BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay Marriage should be legalized

In the first round she has presented seven arguments for the legalization of gay marriage. I will respond to them here. I did not realize that Pro made 3000 the maximum character count until after I accepted. I'm not sure I would accepted if I had realized this before. That is a very small amount, and it's not really fair to one's opponent if you present them with as many points as Pro did. I did not have nearly enough room to fit my entire post. Hopefully I'll have room in the next round. ARGUMENTS1- 1A- Gay people do have the same rights as straight people. Straight people can get married and gay people can get married. If it illegal for a gay person to marry someone of the same sex, it is also illegal for a straight person to marry someone of the same sex. The rules are the same for everybody, as they should be. Allowing gay marriage would change the definition of marriage from something rational and appropriate to something irrational and innappropriate. 2- 2A- It is true that marriage is no longer a lone religious experience, but that in itself is not a reason why gay marriage should be legalized. They are two separate points.3- 3A- There is no reason why we cannot allow gays to form loving families that enrich our society without allowing them to marry. Those are two separate points.4- 4A- This is a repetition of argument #2. I agree that religion and state should be separated, but that does not give us a reason to be for gay marriage. One does not need to rely on religion to oppose gay marriage. 5- 5A- I think what my opponent meant to say was that it is unfair to grant a right to one person and deny another of the same right. This is a repetition of the first point, so I’ll repeat my response too. Straight people and gay people do have same rights. Allowing gay marriage is not about giving rights to gay people (they already have the right to marry), it’s about changing the definition of marriage to include the union between two people of the same sex. Pro has not presented an argument for why the change is appropriate. 6- 6A- Whether civil unions are essentially the same thing as marriage may only be a matter of opinion. Pro has not explained why she believes this. But even if that is true, that is not a reason to support gay marriage. They are two separate points. 7- 7A- I agree that gay marriage does not ruin marriage in the sense that Pro means, and I agree that it is unfair for people to cheat on their spouses, but that is not a reason to be for gay marriage. Again, they are two separate points. CONCLUSIONNone of Pro’s arguments for the legalization of gay marriage are good. In five of her seven arguments, she conflates multiple issues into one. She argues for one but then forms a conclusion about another. This is fallacious. Her other two points are just assertions, not arguments. And with that I turn the debate over to Pro.
Gay Marriage should be legalized

Hello Ladies and Gentleman and welcome to this debate on the legalization of Gay Marriage. I believe that Gay Marriage should be legalized! I believe this for the following reasons: 1. Marriage is a civil right - Everyone should have the same right if they pay the same taxes ect 2. Marriage is no longer a lone religious experience. All marriages by law are civil marriages they are then later referred to religious marriage. 3. Gay Marriage supports the family - You can not turn someone straight so why keep that person from creating a loving family that can enrich our society. 4. Religion and state should be separated - Regardless of what your religion says you should not enforce it on people who do not share your views or religion. 5. I believe it unfair that you can demand a right and deny another the same right. 6. Civil Unions are NOT the same. 7. Gay Marriage does not ruin marriage- Divorce and cheaters do. How can a man who cheats on his wife be allowed to marry and then remarry after breaking the contract of marriage without being punished were a gay couple who have been in love for years who are perfect for each other be refused? It does not make any sense!
Gay Marriage should be legalized

I extend my arguments to the third and final round. I'm sorry to see that my opponent forfeited her final round. If she does not want to debate, then she should not be instigating debates, and if she was unable to rebut my arguments, then she should have explicitly conceded. VOTE conduct: con Pro forfeited and provided no reason for it. She also made the character count only 3000 characters, and it's basically impossible to debate as many points as Pro brought up and do so for such a heavy debate topic as this on that low character count. grammar/spelling: con Anyone can read through Pro's posting for round two and see that she had numerous grammatical errors, run on sentences mostly. arguments: con My arguments remain without refutation.sources: tie Pro made one quick remark for which she should have given a source, but her main points did not require sources, and none of my points required sources. 5 points to me
Death Penalty

This is a very interesting challenge. There are many reasons why I don't think the state should be allowed to kill people. But since my opponent has not really put any points forward that state why the death penalty is a good idea, other than to save money, I'll criticize that point then include one of my own. My opponent supports the death penalty for the worst possible reason - to silence a voice. The kind of ethics that led my opponent to the conclusion that the main reason we should have the death penalty is because the victim might appeal or attempt an appeal later on astound me completely. Keep in mind that in the United States, where this barbaric practise continues, over 140 people have been exonerated and freed from death row since the death penalty was reinstituted there in 1976 (1). This is supposed to be a rare story - but it isn't. 140 people have had that phone call from the governor. Does this not make one stop to wonder how many innocents didn't get the call? As for the argument that this practise will save costs, my opponent bases this argument entirely on a study in 1974, with no cited statistics. This was before the death penalty was reinstated in the US. The amount of assumptions my opponent makes, including his assertion that prisoners on death row will have enough money to continue funding appeals and that there are an infinite number of new habeas corpus petitions to go round, are also unsubstantiated. Even if this were the case, would it not be a problem with the American legal system rather than a matter of "just killing them?". I don't have the death penalty in my country. I'm glad of it. Why? Because the history of the state is one of complete devaluing of human life. The most oppressive states, (Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Maoist China) also have a history of using the death penalty the most. Is this a coincidence? My opponent, by the way, is welcome to challenge me on this and I will be glad to provide some figures. This brings us to the core of the issue. Most people would agree that you should not kill a person unless it is absolutely necessary. This is common sense. Even in muggings, robbers most often do not arbitrarily shoot people. It is unethical and leads to a less peaceful society. So why does the state have this right to arbitrarily kill people who have broken a specific code that it has agreed on? Is there any evidence that the death penalty decreases crime rates? If not, why is it in existence? Even statists usually agree that the function of the state is to rectify the situation of the people using reasonable methods. Usually the real meaning of the death penalty has something to do with revenge and justice. What justice? Will the state killing an individual somehow rectify the fact that that individual has killed someone else? I leave my opponent to answer the aforesaid question as s/he is able to. 1. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... 2. http://www.deathpenaltyworldwide.org...
Death Penalty

Actually according to Edwin H. Sutherland, PhD, late President of the American Sociological Society, and Donald R. Cressey, PhD, late Professor of Sociology at the University of California, Santa Barbara, in the 1974 revised edition of their book titled Criminology, wrote: "It is not cheaper to keep a criminal confined, because most of the time he will appeal just as much causing as many costs as a convict under death sentence. Being alive and having nothing better to do, he will spend his time in prison conceiving of ever-new habeas corpus petitions, which being unlimited, in effect cannot be rejected as res judicata. The cost is higher." http://deathpenalty.procon.org... This therefore proves the death penalty costs less than then L.W.O.P (Life Without Parol)
Death Penalty

My opponent begins by bashing the very morality that he should be trying to use to win this debate. If morality doesn't exist, then why have a government in the first place? Isn't the point of the justice system to provide justice? My opponent assumes that the only reason that I might be against the death penalty is due to costs. This is a very Americentric viewpoint. I live in a country where the death penalty is not used. The idea that the government should be allowed to kill has the burden of proof upon it. Government, by definition, is an act - "to be governed" is not the natural state of humanity. Therefore you must prove that something is a good thing for the government to do before you get the government to do it. Apparently the death penalty is a good idea because it "decreases prisoner populaton". Not only is this of minimum importance in terms of costs, it is a repetition (once more) of a kind of presumed morality I cannot understand. Until my opponent can prove why it is a good idea to kill people to save costs, I will not explore this rather nihilistic point further. My opponent makes another point entirely dependent upon the state of the the justice system. If a prisoner is executed, he cannot kill again. My opponent here points me again to the exact same pro death penalty website he has cited before, yet the specific case he mentioned is not there. Even if there was a case where a prisoner was released and killed again, I can give you (I repeat) 140 people who survived after going to death row, which points to the obvious fact that there must have been more who were innocent and did not survive. My opponent now continues to argue a point that he has ceded, with evidence that is as flimsy as his flip flop argument. He points to homicide statistics since the 1950s, which went up until the 1990s, when it went down considerably. There are many explanations for this curve, but what my opponent's source completely forgets is that these statistics involve not only homicide, but rape, assault, and overall violent crime. (1) I challenge my opponent to take a look at the actual statistics for crimes where the Death Penalty was not involved at all. If my opponent wishes to pursue this point further, I would be happy to find statistics for plenty of other western countries that do not have the death penalty, that also show this curve. Why does this curve exist? There are many different conjectures. Is it specific to the death penalty? Absolutely not. Look it up for yourself. In summary, my opponent refuses to make moral arguments in favour of what is clearly a moral issue. My opponent fails to provide any meaningful statistics to prove that the death penalty is helpful. What cause my opponent does provide for his views seems to be roughly statist or fascist, that is, the state should minimize costs by killing or leaving behind those it cannot be bothered to feed. Yet once more, my opponent does not provide evidence for why the rights of the state trump the rights of the individual. I will be interested to hear my opponent argue for that. 1. http://www.disastercenter.com...
Death Penalty

My opponent speaks no form of fact or statistic but morally on his/her opinion. I could sit here and talk about how I think the death penalty is good. But i'm not using facts or sources. If you need a reason on why the death penalty is a good idea; here are a few. One small but important reason on why the death penalty is a good idea is that it decreases the prisoner population, which saves even more tax payers money. Another reason why the death penalty is a good idea, Once a criminal is executed, he cannot kill again. The case for this would be Kenneth Allen McDuff who was on Death Row when the death penalty was declared unconstitutional in the 1970's. His sentence was commuted to life and he was eventually released on parole and killed again. He has since been executed My final reason for this round is that the death penalty is actually a very good deterrence. If you look at this link: http://www.prodeathpenalty.com... You see a chart. The chart is documenting the number of yearly homicide rate per 100,000 population. The chart also documents the years 1950-2002. Lastly, the chart documents the yearly number of executions. The death penalty is actually considered a deterrent. My mistake.
Death Penalty

I appreciate my opponent's politeness, but I also fear that he has ceded the debate to myself. My opponent has not refuted any points here. Yes, it is the voice of a person who was tried in a criminal court. That does not make them any less human. Once more, we should not resort to killing people simply because our legal system may have flaws. My opponent cedes the point that death is "not necessarily a deterrent" to crimes that might involve the death penalty. This is true. The debate here obviously should go to Con.
Death Penalty

You say my opinion is based on silencing a voice. Silencing the voice of a criminal more or less. These people are performing inhumane crimes. Yes, it is true that it is not necessarily a deterrent. But death is everyone's fear. According to http://phobias.about.com... Many, if not most, people are afraid of dying. Some people fear being dead, while others are afraid of the actual act of dying. I know many people who fear the thought of just growing old. Imagine the fear of forced death. This, however; could be the deterrent of the death penalty. My apologies if I did not answer any of your questions.
The Catholics have the ideas about Mary wrong

"We don"t have any evidence of what the prayers are so why should we make a doctrine of it?" I acknowledged your argument the first time. I will now repeat myself and say that this verse does support the doctrine of prayer coming to JESUS the Son, who then acts as the mediator between God and man. I will also state that this is NOT necessary, but it is prudent and beneficial to communicate with the Son via those already fully with Him in paradise. Catholics do not make doctrine based solely upon the Bible, to do so is in itself unbiblical for not everything that Jesus did and taught is in the Bible. Since the belief in prayer does not directly contradict the Bible- I have already shown how it does not contradict 1 Timothy 2:5- it can be accepted as doctrine if it can be found in Sacred Tradition. ""she should not be the focus of prayer or mediation. It is a sin to bow down to Mary like the other nations mentioned in this article" Mary is a creature and creation of God. The Bible is a creation of God. The cross is a creation of God. Yet Protestants treat these things as holy in of themselves, they mediate and pray to God while looking upon the cross, or while lifting their hand and eyes toward the sky. Are they worshipping the Bible, the cross, or even the sky? NO. Neither are Catholics when they kneel and look upon an image of Mary or the saints. They are looking to God, through these images which help them to better see God"s great glory and works. "She was fully human, which we can deduce that she did sin." This is an assumption. How can you deduce this? What facts are you using? I have already shown how Romans 3:23 does not prove that Mary sinned. "Abraham was justified by seeing the Gospel but he sinned. (Galations 3:6)" Abraham didn"t give birth to the Living God. "The verse mentioned that Jesus belonged to his mother and father, Joseph and Mary in addition to his brothers. This means that they were also his sons and her sons." This is another assumption and does not address the objection that I brought up earlier. I have already shown how this is not necessarily the case. "The prophecy in Psalms proves that Jesus had brothers." I argued against this point. Stating the opposite without an actual reason or argument does not prove or disprove anything. "When it means until it means the condition of virginity ended." And when Christ says he will be with us until the end of the age he also means that the end of the age is when he will no longer be with us. Please give a reason for your assumption. "It is the context because they wanted to consummate the marriage after Jesus was born. " It is irrelevant what they wanted. What is relevant is what Matthew is trying to communicate and Joseph and Mary having relations is not part of that message. Your conclusion doesn't follow nor actually address my argument.
The Catholics have the ideas about Mary wrong

1) Praying to Mary and the Saints I'll have to repeat myself on the Revelations verse. We really don't have any evidence of what the prayers are so why should we make a doctrine of it? The verse does not imply that the elders or the creatures interceded between God and man or opened the scroll. Again, the verse in 1 Timothy 2:5 say ONLY Jesus is the mediator. That leaves no room for anyone else. Making a doctrine out of something so obscure is wrong. 2) Icons Of Mary Whether they consider Mary a God or not, she should not be the focus of prayer or mediation. It is a sin to bow down to Mary like the other nations mentioned in this article: http://carm.org... 3) Mary being Holy and Sinless Yes, Mary was a great person. She was fully human, which we can deduce that she did sin. Those words don't make her sinless. (Romans 3:23) http://www.biblegateway.com... Abraham was justified by seeing the Gospel but he sinned. (Galations 3:6) http://biblehub.com... 4) Jesus having siblings The verse mentioned that Jesus belonged to his mother and father, Joseph and Mary in addition to his brothers. This means that they were also his sons and her sons. The prophecy in Psalms proves that Jesus had brothers. http://carm.org... 5) Mary's virginity When it means until it means the condition of virginity ended. It is the context because they wanted to consummate the marriage after Jesus was born. http://carm.org...
The Catholics have the ideas about Mary wrong

First of all, praying to someone other than God is like making them God. There's no record of people in the Bible making prayers to Mary or Paul or Peter. Just pray to God. The Catholics use a strange verse in Revelations to rationalize this, but we don't know too much about it. It's better to not do something and be safe than sorry. I personally believe that the prayers of the saints are just the Christians in heaven and earth telling God to stop the persecution of Christians. http://www.youtube.com... No Bible verse supports that Mary is any holier than anyone else. She was still a good person. The idea of having icons of Mary and praying is easier to Mary than Jesus is worshiping her. That verse does contradict Mary being sinless. She was completely a woman and not divine. Also, Mary could not have been a virgin all her life because Jesus had siblings. They could not have been his cousins (the word in Greek usually means brother) and it couldn't have been Joseph's children from a previous marriage because they are not mentioned in their trips to Egypt. It says Joseph didn't "know" Mary until she gave birth to Jesus. The word "to know" in the Bible means to have sexual intercourse. http://www.gotquestions.org...
The Catholics have the ideas about Mary wrong

I would like to accept this debate and to discuss with Maryland_kid whether or not the Catholic's beliefs/doctrine regarding Mary (the mother of Jesus Christ). I would first like to confirm that we are in fact talking about Mary, the woman in the Gospel of Luke who conceived a child while remaining a virgin. I also would like to confirm that we are talking about the Roman Catholic Church whose doctrine is expressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Thank you.
The Catholics have the ideas about Mary wrong

Catholics believe Mary is holy and the subject of preaching, intercedes for us, and worship. This is putting a mere human into a God. There is only one God. Mary admitted she needed to be saved. http://www.ewtn.com... http://www.marian.org... (Luke 1:47 (Exodus 20:4-5) (1 Timothy 2:5) (Matthew 10:4) http://www.gotquestions.org... http://carm.org... Catholics believe that Mary did not sin. However, scripture teaches that all men have sinned. (Romans 3:23) http://www.vatican.va...
Gays are an equal part of society.

Gays, or homosexuals should not be equal in society. They can produce a variety of issues in society, and also many personal problems. Imagine a little boy being adopted by a gay couple. The couple is happy, they finally have a child. But think about this child. In the corrupt world, everyone is judged, and hurt by those judgements. That child will be hurt because people make fun of him because of his 2 fathers or mothers. This child will face many problems, and though you and others may help him there will always be more people hurting him. You could of ruined this child's life. Furthermore, marriage is supposed to be between a man and a women. Many people say things like gays should be aloud to marry whoever they love, and they can love and do whatever they want if the love is mutual. However saying that is just like saying that people should be aloud to love a horse, or even their own sisters or mothers.
Gays are an equal part of society.

I will be arguing that gays are as equal to society as any other man. You, con, will be arguing that they are not. Good luck! Rules and layout:Round 1) AcceptanceRound 2) Arguments and rebuttalsRound 3) Rebuttals only Rules:No swearingNo copying/pasting (plagiarism)No personal attacksBreaking any of these rules will be treated as a forfeit. By accepting this debate, you accept these rules. Thank you!