BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay marriage ought to be legal.

I don't believe that anyone has claimed that the world is "completely homosexual" - in fact, the majority of the people in the world appear to be heterosexuals. Once again, I am looking for a reason as to why gay marriage should not be allowed. You gave a religious assertion, but have not backed it up, and your other arguments seem to be inadequate. At this point, I won't be afforded with the opporitunity to formally respond to what you say, but I would just like to reaffirm the idea that, ultimately, preserving our liberty is more important than instituting conservative Christianity as the law of the United States. It was fun :)
Gay marriage ought to be legal.

Well, I can certainly say as much about your reasoning. Certainly natural selection is a debate for another time, however it does offer some great reasoning why this world isn't completely homosexual. The idea that you or I will ever find an answer to this is futal. I will say that the directions we choose in life, straight or gay, are personal. They do not have anything to do with government or her laws. It is my opinion that America will choose on its own, as it has done for years, and I firmly believe that there will be no gay marriage.
Gay marriage ought to be legal.

You assert that marriage was "birthed from God". You assert that this therefore implies gay marriage is not acceptable. You assert that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah supports your interpretation (the Jews may want a word with you on that issue). You assert that conservative Christianity is true. I am not looking for your assertions - I can infer those from what you have already said. What I am looking for is arguments, logic, and proof. Your argument rests on these assertions being true, so it is critical that you then give me evidence to support them. As a sidenote, "natural selection" is just favourable heritable traits becoming more common as the generations pass on by. If homosexuality is not subject to negative natural selection pressures, you cannot "scientifically" demonstrate that it will just disappear. In fact, homosexuality may not be subject to direct selection pressures at all. Regardless of whether homosexuality will or will not someday disappear from humanity, however, this is not a relevant consideration to our discussion: natural selection is not a *normative* consideration. It isn't as though species have a set plan and those who stray from that plan are "punished" by some magical force. In fact, human societies are larger and more prosperous than they have ever been at any point in history - if you are trying to say that our "noncomformance" to some magical "natural order" is going to result in our demise, you ought to pick a different time period to make such a grand statement! Once again, until you can prove that your conservative Christian outlook is true, nothing you say seems to particularly matter: I can just as easily claim, by fiat, that God agrees with me. If we don't provide logical or empirical support for our statements, debate becomes meaningless.
Gay marriage ought to be legal.

Well, you bring up some interesting points and still some that aren't quite valid. I would assert that whether America has laws or not they are subject to the human being interpreting them. Therefore, the American system is thoroughly flawed as all human beings are. There is absolutely no argument to this issue when you recognize the beginning of marriage. As I stated previously, marriage was birthed from God and as such there can be no other form other than Man and Wife. And, just as in constitutional law there are examples so to does the bible offer examples. I think the most profound and widely used is the idea of Sodom and Gomorrah. This example is certainly used more than any other however it sets a precedent, that is a town where debauchery and things which God called impure took place and he torched it. I think certainly the biggest argument against Gay marriage is the old adage that, a square peg does not fit in a round hole. Despite what progressive america says there is a natural order-Darwin called it natural selection. The idea that the majority will rule. When a species does not conform to the main idea they will be pushed away-to the point that they will become extinct. Therefore, gay marriage being the outsider and unnatural in humankind cannot last. Now, whether you take the scientific view that homosexuals cannot last in a world of heterosexuals or the idea that marriage does not exists without religion, I think that it really doesn't matter what the American government thinks or does. The government, as it always does, has its hands in the pockets of its citizens when it has no business. This issue as with many others cannot be governed by anyone except God. I say this because even the constitution refers to the Bill of Rights as God given rights. If the founding fathers felt that God has given us rights then certainly the question should be raised as to whether the first amendment is even legal. How can a superior being, a being that judges and grants rights be judged by humans. Sorry, I got off on a tangent.
Gay marriage ought to be legal.

Well, this is my first debate on this network and I will certainly try and not make it my last. I recently posted a comment on another debate that pertains to this same issue. That comment is this: The arguments have go on for quite sometime with this issue and really are lacking some fundamental ideas. One, what is marriage? Two, who developed the idea of marriage? Three, what purpose/role does the Unites States government or any other government have in determing rights for married people? I am going to start out of order as I believe question two is the most important. Two, the idea of marriage was not started by government for the benefit of anyone. In fact, marriage is a religious idea, as it is reported in the bible to be ordained by God. This is the case no matter what religion you purport to practice. Christianity seems to take the brunt of this argument, as America was started by more christians than any other religion and it continues to be that way. You will also notice that the muslim faith is based on the same idea that marriage is given by God. One, what is marriage? This question can be answered only after you understand the second. If you understand that marriage is not of government origin and can only be granted by God, then one can only say that requirements for marriage are biblical based. Therefore, marriage is between one man and one woman. It cannot be any other way. Three, since my argument is based on the idea that government has absolutely no role to play in the determination of marriage, then what role does the government have in determing rights. Well, here's the crux of the whole thing, they do. Why? Government is of course representative of the people and its wishes, therefore, if a majority of citizens do not feel it's right to allow gay marriage then they don't. The government as a representative of its people must do as the people want and it's majority rule. Now that I've said all this you can see I don't have a conventional way of debating this topic, but it's honest. I honestly don't care if gays/lesbians are married or live together. However, because I do believe that if one is in the christian faith then they cannot be married and be gay.
Racial/Religious Profiling Is a Rational Political Stance

Before I start any rebuttals or arguments I would simply like to state the full resolution: Religious and Racial Profiling In Immigration is a Rational Political Stance. Now let us take a closer look. It says immigration yes? I would like to point out that my opponent has done no arguing or planning in immigration as of yet. My opponent argues that racial profiling is a rational response to patterns of criminal behavior. In the context of street-level crime, his argument rest on the assumption that minorities—used in this context to refer to African Americans commit most murder related and other street-level crimes, and that many, or most, street-level criminals are in turn African Americans. Thus, the argument continues, it is a sensible use of law enforcement resources to target African Americans in this context. Well according to Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. at 806 case the U.S. Supreme Court has held that racial profiling violates the constitutional requirement that all persons be accorded equal protection of the law.[4] And as such racial profiling is already illegal to do. The "Guidance Regarding the Use of Race By Federal Law Enforcement Agencies" that was issued by the U.S. Department of Justice in 2003 states: "Racial profiling" at its core concerns the invidious use of race or ethnicity as a criterion in conducting stops, searches and other law enforcement investigative procedures. It is premised on the erroneous assumption that any particular individual of one race or ethnicity is more likely to engage in misconduct than any particular individual of another race or ethnicity. Racial profiling in law enforcement is not merely wrong, but also ineffective. Race-based assumptions in law enforcement perpetuate negative racial stereotypes that are harmful to our rich and diverse democracy, and materially impair our efforts to maintain a fair and just society.[5] This is simply stating that racial profiling is an ineffective and nearly useless way to “help” with stopping crime as it inhibits investigative procedures. [1]http://www.ohrc.on.ca... [2]http://www.civilrights.org... [3]http://www.civilrights.org... [4] https://supreme.justia.com... [5] http://www.usdoj.gov....
Racial/Religious Profiling Is a Rational Political Stance

This debates purpose is to show that Racial profiling can have a rational and viable point. 1) Plan The first thing I want to discuss is the context in which this can be used properly. I don't want their to be a misconception with the fact that this has to be applied objectively across the board. Meaning what I'm proposing would not be applied categorically to one race or religion. Example : Blacks have high crime ratios, so let's profile all blacks That is not a great idea, and could lead to a majority of issues. With a little research, we can break this down to area based statistics, and from there categorically place people. Detroit has the highest crime rate in the US[1] . Ironically most of the crime in Detroit such as homicides and murders comes from African American communities, which led to nearly 60-70% of the total crime that occurred[2][3]. So what we can see is that Detroit has the highest crime rate in the US, and a great deal of that crime is caused and occurs in African American communities. One bad apple doesn't make the tree bad, and it's wrong to categorically call all African American criminals. What is not wrong is to acknowledge that it's an objective fact that African Americans are responsible for a vast majority of the crime. That does not correlate or entail that all African Americans are bad, but it does give us a starting ground for how to mitigate crime. Now if you assigned patrols to look over and watch these areas, and specifically check African Americans due to the the high crime margins. You can and will prevent crime. Just out of basic stats. If 70% of the crime is caused by African Americans, profiling them and setting patrols up in a specific area where crime is an issue will mitigate crime. Not just that but it's logical to think this Conclusion I would go further into this, but that is all I really need to do to uphold the resolution. I will respond more depending on my what my adversary argues, but if you scale this logic out, it's rational to profile people based on race and religion, if you target it and do it properly because it will objectively mitigate some crime. [1] http://lawstreetmedia.com... [2] http://newobserveronline.com... [3] https://www.fbi.gov...
Racial/Religious Profiling Is a Rational Political Stance

I'm going to spend some time trying to structure this debate, and will update it as the days progress. I actually have some free time to finish a debate since I have a few days off for the new year. Been wanting to do this for a while and since I can actually input effort, I look forward to this. If you find a way to accept this without my permission, you will suffer a full FF and automatic loss. Full Resolution - Religious and Racial Profiling In Immigration is a Rational Political Stance. Religious and Racial Profiling - Profiling someone based on their Region of Birth, Race, Religion, etc. Rational - Agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible:Rational (2) - Having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good senseThis debate is based on the concept of religious and racial profiling in regards to immigration. Meaning this debate is centered around the belief that people of certain areas or religions that are high risk would undergo a more strict process to enter into the country. The debate extends this to the extent that it is considered a rational political stance. Structure First round is acceptance and no new arguments in the last roundRulesRules1. No forfeits2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. No trolling5. No semantics 6. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add definitions7. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss.8. No "K's" on the topic.
Racial/Religious Profiling Is a Rational Political Stance

Sorry I had literally 30 minuets to post the last round so just threw it together, but now that I have more time we can go more in detail with this. I'm going to apply the same argument I used it before and scale it to immigration which is part of the topic, but first rebuttals. Rebuttal ) My adversaries entire case is that racial profiling is "ineffective", so it's not rational to believe it. What I think he is trying to argue is that it is unconstitutional. He never made a case for why it was ineffective but basically tried to establish a civil right case under the Constitution. Not everything under the constitution is right, it's not a holy book with words written that are perfect and forever timeless. The constitution in and of itself has been amended countless times. If we all went by federal law or never challenged it, abortion would still be illegal. People thought gay marriage was rational and it was changed from the status quo. There have been many things that were federal laws and under the constitution that have been appealed and changed. My adversary is committing an appeal to authority, and using the federal government / constitution as the authority. He has not even built a case to show why it's not rational or logical. His entire argument is "because it's breaks the laws in place" it is not rational. To even have a chance at this argument standing he would have to show why it's wrong to believe this, not that it's just against the law. Also just a side note, even if he did establish it is deplorable to believe this, that would not necessitate that it is irrational. Torture is deplorable and we have used it rationally to save many lives. So there are very bad things that are deplorable , that are rational Reforming and Scaling the argument ) We know Muslim immigrants are a threat. Reducing the harm by from targeted areas such as iran, syria, etc by using profiling as a guideline would help mitigate crime in the say was I stated above. If you target an area that has high crime issues, by profiling you will at least reduce the crime by some margin. If you reduce crime and stop danger, it is rational to believe it is a good idea. Thus affirming the res Conclusion I would go more into this but it's not needed for this debate 1) my adversaries entire case is an appeal to authority which is not viable in debate and is a logical fallacy 2) he has yet to even show why racial profiling is even bad. 3) IF he has not show it is bad, he has not even remotely begun to show that it is not rational I showed the logic and how it could be considered rational to believe it, thus I have affirmed the res.
Android Is Better than Apple

Well then let me get this out of the way You don't need a new phone to update your operating system on an Android Phone. You can have an Android phone for 10 years and you wont need a new one if you keep it in good shape but seriously you don't need a new phone just to update as androids put out updates for their current existing phones. Apple does not have a faster charger, neither Android as they are both charged by USB wall adapters but the USB cable in an Apple charger is differently fitted than a Micro USB. Yes maybe that you fit in the Micro USB one way but they are much cheaper to buy than the Apple ones as the Apple ones only work for the Apple devices and only specific devices to do with apple in the first place. Apple are more expensive because they are more advertised and people will get them anyway because you get judged by what phone you have.
Android Is Better than Apple

I believe that apple is better than android. First of all you can get ios 10 with a iphone 5 that is three years but with android you need a new phone every time you simply need a new phone. Apple also has a faster charger and you can plug it in both ways which is much easier than finding the right way first. Apple are more expensive because they are simply better unless you compare it with samsung which is about the same price. So what do you say to that?
Frenchmoose is the best debater and most valuable person to this website

I negate the resolution, "Frenchmoose is the best debater and most valuable person to this website." Clarification: frenchmoose - http://www.debate.org... Frenchmoose is not the best debater on this website. Currently, frenchmoose has lost twenty-four debates, tied one, and won none. Another debater, theLwerd, has over two hundred wins and less losses than frenchmoose. Thus, frenchmoose is not the best debater on this website. Frenchmoose is also not the most valuable person to this website. According to his post count on the forums, he has only posted approximately thirty comments. These comments don't even contribute much to the topic or the website as a whole. Members like Volkov and I-am-a-panda are much more valuable to this website in terms of post counts and political discussions. FREEDO is also valuable in the aspect that he brings more people to this site. Thus, frenchmoose is not the most valuable person to this website. If it wasn't for Phil, we wouldn't even have this website. So, this proves even more that frenchmoose is not the most valuable person to this website. "Without frenchmoose this website would be a horribly boring website that no one but politically obsessed people would be interested in." Well, frenchmoose does not contribute much to debates or the forums. This site has been exciting and fun without frenchmoose. I'd like to see you prove that this website would be horribly boring without frenchmoose. By the way, not everyone on this website is politically obsessed. Simply look at the input of other forum topics and debates that do not involve politics. You will find many of them. The resolution is negated. Thank you.
The value of family is degrading in America, and this is a Bad thing

Family has always been a foundation in society, any society. When that foundation crumbles, children, which are tomorrows leaders, will not have been taught the basics of manners. Aristotle once said that a resilient middle class is the salvation of society. Well the family is the salvation of the middle class. in 2012, the federal government said that 40.7 of all births in America were out of wedlock. That is completely insane! A child needs both of his parents to mature completely. Without a mother, there is generally less of a compassionate side, or an insecurity. Without a father, they are generally less "tough" and decisive. Now there are compassionate fathers and tough skinned mothers, but that is just a generalization. Is not the "American Dream" to become successful, grow old with your soulmate, and then let your kid care over you? If your child doesn't respect you, they will not care for you. Look at the History of the World. In the nations were the family was he strongest, the nation traditionally perseveres. Look at the nations in Africa, The children are stolen from their homes, made child soldiers and slaves. They are scarred. The nations in Africa were once great, but now they have been overcome by warlords. In fact, the slavery in America was mostly due to Africans kidnapping other Africans, and then selling them as slaves to reopens looking for cheap labor. An issue that divided our country was due to the crumbling of the family. A child learns to fend for himself/herself from the mother and father and their siblings. In America, the moral values and home experience of children is decreeing, and that is one reason we are in the mess we are in now. We always feel sorry for orphans, but in some cases, the family a child is in is not compassionate, firm, or even a complete family. This needs to be fixed. The crumbling of a family is a bad thing.
The value of family is degrading in America, and this is a Bad thing

I believe that the family is being broken in America. there are several problems for this, and several repercussions. round 1 is acceptance round 2 is opening arguments round 3 is Rebuttals round 4 is closing statements Cites are appreciated, but not completely necessary. I understand that in many occasions, this debate will come from the person, and not society.
The value of family is degrading in America, and this is a Bad thing

First of all, when you say that the degrading of the family is not a bad thing, let me say this. In a family in where two homosexual parents have custody of an adopted child, psychologists have stated that they have troubles growing up, making friends, and accepting some parts of society. That is because a child was meant to have a mother, and a father. When they disconnect with their parents, they don't listen to any knowledge that they have to share and to prepare the for when they have to support themselves. And a friend give more comfort than advice. There is a lot of stupid advice that a friend can give, even when given with good intentions. I never sit at the dinner table with my family, we watch TV and eat. But we do have a strong connection. You are confusing the value of the family with the traditional stereotypical view of a strong family. And really? the moral values of America are not changing? you must live in a sheltered neighborhood. America has always had its problems, but right now we are going back into drug acceptance, like the 60s and 70s. We are becoming more of a casual encounter type of society. With easy internet accessibility, people can look up things that they shouldn't. There are exceptions to this, but mainstream usage has problems with this. Have you been to a grocery store lately? If you have, you will see children whining and complaining, throwing thins. And this is acceptable for small children but i see this in 6 year olds, and they are too old for that. And every family has its values, but they are lessening, and getting weaker. the family is the core of society. While a child has other social outlets, the family is the most important and the largest. Its like taking water away from someones diet. They can have juice and pop, but those have water in them too. their friends have families as well. Its like diluting everything. If the family is broken, then society will collapse, and corrupt. This is definitely a bad thing.