BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The universe is made of only one sub-atomic particle

First off, Pro decides the conditions of the debate. Rule - Both sides are equally responsible. 1. An element is just a group of sub-atomic particles which are in a pattern or an arrangement. I am not disputing that atoms exist. My argument is that the electron, proton and neutron are really just the same sub-atomic particle but in different states. Those states are - left spin (negative/electron), right spin (positive/proton) and no spin (neutral/neutron). According to modern physics there are 6 quarks, 6 leptons and 6 bosons. ref - https://en.wikipedia.org... This can be simplified to 3 groups of 3. In the end, we still have 3 basic states. In atomic physics, you can't get away from the number 3, it always comes back to you, no matter how you rearrange things. Thus, nature is trying to tell us something. Thus, the Hadron Collider is a big waste of money and time. You don't need to spend trillions of dollars to understand how the universe works. You can just use your common sense and the laws of nature and everything will be disclosed to you if you spend enough time and effort thinking about it. You don't even have to leave your lounge chair to do this. Note - Physics needs to be complicated so that university professors have something difficult to explain. If atomic physics was simple, then, a lot of university professors would be out of work. Thus, university professors have a vested interest in the universe being very complicated.
gay marriage, gays in military and gays in general are not unethical

Rebuttal#1 In Alexander's time, the residents of the classical era were more tolerant to homosexuality, but in today's time it is not the case. With the dominance of fundamental thought and religions, a lot of people will be dissuaded from their views on homosexuality. A lot of soldiers have conservative backgrounds (small rural areas) than liberal backgrounds (areas that may be anti-military, or appeals to more artistic or academic pursuits rather than a one in the military), even though a majority of the men and women currently serving don't mind gays serving, there is still anti-gay attitudes among the youth with adoption of homophobic slurs as an example, the recruitment rates will suffer for America is still heavily divided on this issue, with the urban population being more open to it but the rural population actually supplying the recruits. It will be unethical because it undermines the bond between soldiers (a gay one and a homophobic one) and with the recruitment rates suffering, why discourage many in the rural population from enlisting? Rebuttal#2 Although it is true that the Catholic Dioceses a few years back (or currently, I haven't bothered to check) has been involved in moving members suspected of molestation around to avoid them being detained by law enforcement, it is still not the point. The point is in the eyes of the church, the word of God surpasses the laws of man, and there are biblical verses (Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13) that clearly expresses that homosexuality is detestable. Side Convo: I can't get any sources for this round for about every time I search "reasons why homosexuality is unethical" a majority of those sites were actually pro-gay and defeated the reasons they posted, a few sites that actually were anti-gay, were also full of bigots (West Borough anyone?). I have actually wished for a better anti-gay website to help me with this debate ha ha.
gay marriage, gays in military and gays in general are not unethical

I would first and foremost like to apologize for any confusion, I meant to be on the pro side. Second, I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this argument, given his orientation regarding this topic. Third I want to apologize again for not stating my argument on time for the 2nd round. You stated: Argument#1 Allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military will ruin unit cohesion, for the fact that there are some men and women in the armed services who are opposed to the normalization of homosexuality, and subjecting them to additional stresses will put the said personnel in greater danger, thus making it unethical. I assert that the notion above is false, given that Alexander The Great engaged in homosexual activities and he is one of the most prolific rulers of all time. His lover was one of his main generals and they persuaded their army of approximately 47,000 to fight against the Persians of a mere 150,000. To assert that the intervals are too far apart and that it is irrelevant, is false; because, I assure you that men of both ages in time, felt the same fear and pain. What is irrelevant is the stress concerning the sexual orientation of a comrade when an enemy is shooting at you and the only one who's in close proximity to aiding you is that fellow gay soldier. Being gay or even different is susceptible to bigotry and prejudice. To say that the sexual orientation will distract soldiers from daily military obligations must have not lived around an urban neighborhood. Argument#2 Homosexuals and homosexual marriage are unethical because the bible condemns the sin of homosexuality (3). Homosexuality is not the culprit of some sins being offended. If anything, I feel that it is the church which is nurturing some of these sins. It must be a cliche now about priests and molestation. A blind man with half a brain can see a pattern with the church and molestation. It is natural for men and women to have sexual relations and when you deprive someone of this, they will find another way to satisfy their urges. When people don't socialize with others, they tend to acquire very awkward behaviors. I know that some places they allow priest to marry, but actually very stern Catholic churches don't like that idea. In all the years of management, I've learned to be aware of patterns. When something exhibits a pattern and it is causing you problems, it usually isn't the person, it is the system. In pertinence, If you take care of the big things, the small things will take care of itself. Thank you Very straight meaning I love women.
gay marriage, gays in military and gays in general are not unethical

I see you really meant to be on the pro side, but I'll play devil's advocate anyway. Beforehand though, I just want to state that I am a gay 17 year old who is planning to enlist in the army and maybe in the far future, marry Mr. right, but for the sake of argumentative purposes I will play devil's advocate and maybe this debate will serve as an example of the homophobic rhetoric. Argument#1 Allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military will ruin unit cohesion, for the fact that there are some men and women in the armed services who are opposed to the normalization of homosexuality, and subjecting them to additional stresses will put the said personnel in greater danger, thus making it unethical (1). It also brings back why the DADT Policy was put in place during the Clinton's administration, for there was rampant harassment of gays in the military (2). Argument#2 Homosexuals and homosexual marriage are unethical because the bible condemns the sin of homosexuality (3). Yea there's no avoiding that one but in the eyes of a really, really fundamentalist person, the acceptance of homosexuals is an open threat to their religion whether it be Catholicism, Christianity, Islam, etc. is akin to not having one's views being represented. And the next small point is not part of the argument due to the fact the the argument is on ethics, but alot of fundies fear the typical point a to point z theory: gay acceptance -> polygamists marrying underage animals! and they also fear that their rights to speak out against homosexuality will be criminalized in the form of hate crimes. Side Convo: "I am a very straight male" ha ha what does "very straight" mean? Sources Used (1) http://www.compleatheretic.com... (2) http://www.time.com... (3) http://www.nogaymarriage.com...
gay marriage, gays in military and gays in general are not unethical

Thank you to whoever takes on this debate. The Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, Norway, Sweden and South Africa are nations which constitutionally allow gay marriage. Therefore, I do not see any reason why our country cannot allow it. Even though I am very patriotic, I feel that; we, as Americans, are too intertwined in other people's personal life. Gay companionship is only wrong because the bible states that it is. But, the bible is in fact, written by human beings and not a greater being. Constantine actually eradicated anything that contradicts his view of what the bible should be, so who knows what is true and what isn't. I am a very straight male, who feel extremely strong about this topic. I am adopted and my foster dad is gay himself. We live a perfectly normal life and if you met him, you probably would have never guessed he was gay. He lives a life of integrity: recycles and conserves everything, polite to others, donate things frequently, religious, extremely smart, and raised me from a mischievous little kid to a prudent business manager. So to say that being gay is wrong and that it will greatly contribute to the destruction of a child's life is not true. My brother is an Army Ranger and returned home from a tour in Iraq last year. He is also a very ethical person and contributed in protecting the newly elected president of Iraq. He's actually lucky he is not dead because his partner switched patrol duty with him one night and ended up getting shot. Even though my brother is not gay, what if he was? Would I not love him anymore? Would the Army kick him out because of his sexual orientation even after his contributions? Laws are meant for protecting people, but our laws on this subject are based on prejudice and bigotry; not protection.
The UK should not lower VAT rates

I. Economic RecoveryMy opponents contention is unclear here. The UK is growing, and it noticeable, but we both agree it is slow. Yet economic trends have shown UK stimuli spending to be very effective lately. Most of the UK is behind on its budgets, and we have to ask ourselves what the next course of action should be. Should the UK dip more into the debt line, or should it strategically target money within its own borders, before having to pay high intrest rates on money it already has? More debt is not the answer to the UK's problem, and there are really two courses of action. Maintain the VAT rate or go into debt? At least taxation doesn't come with a 2% down intrest rate.II. VAT ValueIf the UK were following the VAT methods of other European nations, then they could be making 50 or so billion. The question isn't really how much it is making, but how much we needed. As I showed earlier, the VAT is only applied to luxury goods within the UK, meaning only surplus money is being targetted. 13 billion is a tremendous amount of money though, I think the opposition is understating that. Health Insurance in the UK is in the same boat as the US, with a 21% gdp thing going, but there is a big chunck of unaccounted for budget which must be filled. The UK can decide to target taxes on luxury goods, or go into more debt. As I showed earlier, taking debt grows with intrest, so taxation is the best answer. I also believe 13 billion is more than enough to pay for the UK's much needed and prestigious council towers.III/IV. Poverty and Encouraging GrowthMy opponent is stating that the VAT is causing poverty. He has not gave correlation that it is having this effect on the economy, and as I argued earlier (which were dropped), it is stimulating growth and making the UK more fiscally responcible. Until the opposition can correlate poverty with the VAT rate, this contention has no weight. Likewise, the opposition also tries to make a baseless assertion that the VAT rate is hurting growth as well, while dropping my argument that it isn't.At most, I will grant him that the VAT is helping very little, but as I stated, it is the best vialble option compared to the alternatives. Can the opposition give a better alternative? http://www.thisismoney.co.uk...
objective morality does not exist!

He should automatically lose this debate. The reason is this: In this debate the burden of proof shall be on mattrodstrom to show objective morality does not exist. The keyword here is mattrodstrom must prove, not just callmetarzan. So, why he thought he could make the contention is beyond me. I fail to see how he can think he should be making an argument. Seriously he lost and I know, I know he is going to claim it is unfair. How am I suppose to win a debate like this. Guess what? That is the stance he is taking that I have no moral obligation to make the debate in a way that is fair to him. Now, lets look at why, the problem is not that there is not an objective way to debate, but the moral issue of why should I be obligated to follow them under his view. He can only give his opinion. He can not say that this opinion that an unfair debate should be presented is any less valid. Another problem he has is that he is presupposing that we have any moral obligation to believe in truth. Why should we believe him even if it is right. If I want to go around believing lies, their is nothing he can claim that would make this morally wrong. I mean seriously the nerve of this guy, he comes in here arguing subjective morality, but then has the audacity to presuppose we are morally obligated to believe truth. He puts forth these arguments, assuming we are suppose to believe in logic, wow what a problem. He better clarify why this is before we can move forward. He better not just assume that we are morally obligated to believe logic is the way to find the answer and just guessing is not morally the right thing to do in an opinion. I ask my opponent is he debating for or against objective morality? All I see is he is inferring objective ways that people are obligated to think to make his argument which defeats his whole argument.
steroids should be legal in baseball.

How does that even out if steroids are open to anyone. That makes it worse by allowing even kids to use it. Anyways people have better moral values then by cheating to be better at a sport. If everyone used it what would be the sense of playing a 400 ft stadium there would be hoemruns every at bat. Also does Martin Luther King claim to be a role model? Hillary Clinton? People's parents? No but they become one just like Barry Bonds. Also if parents have a problem half of them can't control their kids. Kids take steroids in secret and you think parents can just control them? Steroids is the one bringing baseball down, they ruin the game, break kids dreams, ruin rolemodels, encourage cheating and they just make baseball look bad. I have rebutted all your points and made strong points on my own and that's why the con side has won this debate. Thank you for your time and for hosting this debate, Hope to debate you again some other time,
steroids should be legal in baseball.

First it is not my opinion it is half the people in the world's opinion that just happens to match my opinion. Second I was also talking about steroids in baseball for I was mentioning Barry Bonds and using examples of kids getting wrong messages. And for the last time WHAT DOES THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS HAVE TO DO WITH THIS??? Now to more of my points: Steroids ruin the game by giving players a much bigger advantage over other who haven't taken steroids. We already know which people will hit home runs every time and which will strike out. Also since there is a 5 strike rule people are taking steroids multiple times. It also makes the game much worse when your rooting for your team and you figure out that your favorite player was taking steroids and was cheating all along. Thank you for the prompt reply,
steroids should be legal in baseball.

I will first rebutt your points and then move on to mine. You state that it makes baseball more exciting but it doesn't it makes it less exciting in my opinion. If Barry Bonds comes up to the plate and he has taken steroids. Every time he hits the ball it's either a line drive to center field for a double or a home run. Now is it fun to watch him do that every single time, always getting on base and never striking out. Out of my baseball experience I know that what would happen is that eventually pitchers would start intentionally walking him just so he doesn't hit line drives/ home runs. Second baseball will not die out because in fact it is the tied for the second most favorite sport right behind football and tied with basketball. Now have who heard what is going on around the news. Wow Barry Bonds broke the home run record but no team wants him and no person except for a select few like him because he cheated, or as some people say took steroids. The right to bear arms has nothing to do with this so it is irrelevant. Now to move on to my points: 1) Multiple kids around the world are getting the wrong message from people such as Barry Bonds by taking steroids to do better in their sports. They not only end up getting caught, suspended and then they lose any respect they had for cheating. Also research shows that "Regarding the ease by which one can obtain steroids, 17.0% of eighth graders, 27.7% of tenth graders, and 40.1% of twelfth graders surveyed in 2006 reported that steroids were "fairly easy" or "very easy" to obtain. " Even more encouraging by watching big league players take them 2) Steroids are also pretty harmful by causing a wide range of adverse side effects ranging from some that are physically unattractive, such as acne and breast development in men, to others that are life threatening. The important part is the life threatening which means that players are risking their lives just to get better at their sport. Thank you,
steroids should be legal in baseball.

john f kennedy once said "ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country." now the best thing americans can do for their country is to accept and make legal steroids in baseball. i will have 3 main areas to affirm this resolution which are 1. It makes the sport more exiting 2. w/o steroids basball becomes americas pastime and nothing more 3.right to bear arms ( guns) now my first point is that it makes the sport more exiting. this is evident by the barry bonds, mark mguires and sammy sosas. everyone wants home runs and because homeruns = exitment i say YAY steroids. secondly baseball w/o steroids will die. basball is the least watched national sport( besides soccer who no1 cares about, and NHL and everyone hates canada) steroids means records will happen( proof of reason barry bonds) so why let baseball die lastly the right to bear arms ( guns. with this point im refering to there biceps. they have a right to take the ladys to the gun show right right, so obviously our 2nd ammendment likes my point. so in conclusion its obvious that steroids is great for baseball and our constitution supports it so i demand to you mr gorbachev( or bud silig) tear down this steroid banning wall.
MR Bova SHAL retire this year

I am unsure as to why you, as the con side, have supported my statement in your above argument, but I shall continue on the pro side anyway. Mr. Bova will retire this year because he has been teaching long enough that he has earned himself enough money for him to retire, he is older and may want a break from the teaching he has been doing, and he is probably getting tired of teaching after doing it for so long. Teaching for such an extended period of time as Mr. Bova has does wear one out, and this causes them to want to retire. He has enough money to safely do so, as well, so it would be a safe and smart move on his part.
Defund Planned Parenthood

Your primary and only argument is that Planned Parenthood should be defunded solely because it does not agree with your libertarian principles?You argue that "if the majority of people believe that the money expended on Planned Parenthood is well worth, or more than worth, the services which it provides- they will voluntarily donate to it." This, however, may not be the case. Planned Parenthood is shrouded with controversy and criticism over its abortion policies. In fact, that is why Planned Parenthood is largely known. Honestly, I thought Planned Parenthood's only purpose was to provide abortions. Little did I know that, before I researched more of it, only 3% of what it provides are abortions. According to a CNN poll in 2014, 38% of Americans say it should be legal in few circumstances, and 20% say abortion should always be illegal (S1). This weariness of the public makes it seem unlikely that the solution you propose, to fund Planned Parenthood with voluntary donations, would ever succeed.Sources:S1) https://townhall.com...
Defund Planned Parenthood

I will be arguing that Planned Parenthood should receive no public funds from a purely Libertarian perspective. I am pro choice and support women's, and men's, reproductive rights. With that, I would like to present a new objection to funding Planned Parenthood. It seems to be that my opponent's Round 2 argument is that Planned Parenthood provides useful services which the public at large would much rather have, and pay the taxes to fund it. If this is true, then Planned Parenthood has no need for Federal Funding. If the majority of people believe that the money expended on Planned Parenthood is well worth, or more than worth, the services which it provides- they will voluntarily donate to it. The issue with imposing taxes to fund Planned Parenthood is that the cost is unfairly shifted onto people who disagree with that use of their money, and people who will likely never benefit from its existence. However, in the case of voluntary donations- the cost of the program will be shifted only onto those who believe it beneficial, and those who benefit from it. This is the only fair way for Planned Parenthood to be funded.