BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay marriage SHOULD be legal in all 50 States, protected by a federal law.

I would like to point out that you used R1 to state your opening claim instead of accepting the debate, so I would ask you to please forfeit your Round 5. Every human being in the United States is equally protected under the law, or should be. The 14th amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified on July 9, 1868, states as part of it's Section 1 that " No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. " The key part of this that addresses what we are debating is the last clause, "nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. " This does not mean that everyone gets to do as they please, but it means that any common practice law of the United States that any group of law abiding, born or naturalized, citizens partakes in must be lawful to partake in by any group of people. As long as this definition and translation of the 1st section of the 14 amendment stands, it is unconstitutional to not grant homosexuals the right to marry. As law abiding, homosexual citizens are in act human, they must be protected equally as heterosexuals are. It's as simple as that. Since you already posted, I will address some of your points. You say that since procreation is never possible between men, we should not grant them the right to marry. For now I will ignore what I previously said about the 14th Amendment and only speak in a fashion regarding morality. "also, as far as procreation goes. .. we're simply recognizing that procreation would ever only occur with a male and a female. .. even if they are infertile, we're recognizing the inherent value that only a male and a female can procreate. we could look atgranting marriage to an infertile couple as simply a nice gesture that recnogizes their born potential, even if it's no longer effectively there. " This is such an inconsistent argument I don't even know where to start. A civil union should be granted to homosexuals, but not marriage, because men and women can never marry. Well first of all why is marriage based around procreation? And in that case what would even be the difference between a civil union and a marriage? In that case it would only be a difference of nomenclature. And you say barren women and men can get married, but there is a potential for conception. But there is NO potential for conception between a man and a barren woman. So all in all, I would like to see you respond to my first paragraph, and please keep your arguments consistent.
Gay marriage SHOULD be legal in all 50 States, protected by a federal law.

we should recognize that the natural world creates natural distinctions between male and female, and their cohabitation etc is what produces offspring. they are a natural unit for the purposes of kids, and a natural unit for the purposes of simply recognizing nature. we can have civil unions or something to respect others, perhaps, but that doesn't mean we have to give the same value to something that is fundamentally different, by calling it marriage. also, as far as procreation goes... we're simply recognizing that procreation would ever only occur with a male and a female... even if they are infertile, we're recognizing the inherent value that only a male and a female can procreate. we could look atgranting marriage to an infertile couple as simply a nice gesture that recnogizes their born potential, even if it's no longer effectively there. as a note, it is not clear if pro thinks there should be a federal statute or constitutional amendment that allows gay marriage. the debate just says "federal law". he does mention the 14th amendment so i will address that. the main point is that this is something the legislature should decide, not a bunch of unelected officials. when u give rights to gay marriage, you deprive religious rights to fashion laws as you see fit, and that amendment for religion is explicit and primary in the first amendment. there's something moral about letting localities decide their own laws, even if you disagree with them. when the 14th amendment was ratified, it was because of black rights. so it is reasonable that we allow interracial marriage. when that amendment was passed, no one permitted gay marriage. we should look to the origional context to decide if this is an issue that is fundamental, or not. given only a third of people even agreed with gay marriage even ten years ago, shows that this isn't something fundamental, but an "Extra" that can be debated. only now does majority rule favor gay marraige, but taht doesn't mean localities should be denied their right to decide for themselves. afterall, the tenth amendment gives power to the states to decide anything not listed explicitly in the constitution. and a final note. they got the right as it was deemed "fundamental". this is something like hte right to raise your kids, that is basic to human dignity. marriage is a man made institution and isn't fundamental to anyone's existence. should we look at gay marriage as so similar to other fundametal rights like raising your kids? it's not on the same level
Gay Marriage

Gay marriage does not affect the balance of equality between men and women because it is not insulting for a man to be more like woman if anything it shows that they appreciate woman qualities and want to be more like a women. The legalization of gay marriage will decrease the level of teen suicide because one reason why teens desire to kill themselves is because of our society looking down upon people that are not interested in the opposite sex. If our society is more willing to same sex marriage teens will feel that they are not outcasts in today's society therefore decreasing teen suicide. The only reasons gays wish to have better civil unions certain options like medical, financial and social rights are given to opposite sex marriage.
Gay Marriage

If society continues to allow the same sex marriage then this will not balance the equality of men and women. Men and Women have their own individual roles in society so if a man can do the roles of a women then that is an insult to a woman. This will also weaken family bonds that society tries to maintain, there shouldn't be family dysfunctions because of homosexuals. Also people seem to use Civil Rights as a advantage to homosexuals but replacing the "civil" with "gay" isn't solving anything.
Gay Marriage

Some of the people who are opposed to gay marriage are opposed for financial reasons. They theorize that allowing same sex couples to marry will lead to higher insurance premiums as companies try to make up for the losses they will get from having to extend benefits to the partners of same sex plan members. In the same topic is the idea that allowing a gay couple to marry will more quickly bankrupt pensions and social security when all of these new spouses begin to get spouses benefits from their partners benefits.
Gay Marriage

Gay marriage also affects the U.S economy and businesses in a positive way. For example in states where same-sex marriage is legal, those areas tend to have an economic boost. New York's economy gained 260 million dollars one year after the legalization of same-sex marriage, specifically in the marriage and wedding industries. Same-sex marriage also affects businesses. Now larger industries are embracing same-sex marriage and with that, a greater influx of employees is brought to that business creating more job opportunities in those areas where same-sex marriage is legal.
Gay Marriage

The first amendment speaks of the freedom of speech, religion, petition, and PRESS. So if homosexuality is spread on television, little children see two women kissing or two men, they might believe that this is natural. Homosexuals are teaching kids to have relations with the same sex. CBN News states " lesbian couples have a negative outcome on children in 24 of 40 categories compared to married heterosexual couples."CBN also states that recent studies show " gay fathers have a negative outcome in 19 of the 40 categories tested". Out of 1500 people tested only 2 children were with gay families their whole lives. This proving that children are meant to be with a heterosexual family and its more beneficial to their lifestyle.
Gay Marriage

Gay marriage is a privilege given to those who are unhappy being married to the opposite sex. It is not someone else's job to control the life of another human beings lifestyle choices as stated in our constitution the first amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." As stated in our first amendment we as citizens of the United States of America have freedom of speech. There is no reason to look over someone's beliefs because that is their choice just like its your choice to practice your beliefs.
Gay Marriage

Gay marriage is a harmful action that can corrupt our society as we continue to accept these new laws. In past years moving long ago marriage is based on a woman and a man, for homosexuals to get "married" it is not marriage. This basically denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their interconnection in marriage. If the newly wed couple wants to take care of their own child, it will be unclear who the male figure is and who is the female figure. This ignores the child best interests in the marriage. If society accepts the different relations between the man and women then the next step would be promoting incest, bestiality, or other unnatural behavior.
Rap Battle Challenge

Last debate round, but I wish I had a thousand more To roast your @ss before I kick it out the door You never stood a chance, the 313's what I represent proudly for Now please, whore, just forfeit your next turn You should never even signed up or entered Cause in this battle you got broken and a bent neck, squirm. Dissenter that I'm not the real Slim Shady Well I'm not, that's OK, I don't ride djck's like you been saying Your lyrics are like a parasite, I hope I survive, "They're invading!!!!" It's crazy, you say you got a 12 car garage what, of Hot Wheels? go back to your job of djck massage You aint performing at Super Bowl LI, that was just a mirage... You're not what you say you are, except when you say "toilet bowl" You think you got bars, but am I foiled, NO! You're the one covered in aluminum yelling in toil, hoe. Boy you'll know, I'm the best since Em and Dre Unfortunately the only thing you are to them is fake I bet right now you are crying "How did it end this way?!?!" It was destined when you battled Jim, don't you forget this day.
Rap Battle Challenge

Bruh stfu you can't even ryhme bars so dope performing at Super Bowl halftime ajisthetruth got the biggest fu(king bankroll broskie's bars make me wanna go to the toliet bowl Bars so drop make me go to Mars ajisthetruth got 12 car garage Lookin at me like imma star just took a look at profile pic broskie fu(king suckin dick Eatin Pad Thai with my chopsticks Bruh isn't even worth to my fu(king sidekick broskie should of be aborted before birth Bruh you need to be deported I'm the next Trump and if you write raps well...You're fired you are Hiliary Clinton cuz you flam asf
Rap Battle Challenge

I expected competition, I WAS full of suspense Like I was when Hillary went vs Trump/Pence I expected to be roasted with unmerciful offense But then I remembered, it's Ajisthetruth I'm up against. My lyrics are published, yours is toilet paper You thought you're on fuego but I foiled your caper This atheist will feel it when I employ the savior to destroy this hater with the Lord, you'll pay for! Your profile pic describes you, a sad emo pvssy Your lyrics got people screaming, "AH!, please no, mercy!" You been with so many men so that pee hole's dirty STD abundant and you show it off "behold, herpes!" Excuses "busy at work all i can write for now" Then why'd you sign up to fight, you sow? You're thinking "How did I end up in this plight, oh how?" You in tears is a beautiful sight... for now.
Rap Battle Challenge

Okay I'll match your lines so we're even. But next round's gotta be longer. This guy's debate won ratio is only one to three And yet he thinks he can just come to me... Bjtch, sit down! you're under an underling! You make $150,000 a year? Is that right? I call bull shjt, they should call you ajisthelie. An atheist too, bet your @ss bout' to fry. Callin' me weak but then you spit pvssy lyrics They suck, I wish I was deaf so I couldn't hear it People dance to my shjt with joints and beer, lit.
Rap Battle Challenge

N*gga best friend is right hand Supreme is my f*(king brand bro gets no h0es on his dick This N*gga a broke boy Fu(k around i'll shoot around with my toy pop you like a molly bit(h cuz u aint sh1t to me on that gta sh1t leave a n1gga wasted broke a$$ n1gga don't wanna mess with me cuz broskie cant afford the jumpman (sorry i rushed it will be much stronger during 2nd part)
Does a strong commitment to technological progress cause a society to neglect other values, such as

No, a strong commitment to technological progress does not cause society to neglect other values. In the subject of the environment, while one could argue that with technology, comes environmental issues, it is not entirely because of neglect. There is no way to progress, explore, or even populate the world without having some small impact on the environment. And as far as education, it has an entirely reverse affect. If anything, it glorifies it.
PCs are superior to consoles

In response to your argument of game devs shying away from the pc market, what you say is not true. Even at a full price of, say 60 dollars on consoles, developers arguably make more money from the game being sold on Steam for 75% off. This is due to the fact that PC has no per-sale royalty fees, no development kit fees, no submission fees, and no cost of physically manufacturing/shipping/stocking their product. The money you used to buy their game goes directly to the developer's pocket. Also, more on the upgrading thing. If your PC does happen to start lagging behind other high end computers, you can always overclock the CPU. Overclocking is when you modify the CPU to make it more powerful. Of course, I would highly recommend you educate yourself before doing this, or at best, let a smart PC friend do it for you. This is a simple, free way to upgrade your PC. One argument I repeatedly see when arguing against those who favor consoles is that they cannot see the difference between 30fps and 60 fps. Their are many reasons for this. The most popular reason is because most people watch gameplay on youtube. Youtube is always capped at around 30 fps. Also, anything below 46fps can strain the eye. This is what Thomas Edison discovered after studying the old film strips back in his day. A study at the University of Massachusetts concluded that not only was the difference between 30 fps and 60 fps noticeable, but also the player's performance improved when the fps was raised Another argument I constantly hear is FOV. Many people who play consoles say their is no difference between 60 fov to 90 fov, but that is simply no true in this link below http://i.imgur.com... . Many devs lower the fov on consoles to increase performance. The great thing about PC gaming is is that you can adjust the fov to whatever you like. Also, PCs can be used as a tax write off. PCs are used in just about any modern jobs. Whereas obviously, consoles cannot.
Proposed changes to the prison system

Many thanks to Darth for the debate / discussion. We seem to agree on many areas regadring making the justice system more cost effective. We also seem to agree on making inmates work towards their early release. We have a few areas where we seem to strongly hold opposing opinions. I am strongly in favor of work related training for offenders. This idea seems offenseve to CON because of his desire for Justice/Retribution. My reasoning for training offenders in work related skills is that it is in society's best interest for these people to have jobs, pay taxes, and otherwise contribute something useful to society. In response to CONs argument that it is not fair to give benefits to inmates that are not available to the general public, I AGREE. It is not fair. Live is not fair. It is not fair that I grew up un a good home while my friends in prison grew up in something much less. It is not fair that I learned work skills from mom and dad, while they learned welfare. Training for inmates is about giving them the skills to contribute to society. Punishment for offenders is about giving them motivation to never commit a crime again. I am strongly in favor of training for people at risk of being a burden on society for the same reasons. I want them to pay taxes, not be a drain on my tax dollars. From a practical standpoint, in some issues we need to choose between punishment (justice) and effectiveness (changing criminal behavior). When there is a choice, I suggest effectiveness. This is why I am in favor of mental health intervention in the justice system. I agree with CON that there are many limitations to the DSM and the way we use it to categorize mental illness. It is the tool we currently have. My experience with the Canadian correctional system is that over half the population are deeply disturbed emotionally, or have very clear mental health issues. By making a clear separation between situations where we think the issues are behavioral and those where the person is limited by mental health issues, we can work towards more effective systems for society as a whole. A person with mental health issues may be fine when they are on their meds. A person who proves their issues are not helped by medication or therapy (second offense) can be treated accordingly. There are many moral issues in the citizenship debate. CON asked "what country would take our offenders? " The sad truth is that many countries would recieve our people for a price. Think 1 way tourist holiday to the Central African Republic. We would have to give up caring about what happenes to them as they live in their new country. Assume wee move 1000 people a year from our prison system to another country. Assume we pay $10,000 per person. Compare this to a conservative estimate of 150,000 per year to house inmates. The amout saved here is staggering. The moral issues mostly come from what happens to these offenders in their new country. Many would die , or be targets of kidnapping (because of the nature of countries that would take our criminals). Exile would be the top punishment for people not guilty of capitol offenses.
Proposed changes to the prison system

"My thinking is that unprotected and vulnerable people need special legal protection."I can't disagree with the sentiments. "Judges should have resources to offer the prostitutes courses or job training."I disagree profusely, I feel the same way about this as training of other inmates. We are giving these guys training which we would not give law abiding citizens. I don't like the message that we will train you if you disrupt society but if you follow the rules we will give you nothing. "Both! Long term mental health issues (listed in the DSM) and the chronic poverty and dysfunction of those who have moved from recreation use to debilitating substance abuse problems often end up in jail. This is worth considering."I find this sentiment to be disagreable as well as dangerous. I find it dangerous because of the lack of scientific research involved in the DSM. Should we based the mental health of one individual base on the assessment of one psychiatrist? A psychiatrist who bases his opinions on the DSM in which disorders are voted upon. The DSM is not very credible especially when we are determing how we should deal with disturbed individuals. "If the 31% statistic (above) holds for the wider population, then many need a mental health intervention as their preliminary treatment before we can assess their danger to re-offend."The idea of who need mental health intervention is subjective. I admit there are deeply disturbed individuals. But I think we should tread lightly when throwing these types of statistics around. It reminds me of the craziness exhibited by the last DSM which claimed 51% of peope will suffer a mental disorder in their lifetime. These statistics based on opinions of the mental health of others is not objective to say the least."Loss of citizenship." I like the general sentiment but I don't think too many countries would want to accept our prisoners. What countries are you thinking of? I don't think there is a modern Australia, if you understand what I am getting at there. Australia was a former prison colony. On top of that, I don't think exiling our prisoners would solve the problem. I think we would just be forcing our problem onto other countries when we send them our prisoners. It reminds me of how Fidel Castro sent unwanted Cuban prisoners to the United States when he allowed dissidents to leave Cuba on the Mariel. "Military Service"I like this idea. "Regarding Prisons" I like the idea of "that all comforts and entertainments be earned by work in the prison, and by accomplishing items on the work release plan tailored to that offender." "Capital Punishment" I find your reasoning behind this to be a bit extreme. We should use the firing squad on all long term offenders just to reduce cost? I would assume you are including people who engaged in multiple charges and have long sentences."Work as punishment.""Mental illness" "Release Location" "Monitoring" "Repeat offense""Sentencing lengths & early release"I think we have exhausted these in previous rounds. I didn't see much change in your reasoning. I think you should of discussed this in your conclusion but ok.
Is this Post Post-modernist poet any good

Post postmodern is irritatingly a specific literary movement, and my opponent will have to show including sources what post post modernism is, and then demonstrate, again using quotation, what particular aspects of his work are post postmodern. Otherwise, he cannot come close top fulfilling his burden of proof. I am personally if not narcissistically wondering if he is now post postmodern rather than archaic after a previous debate in which my opponent demonstrated a complete ignorance in postmodernism. Now, he is instead of putting him in a well established literary movement, he instead must be BEYOND this literary group and into the newest thing. Nevertheless, I'll listen with bated breath for my opponents arguments.
Is this Post Post-modernist poet any good

I argue this Post Post-modernist poet is good http://www.scribd.com... It is claimed this Post Post-modernist poet is an "untalented poet and philosopher from Australia " http://www.debate.org... but I will say the poet has to be good as the poet gave a poetry recital at The Bohemian Absinthe Lounge, TIME on Sansom St. in Philadelphia in the USA http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com... To get an invite for an Australian poet to give a recital in America the poet must be good