BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
So-called "Separation of Church and State" Is Unconstitutional and Therefore Illegal

Someone wrote: "To be unconstitutional, it must "not in accordance with the political constitution or with procedural rules."" True, and because the phrase "separation of Church and state" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution, it is therefore not in accordance with the political constitution or with procedural rules, and therefore it is unconstitutional. "The separation of church and state is almost entirely unmentioned in the original Constitution" Correction: The phrase "separation of Church and state" is ENTIRELY unmentioned in the original Constitution and ENTIRELY unmentioned in any of its Amendments. "if we exclude the amendments (as my opponent wishes to do)," I have addressed the First Amendment, you liar. "with the only mention of religion being Article 6 Section 3" Actually, religion is also mentioned in the First Amendment, you liar. "If my opponent wishes to ignore the amendments," I have addressed the First Amendment, you liar. "For the separation of church and state to be illegal, the 1st amendment would have to repealed" No it wouldn't. " the separation is still legal." No it isn't. " And this would not make States be required by law to teach theism as gospel" I never made such a claim, so that is a straw man logical fallacy on your part. You lost the debate -- thanks for your time! =)
So-called "Separation of Church and State" Is Unconstitutional and Therefore Illegal

To be unconstitutional, it must "not in accordance with the political constitution or with procedural rules." (Oxford Dictionary) The separation of church and state is almost entirely unmentioned in the original Constitution if we exclude the amendments (as my opponent wishes to do), with the only mention of religion being Article 6 Section 3, establishing that there can not be any religious test for public office. However, just because something isn't mentioned doesn't mean it is unconstitutional. Embryonic stem cell research isn't mentioned in the Constitution whatsoever, nor does it violate any articles. Yet it is still illegal from laws put in place by the Bush administration. However, amendments are defined as "a change or addition to the U.S. Constitution" (Cambridge Dictionary) meaning that amendments are part of the Constitution itself. In the Bill of Rights, we have the first amendment, preventing the government from respecting religion or prohibiting the exercise of it. This isn't to criminalize theism and religion, it just says that the government can't respect it. If my opponent wishes to ignore the amendments, then he would allow for unreasonable search and seizure, a lack of impartial juries, excessive fines, excessive fines, and cruel and unusual punishment.For the separation of church and state to be illegal, the 1st amendment would have to repealed much like with the 18th and 21st amendments. This has yet to happen, and as a corollary to this, the separation is still legal. And this would not make States be required by law to teach theism as gospel. This would require additional amendments, or a state wide agreement to do so.
should abortion be illegal

Yes, I see your point on the matter, however, the problem is the fact that if the mother gets pregnant and the risk of dying in child birth exists, than why should the mother put her life on the line for a child she doesn't even want at times, which is feeding off of her body, and may possibly have to grow up with conditions that would hinder it from ever entering society, yes, I perfectly open to admitting that abortion is murder, because it has been observed that the fetus is, in essence, alive, due to the fact that at proper conception, nuclear fusion occurs and makes new cells, however, those cells are not necessarily capable of coherent thought, thus, the only thing that you are killing are a group of cells that currently are residing inside the mothers womb, those cells which, in essence, are the same kind of cells we kill on a daily basis when we wash the floor, or clean the dishes, or clean the bathroom, or anything we are trying to get 'clean' almost always involves the 'murder' of cells and/or bacteria, we just feel different about the cells residing inside the mothers womb because they will grow into a human in later development, which is fair, understandable, but the child those collection of cells will grow into could develop horrible mutations in its genes, or will have copying errors in its DNA due to the lack of genetic diversity (in the case of incest.) Or may die because the mother did as well in childbirth, and even then would have to suffer social issues later in its life because their parent will have either died in childbirth or would have to live in an adoption agency that has bare minimum standards for the children it cares for. (in the cases of government run orphanages/adoption agencies.) All of this trouble, all of this pain and suffering, need only be reversed if in it's early stages, the collection of cells just be put out of its misery before it ever has to experience it. I respect your opinion as we are all entitled to one, and I appreciate that you have respect for mine as well, but either way, I would appreciate if you would make a longer and more solid argument in the next round, as the closing argument will be the last chance you have to make all of your points. Good luck to you.
should abortion be illegal

the problem here is the fact that you are missing the point of my previous argument, Although you might ask for help in raising that child, the mother and child may have already died in childbirth due to the fact that the mother was so young, also, because she is young, there is an increased chance of birth defects the child may have to bear for the rest of their lives, why should a child have to bear that kind of suffering for something that is not their fault (and may not even be the mothers fault.) However, this segment is for the next argument, so I will make it accordingly: If it is the womans' body who the child is feeding off of, than why should she not be able to control what happens within it? Although abortion is considered 'murder.' The circumstances I listed above are things that this child might encounter and have problems with, so why should a child have to live with themselves in the state they are in simply because their mother didn't have a chance to end their pain and suffering before it even began. Also, because it is her body, she should have the right to make the choice regardless of what other people think because it is wrong to take a choice out of someone's hands that could save their very lives. And sometimes their are women who don't have adoption agencies in their area, or their families don't care about their situations, so, once again, I submit to you that the points you make are far to generalised and do not encompass the entire spectrum of this issue and the many different circumstances that come with it.
should abortion be illegal

First of all (not being satirical here, just saying.) it's 'pregnant' not 'preasant.' if that was a mistake on your accord or if it was just simply auto correct I can't be sure. Anyways. Abortion should be legal, because someone may have simply been raped and is now with a child that she doesn't want or simply does not have the financial support to bring up, also, if the mother is under age, (say, 12-15 for argumentative purposes.) and is raped by say, a fellow family member, not only is there a chance that the child will come out before the 9 month period that is now increased because of her age, but also due to the fact that she is so young and she now has a child with such little genetic deviation, that there would be severe birth defects the child(ren) would have to live with their entire lives. Which is not fair for them, not to mention the fact that the underage mother has an increased chance of dying in child birth. I believe that if abortion is to be conducted, it must be quick and humane, however, I find the ideology of you saying people who abort should be put in jail and that people just shouldn't get pregnant to be far too generalized and does not account for many different circumstances that might arise that would make the mother abort.
Advertising is harmful to society

Hello! I am here to show you advertising is not harmful to society. Before we can continue, let me give you the definition or harmful and advertising. Advertising: or advertising in business is a form of marketing communication used to encourage, persuade, or manipulate an audience (viewers, readers or listeners; sometimes a specific group) to take or continue to take some action. Harmful: causing or likely to cause harm. Harm: physical injury, esp. that which is deliberately inflicted This should conclude the debate right here. Advertising does not cause physical harm. However, I will still debate on how society would be changed for the worse without advertising. Case 1: Advertising of product Many famous inventions would be In discovered by the people if they did not have advertising to let the people know they were invented. All these classic inventions would never have been that popular, and would have failed. Case 2: Advertising of views Remember, advertising, as shown above and I quote. "Is a form a market communication" You could not tell your friend you hate vegetables, or that you love the new hit video game! You could not even ask a question without advertising your own views! You could not tell anyone how you think! You would have to keep it to yourself! Case 3: Advertising of signs, commercials, and billboards If advertising were banned or never existed, you could never post a sign for a service you do. No more commercials would be allowed, adding to inventions getting no publicity, and you could not post any billboards over anything, including your own building, telling even your company's name! These are more than valid reasons why the world would be a lot worse without advertising. Thank you for your time and the opponent for making this debate.
Advertising is harmful to society

Rebuttal 1: You buy the items because you think you can use them. Think, two commercials say they have the best car insurance, so you check both out, and find which is better! Rebuttal 2: However, many people on that poll are not experts on the subject, which may lead to a bias or a vote without any facts to back it up. Consumer culture is culture. Culture is good because in history, that is what we learn in class. Rebuttal 3: However, this is a preference. If they want to become skinny, it is a boost to their drive to achieve their goal. If they don't want to, then they stay the same. You also forget there are outside influences and experiences that may lead them to change. I have successfully rebut every argument he has made. Let me remind the pro that BOP is on him. Which means, he must successfully show advertising is harmful to society. Thank you.
Advertising is harmful to society

I will now try to render your 2nd round false. I am going to use common sense to disprove everything. Rebuttal 1: It doesn't discourage rational thought, it leads it somewhere else! Like, you see a commercial that advertises young inventors and how they make so much money, so naturally, you want to think of ideas to make an invention to earn money! This invention might do the world good. Lets go to another commercial. Game stop has a sale on video games! This may make you finally realize what you want to do with a college education! You love video games, so you want to make them for other people to enjoy! Also, dishonest advertising may lead to you researching the topic, and writing a well thought out article stating which is the best! You could also ask the company about their rates and see if it is too high and see it's quality. Rebuttal 2: That poll you stated, are just opinions. not cold, hard, undisputed facts! Also, isn't consumer culture good? Rebuttal 3: People want what people want! Anything is possible if you put your mind to it! You forgot to mention that girls want to be thin anyways. Name 3 women who actually not want the thin bodies? They see them not just in advertising, but in everyday life. I have disproved the pros argument just off of sheer common sense. This has shown that advertising is not harmful to society. Thank you!
Advertising is harmful to society

"Harm: physical injury, esp. that which is deliberately inflictedThis should conclude the debate right here. Advertising does not cause physical harm. However, I will still debate on how society would be changed for the worse without advertising."I do not know where my opponent got his unattributed definition of "harm," but I would like to offer this proper definition from the well-respected Merriam-Webster: "physical or mental damage or injury : something that causes someone or something to be hurt, broken, made less valuable or successful, etc."[1]With this definition, it is clear that harm does not refer only to physical injury."Case 1: Advertising of product Many famous inventions would be In discovered by the people if they did not have advertising to let the people know they were invented. All these classic inventions would never have been that popular, and would have failed."Given that humanity was able to advance prior to the dawn of commercial advertising, I fail to see any reason why this should be true. Also, my opponent failed to provide any evidence of this claim.If something is useful it will generally be used."Case 2: Advertising of viewsRemember, advertising, as shown above and I quote. "Is a form a market communication" You could not tell your friend you hate vegetables, or that you love the new hit video game! You could not even ask a question without advertising your own views! You could not tell anyone how you think! You would have to keep it to yourself!"The definition of advertising you presented stated "advertising in business is a form of marketing communication used to encourage, persuade, or manipulate an audience (viewers, readers or listeners; sometimes a specific group) to take or continue to take some action."Clearly, "marketing communication" does not pertain to ordinary interpersonal communication."Case 3: Advertising of signs, commercials, and billboardsIf advertising were banned or never existed, you could never post a sign for a service you do. No more commercials would be allowed, adding to inventions getting no publicity, and you could not post any billboards over anything, including your own building, telling even your company's name!"I do not need to prove that advertising should be banned in order to win this debate. I only need to prove that it harms society.ConclusionNone of my opponent's contentions were relevant to this debate. Simply because something can be beneficial does not mean it is not also harmful.I would like to point out that my opponent did not refute any of my contentions. They may now be considered to be dropped arguments and established points in this debate.Sources1. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Number of votes in debates should be visible only to the debaters.

Greetings. First, I'd like to thank my opponent for extending this challenge to all debaters. Second, I'd like for the voters to vote on who provided the better arguments rather than what boils down to your own personal opinion. With that said, let us proceed. My opponent first states that people have the tendency to be biased when they see that one person has more votes than another, but this is conjecture at best. The burden of proof belongs to my opponent, so I would advise that he provide evidence that suggest his claim to be true. Second, even by my opponent's speculation, upholding his solution would be utterly meaningless. If voters believe that people with more votes are better debaters, then it doesn't matter whether or not the voters can see the actual amount of votes as they will still be aware of who is winning and who is not. Third, there is nothing within my opponent's plan that is definitely motivating the voters to read the debates. Not being able to vote is no biggy as they can still vote on other irrelevant factors such as which side they personally agree with, which side presented the most text, what people are saying in the comment section, which user they like more, etc. My opponent then states that there is absolutely no reason for voters to see how many votes each side is receiving, but I tell you that having the ability to see how many votes each side is receiving is VERY CRUCIAL when it comes to the outcome of these debates. Voters not being able to witness how many votes both debaters are receiving increases the likelihood of debaters getting away with underhanded voting that involves use of multiple accounts. If voters can't establish that one side is winning by a peculiar amount of votes, they likely won't submit any reports to the website's administration (who can investigate and penalize when necessary). Only the debaters will have knowledge of possible underhanded behavior and there is no guaranteed exceptional likelihood of one user doing anything about the problem. Debaters can easily lie about the number of votes they are receiving. For instance, if a debater tells the voters that he/she is losing by an unfair amount, this in turn may cause users to vote for said debater out of pity. Heck, it may even cause these users to start wasting the website administration's time by submitting meaningless abuse reports due to a lies crafted by dishonest debaters. I now stand ready for my opponent's rebuttal.
Number of votes in debates should be visible only to the debaters.

When we click on something in the voting period, we automatically see the votes that people have gotten. People have a tendency to be biased when they see that one person has more votes than another, and would psychologically view that argument as being superior. If we remove that, then they no longer have an "objective" method of distinguishing the better debater, since they no longer have those numbers visible to them. In that case, it would push them to read the debate and make the decision for themselves, in a neutral position. Another point I would like to make is that there is absolutely no reason for a voter to see how many votes each side has in the first place. Since it doesn't serve a purpose, and may hinder the neutrality of their decision, why not just do away with it and make the votes visible only to the people debating?
Tell The Best Joke Possible

That was sick, crude, and offensive, and un-humorous. My guess is that you don't know any funny clean jokes... Now for mine. One day, a dude and his college buddy are looking through the college class list. They only need one more credit to graduate. One of the guys says "Hey, there's a class for deductive reasoning. I wonder what that is?" His friend says "I don't know. Why don't you go ask the professor." So the guy leaves his friend and goes into the professor's classroom and says "Professor, what is deductive reasoning?" And the Professor says "Well, it goes a little like this... do you own a lawnmower?" The man says "Yes, I own a lawnmower." The Professor says "So if you have a lawnmower, that means you live in a house with your own lawn instead of an apartment." The man says "Yes, that's true." The professor says "Now, if you live in a house and not an apartment, there's a good chance you're married, right?" The man replies "Yes, I am indeed married." The professor reveals his final revelation: "And if you are married in North Carolina, where we live, that must mean you are heterosexual." The man says. "Huh, you are right. I am straight. So that's deductive reasoning!" The man goes back to his friend and said: "Ok, I've got this deductive reasoning thing figured out. Do you own a lawnmower?" His friend says "No." "Oh, will that must mean you're gay!" Thank you and good night.
Gay is a mental disorder.

I'm sorry but I believe this debate is untrue because you are biased since you are a Gay. And yes being Gay does change your thinking. If you are gay, you like men but not women. That means you think differently than everyone else and it means you are not normal. "Many people do not conform to religion. In so, religious practices should not be imposed on the laws of modern society." I'm sorry but you have to come back into reality 10% is not many. Everyone else has religion and it won't change/ "And what of infertile men and women? Are they useless because they cannot provide children? I might also mention, the world is becoming overpopulated (I'm sure you've heard this). The lower amount of child births throughout the years is helping lower the risks of overpopulation (see the third source)." Yes, infertile men and women are mutated forms of normal humans that have non-functioning sex systems. The world is not becoming overpopulated. It won't be for a long long time. And no gays are not helping us by not making children. That is simply propaganda made by the democrats to make people believe their agenda. "The factor of two gay men wanting to adopt, however, is. Of the recent couples getting married throughout gays and lesbians, approximately 20,061 kids have been adopted" They still would have been adopted, just not by a gay family that will make them gay. "Being gay does not affect the person [negatively], nor would any medication "help" their own attractions change." Being gay does in fact affect a person negatively. They cannot make their own children because they don't love women. If we can make medicine to treat ADD then we can make medicine to treat Gay. "If Pro plans on having a proper debate/discussion, I suggest providing sources and support for Pro's statements. Opinions mean nothing if Pro cannot turn them into facts." My source is the bible, Christianity, evolution and modern politics.
Gay is a mental disorder.

For many years the public has accepted Gays to be normal. Even recently they were even pressured into legalizing Gay marriage thanks to Obama. Gays should not be accepted as they are not normal. God created man and woman to marry and love each other. Men should not love men and women should not love women. If you believe in evolution this also makes sense. Kids can only be made when a man and a woman get together. Man and man is not good for anyone. People are pretending it is normal to make the Gays feel better but it is not normal. Gay is no different than ADD and Autism. Instead of letting the Gays live like normal people they should be sending them away and giving them treatment. Maybe they should even start making Gay medicine like with ADD to stop the effects of it and maybe even cure them.