BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay marriages should be legalized

My arguments for legalizing gay marriage:Contention 1: It harms nobody, and infringes on nobody's rights. This one is fairly self-explanatory. Gay marriage does not harm anybody. That's it. If you don't like it, then that's fine, don't get one, but it doesn't cause direct harm towards you if others do so. It is a private act between consenting adults - and for this reason, I expect my opponent to not bring up the exceedingly common argument that marriage will be redefined to include bestiality.Contention 2: Legalizing gay marriage only affects how the federal government recognizes marriage This functions as more of a pre-emptive rebuttal to the common argument that by legalizing gay marriage, we are forcing everybody to accept its existence. This is not true. Churches would not be forced to perform gay marriages, and same-sex couples could simply get a marriage license. Only the federal government would be 'required' to accept gay marriages, and only to the extent to provide the same government benefits (such as filing jointly on taxes) as traditional marriages.Contention 3: The Constitution forbids laws respecting an establishment of religion.The main argument against gay marriage tends to be that certain religions forbid it. The only other argument is that same-sex couples can't have children on their own, which is easily refuted by the fact that same-sex couples can adopt a child, and the fact that many heterosexual couples choose not to have children. If the main argument against gay marriage is religion, then that means that it is forbidden by the establishment of the First Amendment:"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."Laws such as this cannot be constitutional for this reason, since the only reason to implement them is to respect an establishment of religion. The constitutional thing to do is to give people a choice. If people do not like gay marriage, they don't have to get one. However, if someone does want to have a same sex marriage, we should not go out of our way to prevent them from doing so. This is forcing religion on people who obviously don't want to follow it, or from those who follow a religion that doesn't forbid homosexuality (Reform Judaism is an example). This is not saying that it is unconstitutional to not legalize gay marriage, but more directly that it is unconstitutional to ban it, which implies the former.Contention 4: Homosexuality occurs in nature.I will cite this with a list from Wikipedia, which in turn has 98 citations:http://en.wikipedia.org...More specifically, on the sexual behavior of bonobos (with several citations from scientific journals as well)http://en.wikipedia.org...This is a case of homosexual behavior within an entire species. If God created all life on Earth, why would he create something without free will that offends him? This refutes arguments that state that homosexuality is unnatural, and must be addressed before any arguments using it can be addressed.I await my opponent's arguments. We will both do rebuttals in round 3.
Religion Has More Power Than The Government

Religion has more power then the government because in times of fear people go to the church to pray and the church can tell them that everything will be fine and they believe it unlike if the government tells them the same thing because the government created so many problems this struggle between church and state dates back to the Romans. The Roman Empire was one of the most powerful empires until its fall after Julius Caesar's death which was later made into a very successful play by William Shakespeare. At Kenmore East High School in Miss Caruana's English 10R class one of the books that was read was Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare. Kenmore East High School is the high school that Peter Allen Vogt graduated from. Peter Allen Vogt appeared in four episodes of the popular Disney Channel show Hannah Montana.
Religion Has More Power Than The Government

I negate the resolution "Religion has More Power Than the Government". I will now show how the government has more power than religion. My cousin, Samantha, was arrested last year because she broke a law that was set by the government, like all laws are. I don't remember why she was arrested, though I do remember that, in the process, she broke her wrist[1]. Breaking your wrist is not fun at all, it makes it impossible to write or do anything. But breaking your wrist isn't hard, either. The wrist consists of eight small bones that are connected to the radius and the ulna. The bones come together to form joints, covered by cartilage. Ligaments hold the bones together. This gives the wrist a range of movement. When you get a fracture, you usually have to get an X-Ray. X-rays are part of the electromagnetic spectrum, which includes the visible light that we can see. [1] . http://mywrist.info...;[2] . http://en.wikipedia.org...
resolved:The U.S. ought to submit to jurisdiction of an int. court designed to prosec. crimes agnst.

>I regret that my opponent has forfeited the round. Sadly, given that he has not responded to any of my arguments, I must conclude that he drops not only all of my arguments, but all of his own. My opponent was online 7 hours ago (as I write this) and had a 24 hour time period to respond. I thus conclude that he had the ability to rebut, but chose not to. <<<***MY OPPONENT, BASKETBALLER, HAS DROPPED ALL ARGUMENTS THUS FAR IN THIS DEBATE.***>>>
Resolved: God Exists

This is a debate about the existence of God. There are some strict rules that apply with regards to this debate.Definitions1. God - an omnipotent, omniscient, intelligent, and sentient deity, being, or spirit who is the creator and ruler of the universe and the source of all moral authority. 2. Omnipotence - the ability to perform any action whatsoever; in this debate, absolute omnipotence3. Omniscience - the state of having definitive and certain knowledge of everything4. Sentient - can feel or perceive subjectivelyFormat24 hours, 5 rounds, 10,000 characters"Select Winner" voting systemRound 1:Con - Rules, DefinitionsPro - opening argumentsRound 2: Con - Opening arguments, rebuttalsPro - arguments, rebuttalsRound 3:Con - arguments, rebuttalsPro - arguments, rebuttalsRound 4:Con - arguments, rebuttalsPro - concluding arguments, rebuttalsRound 5: Con - concluding arguments, rebuttalsPro - Waives this round (not direct forfeiture; post a message conveying forfeiture)Rules1. Appropriate conduct must be maintained. 2. Refuting logic is not accepted; you must rebut or accept it. 3. All arguments must pertain to the definitions. 4. Trolling is strictly prohibited. 5. Burden of Proof (BoP) is shared. Not fulfilling BoP for propositions will result in the violating argument being null and void. Proof cannot be from religious texts.Over to Pro to post their argument for Round 1.
Queen Elizabeth II could out-debate anybody on this site.

rebuttals The two quotes are fallacious because you use them of proof of your claim that the queen is very smart and she knows more about world affairs than most diplomats. Another example is I believe A to be true ( insert famous name here) also believes A to be true therefore A must be true. "In fact, by the account of Sampson, she believed that the briefings were too simple and 'elimentary'. She wished them to be more thorough and inclusive. Something slightly more in-depth, so as to completely grasp the state of affairs. " I thought you said those meetings classified. "the Queen, who's knowledge, authority and influence is unbounded. " evidence anywhere other than she is old and knows smart people. "she will utilize all of her seasons and skill in the debate, coupled with her wisdom, philosophy, skill at semantics and medical study to defeat the opponent. Her emotions will not affect her arguments, and her stern and calm composure will clearly win out. " again a my opponent has given o examples or evidence to back up his extraordinary claims. How is she skilled at debating? Were did her skills at wisdom, philosophy,semantics, and medicine come from? Age does not necessitate wisdom. Also you did not show she was formally educated so I and the voters must assume she has non. I will summarize my opponents arguments for brevity The queen is smart therefore se can beat anyone on this site The queen has a lot of life experience therefore she can beat anyone on this site the queen is a good public speaker therefore. .. This first unsubstantiated claim is irrelevant because intellect alone does not make you a good debater. I likely have one of the highest I. Q. 's on this site and I am not even close to the best debater. second point is also irrelevant because there are many older members on this site with a lot of life experience that can't even crack the top ten. . http://www.debate.org... . http://www.debate.org... . http://www.debate.org... third point is relevant but it would not help her on DDO, and we are unaware of the speaking abilities of most of the DDO community accept our present champ. Lwerd . http://www.debate.org... final rebuttal my opponent claims The queen has debate experience with the parliament yet has given no examples of such an accurance or given evidence to back up the claim. in summation my opponent has given no valid evidence for how or why the queen could defeat any member of this site in a debate. The queen has no debate experience and because of this it is unlikely for her to be the caliber of debater to be able to beat all of us. I would like the voter to think back to there very first debate and ask themselves what caliber of debater was I.
Queen Elizabeth II could out-debate anybody on this site.

My opponents two quotes are both examples of the fallacy "appeals to authority", and also I do not see there relevance. I will some my opponents arguments in to two main points first the queen has access to information we (DDO community) do not have 2. She is more intelligent than the rest us. the problem with pro's first contention is that her claims would be unverifiable because the voters and her opponent would not be able to verify the claim because of our lack of access to such information. Also much of the information she might have (especially regarding military matters) would not be able to be disclosed for reasons like secrecy or national security. The problem with this second claim is that is very hard to prove even with the IQ's of very debater on this site and the queen herself. now to some specific rebuttals to my opponents arguments "Let us consider the Queen's duty of meeting the Prime Minister once a week, shall we? The Queen grants him/her an audience in which the entire session is kept classified. Nobody can determine exactly how much her influence has on the Prime Minister, but it is alleged that her influence is extremely great." If it is classified who exactly is making the allegation that the queen has so much influence. "The Queen is a master of philosophy and such debate tactics as semantics and other linguistic characteristics." again will you prove that she has this great knowledge. "As for the rest of them, you are just theorizing. Most likely any one of these people would need time to compose him/herself after the Queen had gotten through her own stupendous argument." this part I found to be quite funny because in the same sentence you accuse me of just theorizing, you yourself do the same by first assuming the queen would make a stupendous argument and that her opponent would need time t compose themselves. "Agreed, many of these are good arguments, but you obviously don't comprehend the ability of the Queen..." isn't that your job. "As I have stated before, her speeches and Parliamentary debates outclass that of even politicians" do you have any evidence for that claim. My point still remains if you have never had a debate there is no way to prove you are a good debater.
Queen Elizabeth II could out-debate anybody on this site.

Age is not a valid argument for why someone is a better debater than another person. The top debaters on this site have beaten out many others who are older and possible better educated. furtheremore the events that have transpired during ones life, or the people that you have meet have no berring on what you know. for example I have seen many football games, and meet many football players but this does not make me an expert on the game. "This is just an example of all of the famous events/leaders that she has seen and influenced. " I will wait for My opponent to give examples to how she has influence these events or leaders. "Thus, her knowledge abounds and is far superior to that of any of ours. Her debating ability is incredible. " This statement is compleatly unsubstantiated where did this knowledge come from? The Iraq war is happening during my life time but this does not make me an expert on that war. first you must showthat she great knowledge in many different disciplines (art, politics, history, philosophy, etc. ) , then you must pruve that this knowlede is greater than any debater on this site. now to my arguments my arguments will come in three parts first her age, second her debate experience, and finally queen Elizabeth the second is now 82 years old as a result her memory, and reasoning skills are likely greatly diminished. another reason she could not easily defeat anyone on this site in a debate is she has never had any sort of formal debate. my question to my opponent is, if you have never had a debate how can you be good at it? I am quite shore that the user Lwerd could beat elizabeth in a gay marriage, gay rights debates as shown in these debates . http://www.debate.org... . http://www.debate.org... . http://www.debate.org... . http://www.debate.org... . http://www.debate.org... also that the user Keplin would beat her with his semantic arguments as shown below . http://www.debate.org... . http://www.debate.org... . http://www.debate.org... the user the skeptic could win an evolution debate . http://www.debate.org... The user freeman would win a debate with her about morality of torture . http://www.debate.org... . http://www.debate.org... . http://www.debate.org... These are just a few examples where Elizabeth could not beat members of DDO in a debate. my apologizes to those members of DDO who I did not mention. . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Queen Elizabeth II could out-debate anybody on this site.

Greetings Tmhustler! Good luck, have fun and keep 'er clean. :D I am going to argue that Queen Elizabeth II could trounce anybody on this website very easily. She possesses a long history of politics. The Queen is old and wisened. Her life experiences outnumber those of any member here. Numbers 1, 2 and 3 on this site are not older than 25, correct? Wise is our own eyes, and perhaps possessing some ability to debate, but even so this is not even a professional debate club. Rather, one presents an argument and peers decide on which they like better. Sometimes voters are biased and vote in support of one or the other simply because they like one debater over the other or agree with the topic. However, the Queen has seen over fourty years of Parliament, observing political debates, Parliamentary gains, political jockeying etc. She's been around while some of the most famous Prime Ministers of all time have presided. She personally knew Winston Churchill, and she has seen lines of Prime Ministers and cabinets. She was presiding during the famed terms of Margaret Thatcher and Anthony Eden. Harry Truman, George W. Bush, George Bush, Eisenhower etc were all American politicians that she personally met. She has seen WWII, the Cold War, the Falklands War and the extremely recent series of wars in the East. This is just an example of all of the famous events/leaders that she has seen and influenced. Thus, her knowledge abounds and is far superior to that of any of ours. Her debating ability is incredible.
It is hypocritical to be opposed to same sex marriage but not contraception, divorce, etc.

I'll begin by saying that I am not against same sex marriage. I however, do not believe being opposed to same sex marriage will automatically makes one a hypocrite. I will begin by breaking down my adversaries arguments, and then provide you with a counter narrative. My adversary opens his argument by talking about Evangelical Christians. I think it's safe to assume he's implying the Bible is against divorce aswell as gay marriage. While this alone is HIGHLY debatable, I will assume this is a correct assumption for the sake of argument and general concensus. It is hypocritical to be opposed to same sex marriage, but not contraception, divorce, ect. if you are coming at the issue from a textual perspective. However, if I provide an argument that does not use religion, this part of my opponents argument falls apart. My opponent then points to some of the points made by the anti-gay marriage side that don't involve the Bible. And I agree with him. Yes, saying you oppose same sex marriage because homosexuals can't have kids, but being in favor of infertile couples rights to marry, is fundamentally hypocritical. I would, however, like to point out that this is not related to contraception. People can still have kids if they use contraception. The point of most contraception is that you can be selective of when, and how many children you have. However, if someone isn't a Christian, and they don't use this argument to support their reasoning for being against gay marriage, my opponents argument falls apart some more. And onto point number three, divorce. The meaning of marriage is a subjective thing. Some people find it to be a religious practice, some people a cultural, some people a deep interpersonal union. Either way, the "sanctaty" of marriage is completely opinion based. For instance, I can say that two same sex partners marrying is not the traditional course of marriage, and therefore I am against it. I can say in the very next sentance, that I have no problem with divorce because it's also been around for thousands of years, and doesn't tarnish the tradition of marriage. I could also say I don't believe divorce is detrimental to the foundation of marriage because marriage isn't about how long it lasts, but how well it worked, how much each party got out of it. This, is not hypocritical in any way. And onto the main point I would like the readers to consider. What if someone is against gay marriage, simply because they don't like gay people? They are a divorced atheist, and during their vesectamy they think to themselves, "You know, I really don't like gay people. I don't want them to get married. " I'm not asking you to think if that's a morally right thing to believe, I'm asking if that automatically makes them a hypocrite. Thank you.
It is hypocritical to be opposed to same sex marriage but not contraception, divorce, etc.

My argument is simple. We must remain consistent, otherwise we will be hypocrites. Now, this is not about legality, its about morality. No one says contraception should be illegal, and there is no question over same sex marriage being legal, there is only a question of recognizing same sex unions as marriages, so that's a little different. In any case, I am talking about morality. Many Evangelical Christians who are very opposed to same-sex marriage, have no problem with birth control and see divorce as not good but not necessarily wrong. There are certainly other groups that have these positions, although I think it is most common among strong-conservative Christians (although certainly not all). The reason that these are inconsistent is this: First of all, with regards to birth control, may people oppose same sex unions because they can't have kids. They say that sodomy is unnatural because it cannot lead to new life. However, isn't this the same of many acts heterosexuals do? Isn't this true of sterilized sex or contracepted sex? How can it be any different? Maybe one is "grosser" but fundamentally, they are both very similar. How can one morally object to one but not the other? How can someone be against gay people doing the same things straight people do? Secondly, with divorce. Many people say that homosexuality is an affront to the dignity of marriage. However, how can one say that divorce isn't but homosexuality is? How can two men or two women who are committed to one another harm the dignity of marriage but not divorce? This seems to not make sense.
It is hypocritical to be opposed to same sex marriage but not contraception, divorce, etc.

So, these are the rules:8000 characters48 hoursI say that it is hypocritical to hold that things like contraception or divorce and those kinds of things are okay but same sex marraige/acts are bad. Round 1 is for acceptance Round 2 I will make my opening argument. You may respond or make yoursRound 3 we will both offer clarification and rebuttalsRound 4 is for the closing statements
All weapons against U. S. A. And NATO

Their lordly scream moans through the world, On their trail is fire and suffering Slavery and gallows, Annihilation and misery Follow their hordes. With lies and beguilement, With assassination and blood They dishonored NATO before the whole world They robbed and plundered possessions And chased millions into the battlefield You people of the world, Weapons in hand, Smash the fascist NATO hordes! You North Korean soldiers, Free your land Avenge the spilled blood in holy rage! Beat the dogs dead that forced you into this war And the people will be happy and free! Turn your gun around, Deceived soldier! Criminals rule the NATO lands It is treason to follow the Donald scum And dying for him is equally meaningless Come on, If you're not a foe of the working class! It's no betrayal When the people unite in will and good In favour for a free U. S. A. And put an end to the Trump's state!
This House Wants to Ban Home schooling

1. Home schooling can utilize many education materials by using online, which means it could provide appropriate education without going to school. 2. Modern society requires very specialized education. Schools usually provide students with standardized curriculum, but home schooling can provide education tailored to meet special needs of the modern society which matches a student's talents. 3. School is not the only institute where students can socialize with others. You can go to community center or playground, or go to sports club to socialize yourself.