BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Expanding the Right to Marry Serves the State

Proposition's primary claim here falls because it is both and exercise in hyperbole and is simply irrelevant. The proposition talks of marriage being crucial to the legal system, and that without marriage we would be 'strained beyond belief' trying to 'untagle the messes' that would arise. Of course this hyperbole, not in any way reflected by their source (check it if you don't believe us!) is (1) false and (2) general to all marriages, not specifically homosexual ones. Considering that only around 1% of the US population is openly homosexual [[http://www.adherents.com/adh_dem.html]] (and let's face it, that isn't going to increase very much if we control for 'closet' homosexuals) we see that legalizing homosexual marriages will have a tiny impact on the state's burden. This point is simply unsubstantiated and irrelevant. It is almost laughable to read and re-read the proposition's serious (?!) contention that "Marriages are a mechanism to clarify next of kin, responsibilities toward children, the people who are impacted by a legal will upon the death of a spouse, and many other interactions that individuals have between themselves," Does a gay person in a civil union - or in a one night stand, for that matter - really not know who his or her next-of-kin is?! Does a dad need to be married to another man to know his legal (and social) parental responsibilities in relation to his kids from a previous relationship?! These arguments fall far short of constituting an independent reason to legalise same-sex marriage. Besides, many of the potential complications that are legitimate (e.g. one man living with another - his partner - over a lifetime, without marriage recognition) can be dealt with through other legal instruments, so same-sex marriage is not essential. The Civil Unions regime in the UK, for example, distribute *identitcal* beneifts on partners. Similarly, in South Africa, both gay and straight couples can choose either civil unions or marriage - there is no difference, other than symbolism, in the legal consequences. We conclude, then, that the legal regimes which proposition imagine to be at stake in this debate, are not at stake. This leg of their case falls flat.
Forcing change in liberal democracies is itself illiberal

The force of proposition's case is that it is a 'defense' of liberalism - allowing all people, no matter who they are, to access rights and freedoms. We clash with this directly, and contend that forcing legislative changes (that bring about marginal benefits to small numbers of society) on a country that is clearly averse to such changes is itself illiberal. And it is precisely those countries in which this debate falls - we are not contesting whether states that already have functioning systems for same-sex marriage should abandon those systems, but whether, in opposition's words " bob loblaw". Liberalism is in essence the preference for self determination at the most personal level. But a state (and the body of laws encapsulated by that state) is merely an abstraction of personal preferences and wills, and hence, in a classical Rousseauian sense (the same beliefs on which US federalism is predicated), a liberal state's norms, practises, and legislation, must be defined from the bottom up rather than the top down. It is only through determining the rules that bind one at the level of the state that one can truly practise liberal self determination. If we accept proposition's proposal and force same-sex marriage upon (effectively) all societies, we are in fact incurring a great cost to the very liberal project we are intending to promote and protect, for an as yet unclear benefit. Remember, this is not, as proposition believes, the profound disenfranchising of homosexuals by removing their rights to access economic opportunities or public services and utilities. The reality is that, at present, the majority of people in the 'contested' countries of this debate do in fact feel that same-sex marriage should not be allowed (that's why these countries are the interesting cases). Gallup polls as recent as 2009 show this to be true, and show that in those states which have forced through same-sex marriage legislation against the will of their population have not seen a rapid decrease in resistance to same-sex marriage [[http://www.gallup.com/poll/118378/majority-americans-contine-oppose-gay-marriage.aspx]]. We advocate precisely the attitude of California's Supreme Court who refused to overturn a public referendum (Prop 8) on homosexual marriages that came down in the negative; it is not the place of legislators or judges to impose, illiberally, legislation on the collective.
Governments should not discourage people from their identity

Considering the proposition's affirmation of the rights of homosexuals, this argument is perplexingly homophobic. Proposition presupposes a number of things about homosexuals. Number one, it presupposes the very attitude that proposition says they want to remove from society - the belief that homosexuality is somehow different from heterosexuality. Many homosexuals simply do not face the 'moral' and 'sociological' quandries that proposition believes they do. In many cases homosexuals never even make a choice about being part of the heterosexual community or the homosexual community (assuming that such black and white social groups even exist - they really don't). Next, it presupposes that homosexuals end up, with a greater frequency than heterosexuals, living sexually debauched lives, and that this greater frequency is somehow the result of their not being able to legally marry. Both of these points are flat out wrong - homosexuals are just as capable as heterosexuals of being faithful or of being promiscuous, and many married couples still experiment with infidelity [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_Reports#cite_note-15]]. The very notion that the status quo forces homosexuals into apparently awful 'the gay lifestyle' not only belies proposition's knowledge of the subject, but is, as we will now show, wrong. Proposition assumes that the reason homosexuals may be afraid to come out is inherently related to their 'legal' losses, and not to the way in which society 'perceives' them. We feel this is ludicrous. Coming out as a homosexual in no way 'legally' precludes you from marriage - you can still marry so long as you marry heterosexually. It is not the case that the moment you say 'I'm gay' the state department (or home affairs) ticks you off on the 'big bad list of homosexuals'. Considering this, it seems a non sequitur to argue that homosexuals stay 'closeted' because of the legal losses they face. Much more important, we would argue, is the social ridicule they face, and this social ridicule is likely to worsen if homosexual marriage is prematurely legalized. In essence, proposition's argument - which is again not backed up with evidence (show us proof of 'the gay lifestyle' of multiple sex partners, a bachelor's pad, and disease that society wrongfully tells you is the inevitable fate for homosexual) - does two things for our opposition case: first, it showcases how deep homophobia can run, such that even a group advocating the legalisation of same-sex marriage may persist with homophobic attitudes way after same-sex marriage is legally allowed ; and, second, related to this, the complex tissue of social harms that gay persons do suffer - such as the baselss stereotyping indulged in by Team USA - cannot be dealt a fatal blow with legalising same-sex marriage; it lies elsewhere, such as education. This means that Team USA rightly identifies a problem: social stigma suffered by gay persons. But prescribe a medicine that will not make the headache go away, as the homophobic spirit of their own case inadvertently exhibits.
Rebuttal 4: Why it is ok for civil marriage to be exclusive

Proposition finally came up with a direct piece of argument to make the letter of the motion come alive in the dying moments of the debate - civil marriage is a non-religious institution by its very nature and therefore moral offence anyone would take at the thought of allowing gay persons to access the institution of civil marriage, should be ignored. Great. Well, uhm, not really. Here is why. Ok, so Team USA strategically concedes that religious praxis could be exclusive. Gays do not have a prima facie right to a priest's blessing. Both sides are in agreement here. But proposition's attempt to move from this concession, to the conclusion that a civil institution CANNOT be exclusive, is hazy and hasty. It seems clear to us that unless there is an overriding moral reason to change the operation of an institution, the mere fact of exclusion does not constitute a reason, surely? In other words, the exclusion of gay persons from civil marriage - in some countries - only constitutes a moral error if that exclusion is tied to a *legitimate expectation* on the part of gay persons to be included in the first place. But such an expectation, it would appear, rests on a demand to access the fruits and burdens that come with institution. But if those associated goods can be distributed in equal measure, and same quality, through another mechanism, then the putative entitlement to enter that civil institution, falls away. This is EXACTLY the case with same-sex marriage. Arrangements such as civil unions - and Team USA has now conceded they are factually wrong about the differences in rights and duties that flow/can flow from civil unions as opposed to marriage - are parallel mechanisms that deliver the same goods as civil marriage. To argue for inclusion in the institution of civil marriage, ostensibly a case of inclusion for its own sake - or merely for the sake of aesthetics, quite frankly, EVEN WHERE most citizens wish that not to happen, is simply a case of liberal logic going into overrdrive. Mechanism such as civil unions achieve the best of all possible worlds. On the one hand, they allow laws to reflect public mores by maintaining marriage as an exclusive civil institution (in places where that is desired by the majority). At the same time, they ensure that gay persons are not - wrongly - excluded from the associated rights and benefits of marriage. In sum, then, to answer Team USA's challenge head-on - to wit, 'If there is nothing in a word, why exclude gay persons?': Because excluding gay persons does not cause harm (e.g. civil unions can be set up) and exclusion ensures that public policies take seriously the aggregate preferences of citizens to impute their collective value on that 'word'. Again moral and legal pluralism comes out sensible, and the facist imposition of liberal individualism on all societies in the universe comes out decidedly illiberal. Opposition's clash is sustained.
Rebuttal: Democracy or Majoritarianism

All modern democracies exhibit majoritarianism. It is foolish to even suggest that they do not. We agree, on team opposition (and we said this earlier), that democracies are designed to 'check' the 'rabidness' of majoritarian sentiment (and we never claimed they shouldn't), but we affirm the reality that democracies exist to coordinate preferences, and that the preferences that matter most in marginal cases are those of the majority. The debate at hand is just such a marginal case; a tiny minority demand formal equality in relation to a fairly tangential issue, and a large majority reject that on the grounds of cultural and religious preference. This is precisely the type of case in which the majority's preference stands. We can even see this in a number of less tangential cases: redistributive practices are restricted by majority preferences for low taxes despite the substantial harm that non-redistributive capitalism can do to poorer citizens. Private medical aid systems are put in place despite minority groups who cannot afford them. Similarly, private insurance is encouraged in places where the majority can afford it but the minority is left to suffer. Abortion is outlawed in many places because the majority of people feel that the issue is not a transparent case of 'do what you want' - they are asked to govern for themselves and they do. Similarly many states outlaw stem cell research. Is the proposition willing to attack these examples? Are they willing to say that the majority's well thought out and clearly expressed preference for a certain way of being should be trumped because it does some harm to a minority group? The 'harms', in this instance, at any rate, have not been proven to be of a magnitude that would justify disregard of majority preferences. Finally, proposition would do well to recall that opposition is totally ok with legalising same-sex marriage where preferences of the society DO point in that direction - hence our opposition clash that we should all endorse, instead, moral and legal pluralism on the matter, within the international community, allowing each country's unique law-making processes to decide the matter -- as opposed to liberal fascism which can harm gay persons' SUBSTANTIVE long term interests...
Expanding the Right to Marry Serves the State

It must be understood that marriage is an instrument toward subsequent rights and interactions with the state that is being denied to a group. The state perceives that it has some benefit from creating marriage as a legal institution, and it does, although not to the same degree that those who engage in marriage receive benefits. Marriage decreases legal ambiguity for individuals in a society, and lessens the burden upon the state to clarify ambiguities that result. Marriages are a mechanism to clarify next of kin, responsibilities toward children, the people who are impacted by a legal will upon the death of a spouse, and many other interactions that individuals have between themselves, each other, and the state. [[http://articles.latimes.com/2008/may/22/opinion/oew-davidson-lavy22]] Absent that, the legal system would be strained beyond belief in an effort to untangle the messes that would be the result of having no legal recognition of marriage. Legalizing same-sex marriage will lessen this burden further, but it is a secondary concern when facing the rights and freedoms of the individuals in question.
Governments should not discourage people from their identity

When homosexual individuals are denied equal rights of marriage as heterosexual individuals, they are given a choice between their identity and their desires for family and companionship, as well as legal benefits. The moment when a homosexual individual, more often than not a vulnerable and confused teenager, realizes his/her sexuality is a fragile one. They are split between a choice, come to terms with their sexuality, a part of their identity, and follow the 'gay lifestyle.' Or deny it, and continue living a facade as a heterosexual man/woman. The sad truth is, many people choose the second, to the harm of themselves, their future spouses, their children and all those who care about their happiness. The question is, why? Why do these people choose to deny their homosexual desires? Because the society puts too high a price on coming out of the closet. You faced by ridicule and stigma amongst your peers, which while shameful, is still something people can endure. The higher price you pay is being forced to give up your dreams of a family. Its a popular joke that women start planning out their weddings when they are 10, imagine 5 years later being asked to sacrifice that wedding just to accept your own identity as a lesbian? Knowing you will be denied marriage, you have to choose to sacrifice all you dreamed about for your traditional wedding, for your quaint family life, your children, and settle instead for 'the gay lifestyle' of multiple sex partners, a bachelor's pad, and disease that society wrongfully tells you is the inevitable fate for homosexual.This dichotomy is false, and no one should feel forced to choose between these options. This is possibly why we see so many stories of married men and women finally coming out at 50 and leaving in their wake broken families; or the champions of the anti-gay movement, the Ex-gays, who went through conversion therapy and turned straight so they could have a family; or even unsatisfied broken individuals who even until their death live an unfulfilling lie.
The underlying skills used in GCSE Mathematics are important.

Many of these skills can be learnt in other subjects. For instance, when studying philosophy, it is important to identify the underlying logical structure of an argument and test whether it is sound or not. Learning to program on a computer requires identifying the type of pattern you want the computer to follow and translating it into the formal language of the code. Besides, the IT curriculum should be capable of teaching people to use a computer and Political Studies to interpret the news intelligently, otherwise what use is it to study these subjects at all?
But only if it's taught better

Mathematical and logical thinking is essential to a strong mental development. This is the kind of thinking that mathematics classes should be teaching. Instead, children are taught for hours on end how to calculate - when we have the most powerful calculating machines ever conceived in the palms of our hands. Almost every GCSE maths question can be answered by WolframAlpha. That is abhorrent. We should be asking our children to answer questions that even the most powerful calculating machine in the world can't answer - creative, pure mathematics, that requires mental leaps and imagination.
The GCSE syllabus does not encourage young people to be interested in maths.

During the GCSE years - the last two years of secondary school - the curriculum for maths changes from the basic skills needed to understand mathematics in everyday life to subjects such as algebra and trigonometry that have no use outside preparing them for A-level mathematics. Students are discouraged from being interested in maths as they can no longer use it, it is too complicated for them to learn if they are not already enthusiastic about maths and have the right midnset for it, and it has a reputation as a niche subject for nerds. According to Professor Andrew Hodges in the Guardian article 'Who Needs Maths?' (http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2007/nov/13/schools.uk) "We should be trying to find ways of equipping children with the basic maths they will need to function adequately in society. I'm sure there are wonderful examples of good teaching practice to be found in schools, but the curriculum is very prescriptive and most teachers don't have the time to be creative. We should be looking at ways of teaching maths skills through other media, such as electronic music and web design, that are more relevant to most students."
In general, making things optional instead of compulsory can increase their popularity.

The very fact that Maths is compulsory is causing it to be unpopular. People do not want to do what they are forced to do.  People enjoy and wilfully enter into voluntary work but hate and dread their paid work, even when it largely involves performing the same tasks and one has the added incentive of pay, because they feel they have chosen to do the former while they are forced into the latter because of the need for money. Young people will do the compulsory subjects 'just because they have to', putting very little effort into them, while focussing their time on the topics that they choose to do. Making mathematics an optional subject will make it appear that it is the same as another GCSE, meaning that they will choose it because they are interested in mathematics, then be happy and motivated to study it.
Mathematics is a niche subject

Mathematics has a very limited application. Yes, it is needed to make a career in a niche field such as web design or banker, but general arithmetic is all that is needed to gain acceptance into most jobs. Where our curriculum is going wrong is by trying to teach children the depth of maths when the reality is they only need the basics in order to gain access to the majority of jobs. Why should a niche subject area that only grants access to a limited amount of employment sectors be compulsory?
Students should instead take humanitarian subjects.

Mathematics has limited application in real life. We will never have to as part of our daily lives, sit and reflect on the meaning of Pi. As well rounded individuals however, we will be required to make moral calculations, we will need to assess and analyse our selves and those around us. This is a daily occurrence that does affect our lives. Therefore, we should replace compulsory maths with humanities. The only maths that should be compulsory is general arithmetic. This would leave our children with more time to learn skills they will actually use throughout their lives as opposed to for one GCSE exam. As Dr Steve Bramall, Professor of the Philosophy of Education at London University, stated; we can ask a financial advisor for moneytary advice, but to ask someone to make our moral decisions for us is an abdication of our responsibility.
The skills are already taught by science.

When seeking employment for most jobs, employers look for the A*-C in English Language, Maths and Science. We need English to communicate, so this is a logical requirement. Science is the logical and practical solving of problems so this is a logical requirement showing good judgement. Then what is the need for maths as a discipline? If we take a shop worker, we can see how it would be desirable for them to have English and science GCSE’s to a high calibre, but math? Many argue that maths teaches logical skills, but this already occurs in science in a practical way; putting the theory into practice. Therefore, science already teaches children the skills that maths is claimed to teach.
Maths is too wide a discipline.

If we took math out of the compulsory syllabus and replaced it with arithmetic, children who are perfectly capable of calculating will have more of a chance in the work environment. Children have different levels of ability in maths. You could have a student who is good at arithmetic, but not good at working with formulae and trigonometry. These children are disadvantaged by the current system as their arithmetic skills are being judged by a GCSE that has tested them on less essential material. If we separated arithmetic and math and subjects, then those who are good at daily additions, subtractions and multiplications would be able to show their skills via a formal qualification rather than it being muddled in and watered down with more fanciful but less useful math.
The underlying skills used in GCSE Mathematics are important.

According to Dr. Steve Bramall, plus.maths.org Opinion page (http://plus.maths.org/issue12/editorial/index.html): 'Mathematics is not a matter of remembering formulae to do long multiplication, solve quadratic equations and find areas of triangles. Those may be among its raw materials, but maths is about identifying patterns, recognising structures, investigating the logical consequences of hypotheses. These skills are necessary before anything else when making a decision, passing a judgement, using a computer or reading the news.'