher than two in three -- almost 70%. [1] The conditions in these prisons have been heavily criticised by a number of organisations for incidents such as prisoner rape (with 21% of inmates reporting that they had been pressured into sexual activity), poor nutrition, overcrowding and solitary confinement, which has been labelled as a form of torture and condemned by the UN in 2011. [2] "In 1999, the Supreme Court of Norway refused to extradite American hash-smuggler Henry Hendricksen, as they declared that US prisons do not meet their minimum humanitarian standards." [2] Norwegian prisons take a radical approach by giving inmates freedom to live a relatively normal life. Prison officers are supportive and treat everyone with respect; with love. Prisoners live in hotel-type conditions and are free to roam the grounds at their leisure. The reoffending rate is an astounding 16%. [3] The comforting and loving approach of Norwegian prisons produce a massive fall in reoffending rates than the conventional, harsher prisons of the USA. The idea that love can cure evil has been well established for hundreds of years. Victor Hugo, the acclaimed 19th century French author, is famous for writing the novel Les Mis"rables. Jean Valjean, one of the protagonists, is a convicted felon who escapes from his parole. A kind and gentle clergyman takes him into his home and is as loving as anyone could be, but Jean secretly steals the man's treasure and escapes out the back door. The police catch Jean while leaving the house with the stolen goods, but the clergyman comes to his rescue yet again and claims that he had given the treasure away, before handing over more silver for Jean to take. This unprecedented compassion was a completely new experience for Jean, and he vows to change his life and criminal activities. Jean is ultimately redeemed through love. [4] Many 'evil' people were deprived of love as children; studies show that a lot of convicted murderers and rapists had troubled home experiences in their youth. [5] Love is not only a cure, but also a preventative immunisation against evil itself. I have more points to make, but I will save them for the next round. [1] - http://www.bjs.gov... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] - http://www.theguardian.com... [4] - http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] - http://www.crimelibrary.com...
Love is the cure to evil

Firstly love is the cure to evil is an absolute statement. As per your definition of compassion and affection, if that could cure evil, there would be no evil. However we observe evil by actions; harmful and vindictive ones. If we were to take a look at a religious example for instance; why would there be a hell which is residence for evil or evil entities like for instance Lucifer if love could cure evil? How many kind and affectionate people do you think there are in this world but yet evil prevails. Definition for evil: profoundly immoral and wicked. "his evil deeds" synonyms:wicked, bad, wrong, morally wrong, wrongful, immoral, sinful, ungodly, unholy, foul, vile, base, ignoble, dishonourable, corrupt, iniquitous, depraved, degenerate, villainous, nefarious, sinister, vicious, malicious, malevolent, demonic, devilish, diabolic, diabolical, fiendish, dark, black-hearted;. There are many people who have the ability to love but it doesn't change the profoundly immoral or wicked although I do agree that there are times where love can cure the evil in someone. A child and household pet have the ability to love - show affection let's say. Does this prevent wicked people from harming them? It does not. With evidence we have of people being compassionate and offering affection; and evil still being active in society, this is evidence that love does not cure evil. I'll even argue that evil can't be cured. It can only be eliminated, put to death.