BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay Adoption of Children

Child protection laws state that if a Child is at any risk from harm, mental damage or any other means of un-natural change, they should not be subjected to it. Adoption regulates that no same-sex marriages (or partnerships, seeing as most states and countries do not allow gay marriage, but substitute it with a civil partnership) can adopt a child as homosexual marriages/partnerships when caring for a child have been prooven to be less benifical and more harming to a child than a normal bi-gender relationship would. On that point, adoption centres wish that a carer to be must be able to provide as natural environment as possible, so to ensure the natural development of a child continues.To be perfectly honest, I couldn't understand the correlation between the adoption of children by gay people, and the amount of Americans with degrees. Whether Americans should be forced to take degrees is a different issue, but I personally find that this has nothing to do with gay marriage and the adoption of children within this relationship.I must point out that the parenting of a non-adopted child by a homosexual couple is not neccesarily wrong, in fact if they choose to have a child through IVF they are the rightful parents of them. But this child will ultimately be deprived of certain qualities or skills the missing gender will teach, as seen in my above argument....----Enough jibber-jabber. My point is exactly this: Child protection and adoption agencies look for what is best for a child and his/her development and what is natural Child development is best (scientifically proven also!) when it is not a homosexual relationship Homosexual relationships is not a family structure that is natural Homosexual relationships are both un-natural and does not provide the best development for a child The homosexual carer-to-be-s are not adequate, and likely never will be.
Gay Adoption of Children

To begin, I would just like to say that this is my very first debate and that i'm very young. I want to thank you though for accepting and look forward to this. I'm going to begin with the ratio of Gay marriages to straight marriages. 150,000 Gay marriages were reported, and the amount of straight marriages is not possible to calculate completely. I will say that about 50% of straight marriages end in failure. With gay marriage there was only a 31% divorce rate. Obviously more straight couples exist then gay ones but they have less places to get married, and are often frowned upon. You must think about how hard it is to maintain a marriage while people look down on you, and the pressure that you receive from your community. Also, more gay people get married later in life, which shows maturity and wisdom and most had a college degree. Only about 27% of Americans actually have degrees. My father is 65 years old and i'm 15, all my friends father's are a lot younger and less successful. We have the biggest house, the most money, and we enjoy ourselves very much. I'm not saying my dad is gay, he is married to my 45 year old mother who are planning on splitting up soon, backing up my point for opposite sex marriages not ending well. Now you must know that i'm not using what I have said above for sympathy or anything close to that. I'm only using it to backup my original claim. Children are obviously very impressionable. With saying this does that mean that the adopted child will be gay? Absolutely not, it is something your born with. And gay people should have the right to experience a child. Now the chances are the child will be embarrassed of them because maybe people at school make comments about it. I think that two fathers will have an even better impact on them because as I said above they are older and more mature. If every parents were like mine, then i'd support straight marriages more then gay marriages. Iv'e seen family's ways of parenting and it's scaring to them, beating and verbally abusing their children will not turn children into better people, it will not shape them into brave men and women. No, it will just hurt them. Thank you!
god exists? guess and oh please do try try try again

I may be 16 year old with zits but we both know you are going to read this. It is human nature to find out what one another said to each other. You want some insults! I will give you some. You F.U.C.K.I.N.G virgin. It was at this moment that the man behind the computer realised he was a virgin! He spent all his time not socialising but trolled away on his gaming PC (not MacBook because he is poor). The Mountain Dew bottles Lay on the floor and pizza boxes gently decomposed. He thought to himself: Ive sat here for 8 straight years and what have I to show. I have gained 66 pounds, I have been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and erectile disfunction but he knew he wasn't going to be using his penis for any sort of REAL sexual activities. His thoughts were quickly interrupted by his mom knocking on his bedroom door. I don't know his name but I imagine it is something like Darren. "Darren, will you come down for supper" Darren(you) replied with "no im trolling a teenager" "Darren you haven't seen the sun in 3 weeks since we went to Chucky cheese" replied Darrens mum, lets call her Elizabeth. "the sun hurts my eyes! The air will give me an asthma attack! Virtual reality is way better than the outside world" shouted Darren. The End Now everybody will know what sits behind your computer. The trolls which lurk on the web. The old man with no life, good Job and no relationship.
god exists? guess and oh please do try try try again

Oh *yawn* you could bore yourself to sleep during a nuclear war. Look at the princess charming with such a boisterous splintered ego from plywood. Rubber baby buggy bumpers. Oh I can read just fine. That’s why I stopped reading after you burped your toxic neanderthal yodeling grunge country western garlic onion beer deodorant when you stated that your god was not omnipotent in which nearly 100% of all christians, namely your religion, would disagree with you. Because if your god is not omnipotent, then that doesn’t make your god a god at all and is thus reduced to human frailties. Oh my dear little leap-shin, you don’t get it… its not about winning and losing. Who cares about comatose bile nonsense like that? Save it for your zits that you bathe in. Its about what’s right and wrong. And you are wrong. You see Flash Thompson, I don’t have an ego to bruise, whereas your chinny chin chin chin does. Oh and I stopped reading after your second sentence. Oh and gosh golly gee gosh darned it all, I most certainly will not read your response to this gifted wonderland. Darn it. So should you post again, and I know you cannot resist, you will not be able to get the final word in which is something that you live for. You had your chance. You blew it. Ta ta.
god exists? guess and oh please do try try try again

Can you even read though. you are faced with a 16 year old here. you can't win. Its impossible, because a 16 year old is as stubborn as can be and once that deadline closes you will have lost and victory will have been claimed by me. So you can either argue back properly or be a mother f.u.k.i.n.g wank stain, living with his parents till he is forty and asks his mum to do his laundry because jizz stains won't come out his cloths and they weren't your jizz stains they were the jazz stains from your gay friend which got them on to you while you played soggy biscuit.
god exists? guess and oh please do try try try again

I am a devoted theist and I have been sent here by God to prove you wrong. Your whole point revolves around the inconsistent triad which is if evil exists, God is not omnipotent and if he is, he is not benevolent. This makes it hard for people to understand faith but there is a way of bypassing what is considered a "flaw' of religion. My first point is that we need evil to exsperrience goodness and pleasure. In other words you have to know what darkness is before you can understand what light is. You also need to keep in mind that a lot of catholics and christians think it was us that made evil. If you know the story of Adam and Eve we clearly see how we are born to defy Gods laws, we chose to disobey him and eat the forbidden fruit. For most theists we see this as the beginning of evil and we (humans) started it. Don't forget that we also have free will Meaning we can do what ever we want. At one point or another in our life we are mean or horrible to one another. On to my main point now. It simply is that evil and suffering makes us better people. If something is taken away from us we usually want to have it back. This makes us grateful for what we have left. If you are a slave as you had mentioned overtime you realise that you would never want the same misfortune for others. Making you more compassionate for others.
god exists? guess and oh please do try try try again

There is no fricken possible way that this fricken god according to the ridiculous bible that gives people a false sense of hope can possibly exist unless you believe in pure evil and utter hate. This is proven time and time again. Now how sick and perverse does someone have to be? "Man accused of sexual battery of 2-year-old in Chick-fil-A bathroom" - http://www.orlandosentinel.com... - Indeed god knowingly creates maggots like this sick coughed upped sickened diseased puppet s.o.b. to knowingly commit his atrocities and millions like them per year. If god did not like or take grand exquisite pleasure in it, he would not create it. Duh. Wow. That’s not so hard to understand. There's no love in this. Its nothing but pure hate and evil. Now if god is god he could have easily created peace, love, harmony, care for each other. Nah. If he did he'd be out of a job, bored to tears with nothing to do. There'd be no souls to save, no genocides to wage, no atrocities to commit, no axes to grind, no prophets to lie to, no one falsely accuse, no hate nor evil nor pain nor suffering to spread especially unto children, no one to kill, no way to ensue slavery and also make it legal to beat them so that they are barely left for dead, no absurd rules that practically nobody can follow, with all of his anger, wrath, vengeance, rage, fury, jealousy that he's freely admitted to. etc etc etc etc And a supreme deity is going to have jealousy issues? Jealousy is nothing more than anger as disguised fear. All those emotions, especially jealousy are human emotions and are not befitting of any supreme deity. Great going god. Keep up the good work. What other monstrosities can you present man with on a daily basis? Now I honestly hope that you can find the remotest of hints that there is love, care and kindness within this god character guy because then that would be a super major hypocritical contradiction. And the bible is yet chock loaded with a good thousand inconsistencies and supermassive hypocritical contradictions thus making the bible truly unreadable. But that is well known.
Tiger Woods was the best golfer from 1996 to 2009

When always comes up it means you have to look at the statistics of Woods as compared to other golfers. So yes, Woods is still the better golfer. Thank you. One more thing I'm not saying which stats matter most. If you compare and contrast Woods with others he is still the better golfer. Also you go on to say that their amount of skill can be determined upon when they started and you go on to say Tiger Woods at the age of two but just in case you forgot the resolution let me repeat it back to you, "Tiger Woods was the best golfer from 1996 to 2009." His starting at the age of two has nothing to do with it since we are debating the time frame i put up. I don't provide any amount of records? Why don't you wikipedia it? Type in Tiger Woods in wikipedia and you will get your statistics. Best player is evaluated on statistics and Wood's statistics are higher than everybody elses. Also judges don't let him try and say he started early so that was a determining factor. It was but that is not what we are debating. We are debating from the timeframe of 1996 to 2009.
Tiger Woods was the best golfer from 1996 to 2009

"Well, first of all we are debating if he was the best player between the time frame I offered. You have to look at the statistics to determine who is better." I am staying within your timeframe, however your argument implies tiger woods was ALWAYS the best player during that time, however since he sustained an injury during that month in your timeframe, he was unable to play, and thus cannot be considered the best player ALWAYS in the timeframe. You say we need to look at the statistics, but who says which statistics are better? Use the example of kobe and lebron, i could say points are most important whereas you could say rebounds are more importamnt. For you to solely decide which stats matter most is unfair. "Statistics tell that Tiger Woods has set a bunch of records therefore holding him in a higher position and place than other competetors." First, you don't provide any amount of records he has had, furthermore, I still say "best" is in the eyes of the beholder. I can tell you think records determine who is best, I think effort and heart does(sorry if that sounds cheesy). Furthermore, you can extend the fact I say best must be evaluated on equal grounds, so there is no way to evaluate it since different people start at different times. Tiger Woods started wen he was two, whats to say some other dude who played golf since he was two would not do better? "To determine the best golfers they need to have better statistics, the amount of Majors won and PGA tour events won. Tiger Woods, on record, is the one with the most wins in both categories." Once again, he's asserting his own standards of "best player, furthermore, he started playing alot earlier then rookies so its too early to tell.
Tiger Woods was the best golfer from 1996 to 2009

Well, first of all we are debating if he was the best player between the time frame I offered. You have to look at the statistics to determine who is better. If you ask anyone they'd probably say that Tiger Woods is the best golfer in that time period. Statistics tell that Tiger Woods has set a bunch of records therefore holding him in a higher position and place than other competetors. To determine the best golfers they need to have better statistics, the amount of Majors won and PGA tour events won. Tiger Woods, on record, is the one with the most wins in both categories.
Tiger Woods was the best golfer from 1996 to 2009

Burden of the pro: To prove the resolution true Burden of con: To prove it false First: The term "was" implies tw was always the best golfer during that timeframe, which i will disprove, so as long as i prove he wasnt always the best player during that time, i win the round. Tiger woods suffered an injury in 2008 taking him out for the season, and rendering him unable to play golf. Thus, if he was so injured he couldnt even play then obviously he wasnt always the best player duin that timeframe. In order for pro to prove the resolution true, he first has to prove the term "best" can be evaluated. If the term "best" cannot be evaluated, then the resolution defaults to false as there is no way to prove the resolution true. My sole argument is that best is open to one's perception Example: Lebron James vs Kobe Bryant(who is better0 if we evaluate this based on sheer stats, people could argue "Kobe is more determined, or Kobe can knock down shots at the last second therefore he is better," thus making the "best player argument" all the more confusing. For example, lebron has the stats, but kobe has the ability to hit game winners. Even if we evaluated the term best based on game stats, the term would still be unable toe evaluated. For example, lebron might lead in the scoring field, but kobe can lead in the "Most championships or finals mvp department" thus the debate over who is best depends on an individual's perception of which stats matter the most. The only way my opponent can sqeeze out of this is if he somehow manages to prove tiger was so dominant during all of those years that he was in the lead in terms of stats every single year. Second, i would say "best cant be evaluated because before we can determine who is best everyone has to have an equal headstart, while tiger woods started playing when he was twom giving him a huge start. Furthermore, his initial influence gave him huge sponsorhips allowing him better trainers, thus putting him way ahead of other small town boys who perhaps was equally talented but were unable to reach the same heights due to perhaps determinisitc factors.
friends

Thanks for the argument.Friends are not a necessary component in human interaction. Everyone can successfully live and interact with the social environment, even without friends. While friendships have many positive attributes, as pointed out by PRO, there are many alternatives to them which can have a far more effective and positive effect on our lives.Family members and beloved companions can be far more trusted and are also able to offer much more and more effective help than conventional friends. Acquaintances offer an excellent opportunity to have fun and spend time with, while not risking the possibility of being rejected by the person you personally trusted. Any rejection by anyone we trusted has a negative effect on us, therefore Acquaintances offer an low-risk alternative while Family members "offer" an mutually safe and effective relationship.We humans are social animals, this is the reason behind why we have friends in the first place. However, while we may positively profit from friendships, they are not necessary as long as you have a healthy interaction with other humans. General sociality is needed to feel good, this means that you can enjoy and spend time with people who may not be your friends.Friendships take a lot of time to upkeep, but if you're generally social without friends you will have the time necessary to seek pleasure with other people. This in term also enables you to meet more people and gain low-risk, but also low-complexion trust from a wide range of humans, who may come in handy later.Emotional independence is another important thing you gain when you don't seek friends. Because friends are given a lot of trust, which they often misuse or your personality is so dependent on them that you've got a harder time without them. When friends reject you or misuse you, this can have severe negative effects on our psychology.There's also this "chance factor". Namely, chances aren't high you're going to get an ideal friend, too often people make toxic friendships.Toxic friends misuse you and in fact lower your self-esteem and confidence. To worsen the concept further, your friend may introduce you to negative groups or generally have a negative effect on you. I'm sure we've all seen someone who was nice before, but started hanging out with somebody bad and then turned bad himself. Especially in adolescence, where hormones make us incapable of seeing common sense, when in a group these "hormones" are able to make us do dangerous activities. Many people, because of bad friends, despite having no need to, start accessing drugs, alcohol etc.Source:(1) http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
friends

good luck to you too;) ~well friends can make you feel better about yourself/better self esteem and make you happier. for (ex.), me , kylie cunningham has bad self esteem and this is true but being around my friends , having parties , having fun brings me up from the unfortunate battle that me and my mom have that makes me sometime want to harm myself . they make me happy and make me feel that i am someone to them and i feel loved website| http://friendship.about.com...
Gay Marriage should be legal

Thank you for your response. You seem to be a little misinformed about this whole issue. You are correct that there is a higher AIDS rate among gay men, but the reality is that you can also get AIDS and other STD's from the other gender. I don't know why it is more prevalent in the homosexual community, but it can be transmitted to any gender from any gender. Also, before anyone marries, they usually get blood tests to determine whether they do have any STD's. AIDS and other STD's are not generated during sex, one of the partners has to have it in the first place. Also, just because something is bad for your health doesn't mean that it should be illegal. Donuts are bad for your health. TV's are bad for your health. My point is, every time you have unprotected sex with anyone, male or female, you are taking a risk, so we shouldn't single out a specific group of people. If anything, allowing gays to marry will actually decrease the risk for HIV/AIDS in the LGBT community because it will promote monogamous relationships. You also claim that the supreme court of Iowa acted unconstitutionally in allowing gay marriage without a vote of the people or the legislature. I can see where you are coming from, but the point of the judicial branch is to determine if a law is constitutional or fair. It was their prerogative to overturn that law. And you can vote on it in Iowa but you will need enough people to sign a petition. If you can't get enough people to sign the petition than the law probably wouldn't pass anyway. I am looking forward to your response!
Gay Marriage should be legal

I am from Iowa and am very unhappy about this same sex marriage issue. At first i thought it was a great idea let them do what they want it's there choice right... But then my mom gave me some facts and i would like you to think about this...the way that gay men have intercourse is very bad for their health: The AIDs rate in homosexual males is considerably higher than in heterosexual males. This is killing off themselves to fast and they just keep doing it and doing it. Now, people think that when somebody says they are against gay marriage that they hate gay people...not true. I have a cousin who is gay and we get along very well but as I said earlier it is unhealthy for them and they are unaware of the risk that they put themselves in. Also in Iowa the supreme court said it was unconstitutional and that immediatly made it a law which is total BS. it never went through senate or anything and what should have been done is that it should have been brought to a vote We are still pushing for the vote but it is not working. Right now the state of Iowa is turning into a monarchy an that is not right.
Gay Marriage should be legal

Okay, first of all, we're debating gay marriage, not whether Iowa was constitutional. I agree that the people should be able to vote. In Maine, I'm not upset that they voted, I'm upset with the outcome of the vote. In any case, it is unjust to take such a simple, harmless right away from a whole group of people just because of who they are. You may have heard of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. He had a dream that his children would be treated fairly, and not based on the color of their skin. Well I have a dream that my children will be treated fairly. I have a dream that they won't be discriminated against because of what gender they are attracted to. Now, I am in no way comparing myself to MLK Jr. I will never be half the man he was. I am, however, restating his point, because clearly, 52% of Maine voters didn't understand what he meant. He wanted equality for everyone. Just because he was black doesn't mean that was all he stood for. I'm not gay, but I'm also not black, but that doesn't mean that I'd accept their exploitation, and it's the same issue with gays. We are exploiting them, and it is not acceptable.