BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Henry VIII of England was a good king (2)

Round 1: AcceptanceThis is a debate about whether or not King Henry VIII of England was a good king. I will be taking the pro side of this position, and will attempt to prove that Henry VIII was an overall good influence on the country of England. I will be defining "good" as being a beneficial and overall positive influence. The structure of the debate will be as followed: Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: ArgumentRound 3: Conclusion/Rebuttals Note that this debate is to be taken seriously. I am redoing this debate because my previous opponent did not take the debate seriously. Therefore if you are willing to accept this debate, please make sure that you are going to be serious. On a side note, I hope this will turn out to be a fun and interesting debate. Good luck! PS: Whoever loses this debate gets their head chopped off.
gay marriage

I see your point and agree: in some cases, same-sex marriage may offer more disadvantages than benefits. This may have to do with the rights of married people overall, a totally different topic. I agree, in some scenarios, it may not be beneficial for the parties involved to marry their same-sex partner. That is understandable, and no one is forcing them to marry. However, many other homosexuals may want to marry for other reasons, and they should be allowed to. I would suggest a sort of organization to be founded to warn people, homo/hetero-sexual, whether or not marriage might or might not be the best option for them. Of course, no one is forcing you to marry. ALLOWING gay marriage would allow those who want to and can marry to marry, and those who don't wish to don't have to. That is my solution offered, and other concerns are completely valid, but do not belong in this debate. This is the solution I offer: allowing gay marriage cannot hurt anyone, only help. It will be optional, but it WILL be an option. Once again, thank you for the debate, your good conduct and calm, logical demeanor. Good show, I say. I appreciate it. Thank you.
gay marriage

I know when one gets married with another, benefits are passed on to their partner. However, it does not appear to seem to work that same way when it comes to a same –sex marriage. In the article Since When is Marriage a Path to Liberation, Ettelbrick says, "For women… who tend to occupy the low-paying jobs that do not provide health-care benefits at all… will not matter one bit if they are able to marry their women partners" (Ettelbrick 126). She sees that it does not matter if same-sex marriage is legalized or not, because it will still leave women at a disadvantage when getting health or other benefits. This would not only occur in women same-sex marriage, because it also affects same-sex marriage to men. In the article Black Same-Sex Couple Households in the 2000 U.S. Census: Implications in the Debate Over Same-Sex Marriage, it states that according to the 2000 Census data by the anti-same sex marriage, " state and federal constitutional amendments will… affect black same-sex couples… they are already economically disadvantaged compared to black married opposite-sex and white same-sex couples" (Align and Somjen). Ettelbrick, as well as Align and Somjen, show that both genders in same-sex marriage do not benefit as much, or at all, as in a woman and man marriage; but it also shows that with or without legalizing same-sex marriage the couple will be at an economical disadvantage. The main point that I am trying to point out is that if we are allowed to marry our same-sex we will not really find the value of "love" as easy as we do now. Many do just marry just to get married. I do know that there are studies shown on the reasons on why people get married, and in both homosexual and heterosexual marriages, a lot have said that they get marry so that they can stop feeling the pressure of having to marry. I my self am gay 100%. I see that allowing people marry, will cause disadvantages. The divorce rates, and the problems that the society will give when two same-sex couples adopt a child. and how bad of influence we would be giving to them. while i was dating my ex boyfriend i remember going universal studious, and being in a ride holding hands, a lady told me, "I have nothing against gays, but you need to stop holding hands; it is wrong and a bad sign to the public." Just because one is okay with gays or allow same-sex marriage, it does not liberate us from the separate but equal idea. Thank-You for debating with me, and I apologize for not knowing how to post for round 2. -marg-
gay marriage

Well, yes, I understand it will not exactly "liberate" homosexuals, nor will it suddenly change people's opinions about homosexuality. As I said, only time and education may do that. However, I do not see how the right to marry would constrain homosexuals in any ways. As I explained, it actually increases their rights, allowing their relationship to be legally recognized. Of course, there are those who argue against marriage itself, believing it to be constraining. Most of your sources seem to be of that philosophy. While I disagree with that particular philosophy, I respect their point of view and will not debate that topic, for the topic of our debate is one entirely different. Although you argue that marriage may constrict them, it will in fact not. Remember, homosexuals won't be forced to get married. And allowing homosexuals to marry would show children that same-sex marriage is normal, and in fact legal. Legalizing a marriage makes it be official, and shows people there is no difference between a same-sex or "traditional" union. Of course, everyone won't immediately embrace homosexuality, as I said, only time can do that. However, it can increase their rights, and help build tolerance.
gay marriage

This Argument has nothing to do with religion,(on my side, you may use it, if you like) as I know that many religions have different ideas about same-sex marriage. Sorry, but I cannot italicize my words for titles. Same-Sex Marriage should not be legalized because,even if same-sex marriage is legalized, it does not really change the overview opinion of everyone. It will still be seen as a wrongful practice. In the book "same-sex marriage pro and con a reader," there is an article "Since When is Marriage a Path to Liberation?" by Paula Ettelbrick, Paula clearly states that, "First, marriage will not liberate us as lesbians and gay men" (Ettelbrick 123). She shows that just because same-sex marriage is legalized, it won't mean that it wont be frowned upon, and the main goal that she wants gays, as she herself is one, is to be accepted. Being able to legally marry will actually constrict and undermine, rather than strengthen the gay community. "In fact ï¿½€ï¿½make us more invisible, force our assimilation into the mainstream... the goals of gay liberation" (Ettelbrick 123). This goes against the main goal of the homosexuals, which is to be accepted; and what this really does is silence the gay movement. Since marriage is a big practice in almost any country, there are bound to some sort of restriction. Many people just marry just to marry. this also includes gays because, "After all, those who marry can be instantaneously transformed from ï¿½€˜outsiders' to ï¿½€˜insiders'"(Ettelbrick 123). She claims that people just want same-sex marriage to be legalized so that one can marry, and feel accepted. Many gays are in favor for same-sex marriage. But not all them. This is because if same-sex marriage is allowed, one would not "consider the relationship among people with the love and respect for one another" (127). The main thing in this quote is that, those who are gay, and are finally allowed to marry, will run to the altar to be accepted. So gays and lesbians, who don't need any type a legal bonding marriage, will put their beliefs aside because of the sexual oppression that the couple will now have to overcome. how do i post for the next round.
gay marriage

I respect your opinion and am grateful you are also being respectful towards the LGBQT community, not bigoted or hateful. I also thank you for using respectful language and clearly stating your point while acknowledging the opposition. However, I would like to counteract your point by saying, yes, marriage would be helpful to homosexual couples. Couples are essentially recognized as being joined in the eyes of the law through marriage. Spouses may receive consumer, housing, family, death, educational, government and tax benefits. Spouses have benefits like joint adoption and parenting, domestic violence protection orders, and are basically granted all the rights listed under DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act.) That's over 1,400+ rights! In the eyes of the law, this would officialize marriage, and finally allow the same rights of "traditional" marriage to apply to same-sex marriage. This is my argument, that it would allow homosexuals a boatload more rights, and would not constrict them in any way. True, however, it will not lead to homosexuality being more widely accepted. Only time can do that.
gay marriage

This Argument has nothing to do with religion,(on my side, you may use it, if you like) as I know that many religions have different ideas about same-sex marriage. Sorry, but I cannot italicize my words for titles. Same-Sex Marriage should not be legalized because,even if same-sex marriage is legalized, it does not really change the overview opinion of everyone. It will still be seen as a wrongful practice. In the book "same-sex marriage pro and con a reader," there is an article "Since When is Marriage a Path to Liberation?" by Paula Ettelbrick, Paula clearly states that, "First, marriage will not liberate us as lesbians and gay men" (Ettelbrick 123). She shows that just because same-sex marriage is legalized, it won't mean that it wont be frowned upon, and the main goal that she wants gays, as she herself is one, is to be accepted. Being able to legally marry will actually constrict and undermine, rather than strengthen the gay community. "In fact …make us more invisible, force our assimilation into the mainstream... the goals of gay liberation" (Ettelbrick 123). This goes against the main goal of the homosexuals, which is to be accepted; and what this really does is silence the gay movement. Since marriage is a big practice in almost any country, there are bound to some sort of restriction. Many people just marry just to marry. this also includes gays because, "After all, those who marry can be instantaneously transformed from ‘outsiders' to ‘insiders'"(Ettelbrick 123). She claims that people just want same-sex marriage to be legalized so that one can marry, and feel accepted. Many gays are in favor for same-sex marriage. But not all them. This is because if same-sex marriage is allowed, one would not "consider the relationship among people with the love and respect for one another" (127). The main thing in this quote is that, those who are gay, and are finally allowed to marry, will run to the altar to be accepted. So gays and lesbians, who don't need any type a legal bonding marriage, will put their beliefs aside because of the sexual oppression that the couple will now have to overcome.
Abortion ought to be fully legalized

>Thanks to Derelict for his response. >My opponent has already conceded his burden. Extend it. >Again, my opponent has not addressed his own arguments (which he would not have made if he had no burden). To his rebuttals: 1) My opponent offers no justification 2) I choose the fifth definition, entitled "biology," as it pertains to the topic at hand (whether or not the fetus is human). No equivocation by my opponent should be counted. a, b, c) Not rebutted further and therefore conceded. --Voting-- >My opponent does not fulfill his burden >My opponent drops his own arguments >My opponent drops my arguments regarding murder, human rights/fetus' biological status, and the right of the mother to expel a fetus >My opponent does not adequately refute the defining of the fetus >The affirmative has filled the burden given my opponent's drops of definitions >My opponent offers no reason to vote for him >I thank Derelict and urge an affirmation. Thank you
Abortion ought to be fully legalized

I have no burden; I am negating. Because I meet my opponent's contentions you must vote neg. I need not rebut such a topical argument within the confines of an informal debate. I reiterate my point that you did not sufficiently meet my argument and that you must pose your own, being affirmative. Let us delve into my opponent's source, dictionary.com, for further clarification of his arguments. 1) Classifying fetuses as anything other than human is ludicrous. 2) His definition of "individual" is only the FIFTH definition for individual, in subtext. This shows that even he recognizes how insubstantial his claim is. I offer the first THREE definitions to support my argument.... 1. a single human being, as distinguished from a group. 2. a person 3. a distinct, indivisible entity; a single THING, BEING, instance, OR ITEM. abc) I simply used your "warrant" to show the lunacy of your claims. Because his claims are insubstantial and mine stand, you must vote neg. Thank you.
Abortion ought to be fully legalized

>I thank Derelict for his response. >Derelict again says that I have a burden but does not respond to his own. He thus concedes that he does have a burden. >My opponent, though I did rebut his argument, made no mention of it. He thus concedes that his argument is faulty (this shall carry throughout the round). >I now dissect my opponent's response to my arguments: a) My opponent rebuts by saying that fetuses deserve human rights. I define (all from http://www.dictionary.com...) human being: Any individual of the genus Homo Individual (Bio): A single organism capable of independent existence Fetuses are not human beings. Extend. b) Given that a fetus is not considered a human, it does not have the same rights as an adult. c) "By that logic your mother could enter the room at this moment, strangle you with an extension cord, and it wouldn't matter because she made you." This is a strawman argument. I did specify "remove" rather than "strangle." >Good luck.
Abortion ought to be fully legalized

I would like to begin by reiterating my previous point; since my opponent is affirmative, he has the burden of proof and must substantiate abortion's permissibility, regardless of the child's stage of development. "Until born, the fetus has no rights." This is untrue; the fetus ought to have basic human rights. Their rights do not magically appear when they exit the womb, nothing fundamentally has changed when they exit the body, only their location. "Its mother has a right to keep it in her body, therefore it is her choice." Location ought not determine rights; she is an adult, which is merely a term describing human development, as are embryo, fetus, child, adolescent, adult. It is no less abhorrent to "terminate" a fetus than it is an adult. "She always has the right to remove it, alive or not. Didn't she make it anyway?" By that logic your mother could enter the room at this moment, strangle you with an extension cord, and it wouldn't matter because she made you. Tha
Abortion ought to be fully legalized

>I thank Derelict for starting this debate and extend a welcome to him in his first debate on this site. >I accept my opponent's first observation. I amend the second. The Affirmative must prove abortion should be fully legalized. Negative must prove Abortion should not be fully legalized. >On to my opponent's arguments: 1. Valid 2. Valid 3. Invalid Given the arrow rule my opponent is attempting to use, I only have to kill 3 for 4-8 to go with it. Opponent's claim: "Killing a human is considered murder" I define murder: Killing another person with malice Malice: Feeling a need to see others suffer Abortion doesn't involve such a thing. >My argumenT (1,000 cap): Until born, the fetus has no rights. Its mother has a right to keep it in her body, therefore it is her choice. The fetus is essentially a parasite, leeching off of her food. She always has the right to remove it, alive or not. Didn't she make it anyway?
Abortion ought to be fully legalized

Observations... 1. The affirmative must prove that abortion should be legalized regardless of circumstance 2. The affirmative has the burden of proof, therefore if I, the negative, block each contention, you must negate. My arguments... 1. Embryos and fetuses have infinite potential, as do toddlers 2. This potential causes them to have "human" characteristics 3. Killing a human is considered murder 4. Murder is fundamentally wrong, as it removes freedoms from the victim 5. Removal of freedoms is dehumanizing and cannot be tolerated in any society 6. It causes irreversible psychological and, at times, physical trauma to the carrier of the child 7. Adoption is a valid practice and always an option 8a. Rape is not a valid contention for the support of abortion; there are preventative measures that can be taken directly after a rape 8b. The violence of abortion parallels the violence of rape and removes the human's autonomy Thank you, I look forward to an friendly debate
Indian education system needs complete overholling

Oh vidushi, vidushi, you poor, poor soul. Why could you not just keep quiet like all the other little Indian boys. But no, you had to go and speak up, and now unfortunately I'm gonna have to put you down. Like a lamb to the slaughter. Firstly, I don't believe overholling is a word, see that little red line underneath it when you type it? Means it's incorrect. I'm sure you'd know that if you were born white. Secondly your argument makes absolutely no sense at all! Which is why I've had a word to your masters and you will be whipped tonight :( You speak a lot of "coming out" which is giving me the vibe a homosexual agenda is at hand. I pray to habib this is not true. Because if it was, your mother would be raped by five erect stallions and burned at the stake whilst you are forced to witness these events up close.... and master-bate. And if you do not cum by the time she is dead, your "little fella" will be ripped apart by famished dogs. Ah but I know you Vidushi! You are a good little boy, I'm sure you will be fine. This debate however, is not fine. It's it pitiful. Please return to your cage and stay of my bloody computer!!
Indian education system needs complete overholling

I am speaking for the motion .. In our country from the last 60 years no great inventions have been done . This is mainly due to lack of exposure to technology. Students should be exposed to these changing technology so that when they complete their schooling and come out they are ready to explore these technologies .Since we come out to know these things after school or graduation it is difficult to adapt and learning them becomes a great task . So what I am trying to explain here is that children from a small age should be provided with visual and practical learning . I don't know why in India apps like Byjus the best learning apps are not promoted . Which is provided with everything in it . Now my opponent may question me that every subject does not need a practical guidance and theoretical knowledge is the base of the subject , but the visual experience and practical knowledge can help in avoiding the boredom. ( Any rebuttals ) ( this is my first experience )
Organised religion is a force for evil and the world would be much better off without it.

===========================================================================================Organised Religion (noun): religion as a social institution, in which belief systems and rituals are systematically arranged and formally established. It includes but is not limited to: Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, and Buddhism. . http://en.wikipedia.org... Pro must argue in favor of his resolution that organised relition is a force for evil and the world would be much better off without it, which must account for all organised religion. This obviously means that burden of proof is on Pro. Please state your case.
Abortion is a SIN!

When i accepted this debate my intention was not to direct my arguments for the existence of God or not, at the beginning my goal was to defend the right to choose without so many penalties or judgments by religions. In the course, when you expressed your opinion became clear that his intention was distancing itself from what appeared to be the debate. Perhaps if you had been more objective i would not have accepted, because the course of this, i see that this issue should habe been discussed with a Cristian. Regarding your question: "How can you ask when you have not tried ?". I answwer you: I question because i've tried, and the more questions result. Regarding "their claims and arguments ": do not suit me argue, for to do so would be exhausting and unfair, especially when it comes to a Christian who only hears what the whants to hear and see only what you whant to see.
Abortion is a SIN!

I believe this debate has turned in to a debate about whether God exists or not. I will reply on what you said in your earlier argument, but this was not my intention with this debate. First: What do you mean with "Christianity promises everything and accomplished nothing"? God promises heaven, if you promise to follow him. How can you question that, when you haven't tried it? To answer your questions/statements. 1) I don't need proof, that my God exist. I only need faith. Real Christians doesn't need proof. Corinthians 5:7 " We live by faith, not by sight". As soon as you let yourself doubt in God, you're turning to the Devil's side. God is strong and mighty; all the things he has ever done, as only led to good things. But it is a sin to question his words, and his powers. Take a look at Adam and Eve. They had Paradise UNTIL they started questioning God. 2) I assume you're meaning God. The Bible tells us God's point of views. As an example: In Luke chapter 1, verses 36 and 41, the Bible tells us that that Elisabeth conceived a son, and that the baby leaped in her womb. As you can see, God is using the word "baby", not fetus. No, the word "abortion" is not used in the Bible. But we can deduce from the text, that God is against it. God says "Life begins at conception". Therefore, an unborn baby is a living human being. Science does not argue this. Science tells us that human life already begins at the time of conception. Because from the moment fertilization takes place, the child's genetic makeup will already be complete. God says "You shall not kill". As mentioned above, God says that an unborn child is a human being. Therefore, you're killing another human being. You going against the word of God. It is a sin. Conclusion: If you read the Bible carefully, and you understand the references, read between the lines, you will see, that God is against abortion. It is a sin, to kill a Child of God.
Abortion is a SIN!

Religion took a very critical role on abortion putting the very belief of a person against itself, ie handles. And worst of all is that in addition to manipulate, Christianity promises everything and accomplishes nothing is based on uncertainties. Does a religion like that deservers so much credibility? Regarding your opinion 1) We're not sure if Good really exise; 2) What if exists, (I believe it does), we can not know what he wants, so i think it would be frivolus to say: "the eyes of God", "only he can decide. " In my design, we can not prove orassert that abortion or anything else is uncertainty based sin. We can say that is inhumane, cruel or something, but do not sin.