BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Homosexuality.

Let me start by refuting your point that anything naturally occurring is normal. Really, all I have to do is come up with one example to prove you wrong. But there are millions. Disease is naturally occurring, people are naturally born with missing limbs. It doesn't make them normal. There are also plenty of 'naturally occurring" sexual and other phenomenon in the animal kingdom, such as rape, incest, eating the young, and even necrophilia (https://en.wikipedia.org...). Clearly, there are many things that occur naturally in life, but it doesn't make them normal, it doesn't make them acceptable, and it doesn't make them right. The reason why homosexuality is not normal is because of a basic biological truth. Girls have a vagina, and boys have a penis. Yes it really is as simple as that, and I'm sure I don't need a reference for it Nothing will ever change that, and that is the fundamental truth that homosexuals will forever battle psychologically, and never be able to beat, unless they accept it for what it is. Homosexuals know that they can only have sexual intercourse with someone's digestive system, and deep-down they know that there is always going to be something "not quite right" about that. The next point I will refute is that homosexuality is something you have no control over. Your orientation might be something you have no controls over, but you can still control your homosexuality with your lifestyle choices. Again, all I have to do to prove you wrong is provide one example, and here it is: http://www.salon.com... Clearly, living a homosexual lifestyle is a choice and a behaviour, as that example proves, even if orientation isn't a choice. I don't necessarily agree that living a heterosexual lifestyle is the best choice for all people. But I do believe that the best choice for homosexuals is to accept the known fact that homosexuality is not normal, and deal with it the best way they can without affecting other people. Yes that can include living a homosexaul lifestyle, but no it shouldn't include pretending that homosexuality is normal, because that will have nasty consequences for society that I will get to later. But until you accept the fact that homosexuality is not normal, you will never find peace within yourself because of the basic biological truths. Finally, to refute your point that "it is not being normalized by the "Gay Agenda"", I will actually point you to the fact that it actually IS the gay agenda. For further reading, please visit: http://www.massresistance.org... This book is the basis of gay activism, and the reason for all its success over the last couple of decades. The objective of the activism is to fit into society and be treated as normal people without any prejudice. Gay people don't feel like they are normal, they want to feel normal, and that is the true basis of all activism.
Homosexuality.

To make a long story short, this debate will focus on why homosexuality should, or should not be accepted. While informal, the debate is still very much rooted in the form of substantiated arguments, therefore, the seven point system is still unharmed. Because of it’s nature, the BOP will be determined by each of our assertions, meaning if we argue something as fact, we have to prove it. Beyond that, all arguments are accepted, so long as they remain somewhat civil. Fair warning: Since I, myself, am a homosexual, I’ll be very firm in my arguments. I’ll attempt to remain as civil as possible, but rest assured that I’ll be quite passionate. The debate rounds are as follows: Round 1: Acceptance, Opening Statements Round 2: Arguments and Rebuttals Round 3: Arguments and Rebuttals Round 4: Arguments and Rebuttals Round 5: Closing Statements If my opponent agrees to this structure, let them accept the debate and provide their opening statements. Opening Statements: Deeply rooted in religious beliefs, homosexuality, as viewed as abominable and perverted, is often subject to harsh and unjustified backlash from unaccepting communities. This much is fact. What I formally aim to argue is that homosexuality should not remain unaccepted in society because all arguments asserting that it harms society are wrong. Using data to support my assertions, I’ll individually look at homosexuality’s effect on marriage, children, and religious freedom to prove why homosexuality does nothing to harm society. I shall also be arguing that homosexuality is something a person is inherently born with, and therefore should not be subject to the harsh backlash it continues to encounter. In other words, I’ll be arguing that, like religion, race, and gender, homosexuality should not be subject to discrimination and/or mistreatment from groups who oppose our beliefs. It is my belief that equality is something the constitution guarantees us. However, that idealism cannot be achieved while people continue to brazenly reject and oppose equality and acceptance for our people. In the following rounds, I’ll submit my own arguments to this thesis, as well as attempt to adequately refute any of my opponents arguments. With that in mind, let the debate begin!
abortion is wrong

Yes, i will say that i will argue even these principals. 1) first we have a mother who is dying of cancer and the only way to save her is to kill the child. First of all i don't know why a cancerous women would be having sex, but besides the point. Ethicly it would be a mother value to put a childs life before her own, out of lofe for him/her. But because the mother is near death does that lessen the value of the childs would-be life? So the mother who has cancer should weigh her options. first of all she has cancer and there is the likliness of her dying anyway. Then she has to look at the childs perspective. It's her own child to go out and live it's life. She's at least had a chance at life. now it's time for her to make a sacrifice. 2) Second the handicap issue... So are you saying that all mentally hadicapped people on the earth don't have a right to live? It shouldn't matter the childs predicament. he/she is still a living being and has potential to life, and denying them the privilige of life would be cruel just because they have an extra chromosome. So i still apply the same rule from my last argument. 3) Living on the streets. Who are we to say how this childs life will turn out? How do you know he/she would live on the street? If your not even going to give the child a chance to live you can pre-judge what his/her life will be like. Denying them the right to live is murder.. Other than those issues abortion is wrong for many other reasons, which i will argue if my opponent brings up. but for the time being i am going to assume he agrees with the issue other than those three "exceptions" my opponent has stated.
Tyler dishonored his promise and didn't have a justifiable reason to do so.

Closing StatementCon failed to give any legitimate argument. He also failed to adhere to the debate structure which he accepted from Round 1. Con even admits his own defeat. He then argues that he is correct because anybody in real life would agree with him. This is subjective and also an unsubstantiated claim. You can't argue that your position is correct due to people agreeing with you (which is the Bandwagon Fallacy) nor because you just think that you are correct. That is not how a debate works.
Tyler dishonored his promise and didn't have a justifiable reason to do so.

The promise was not to get off destiny and play the last of us it was simply just to play whatever game someone wanted. I realize I should've made sure that was clarified in the rules but anyone who was there would agree with me. I realize I've "lost" the debate even though I'm clearly correct in actuality. There were no constraints on the promise indeed, allowing the promise to be fulfilled in any way seen fit.
Tyler dishonored his promise and didn't have a justifiable reason to do so.

Rebuttal"First of all, I don't remember there being a group ready to play last of us but I wouldn't worry about that."This is a clear violation of rules stated in round 1. The debate structure held rebuttals for round 3, which my opponent failed to do. Also, this statement has no bearing on whether or not the resolution remains true. I would argue that I had a group of people ready to play The Last of Us, but I honestly don't need to. There is no evidence for this claim for either side so it remains a "he said she said" statement."Tyler could only keep one promise at a time."The promise emphasized that Tyler would indeed get off Destiny immediately upon request. Therefore, he was still breaking his promise which con eludes to by saying "could only keep on promise at a time.""He later fulfilled erik's promise as Tyler said he would."He later fulfilled part of his promise with me. The promise had no constraints on the number of times Tyler would do it, when it started, or how long."Tyler also did not specify the time of when said promise would be fulfilled."Again, Tyler did not put any constraints on when the promise started, therefore it is assumed that it starts immediately.
Tyler dishonored his promise and didn't have a justifiable reason to do so.

Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Opening ArgumentRound 3: RebuttalRound 4: Closing StatementResolution: Tyler did not keep his promise with me [awwww] and made a horrible excuse for doing so.Background Information: Tyler is not partaking in this debate. We have me, the one who *allegedly* Tyler did not keep the promise to, and also a bystander who is con in this debate. The promise was that he would play any game that either I or the bystander wanted whenever we asked, even if he was on another video game (in particular, Destiny). This was especially emphasized with Destiny, whom Tyler had stated that he would get off immediately upon request.Rules: By accepting this debate, you agree with everything stated in this post. The debate structure must be upheld. Definitions if needed will be given in your starting argument. Burden of proof is split. Do not accept this debate if you were not the bystander.(We are repeating this debate, copy and pasting our previous posts. There was a glitch in the debate in which our round 2 arguments appeared in round 4 and instantly ended the debate.)
911 was an inside job

In response to those who are negative about me using one sight, I used this one site as it has the videos which summarize all of the information, for the viewers . Learning can be fun and the use of videos helps this. If you would like more detailed scientific information please visit this blog which has links to to peer reviewed scientific papers which go into extreme detail . http://911debunkers.blogspot.com.au... A great website also is AE911truth.org
911 was an inside job

The planes were real and did hit the towers, Nist claims that the plane impact removed the fireproofing from the steel, to prove this they shot at it 15 times with a shotgun ( no joke ) . NIST’s only test for fireproofing loss, never included in the draft reports, involved shooting a total of fifteen rounds from a shotgun at non-representative samples in a plywood box. Flat steel plates were used instead of column samples and no floor deck samples were tested at all. After criticism of the lack of testing provided in its draft report, NIST inserted the results into a 12-page appendix to the final report.3 These shotgun tests actually disproved NIST’s findings. One reason is that there is no evidence that a Boeing 767 could transform into any number of shotgun blasts. Nearly 100,000 blasts would be needed based on NIST’s own damage estimates, and these would have to be directed in a very symmetrical fashion to strip the columns and floors from all sides. It is much more likely that the aircraft debris was a distribution of sizes from very large chunks to a few smaller ones, and that it was directed asymmetrically along the path of the impacting airliner. Moreover, there is no indication that fireproofing could have been stripped from beneath the aluminum cladding on the exterior columns, but in subsequent steps of its explanation, NIST depends on this. NIST’s shotgun tests indicated that 1 MJ of energy was needed per square meter of surface area to shear the fireproofing off. For the areas in questionR13;more than 6,000 square meters of column, floor deck and floor joist surfaceR13;the extra energy needed would be several times more than the entire amount of kinetic energy available to begin with.4http://rethink911.org...;
911 was an inside job

The only explanation for the towers exploding was the use of explosives and incendiarys. 1.Extremely high temperatures were evident before and after the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers. These extremely high temperatures contradict the official story because office and hydrocarbon fires burning in open air (~500° to 1,500° F) cannot reach temperatures in the range that iron or structural steel melts (2,700° F). http://rethink911.org......andhttp://rethink911.org......2.Implausibility of the Official TheoryBoth theories about the buildings collapsing are the least plausible explanationhttp://rethink911.org......http://rethink911.org......3.Free fall acceleration of building 7 The fact that Building 7 underwent free-fall means that none of the building’s potential energy was used to crush the structure below it. All of its potential energy was converted directly into energy of motion (kinetic energy), leaving no energy to do anything else. Therefore, the lower section of the building could not have been crushed by the falling section. The destruction of at least 8 stories of the lower section of the building had to have been accomplished by other means to allow the upper section of the building to fall through it in free-fall.http://rethink911.org......3.Hundreds of Eyewitnesses report explosionshttp://rethink911.org......4. Forknowledge of collapsehttp://rethink911.org......5.No deacceleration of the top of the north tower during collapse proves the columns below were removed http://rethink911.org......6.The building exploded. Where did the building go ? It turned to dust . How ? How can Dust crush concrete into dust .Contents ejected from building could not have been ejected laterally 500 ft if it were due to gravity if the building collapsed naturally.http://rethink911.org......Now we know the buildings were demolished who did it and why ? Great investigative work has been done By Kevin Ryan and summarized in this video by another truther. Good work to him and all for providing all the research into who else had motives and access to the towers. http://antioligarch.wordpress.com......
Government should permit Euthanasia

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind-Mahatma Gandhi I agree with Gandhi, and am therefore against the resolution as previously stated. The opposition states that the government will use euthanasia when people are ill, so therefore, the following arguments will be aimed to this point 1. Euthanasia weakens societal value of Sanctity of Life 2. Euthanasia results in cascading consequences. Now to my first argument 1. I agree with the fact that we need to protect the people for illness, but euthanasia is NOT the way to do so. Isolation units and quarantine are more effective than executing individuals for being sick. By putting people is isolation, we better protect the public, since the illness is then isolated, and not in the outside world, waiting to be put to death. Furthermore, by killing these people, we devalue our core values as rational beings. We are all taught from kindergarten until death that harming other people is wrong, and murder is completely unacceptable. However, the Pro is disregarding societal value, and is allowing people to believe that the bodily harm of others to "save" people is ridiculous. By doing this, we beg the question "Does euthanasia save lives?", and as I have already stated, this is the least effective means of doing so. 2. Not only does permitting government use of euthanasia devalue Sanctity of Life, it will also result in cascading consequences. Voluntary euthanasia is the start of a slippery slope that leads to involuntary euthanasia, and the killing of people that are thought undesirable. We need to recognize that we are all taught from day one that life is sacred, and we should not devalue it, but the Pro is doing so. Pro teams allow people to be put to death voluntarily, but when does this stop? We end up having to draw the line somewhere, but at that point it is too late. We should NOT permit government use of euthanasia, because as previously argued, it holds more life saving potential without devaluing societal ideals.
Government should permit Euthanasia

What is Euthanasia? * Euthanasia means an action that intentionally ending a life in order to relieve pain and suffering. What is the problem? * I will let government permit this solution as a way to solve some major problem like a disease that will spread if the patient's life haven't been ends or a no possibility of cure by the current medical technology. What will i Do? * I stand in "Government should permit Euthanasia" How is the procedure? * Condition needs to do Euthanasia are: 1. have a permission from their own family (Father, Mother, Son, Daughter) 2. if patient already say OK or if patient have no more possibility of cure and burden their family in taking care of. If two of the condition are fulfilled, the solution can be used. What is my target? * Help the patient's family to let off the burden because of patient's sickness.
We would encourage our kids to aim for job stability instead of pursuing their passion

Again you refuse to prove your claims. I do not see why I should remind you that the burden of proof lays primarily within your domain. 1) You do not provide any support on why a high income job is more "good" than a middle or low income job. In developing nations, the "needs" and required income are drastically less and therefor the income "needed" to survive is less. In fact, in developing nations the income needed to "survive" and meet an objectively filling live (not base on materialistic ideologies) is easily attainable. Proving that a high income job isn't necessary. Refuting your claim. 2) You admitted that passion doesn't need to be sacrificed to earn a high income job, even though yo clearly stated at the beginning that its one or the other. You contradict your own claim. 3) You clearly identified your position at the beginning of the argument that this was a "Income vs passion". Yet, you continually change your stand point within in the debate. At the end of the debate it is now, "Kids should attend and aim to do well in school, and then to pursue jobs which can best provide for their livelihood". You must clearly identify your position from the start of the debate for your argument to hold and merit and ground within the dialogue, which you failed to do so. In any formal debate, your argument would be dismissed. The members within this forum ought to do the same, purely based on your lack of foundation of your debate and inconsistencies or at least not be reinvited 4) "Whether those jobs actually exist or not, I feel is outside the scope of this debate" Uh, what? This is exactly a part of your claim. Children should put their passions aside to secure high paying jobs... but then say that the existence of the jobs are outside of the debate? You introduced the very topic... Showing that your argument is fallacious and holds no merit. If jobs don't exist, how can you rightfully claim that passions should be sacrificed for.... In fact, nothing?
We would encourage our kids to aim for job stability instead of pursuing their passion

My opponent seems to be too busy highlighting how 'confused' I am. He fails to put forth any substantial arguments, preferring instead to merely 'rebut' my arguments. His core rant is that these countries have high illiteracy and malnourished children. I don't know how he makes this link to pursuing your passions. It is the very fact that there is not much opportunity for fringe industries that make it more beneficial to pursue something which can actually put money into your pocket instead of trying to draw the next Mona Lisa or to be the next Cristiano Ronaldo just because the kid said he likes painting or playing soccer in the evenings. In poor families, how can you expect kids to gain access to quality tutoring in sectors like sports and entertainment? There are practically no opportunities to develop your skills in these. But more often than not, you can at least aim to do well in school and move on from there. He definitely has never lived in developing countries. He's idea of developing countries is more like that of African children you see in charity ads. If you have spent some time in Malaysia or Indonesia or Argentina maybe you could understand better what I am trying to put across. Kids there are not starving. They are generally not denied the right to education. Even if you are talking about developing countries where there is political instability or poor governance, my argument still applies. Kids should attend and aim to do well in school, and then to pursue jobs which can best provide for their livelihood. Whether those jobs actually exist or not, I feel is outside the scope of this debate. This is not a debate about which social policy to implement first. He never tackled what I said about the importance of having a job to pay expenses while still having time for your hobbies and interests. His mentality is that these kids are poor so roam free and somehow luck will improve your quality of life. In my opinion, you are the one confused.
We would encourage our kids to aim for job stability instead of pursuing their passion

"This is an "income vs passion" issue"; "cower himself behind statements"; Yet, you fail to identify the "good" that could only come from a high income job. You fail to identify how your position is the most realistic situation My opponent assumes that there is a market for high income jobs, which in fact there isn"t. My opponent did not answer how a country filled with vastly illiterate and improperly nourished children that are at large still denied the right to education are supposed to acquire these high income jobs. My opponent strictly claims that this is a debate about "income vs passion". Then within the same round claims that this debate is about "We are talking about either high income and low passion against high passion and low income". To further highlight is own confusion, his opening debate claim was "there is a big dilemma on whether young people should aim for job stability or pursue their passion." "In India for example, thousands and thousands of students enroll in Engineering because it is one of the best industries to improve their quality of life in a nation with severe misdistribution of wealth" I would like to point out that that my opponent decided to pick a country that is the 4th in military fire power within the world but is "Technically" considered a developing nation but is a very high income nation. My opponent seeks information from one country and unfairly correlates this information with all other developing. This claim is fallacious in nature and shows the lack of due process and research from my opponent. Further, my opponent did not include factual evidence, nor were links provided to provide credibility for his claims. "while I definitely understand that income and passion can be aligned", This is an "income vs passion" issue". "We are talking about either high income and low passion against high passion and low income" You seemed confused and flop a a lot, not to mention you dodge answering most of the issues.