BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It should be illegal to have sex till married

Many of the reasons as to why I should be the winner of this debate are almost too self-explanatory, so I'll try to make this quick.Conduct Vote: You, the judges, will give me the conduct vote with the consideration that my opponent has forfeited the final round of this debate, and I have been completely punctual to this debate to the very end of it. Observation 2: Since my opponent made no attempt to argue against my observations, they're completely extended across the flow, and when we analyze the entirety of my opponent's case, we realize that he has done absolutely nothing in order to uphold the burdens of his case. I have shown you through my evidence as to why this law is infeasible, impractical, and has no sort of moral justifications in the context of philosophy whereas my opponent hasn't even given you a shred of evidence to make you believe that anything that he's saying is right. Human Rights: My opponent is totally conflicted about human rights. He said earlier that it was fine to limit the slightly but then became a staunch advocate of these said rights, which contradicts his earlier statements. He talks about how children would be better off with this law in the future, but again, he has provided no evidence that it will be functional, and then under the scenario where even under this law where a girl gets pregnant before marriage, my opponent's world would not like to provide any sort of remediation in order to solve the problem.Gay rights: Then, the argumentation of gay rights also shows you the inequality of the law because at the point where gays cannot get married everywhere and have no interest in getting married with the members of the opposite sex, there's no way for gay people to have sex amongst the members of the same sex. This law is completely discriminatory against LGBT groups.
It should be illegal to have sex till married

Arguments about America: It's clear at this point that my opponent has not even the slightest understanding of his own resolution. Nowhere in his resolution does it specify looking at America in perspective alone, meaning that arguments and examples from Iraq and Iran are plausible. The content of the evidence provided in the Iraq and Iran cards, however, are ubiquitous in that it gives us a glimpse into human behavior and reactions to law, and when we're looking at the quality of the law in question, we realize that laws that try to ban and prohibit premarital sex are ineffective in the scope of succeeding in stopping it. Human Rights: Nowhere did my opponent say that we should make human rights looser. If you go back to Round 2 of the debate, he says clear as day that human rights are not worth having and even advocates hurting them slightly because people hurt them so much anyway. He's now attempting to protect human rights of children. This is totally contraditory to his initial position. My opponent clearly doesn't support adoption or abortion, but at the point where I've proven that the law like the one my opponent is making doesn't work, my opponent has provided absolutely no evidence that it can work, and accidents can happen in premarital sex, does my opponent have another option when it's implied that the ones engaging in premarital sex do not have the means to support a child? All of this provides to you, the judges, an idea of how seriously ill-conceived my opponent's law is and how much he is failing to uphold the burdens on his side of the case. Gay Marriage: Whether gay marriage should be legalized or not is a different debate entirely, but at the point where the idea of his law is to prevent children from suffering these problems of having incapable parents, this law isn't remotely applicable to gay and lesbian intercourse, which doesn't produce children, and because of the fact that they cannot get married (unless they get married to someone of the opposite sex, which they don't want to do at all, and they'll have to have sex with other people outside of wedlock, which is contradictory to the principles of a functional marriage), they aren't allowed to have sex at all, meaning that this law is inherently discriminatory to LGBT patrons of the society. My opponent states that because the majority supports a decision, this means that this is right in America, which is just an ad Populum fallacy argument considering that can be applied to so many immoral and cruel things that have occurred in America (since this is the scope he's looking at and whatnot), including slavery, Japanese internment, and other such positions.Questions about his case: We should also take notice of the fact that my opponent answers to not a single one of my inquiries about his law proposal...
It should be illegal to have sex till married

1. But Iraq and Iran do not have the legal systems of America 2. I said we should make human rights looser not that they shouldn't exist also you were just defending human rights and are now going against them and attacking me for doing exactly what your doing hypocrisy much and so the human rights of your children and grandchildren don't matter? Also why should the child have to die with abortion because of the parents foolishness or suffer with adoption which can be a horror for children? 3. Well if the Americans don't want gays to get married than they don't want them to be considered equal in that sense and because majority rule that's not a bad thing. Law: If the majority likes it in America where majority rules than by law it should pass.
It should be illegal to have sex till married

Point 1: I think my opponent just agreed with me in the point that we're looking at the scope of the entire world. This is why evidence from Iran and Iraq are totally fine in the scope of this debate and why punishments that could result from premarital sex could include capital punishment. This is not the point however. The point is that I have proven to the judges that these laws that try to stop premarital sex don't really do anything in order to deter premarital sex, even with something as severe are capital punishment. Point 2: Let us remember that this is coming from the very same person who just said that we shouldn't have human rights. Now, he's trying to protect the human rights of the child that MAY result from premarital sex when he just said that hurting human rights wouldn't be too bad because people already abuse them way too much. He's clearly contradicting himself in his reasoning. I contend that my opponent's scenario is all under the assumption that a child will result inevitably from premarital sex, and at the point where we're analyzing a scenario where two people are about to have sex out of wedlock, the human rights that are important are the ones of the humans that currently exist, i.e, the two about to have sex. I have already said adoption, abortion, and contraceptives can solve for these problems anyway if a child does result from the premarital sex. Point 3: This really doesn't make sense. The main point of my opponent's law is to protect children, but sex between gays and lesbians doesn't procure children, so the law doesn't even apply to their sex. Furthermore, if the requirement to have sex is to be married first when gay marriage is currently not legal everywhere in the United States, it means that gay people are prohibited from having sex at all. This creates an inherently discriminatory scenario because in my opponent's world, only heterosexual people will be eligible to have sex. This is not equality in any way, shape, or form. Questions about the feasibility of this law: With the morality aspects covered in the debate, we can move on toward the practicality portion. My opponent has procured no evidence whatsoever to prove that his law would be functional. My opponent has procured no reasoning or ideas about how this law would even be implemented, or how police officers or other authorities would be able to catch people having or about to have premarital sex. My opponent has procured no information about how this law will be funded--unless you count increasing taxes and placing more burden on taxpayers as a way to procure funding for this plight. My opponent has procured no evidence that this law would actually deter people from having premarital sex, in contrast to what I have shown you. Basically, the entirety of my opponent's entire case is unfounded by anything except logical fallacies and assumptions, showing to you, the judges, that my evidence and case is much stronger than my opponent's.
It should be illegal to have sex till married

Point 1: The problem with my opponent's argument is that the resolution doesn't specify any particular region of the world to look at, meaning that the scope of the resolution implies a ubiquitous perspective for analyzing the question at hand. Point 2: Even if my opponent actually had evidence to the idea that most people abuse human rights, the reasoning is completely fallacious. He says that because rights are violated so much, we might as well continue to violate them. That doesn't make any sense because if the aim is to provide as many rights as possible to people, they should be enforced, not violated or neglected in any way. Human rights are important because they are the warrant to stop many injustices done against people by corrupted governments, rebellious organizations, non-state actor, and many other things detrimental and immoral to the human population.Point 3: First, how would this then apply to the gays, bisexuals, and lesbians in any way? If this is your main reason or one of your main reasons for this law? Also, is there not abortion, contraceptives, and adoption if maintaining the life of the child is necessary?
It should be illegal to have sex till married

1. It is not infeasible to make this law it would simply state that any two people gay, bi, or strait caught have premarital sex will be sent to jail and go through the legal system not exactly in that order and if the female has become pregnant from the happening then she will be kept until she has the baby then will be put in jail and the child left with another person until a parent is freed. 1. a. I don't know about you but I don't live in Iran the outcome would be very different in the West if people break the law it gets tightened the punishment gets worse. 2. Human rights are not worth having most people abuse them so it wouldn't hurt to limit them slightly 3. It is better for the child if they have one studies prove that a child with married parents has a better chance living a much better life.
It should be illegal to have sex till married

Before continuing, some parameters should be established for the debate at hand: Observation 1: The resolution does not specify a specific region or country at which to analyze this, meaning that a global perspective should be taken when analyzing this debate. Observation 2: By stating the term "illegal" in this debate, the PRO implicitly takes on the challenge of proposing a law that makes premarital sex illegal. Henceforth, many of the burdens of the PRO would include the following: -Providing a feasible model of a law that will detain premarital sex. -Providing a practical and moral justification for the coming of the law. Conversely, for the CON, the objective is prove the opposite of the PRO's burdens. This determines the winner of the said debate. I move toward my main points. Contention 1: A law banning premarital sex is infeasible and unnecessary. Aside from the possible moral repercussions of the law and questions thereof, we analyze the idea of a law barring premarital sex and realize that the idea of it is infeasible, comparing current laws to attempt to reduce premarital sex. Sub-point 1a: Laws against premarital sex are ineffective. The laws in Iran banning premature sex, where premature sex is a crime punishable by capital punishment or corporal punishment, prove the ineffectiveness of the measure considering the rise of youth engaging in premarital sex, as Newser reports: "Iran’s Islamic law bans premarital sex and abortion, but an increasing number of Iranians are engaging in both, the Guardian reports. More than a quarter of men aged 19 to 29 had premarital sex, and 13% of those situations resulted in the termination of an unwanted pregnancy, a state survey found. The average age of marriage spiked to 40 for men, 35 for women. The figures represent a setback for Tehran’s efforts to promote weddings, dialed up after the marriage rate dipped an unprecedented 1.2% in 2005. The government blamed the “unpleasant and dangerous social side effects” of premarital sex, but many Iranians cite economic hardship. One sociologist posits that working, educated women are unlikely “to accept masculine domination through marriage. ”Contention 2: Anti-premature sex laws are immoral because they violate human rights. I contend that the human body is the property of the individual, and as human rights contend, humans have their right to their property, meaning that a prohibition of laws against premature sex violate human rights.
It should be illegal to have sex till married

I believe it should be illegal to have sex till marriage because it will help lower teen pregnancy and abortion ratings. Also because studies have shown children born in wedlock live better easier lives. And because sex is something special not something to be thrown around to a hundred people in a night. People used to save their virginity for one person and it was important to them now people try to get rid of it so fast it could be mistaken for poison. we should do something to stop it.
nature cant come from god, but supernature can only come from nature

thats the thing im gettting at. you are not an atheist, there are no atheists as far as i know belief is theism, science is a belief system i can at best believe what others tell me there is no such thing as accepting you dont know and disbelieving.. they necessarily and obviusly contradict each other.. if you disbelieve, you are as much and agnostic as a theist
nature cant come from god, but supernature can only come from nature

Pro has simply and entirely conceded the crux of my argument. As Pro was non-specific, I assumed I would be able to prove that the supernatural is false, yet Pro has changed the rules amidst the debate. Thus, I presume this as concession. Furthermore, Pro has *dropped* my contentions on metaphysical and biological impossibility of that which is supernatural emerging from nature. I extend all my arguments. The resolution remains negated. I request Pro to confirm or deny their concession in the following round.
Flag Burning

I am pro flag burning. I believe that (especially with current issues) people should be allowed to express themselves, even if that means burning a flag. If you paid for the flag you should be able to do what you want with it. If this is how you choose to express yourself then so be it- Freedom of expression my friend. Additionally, I believe if that means to induce anger by burning a political symbol to express your anger with the government; go right ahead. Who am I to judge? If you need to do something radical in order to get the attention of those who ignore your struggles, when it comes to political injustice I encourage you to do so. To spur political debate and to get people's attention in order to bring justice to whatever problem that seems to be happening.
Anti gay rights laws are the new jim crow and anti jew laws. And no more justified.

ATTENTION: My opponent has been banned from debate.org for reason of personal attacks here. However, he has posted an argument in the comments section, so if you still wish to vote for him, please do so. Firstly, I would ask you to quote me correctly if you want to continue with your style of taking my words and saying something about them. Secondly, homosexuality, no matter how much you wish to believe it, is not natural. If it was natural, homosexuals could sustain themselves like a regular population of organisms. However, this is simply no so. Natural means abiding by the laws of nature. By disregarding one of the key aspects of survival, sustaining of your own population, you can easily say it is not natural. Yes, it occurs in the population. But it is just like a disorders and the like. I compared murderers to homosexuals in the sense that they are both perversions what is right, nothing else. Also, bnet.com says that 47% of AIDS victims are black. Can some of those blacks also be homosexuals? This still proves my point. Also, the quote I gave from my friend is not a statistic, merely a go along quote to my point that they were, and still are a leading carrier of the AIDS virus. You cannot compare a wheelchair and homosexuals. I have no inkling as to any link between these two topics. Nazis marching in public are fully clothes, and in a very organized manner. Homosexual parades (trust me, look at my location in my profile) are usually rowdy demonstrations of what gays do in the bedroom, and what they wear there. This has no place in public, and I believe that they are only given the right to be rude in public because again, they are granted the "minority" card. In conclusion, giving rights to people is all good and well. However, would our forefathers: Thomas Jefferson, Sam Adams, George Washington, approve of these decisions? They believed rights was good for a population. They were for a government that did not strip these liberties from the normal citizen. However, they did not envision a land where the government helped these people become an acceptable part of the population. In all, your points of comparing homosexuals to admired groups such as the civil rights marchers are nothing but nonsense.
Anti gay rights laws are the new jim crow and anti jew laws. And no more justified.

Your point that anti-gay rights laws actually exist are delusional. However, anti-gay marriage laws do exist. And I will attempt to show why, and why anti-gay laws should be enacted as to protect ourselves and the moral fiber of our society. My first point is simple nature. Gays are outcasts in human society because of the gross deviation practiced and exhibited by homosexuality. Everything each sex represents (i.e Masculinity in men) is shunned and turned on it's ear by the homosexual culture. This is wrong in the pure sense of nature, and therefore is wrong. Homosexuality is a (my own personal opinion on science is stated here, not proven fact) genetic-inherited affliction that needs to be cured and erased from humanity. They serve no purpose to society except contributing to the increasing sense of degeneracy in our society today. If we allow gays to have their parades and shenanigans in public now, what will become of us later? Will pedophilia suddenly become a group that starts to vouch for their rights? Homosexuals are a minority for a reason, and I sincerely hope it will remain so. My second point is that homosexuals do nothing more than contribute to the decay of moral fiber in the United States, which I presume is the only country we are currently speaking of. Homosexuals are one of the biggest groups prone to aids and all types of sexual diseases. It is also the gateway that has led to other groups becoming more bold and asking for rights, like transsexuals and trans genders. Sick people like this need not be even listened to. These are all diseases we should look down upon and try to cure. To end my first retort, I will say that to compare that to the love a man feels for a woman, is an insult to millions of years of human evolution. Using deconstruction as a technique of inquiry serves no purpose but to reduce humanity to the least common denominator. The only purpose people have in insisting equal rights for homosexual relationships is the total breakdown of the traditional family unit. I will end that saying gays do not deserve to destroy the psyche of a child by adopting legally. And neither do they deserve any of the rights the rest of society deigns fit for normal people. Gays are not black people, or jews, which are people just like you or me. They are a deviant group of like minded individuals who can only hurt our society.
War Scenario: United States vs Any Country

1. The large forces were deployed from Japan. The US Recon satellites had detected China's mobilization, and responded by preparing mobilization from Japan. 2. The movement to Guangzhou and Zhanjiang were from Yulin, and the powerful reinforcements, as mentioned, overpowered Chinese control over the South China Sea. 3. How were Palawan and "Chang Chunigi" attacked without a powerful United States response? None of the missiles deployed were mentioned; you just sent a squadron of aircraft. But forces of the United States had mobilized across the South China Sea, thus allowing swift reinforcements. The DEFCON-2 threat level extends to American military bases all across the world, and thus these were prepared. And the forces of the SC Sea that attacked Yulin had retreated to Palawan (the closest naval base). This too is unrealistic. 4. The powerful United States forces faced damage but took a longer route beyond the Philippines, through the SC Sea instead, to reach Zhanjiang. The numbers of the air supremacy missions were NOT mentioned, and therefore they were small compared to the reinforcements sent from Japan, the Philippines and Singapore. 5. I only attacked the control centers of Yulin, essentially disabling the structure, and tearing through the base infrastructure. The personnel were targeted primarily. 6. Palawan is in the Philippines. The warships were redeployed "past the national waters of the Philippines", and formed a defensive line across the Philippines. 7. How did you deploy so many naval forces in a day from the North Fleet? 8. What is the "Yellow Fleet"? Thus, what you have said is unrealistic as well, and my arguments were FAIRLY realistic, and MORE REALISTIC THAN YOUR ARGUMENTS. July 1st, 2015: Beijing, People's Republic of China: The United Nations has imposed severe economic sanctions on China, forcing it to economic withdrawal. The Chinese Premier and the General Security of the Communist Party are forced to withdraw their troops from the South China Sea. July 21st, 2015: Washington D.C., United States The United States gets a message from China involving its official surrender. July 22nd, 2015: Chinese forces are withdrawn from international waters and diplomatic relations resume. Note: Since you have left the debate, you cannot post an argument in Round 5. Leaving the debate has been considered official surrender.
War Scenario: United States vs Any Country

I'm sorry, but I am quitting this debate for how unrealistic you have made it. There is no way that you would have been able to reach Zhanjiang without first having to go threw the Lanzhou straits north of the Philippines which I have already stated were under PLC control and were defended by the three largest navies the PLN had to offer. Secondly, how did you get to Guangzhou if the South China Sea was under PLC control, also, I had previously stated that constant air supremacy missions were being taken in the area and it appears as if you just swept them aside. Thirdly, how on Earth could you deploy that many aircraft when the two largest American airfields in the area were destroyed. Where did this new American fleet come from? Palawan was destroyed, remember?! Yulin you do realize is a MASSIVE area, and that it would take weeks to destroy all of its military capabilities? Finally, I did not invade the Philippines, I just positioned my navy north of their border. I cannot continue on in this debate with such unrealistic actions being taken. Thank you.