BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Wait for sex with the one you love before marriage--NON BIBLICAL APPROACH Pro

agreed, premarital sex is not akin to incest, the incest relationship analogy was to show that they too can be in love, to most, it is sickening, but if we are to say that they cannot truly love, that would be an opinion since we cannot read peoples hearts, I only mentioned the leeway aspect because if we allow one group to do something, then people who was formally looked down upon like incest will seek to claim they love each other. We got side tracked with this, its a different issue, I apologize. "I need for my opponent to clarify her argument at this point. Is pro saying that love is the prerequisite for great sex and that marriage is a prerequisite for love or is pro saying that marriage not love is the prerequisite for very good sex?" Perhaps we did get mixed up with a play on words of love sex and marriage. I will try to be a bit clearer. Argument. (When I say sex is worth the wait, I'm implying that the person who chooses to wait, their partner could find greater satisfaction because one waited, not that sex is worth the wait because the sex act itself will be great, but because of how it would make the partner feel by the act of waiting, not how good the actual sex is.) The partner would probably feel more special knowing that their partner chose specifically to do something they have never done with anyone else, which is to wait. It doesn't mean that you cant do something else that would mean love is evident, I'm simply pointing out that waiting is an additional and powerful way of showing your love to a partner. Getting married does not guarantee great sex, but it can be just as good as those who experienced it before marriage and if it is not it can be improved. Premarital sex doesn't mean great sex cant exist, but even if it did, I'm saying what happens when after marriage when, a mental life issue causes no sex drive, or health issue that makes it hurts and partner doest want to, or accident happened and sex isn't like it used to or no longer possible, what would do you then? run away? if you can stick it through after such events, surely you can stick it through before marriage without any of those events. Then it becomes less about testing Sex can be good or bad, before and after marriage. If there is bad sex before marriage, one could break it off, and either probably never loved the person enough, or probably wants someone compatible because great sex is important to them but sex can be just as important to someone who chose to wait. I don't see why one needs to break it off for the sole and only purpose that sex was bad disregarding all experiences and happy times they shared an great communication and there was no other issue than the sex. Couples can overcome challenges. After a while, you'll know how to get in tune with them, with work, communication, and honesty, bad sex based on physical issues can be improved. But if it's a mental disconnect that's making sex bad, it's tougher to fix. touch on later. Out of space
Wait for sex with the one you love before marriage--NON BIBLICAL APPROACH Pro

I agree that marriage is not necessarily for one to be in love, even brothers and sisters or dad and a daughter, cousins aunts and uncles can make love to each other, outside of just sex, but call it "making love" and do so without getting married, if they want go ahead and do that and if its not against the law in some states no one has a true reason to tell them not to do so, we all know the Christian God is against it and that's why in that aspect marriage was create so that much leeway wouldn't be created. But that is not my argument, I agree two people can be in love without being married, I have religious reasons for them doing so but again that is not my argument in this particular debate. I also agree that being married doesn't magically make someone be in love, I agree that marriage was used differently back then in the 16th century it was even used to gain pieces of land and marry woman who wasn't even in love with them. My argument is this,......That sex is WORTH the wait, it looking for my opponent to show that it is NOT worth the wait and that it should be done before marriage. My opponent stated this, "is it possible to have great loving and sex by waiting until marriage? It is unlikely to do so. People learn by living. Wouldn't it be better to know you are with the right soul mate from experience or is it better to roll the dice based on an illogical assumption?" Let me rephrase this.... is it possible to have flawless children and not have to worry bout them ever messing up? It is unlikely to happen. People learn by having other peoples children first, wouldn't it be better to know you are fit to have children before you have them? or is it better to not have children because you afraid you have no experience and will do a bad job? Again the "Experience first" theory is a cop out, its a genuine assessment and I understand, but by that logic we should have other peoples children first for a "Learn by living concept" just to see if they are right for us, but most people just have children even with no experience, and because they are in love they work it out together through the process, people could do the same with no sex before marriage how is it unconditional love if it halted by a condition? If you hope to have a healthy child and it turns out retarded you don't abandoned it, you love it unconditionally if you have a child that is healthy and then made retarded by an accident, again unconditional love applies. If you had no sex before marriage and it was not what you expected, if you are in LOVE like you love a child you don't give up and there is plethora of ways to improve videos, doctors etc and have great sex! If you had sex before marriage and its the best thing ever, and then after marriage a life changing health issue happens and sex is bad, what, are you going to give up? sad thing is I seen this happen. No you push through. So you see if you have unconditional love, it wont matter
The European Union should be abolished

I'd like to start by reminding you that I'm British so sarcasm is inevitable. I really see no problem with using phrases such as 'as well as this', Pro seems to be attacking me more than my argument. Using emotive language is a key part of writing to argue and persuasive writing. Debate is not just facts, figures, stats and pure boredom. Debate is about passion, emotion, belief, determination. I have a passion for, I am made emotional by, I have a belief in and I am determined to see prosper my Europe, my continent. THAT is debate and for Pro to suggest otherwise shows he really has no idea what the true meaning of debate is. I also find it hilarious that Pro says I should improve on my spelling and grammar when he himself spells the word 'cite' as 'site'. Pro also stated that my arguments amounted to nothing, but this is rich coming from someone who decided to copy and paste a quote from a website, then follow it with a series of ad hominem attacks. Whilst we're on the topic of your argument. .. well, where on earth do I begin? Firstly, it isn't an argument, it is simply a quote. Secondly, you haven't written anything about the quote. What can we infer from this, that, whatever. Do you believe this? Why should WE believe it? Very simple debating skills that are necessary to use DDO. I'm not sure where my opponent is from but he doesn't seem to know Europe very well at all. His quote is entirely about the Eurozone, not the EU and whilst most EU member states are euro zone countries, a strong minority are not. In summary, overall I have to say it has been a disappointing debate. Pro made absolutely no points opposed to the EU and it has been very difficult to rebut him as a result of that. His lack of carefulness and his healthy doses of ignorance have proved that he is unable to distinguish the EU from the Eurozone and that he was able to focus only on one economic (I hesitate to call it an argument) quote which was pasted straight from an online web article, it included no opinions of his own and was littered with ad hominem fallacies.
The European Union should be abolished

On http://www.economist.com..., Mr. Henkel states that: "First, politicians broke all promises made in the Maastricht agreement. Not only was Greece let into the European Union for purely political reasons, but the fundamental rule, "no member to exceed its yearly budget deficit by the equivalent of 3% of GNP", was broken over a hundred times. Mandatory punitive charges, provided for such cases, were never applied. To top it all, the no-bail-out clause was wiped out in the wake of the first Greek rescue package. Second, the "one-size-fits-all" euro turned out to be a "one-size-fits-none" currency. The euro itself caused some of the problems politicians are now trying to solve. With access to interest rates at much lower German levels, Greek politicians were able to pile up huge debts. The Bank of Spain helplessly watched the build-up of a real-estate bubble without being able to raise interest rates. Deprived of the ability to devalue their currency, countries in the south lost their competitiveness. Third, instead of uniting Europe, the euro increases friction. Students in Athens, the unemployed in Lisbon and protesters in Madrid not only complain about national austerity measures, they also protest against Angela Merkel. Moreover, the euro widens the rift between countries with the euro and those without. Bulgaria and Romania would surely love to join and enjoy German guarantees, but does anybody believe Britain or Sweden will ever find it attractive to join a transfer union? Instead of addressing the true causes of its illness, politicians prescribe painkillers for the euro patient every time another Greece, Portugal and Ireland pops up. It suffers from three discrete diseases: 1. As a result of the financial crisis, many banks are still unstable. 2. The negative effects an overvalued euro has on the competitiveness of the southern states, including Belgium and France. 3. The huge level of debt of some euro-zone countries." Additionally, you fail to site your sources throughout the whole debate, so your claims and statements are all now null and void.Also, using the word 'beautiful' with union is just your form of sweet talk. You are just exerting opinion and feelings rather than hard, solid facts and evidence.Please review your grammar, using "as well as this" is very childish, so please use sophisticated language. Finally, you are displaying poor conduct by showing sarcasm when you state, "As you can see, some wonderful commitment from my opponent here." In conclusion so far you arguments are equal to nothing and your grammar and conduct are very poor and very unpolished.
The European Union should be abolished

The European Union is a union of 28 European countries including some of the world'a largest economies: Great Britain, Germany, France and Italy. It is to a certain extend an economic union and to a certain extent a political union. The EU regulates trade and allowed free trade between all European countries. As well as this, things such as environment, infrastructure, electricity, etc are all equalised across the continent. The economic benefits of the European Union are massive and easily identifiable. A company in Croatia can trade with a company in Sweden as though they are part of the same country, totally tax free, totally free market. As well as this, the EU guarantees freedom of movement of workers around the EU. If your country is too big or too small, too hot or too cold, the EU gives you options. This includes Norway, Iceland, and Lichtenstein. Europeans can move to any other European country in search of a new life and this is an incredible advantage to EU citizens. Most EU countries are in the Schengen Zone. This means that citizens can move around freely with no passport or travel documentation. This obviously has its benefits both for European citizens and corporations. How can this beautiful union of 28 European brothers and sisters be any bad at all?
'Leaving the European Union and voting UKIP is not the way forward'.

I don't mean to patronise any supporters, but if you vote UKIP you are ignorant. They are exploiting those who feel detached from the political system by spreading sensationalist lies. Their core voter, the less educated or the elderly wanting to reverse the last 50 years of globalisation, are unfortunately unable to question this UKIP dogma. What has truly caused more damage to the economy of this country; the bankers who brought us into the economic crisis, the tax dodging upper class, Westminster's politicians who claim excessive expenses; or European immigration and the European Union? It is certainly reasonable to be angry with the establishment, but voting UKIP or leaving the EU will not improve anything. Thankfully they will only gain a few seats in the 2015 election but it's both worrying and dangerous that people are listening to this group of Thatcherites. (Note: please provide evidence with any statistics.)
The government should stay out of marriage altogether.

If all you want is someone to give you a line where marriage should no longer be acceptable, I already have. I'd say between a human of any gender and anything that is incapable of demonstrating consent to marry (pedophilia, bestality). I think that is a fairly sound framework that would hold up in court since it already does in the case of pedophilia, and actually in some cases bestiality. That's why nationwide it's illegal to have sex with children and in many (not all primarily because it doesn't happen that often) states it's illegal to engage in sex with animals, no consent. Before that line I don't see why it shouldn't be allowed. You want to marry three wives and two husbands? I don't see why not as long as all six of you are up to the challenge and willing to sign the papers. I apologize for the tone, but I feel that I made the case already in round 1. The largest and most detailed paragraph was devoted to delivering precisely what you had asked for in your round one. The argument removes both the problem of an undefined line as well as the problem of discrimination. I don't think many people would argue that marriage to children or dogs or petunias is unjustifiably discriminatory toward any of them. We don't let any of them vote, have sex, or buy cigarettes as it is. I thought the continuation of the argument useful because I could draw a reasonable line that WOULD solve the problem, which you didn't disagree with in round 2, and could also show that your proposal WOULD NOT solve the problem. The resulting conclusion could only be that marriage does not have to be discriminating beyond the point of reason and that it is far more reasonable than any alternative proposal. The only clean way out of this is to say that marital benefits are entirely unnecessary and therefore avoid the problem of an arbitrary line entirely. That would have been a reasonable argument and I would have graciously conceded defeat on the purest conceptual level. However again on the practical level, though moot to the conceptual argument, it would be entirely unimplementable. Even the strictist atheistic communist regimes out there, which ban religious practice altogether, provide a framework deliniating rights and responsibilities married persons. Aremis
The government should stay out of marriage altogether.

Aremis, You still have not responded to my opening argument: selective recognition of only certain types of consensual partnerships is arbitrary and unfit for the law, so government must recognize all of them (which would assuredly be the most complicated in practice) or not recognize any. The "various advantages given to married couples," or that marriage is "an effective way of more efficiently assigning those rights" – in short, any effects-based argument – cannot justify state recognition of marriage, if that recognition is arbitrarily discriminatory and thus intrinsically wrong. Before continuing with your argument that marriage is logistically convenient, it is in your best interest to address my initial point. Yet even the notion that marriage is useful in the administration of certain privileges is flawed. People could just get married outside the law and then register with the government for the same rights that married couples, or anyone else (as in my inheritance example), can obtain under our current system – but without a label like "marriage" or "civil union," which is much of the problem. You don't really say how the cons outweigh the pros in your example where "unconnected private individuals [enter] into a contract . . . combining elected benefits without directly specifying that each and every one of the benefits would have to be included," which basically amounts to giving "married" couples/families more choice in what rights they would like to have. First, this is only more complicated at the time of marriage, as rights having been agreed upon are much easier to enforce later (for instance, in divorces). Second, it would yield many societal benefits like the ones you mentioned. Third, most importantly, wouldn't most people prefer having this choice? Lastly, I just want to emphasize again that this argument about the practical consequences of recognizing marriage means nothing if state recognition of marriage is inherently unjust. Thanks, Aremis, for the provocative discussion.
The government should stay out of marriage altogether.

Aremis, All I said was that the government cannot recognize certain types of consensual partnerships without recognizing others, unless it sets an arbitrary definition of what such partnerships are legitimate – a subjective distinction with no just place in the law. Whether these partnerships are termed "Marriages" or "Civil Unions," and whether consent can or cannot be demonstrated in the case of bestiality, are moot points (though I happen to agree with you on both). As for the provision of rights such as inheritance and visitation – and I won't argue that these rights are unnecessary – why must the legal vehicle be marriage? Under this nation's current legal framework, one may grant these rights to anyone; for instance, many people choose to include close friends in their wills. If, in a state without marriage, the equivalent of a couple wanted these rights, it could undoubtedly secure them by a separate legal process. In any case, if you think marriage is essential to the administration of these rights, then how do you justify marriage for one consenting partnership but not another?
The government should stay out of marriage altogether.

I think that the various advantages given to married couples, particularly inheritance and visitation, are justifications of state sponsored marriage. Without some form of legal recognition of the union between two individuals (or more if you support multiple marriages), these benefits would at best be very difficult to administer and at worst impossible to offer. Though visitation and inheritance could be argued to be technically unnecessary, the vast majority of people worldwide are likely to support those rights for spouses. If you disagree I would like to hear an argument for how such a system would work. I can agree that perhaps defining it as a Civil Union instead of a Marriage may allay some fears in many nations and would certainly more cleanly define the duties of the state vs the duties of religion. But renaming the problem doesn't resolve the issues you've brought up. The slippery slope situations will likely always be a matter of public debate and perhaps in some cases should. Polygamy, and to a certain degree incest, while largely unacceptable in this nation, are accepted in many places as valid relationships so that is a problem that would remain unresolved. But the snowball stops with humans. I have argued in comments elsewhere that the justification for human-animal or human-object marriages is not on the same level. The non-human 'partner' would be unable, in this case, to demonstrate consent. They would also not be able to demonstrate the faculties necessary to receive the legal benefits of marriage. If a dog, for instance, was able to demonstrate informed consent to marry and was able to demonstrate the faculties necessary to receive the legal benefits of marriage, you would likely have more than just myself to contend with on the topic in the same way that interracial marriages were allowed though at one horrid point in time, some minorities were considered high-functioning non-human animals. But since that isn't the case in any animal we know of, the concern is decidedly without merit. Aremis
The government should stay out of marriage altogether.

Why should the government recognize only heterosexual marriage? Arguments that the purpose of marriage is ______ (e.g., procreation, Bible, what is natural, &c.) do not work because they are entirely arbitrary; moreover, counterexamples can be found for any of these purposes, such as infertile couples (for PROCREATION), alternate religions (for BIBLE), historical/natural cases of other sexual orientations (for NATURAL), and the like. The teleological argument, the one most commonly used to justify heterosexual marriage alone, does not work. At the same time, what argument justifies state recognition solely of heterosexual and homosexual marriage? That these two orientations predominate society is, once again, completely arbitrary and unsuitable for the law. Consent can be established just as easily for incest, polygamy, arguably even bestiality. Unless one wants to recognize these other kinds of marriages, one must support the view that the state should just separate itself from the institution of marriage. The arguments to the contrary must draw a line somewhere, a line that is completely subjective and, like any other personal opinion or "comfort zone," deserves no place in the law.
Substantially increasing social services for persons living in poverty in the United States.

P1. Again its still not relevant because we are talking about the US not global. Yes it is a little but not enough to put the burden on those who managed to do well for themselves. P2. Well if you read the article posted preciously you would know the answer to that question. If you are given money there is no point to seek for a job because the government is providing for you. P3.Public schools wouldn't be considered informal schooling. Public schools are great. The poor are not on those that have master degrees but those who have no education and/or job skills. Conclusion: By considering these premises, the United States federal government should not substantially increase social services for persons living in poverty in the United States.