BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There is no logical reason why gay marriage should be banned

"1. Like every other species on this planet, human beings needs to follow reproduction system rules -- sexual intercourse between a male and a female is a necessary (may not be sufficient though) condition to sustain our species on this planet. Gay (or lesbian) marriages will disturb the natural law of reproduction, which logically equivalent to abandon our future generations and so should be banned. " Sexual intercourse between a male and female is indeed necessary to sustain our species, but marriage is not. Marriage is not a pre-condition for sexual intercourse. Converesly, many people who are married rarely or never have sex. Of those who do have sex, many do not conceive children. Furthermore, homosexual marriages do not prevent heterosexual people from marrying or having sex. "2. If we see society around us, it's conspicuous that "family-system" is an essential component of its very foundation. At its basics, two persons of different gender come together, reproduce, grow children, children grew up, children get married, reproduce, and the cycle continues. Now why family-system is necessary and be considered logical? Well, let's take a "proof by contradiction" approach. Lets say there doesn't exist a family-system at all. Still lets say, people of different gender occasionally come together and reproduce to sustain our species. Now there will be human babies but can this kind of system ensure their survival? A baby needs support from grown-up human beings in it's forming years (at basic, it needs mother's milk, rest of the support system contains food, shelter, cloths etc). Without a family system, it's hard to ensure this support. Also when human beings get old, they need somewhat similar support system from younger generation. A family system basically enforces these required responsibilities on individuals and that's why it's a necessary part of our society. Gay (or lesbian) marriages, are in a sense, against the existing family system because these couples won't have own babies in the first place." Many species that are sustained through sexual reproduction (the vast majority, in fact) do just fine without a family system. In most of these species, the mother is responsible for caring for the young. Being that there are sources other than breast milk available to humans to nourish infants, a father would also be perfectly capable of caring for children. Though caring fo children together makes things easier, it is not necessary. Again, homosexual marriages in no way interferes with the ability of heterosexuals to marry, reproduce, or raise families. Also, a homosexual marriage could actually provide a family system to care for children orphaned or uncared for by their biological parents. Homosexual marriages don't "disturb" anything. Homosexuals won't suddenly turn heterosexual and go off to have children if they aren't allowed to marry. Heterosexuals won't be deterred from marrying or reproducing (or magically turn gay) if homosexual couples are allowed to marry. Your arguments are completely flawed.
There is no logical reason why gay marriage should be banned

I completely disagree with Pro's argument here (well, that's why I am Con I guess :P) Alright, If we think about gay marriages "logically" then it should indeed be banned. Lets go to the basics of marriage system -- why marriage system exist in the first place? 1. Like every other species on this planet, human beings needs to follow reproduction system rules -- sexual intercourse between a male and a female is a necessary (may not be sufficient though) condition to sustain our species on this planet. Gay (or lesbian) marriages will disturb the natural law of reproduction, which logically equivalent to abandon our future generations and so should be banned. 2. If we see society around us, it's conspicuous that "family-system" is an essential component of its very foundation. At its basics, two persons of different gender come together, reproduce, grow children, children grew up, children get married, reproduce, and the cycle continues. Now why family-system is necessary and be considered logical? Well, let's take a "proof by contradiction" approach. Lets say there doesn't exist a family-system at all. Still lets say, people of different gender occasionally come together and reproduce to sustain our species. Now there will be human babies but can this kind of system ensure their survival? A baby needs support from grown-up human beings in it's forming years (at basic, it needs mother's milk, rest of the support system contains food, shelter, cloths etc). Without a family system, it's hard to ensure this support. Also when human beings get old, they need somewhat similar support system from younger generation. A family system basically enforces these required responsibilities on individuals and that's why it's a necessary part of our society. Gay (or lesbian) marriages, are in a sense, against the existing family system because these couples won't have own babies in the first place. Now an activity which will disturb the natural reproduction system that's necessary to survival of our species and can affect the family-system which is foundation of human society should certainly be banned, shouldn't it? Thanks.
I give the Columbus Blue Jackets bad luck.

Those are some interesting points, but unfortunately there is no such thing as superstition. There is no scientific proof to show that it exists. Athletes are very superstitious, but I believe it's their frame of mind, it's how they prepare and cope with the everyday grind of the NHL or MLB or whatever sport they are in. Justin Morneau who used to play for the Minnesota Twins in baseball, I believe he is with the White Soxs now is very superstitious of the number 33, that is his uniform number and when he was a kid he could not leave the house until it was 33 minutes after the hour. So you take that example and apply it to anyone else, do you leave the house at 33 minutes past the hour, how many people do, maybe one other person in the world. Superstition is a personal belief just as curses are or religion people choose, all personal beliefs. Even though it is quite a coincidence that the Jackets lose when you are there, there is no scientific proof that you cause the loses. In fact I know you don't because you are not the coach or player or their goalie who gets paid to keep the puck out of the net therefore it's not you. And luck is a toss of a coin, you have a 50% chance of being right or wrong
I give the Columbus Blue Jackets bad luck.

I believe in superstitions, so I believe I am giving them bad luck, and their lackluster performance gave them a 2-0 loss to Calgary last night. Also, if you give one additional fan a ticket or an additional fan sells a ticket to someone else, then that could affect the players' moods and then they do better or worse. An example of that is, say, in a baseball game, one batter is batting with a runner on base. That runner attempts to steal but fails. Then that batter hits a home run. If the runner hadn't attempted to steal, then the pitcher would have pitched differently and the batter would have had different strategies, too, so the home run would have never happened. Same thing here, if one single opposing fan comes and sucks all of the spirit out of the Blue Jackets, then the Jackets don't play as well. Also, I am a Pittsburgh fan, but I live in Columbus, so I go to Blue Jackets games instead.
I give the Columbus Blue Jackets bad luck.

You do not give the Jackets bad luck because you are not the only one that goes to the games, luck also has nothing to do with sports, it's talent with maybe 1% luck, also you are not playing in the games therefore you have no way of influencing the final score in the games, you are just a fan. The Chicago Cubs had the billy goat curse for over 100 years and yet they managed to win the World Series. I personally saw 12 Toronto Maple Leaf games one season and I'm not even a Leafs fan, just got the tickets doing business, went to all 12 games and the Leafs won all 12 games and I don't even like the team. Does that mean if I went to all of their 41 home games they would have won all 41 games, not likely. Your luck just happens to be coincidence that when you go they lose, Columbus Blue Jackets are one of the worst teams in the NHL so the odds are most times you go they will lose, the odds are stacked against you Out of curiosity why is a Pittsburgh Fan like yourself watching the Blue Jackets and not the Stanley Cup Champions Penguins?
I give the Columbus Blue Jackets bad luck.

The Columbus Blue Jackets have had a pretty good season so far, but the problem is, they can't do it in front of me. In fact, the only games that they lost in regulation home were the games I went to! Those games, they were playing like zombies, and if I could rate them only by the games I went to, I would rate them last in the league! I think I'm giving them bad luck, and this is the final straw! Can anybody convince me that I am not giving them bad luck, if so, before I never go to another Blue Jackets game again?
I give the Columbus Blue Jackets bad luck.

I somehow checked your profile page, and it says that you commented that adults are "just boring people". You are an adult, so you basically admitted to yourself that you are a boring person. I do not believe that you, or any other adults, are boring. Also, you have an interesting point, but there is such a thing as superstition. I read an article about how someone's car didn't start whenever they ordered French vanilla ice cream, but the car did when they order any other flavor. This is a coincidence, or superstition, but that is because there is something really going on. Same with the Blue Jackets, the coincidence that they lose all games that I go to and win every other game, means that there is something wrong with me, even sitting in the top end of the arena. The Jackets just play lackluster. But I never saw Matt Calvert, so maybe he just doesn't want to show in front of me or something, so there is really something going on there as well. Here is the webpage about the French vanilla ice cream: https://www.quora.com... So, that means superstition is actually true, and that I actually am giving the Blue Jackets bad luck.
Darth Revan V.S Darth Mual

Firstly I would just like to point out that it is purely based on subjective opinion that one can state that Darth Revan was the greatest of all Jedi and greatest of all Sith. Merely being the leader doesn't make him the best Jedi. It is like arguing that just because Palpatine was in charge of the storm troopers that he was a better jedi than Yoda or Mace Windu (Anakin helped him kill Windu, it doesn't count as a true victory).Now let me first begin with explaining just how many more hurdles Darth Maul had to overcome in his tragic life. By birth, Maul was a Nightbrother; a clan of Zabraks who served as warriors and slaves of the dominant Nightsisters. Like the rest of his kin, Maul was subjected, shortly after birth, to an initiation ritual during which he was immersed in a "magic" oily bath, and covered head to toe in in black and red tattoos. Less than a year after Maul's birth, his mother encountered Darth Sidius, the young Sith apprentice of Darth Plageus, and implored him to save Maul from the life of a Nightbrother. Though somewhat reluctant, Sidious was persuaded to take Maul, especially given the infant's strong connection to the Force.During his training, any show of fear was severely punished, and any hint of mercy rewarded with cruelty. By the time Maul was an adolescent, his master had already forged him into a weapon of pure hatred. He had a sense of honor, however, respecting those he deemed worthy opponents and granting them quick deaths. Despite a traumatic childhood, Maul had filial feelings toward his master, and never once contemplated killing him—until his final test.The ultimate test came when Maul was abandoned by his master on an isolated Outer Rim Territories world, forced to survive alone while being hunted by hordes of assassin droids. After a month's time, Sidious returned and challenged his apprentice to a lightsaber duel, one which the weak and famished Maul quickly lost. Sidious then tossed Maul's lightsaber aside and told Maul that he had failed, and revealed that he had been secretly training another apprentice to replace Maul the entire time. Rage and hatred overwhelmed Maul and, in one final act of defiance, he lunged forward and sunk his teeth into his master's hand. As he spat the blood back into his master's face in contempt, Maul realized he was no match for the Dark Lord of the Sith, and when Maul's emotions were finally spent, he prepared himself for death. Sidious struck his lightsaber down on Maul, but without killing him since it had only been a training lightsaber. Sidious then laughed. By wanting to kill his own master, Maul had in fact passed the final test. There had been no other apprentice. Sidious proclaimed him Darth Maul, a Dark Lord of the Sith and took him to a new home on Coruscant.Darth Maul was sad as a child but grew up to be a Dark Lord. Darth Revan was naturally talented ahrd work wasnt really a factor.Source: http://starwars.wikia.com...
Darth Revan V.S Darth Mual

Revan was a Dark Lord before Darth Muals time, He was the leader of the Sith during the Jedi civil war which happened after the Mandalorian Wars. Revan Also lead the republic in the Mandalorian Wars, and won. He was the greatest of all Jedi and was the greatest of all Sith, he was the best tactical general the galaxy had ever seen. Revan was Strong with the force more so than most, and excelled in all his teachings. He converted hundreds of Jedi to the dark side, he used two lightsabers. Now introduce Darth Mual...
The Problem of Evil is insufficient an argument against the Christian God

I accept. But I just want to explain which sort of evil that will figure into my argument. I will be talking about horrendous evils. A horrendous evil may be explicated on as follows: "...the participation in which (that is, the doing or suffering of which) constitutes prima facie reason to doubt whether the participant’s life could (given their inclusion in it) be a great good to him/her on the whole.” As examples of such evil, Adams lists “the rape of a woman and axing off of her arms, psycho-physical torture whose ultimate goal is the disintegration of personality, betrayal of one’s deepest loyalties, child abuse of the sort described by Ivan Karamazov, child pornography, parental incest, slow death by starvation, the explosion of nuclear bombs over populated areas” (p.26). A horrendous evil, it may be noted, may be either a moral evil (e.g., the Holocaust of 1939-45) or a natural evil (e.g., the Lisbon earthquake of 1755). It is also important to note that it is the notion of a “horrendous moral evil” that comports with the current, everyday use of “evil” by English speakers. When we ordinarily employ the word “evil” today we do not intend to pick out something that is merely bad or very wrong (e.g., a burglary), nor do we intend to refer to the death and destruction brought about by purely natural processes (we do not, for example, think of the 2004 Asian tsunami disaster as something that was “evil”). Instead, the word “evil” is reserved in common usage for events and people that have an especially horrific moral quality or character." [1]Sources[1] http://www.iep.utm.edu...;
The Problem of Evil is insufficient an argument against the Christian God

This debate is simple and I hope to keep it this way. The Problem of Evil is widely debated. I am not disputing that there is evil here. I am disputing that the problem of evil is excuse enough not to believe in the Christian God. That is, to present it as an opposition to the validity of God. I doubt the need of definitions, hence I will not provide one. Rather, I rely on the integrity of my opponent, whoever he/she may be. Rules 1. No trolling/vulgarities. 2. No plagiarism 3. Comments in the comment section is required for voters. (Principally because I want to know how to improve myself) 4. BoP is shared. There will be five rounds. The first will be for acceptance only. 5 rounds. 72hrs. 8k characters.
I belive women that masturbate have no self respect.

My opponent has given no argument for her position. No rebuttals are necessary because she has not fulfilled her burden of proof. I will give a short off the cuff comment on the debate though. A woman shouldn't need a man to fulfill her sexual desires. Thinking if your body as a disgusting thing that shouldn't be touched by yourself, shows low self esteem. Any woman who views masterbation as disgusting likely does so because of low self esteem. While a woman who loves her body and doesn't rely on a man to satisfy her sexual urges is likely to have considerably more respect for herself.
Zoos should be indefinitely banned.

Do zoos save species from extinction? Nope, once an animal is in a zoo it quickly loses its instinct and ability to survive in the wild. Absolutely mundane to put animals in zoos. No species can be saved by zoos, their offspring have no ability to survive in the wild. Do zoos save the environment?As con said, it depends on the person. I don't think that a lesson on the lifespan of an ostrich will stop anyone from littering and con hasn't told us why it will. Zoo education teaches about animals, not sustainable living.All other contentions have been dropped.
Zoos should be indefinitely banned.

Pro states that zoos gather their animals from protected parks and their natural habitat, but offers no evidence to back this claim. The truth is that zoos gather their animals from other zoos who have an excess of animals, or from areas that have an abundance of the species already. Additionally, zoos will sometimes save species near extinction by relocating them and giving them a fighting chance at survival. By keeping them in zoos, the species is able to repopulate easily, thus saving the species. Pro's second claim is that zoos do not increase interest and respect for the environment. However, this is purely a personal opinion, which many people would disagree with. The truth is that when people understand that such a wide array of organisms exist, they seek to learn more about them and their environment. Additionally, many zoos have environmental campaigns targeted to a variety of ages. 1) . http://www.slideshare.net...
Zoos should be indefinitely banned.

Zoos take animals out of protected parks in their natural habitat. Most zoos get their exotic animals not from highrisk zones were they can be poached, but from protected national parks. This means we have an animal leaving a park were it can reproduce and eventually re-enter its natural habitat, to go to a zoo where it offers nothing to its eco-system and global population. Endangerd animals usually can't be rehabilitated into the wild if they've been kept in zoos, it is too much of a drastic change, they'll starve. Do zoos increase interest and respect in the environment? I don't see how knowing the lifespan of a norweigan ostrich is going to mke you stop littering. The interest is generated mostly by the diets of the carnivouros cats and other exotics, the sort of information given has nthing to do with a healthy envirnoment. Are zoos cruel? Yes, no habitat is ever big enough. Animals need miles of terrain and constant stimulation which zoos don't provide. See pacing tiger syndrome.
Zoos should be indefinitely banned.

In this debate, I will argue that zoos should not be indefinitely banned. My argument will comprise of four main points: the joy they bring, the protection to endangered species they offer, their benefits to society, and their rightful place in society. Simply put, zoos create memories. There is nothing more fascinating to children, adolescents, and adults alike than to see a variety of exotic and familiar animals. With visitations to zoos comes multifarious benefits, including revenue and traffic. However, perhaps the most significant benefit is the information it provides. With this information, people are more like to respect the environment and seek a stable and healthy ecosystem. Therefore, it is only logical to keep this very important component of society around for generations to come.
The Partners of Adulterers Should Be Held Accountable

"Imabench claims that Amanda Todd deserved to be beat because she slept with another girl's boyfriend"Here are my remarks regarding the fight that Amanda Todd got into for having sex with a guy who was in a relationship with someone else, and doing so while she was 15. Tulle: "Secondly, sleeping with someone's boyfriend doesn't give anyone the right to beat you up. "Me: "It certainly does here in the South". http://www.debate.org...First, I was simply making an observation that here in the deep South, a large number of people believe that if a girl finds out her boyfriend had sex with a whore, then that girl has the right to beat the whore up. Apparently Royal thought I said something completely different but that was not my intent and I apologize if thats how my statements came off. Second, I do not believe that any random person has the right to beat up someone for sleeping with some other girls boyfriend, which was Tulle's statement. The girlfriend maybe has a right to at least confront her, but not anybody you pull off the street has the right to beat her up. Third, I did not say that Amanda Todd DESERVED to be beat. I would agree that she put herself in the situation to get beat and that she is partially to blame for being such a whore in the first place, but I do not believe she deserved to get physically abused for being such a whore. Now that thats clarified though, lets focus on the resolution of the debateThe Partners of Adulterers should be held accountable for their actions. I will argue that if a man cheats on his girlfriend by having sex with a whore who is not a prostitute, then the man and the whore should be held accountable for their immoral actions. Royal will argue that women should be allowed to whore around with any men they want and not be held accountable for their actions. "Clarification: The situation is one in which (a guy) who has willingly tied himself to (his girlfriend) sleeps with another (girl) who has not made any such promise. Imabench needs to prove that this free individual should be held accountable. "I wish to also clarify that this free individual 1) Has a past of being a slut, 2) Knew very well that the man she was having sex with was currently in another relationship, 3) I think the promise being referred to is that Amanda Todd did not promise to have sex with the guy in a relationship with someone else until he dumped his girlfriend and asked her out. I ask that Royal clarify what 'promise' wasnt made in case im off.
The Partners of Adulterers Should Be Held Accountable

Imabench claims that Amanda Todd deserved to be beat because she slept with another girl's boyfriend (I will post quotes if he denies this and pretends that he doesn't believe this). I would like him to justify his claim that the partners of adulterers should be held accountable for their actions. Clarification: The situation is one in which an individual who has willingly tied himself to another sleeps with another individual who has not made any such promise. Imabench needs to prove that this free individual should be held accountable.