BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Pro gay marriage

Traditions are important. They are what brings us together. To say that traditions are not important is like saying we can survive without food. Impossible.Not only is this going against more than 4,000 years of Judea-Christian beliefs, it also creates several other very important problems. I am going to focus on the kids in this argument.The first problem is that gay marriage may lead to more children being raised in same-sex households, which are not an optimum environment because children need both a mother and father. You cannot be a mother if you are a male, and visa verse. No matter how much you try, you just are not a woman, and it is impossible to experience those feelings. Also, same-sex couples cannot conceive children, which would be sad, for parents would have to adopt children, which is a good thing, but adopted children cannot be loved as much as regular children.Another problem with children of same-sex couples: "The most shocking and troubling outcomes, however, are those related to sexual abuse. Children raised by a lesbian mother were 10 times more likely to have been "touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver" (23% reported this, vs. only 2% for children of married biological parents), while those raised by a homosexual father were 3 times more likely (reported by 6%). In his text, but not in his charts, Regnerus breaks out these figures for only female victims, and the ratios remain similar (3% IBF; 31% LM; 10% GF). As to the question of whether you have "ever been physically forced" to have sex against your will (not necessarily in childhood), affirmative answers came from 8% of children of married biological parents, 31% of children of lesbian mothers (nearly 4 times as many), and 25% of the children of homosexual fathers (3 times as many). Again, when Regnerus breaks these figures out for females (who are more likely to be victims of sexual abuse in general), such abuse was reported by 14% of IBFs, but 3 times as many of the LMs (46%) and GFs (52%)." This taken from http://www.frc.org... Enough said on that one, the statistics speak for themselves. Conclusion: Same-sex households are not optimum environments for kids to live in, and no one kid should have to live with same-sex couples. This is one reason why gay marriage is wrong.
Pro gay marriage

Number one, I would like to point out that my opponent did not refute my case, which means that I am correct.Rebuttal: I would like to refute my opponents case with one idea. Marriage is a privilege, not a right. Government has been involved in the marriage business, and provides benefits for spouses because this will result children. Let me repeat, marriage is a privilege, not a right. For this reason, it is illegal to marry under the age of 16-18, depending on what region you are in. It is also illegal to marry more than one person. AND it is illegal to marry someone who is closely related to you. Why should homosexuals marry, if the above groups cannot?Quoted from an article by Jonathan Dohanich, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. "The fact is homosexual “marriage” provides no benefit to the state. If homosexual couples want certain governmental or social benefits, these can easily be obtained by consulting an attorney. Hospital visitation, inheritance rights, a living will or designation of a significant other as a trustee are easy legal matters to resolve."Argument: Homosexual marriage is just ways of getting benefits. Can't they live without the marriage benefits? They are not entitled to them, for marriage is a privilege. Quoted from Procon.org: Gay marriage would entitle gay couples to typical marriage benefits including claiming a tax exemption for a spouse, receiving social security payments from a deceased spouse, and coverage by a spouse’s health insurance policy. On Dec. 17, 2009, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the cost to the federal government of extending employment benefits to same-sex domestic partners of certain federal employees (making no mention of additional costs such as Social Security and inheritance taxes) would be $596 million in mandatory spending and $302 million in discretionary spending between 2010 and 2019. I firmly disagree with paying tax dollars for something I don't believe in. This is basically it.
Golden Goose Starter Shoes services

The report, [url=http://www.goldengoosedeluxebrandsale.com...][b]Golden Goose 2.12 Shoes[/b][/url] titled Bells and the Current Recession: The Fiber Optic Fiasco and America Copper Dirt Road, claims the failure of Bell companies to roll out promised broadband services and anticompetitive behavior has scared away investment. Bell Companies are doing exactly what one would expect them to do, said Bruce Kushnick, executive director of NNI in a statement. If this type [url=http://www.goldengoosedeluxebrandsale.com...][b]Golden Goose Slide[/b][/url]of gown appeals to you, consider trying on a [url=http://www.goldengoosedeluxebrandsale.com...][b]Golden Goose May Shoes[/b][/url] lovely silk satin number that features multiple seams on the bodice and is decked with a sparkling line of crystals and rhinestones just below the chest and just before the full gown begins to flare at the hip line. A shoe store owner normally must also get a general business license, depending on how the shoe store is operated and what state the store is located. Some states require all businesses to register with either the secretary of state or local county clerk office, while others only require limited liability businesses and corporations to [url=http://www.goldengoosedeluxebrandsale.com...][b]Golden Goose Ball Star Sneakers[/b][/url]register with the secretary of state. Getting a general business license may increase the [url=http://www.goldengoosedeluxebrandsale.com...][b]Golden Goose Superstar Sneakers[/b][/url] credibility of the business, even where it is not strictly required by statute, so owners should consider completing this step. The next opportunity Windows has to produce this error is while you [url=http://www.goldengoosedeluxebrandsale.com...][b]Golden Goose Francy[/b][/url]are attempting to partition from within Windows 7. For some reason, known only to Microsoft, Windows files aren't installed in nice tidy lines or clusters on a hard drive. They can appear all over the place. Even if you defrag your drive first, sometimes Windows won't allow you to partition a drive because there are system files in [url=http://www.goldengoosedeluxebrandsale.com...][b]Golden Goose V Star[/b][/url] the way. Stirrup socks are also easy to slip on over regular athletic socks and can add a shot of uniformity or togetherness to a team's look. A flash of red, purple, or yellow at the [url=http://www.goldengoosedeluxebrandsale.com...][b]Golden Goose Starter Shoes[/b][/url]feet helps convey a more accessorized look, especially when the stirrups pick up colors from [url=http://www.goldengoosedeluxebrandsale.com...][b]Golden Goose Mid Star Sneakers[/b][/url] the team's jersey or cap. Tiny extras such as stirrup socks also help youngsters to realize the value of teamwork. When everyone's wearing the exact same uniform, they're far more likely to feel like teammates, despite the inevitable emergence of certain stronger players as "stars." http://www.goldengooseworld.com... http://www.goldengoosedeal.com... http://www.goldengoose-ggdb.com...
The Keystone XL Pipeline Should Be Built

No no, don't do that voters, Con's argument was atrocious- he had holes everywhere. I would argue that the whole "spill is likely" argument should land me the 3 points without me saying a word! And all the forfeit was was me letting Con vent, you don't interrupt a man when he's acting like Con was, so conduct should also go to me. Then I should also be voted for for the reliable resources too. Con's had resources, but they were. .. disgusting. I didn't even need resources, so you know the reliability of them, so I should also win resources. Spelling and grammar? Con spelt focusing with two 's' in the FIRST SENTENCE of his opening argument. Then "the southerly end of the pipeline. " That should definitely be "southern". So I should win in that too. I encourage voters to give pro the 7 point win, because of the points I just brought up.
The Keystone XL Pipeline Should Be Built

Introduction The proposed building of the Keystone XL Pipeline has been one of the most controversial environmental issues in recent years. Even so, the majority of Americans favour building the pipeline. A recent ABC poll shows that 65% of Americans support building the pipeline. On the other hand, only 22% of Americans are opposed to the pipeline being built. [1] In this debate, I shall be taking the position of the 22%. I will be arguing that the Keystone XL Pipeline should not be built. On the other hand, my opponent is arguing that the Keystone XL Pipeline should be built. The burden of proof is shared. Structure and Rules The 1st is solely dedicated to acceptance, statement of position, and definitions, if desired. Arguments begin in the 2nd round. This means that each debater has 3 rounds to argue their points. The final round is solely dedicated to rebuttals. This entails that no new arguments can be brought in the final round Standard DDO rules apply in this debate. All sources must be included within the 10000 character limit. Not following any of the rules, or violating the proposed structure of the debate at least warrant a loss of conduct points. Any further punishment shall be decided by the voters. Definitions Keystone XL Pipeline: “a proposed 1,179-mile (1,897 km), 36-inch-diameter crude oil pipeline beginning in Hardisty, Alberta, and extending south to Steele City, Nebraska” [2] And with all of that out of the way, I wish my future opponent the best of luck, and lets begin! [1] http://www.washingtonpost.com... [2] http://www.transcanada.com...
Liberal Democrats have no fiscal responsibility

There are many, many wholes in your argument. First of all, President Clinton had a surplus because of the republican congress! Have you ever heard of a man by the name Newt Gingrich? He is the one (speaker of the house) who proposed and got passed the budget that led to the surplus. Clinton merely signed off on it (probably after cheating on his wife, just saying). Secondly, George Bush was not responsible for the 2008 mess. The crisis occurred because banks gave out loans for houses to people that could not pay them back. Ex. Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. Those banks and policies were set up by the Clinton administration, not Bush. They were time bombs that just so happened to go off in '08. You say that the Republicans are no better, history proves you wrong... Let's take a stroll through historic times. 1. When Dwight D. Eisenhower (R) took over for Harry Truman (D), the economy dramatically improved and things got done... Example: the interstate highway system 2. When Ronald Reagan (R) took over for Jimmy Carter (D), the cold war ended, unemployment went down by more than 3 whole percentage points, and inflation came to a halt. 3. When George W. Bush (R) took over for Bill Clinton (D), unemployment dropped significantly, believe it or not, gas prices were low and finally we had a president that did not get away with lying to congress about cheating on his wife... Also, it is not Bushes fault that al Qaeda attacked us and Saddam Hussein provoked us into 2 wars. WE HAD NO CHOICE. THIS IS AN ECONOMIC DEBATE, NOT A FOREIGN POLICY DEBATE. The economy was great under Bush until the final year, AT NO FAULT OF HIS OWN... THE LIBERALS CONTROLLED CONGRESS. All in all, you are wrong in saying that Republicans are not better. They are. I stand by the fact that liberals are fiscally and economically ignorant.
Liberal Democrats have no fiscal responsibility

The liberal philosophy for economic growth (or lack there of) is not effective and demonstrates a lack of economic knowledge and responsibility. Let's look at our current situation, shall we? The nation is $17 trillion in debt and we have a budget deficit of nearly $1 trillion dollars that will add to the debt each year. The republican strategy is to make significant spending cuts to the federal budget in order to reduce the size of this monster deficit. It is clearly the only viable option and there have been many plans introduced by Republicans like Paul Ryan that have made it possible to see this deficit lower and eventually diminish. Unfortunately, the liberals have to be the big spending, huge government advocates that got us into this mess in the first place... Their plan is to raise taxes on the American people across the board in order to reduce the deficit. There are many PROBLEMS with this plan. They go as follows: 1. Taxes are already very high on all working Americans. They certainly are paying their "fair share" 2. Raising taxes would destroy an economy that is trying to slowly recover and put us right back into recession. 3. Even if the government taxed us all at a whopping 75%, economists say that would barely dent the deficit... The savings must come from spending cuts 4. Taxes already took a hike in 2010 when Obama and the liberal senate raised them on all people making over $450,000... Those are the people who create jobs! Overall, the liberal plan is ludicrous and unrealistic...
There are no true Christians

This debate has intrigued me. I am a fundamentalist, non-denomination Christian. I will accept the Pro's offer. I wish my opponent the best of luck. I hope that we can find truth in the "trial by fire" method of evaluation, which is debate. (I'm sorry if my referring to you in the third person bothers you. I am a policy debater, so I naturally tend to address "the judge". If this is a problem for you or becomes confusing, please let me know.)
There are no true Christians

I am pro for the idea that their are and never have been any true Christians. If the definition of a Christian means one has faith in Jesus, his words and his promises, I will show Biblically that there are no Christians with this faith and thus, no Christians. Of course, part of being a Christian means you believe that Jesus died for your sins but that is another issue. I believe many have and do believe that part so I will only be debating your actual faith in his words and promises. I will show that there are no real faithful Christians. Please be a professing fundamentalist Christian to debate me instead of not being one and playing devil's advocate.
terror against freedom

Peaceful Muslims believe in freedom of speech. I guess you're referring to the extremists, who don't. They should be kept far away from anywhere that's civilized, I agree with that for the most part. But none of what you've said has supported the idea that Islam itself should be banned from public practice. You seem to keep hanging on to this idea, no matter how many times you get debunked. I think it's time to give up bud.
The IPhone 6 is worth buying

1. Your argument about the screen size is pointless. There are many phones from other companies that have around the same screen size as the iPhone 6 by only a few mm/cm. Someone who owns a Samsung, Nokia, HTC etc. whose screen was a few mm smaller would swap it for the iPhone 6 because of that. 2. So there is another problem with apple products as a whole. They seem to be the only company with bad publicity in every way, including the iPhone 6. For example, the leaked celebrity nudes from iCloud and the the most recent iPhone Bend/6. I am pretty sure what happened with your dad and the iPhone 6 will happen again and again. The iphone 6 is prone to easily broken screens, and along with the hacks and the endless bugs I don't know why anyone would want to buy and iphone of any number to a more reliable phone.
The IPhone 6 is worth buying

If you think about it, screen size makes a difference. Nobody wants a tiny piece of crap phone. And yeah, Apple fixes the flaws because it is extremely hard to make these devices. Without technology, we wouldn't have these nice phones. Also, one time my dad broke his iPhone and then went and bought a different brand. Guess what, he hated te other devices because the iPhone was so much better in quality. Literally a week after he got the phone he returned it for an iPhone. That's how much better iPhones are in quality. Good luck!
The IPhone 6 is worth buying

Iphone1, Iphone2, Iphone3 blah blah Iphone6. What's the point. Companies like apple now what they are doing. They see flaws in the phone they make. But they think, why add it all on this phone when we could put it onto a new phone. Does anyone really care if a screen has increased size by a couple of cm. There are some many other phone companies who make more effective phone for much cheaper prices. Why not just save your money until iphone100 comes out while other companies are really trying their best to show their talent.
Predator would defeat a Terminator

I would like to negate the resolution: "Predator would defeat a Terminator", for the following reasons. =========FRAMEWORK==========ARGUMENTS:1. Terminators are stronger than predators.2. It is easier to kill a predator than a terminator.3. Predators have alot more weaknesses. RULES:As far as the rules for this debate:1. Both debaters should be kind, and have fun.2. A forfeit is bad conduct and should result in a loss.3. No semantics. ========MY CASE=========C1: Terminators are stronger than predators. Terminators are stronger because they have alot more things that they can use to their advantage. . http://en.wikipedia.org...;In order for a Predator to stand a chance in a battle agains it needs weapons. The terminator is it's own weapon. What happens if a Predator becomes dis-armed? That predator is useless. In hand to hand combat, it won't stand a chance, because the terminator is pure metal. C2: It is easier to kill a predator than a terminator. Even if a predator shoots the terminator, the results will be useless. The fact that terminator is pure metal, will results in nothing more than a scratch at best on the terminator. The terminator is not alive, thus he cannot die. If anyone has seen the terminator, they will see how much hell it is to kill one. The only useful asset the predator will have against the terminator, is it's camoflauge. Even it's camoflauge is easy to detect. The terminator is a robot, and will be able to detect movement, so the camoflauge aspect is essentially useless to the predator anyway. . http://rafuron.files.wordpress.com...C3: Predators have a lot more weaknesses. The predator is similiar to human beings in that it is mortal. It can die just as easily as a humans can. If the predator is hit with a bullet, it will be immobilized because he will be injured. If the Terminator is hit with a bullet, he will be unphased, as he is metal and bullet proof. Please see the video. http://www.youtube.com...Also when the terminator loses a limb, he can easily recontruct himself. ======CONCLUSION========I feel I have succefully negated the resolution. Terminator is much stronger than the predator. Also "In a fight to death" Terminator would win, because he can't die. Robots do not have life, thus they cannot lose it. Predator has far more weaknesses, and thus would be a lot more susceptible to the attacks of the terminator. I feel I have succesfully proven that the Terminator would destroy the predator in a battle. Thankyou.
Reality TV

In your previous statement you stated that reality tv has real people and other shows just have actors. Well I have a question for you. When were Oompa Loompas reality tv???? Also there are other alternatives to reality tv for older people for example my grandpa loves The Big Bang Theory, and that is not a reality tv show it's a sitcom.the nursing home my great grandma lives at has have tv's and I have yet to see a reality tv show on once out of the many times I've been there. The older people at the nursing home prefer to watch Two and a Half Men, and they also like to watch the Cubs game. So with that I think older people have alternatives to reality tv that are not cartoons.
Reality TV

If you've ever been to an nursing home then you would realize that more than one older person goes there. And if I knew that you would be unreasonable and only go based off of your TV preference then I would of never had taken this debate. Just because you don't like cartoon's dosen't mean that other people can't like them. Also you didn't really answer the burden of proof all you said was that you like to watch reality TV. VOTE CON!!!!!!!!
Death Penalty

I sincerely apologize for the delay, a relative of mine had passed, and I was traveling. Arguments -Fair PunishmentWe have all been children at one time, and I'm sure we have all heard our mothers say "You made the mess, you're going to clean it up!" it is simply the fairest solution to the problem, it is a punishment equal to the "crime" that was committed. So if you kill someone, or worse, don't you deserve death? I say yes, because a killer of people should not be on the earth, imprisoned or not. -Humane ExecutionsThroughout the various ways that prisoners are executed, all of them are painless. The following is a list of active execution techniques, and the number of people killed by each technique after 1976-LETHAL INJECTION11384 EXECUTIONS -ELECTROCUTION158 EXECUTIONS-GAS CHAMBER11 EXECUTIONS-FIRING SQUAD3 EXECUTIONS-HANGING3 EXECUTIONSAll of the current legal execution methods are completely pain free. Most states also allow the prisoner to choose his preferred execution method. The bodies of prisoners are cared for, and a funeral is prepared and the prisoner is cremated or buried.Again I apologize for the delay behind this round, and for the lack of much information, but I'm afraid I have been, and still am, terribly busy. But I await my opponents response eagerly! Thank you SOURCES: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...
Reagan's Foreign Policy Was Ultimately Bad, Both for Others and the United States

Well then, let's examine what Reagan did with the Soviet Union. His foreign policy against it was based upon strengthening the U.S. military in order to place the U.S. in a better position to negotiate, thereby motivating the Soviets to concentrate more of their resources on defense. This was good. However, he then assisted the mujahideen in Afghanistan in fighting against both the Soviet invaders AND the pro-soviet government that the country already had in place, doing so by supplying them with weapons. This, too, also helped diminish Soviet resources, but proved costly in the long run. In addition to that, he made a crucial mistake: when the Soviet Union fell, Reagan should have withdrawn all American troops from all around the world (even if gradually) and brought them home. Keep in mind that after the Soviets left Afghanistan in 1989, followed by the fall of the Afghan government in 1992, conflicts between tribal groups within Afghanistan began to take place. Eventually, a movement arose from this conflict that was supported by Pakistan, as well as Al-Qaeda. It came to be known as the Taliban. Then came the events of 9/11 in 2001. One thing that few people in the United States understand is the reasoning behind the attacks of that day. The reason we were attacked has to do with the fact that the US had military bases in Saudi Arabia. The 9/11 hijackers, being mostly Saudi, viewed this as American Imperialism being imposed on them. Then, of course, came the war in Afghanistan. And guess who the Taliban got their weapons from? Yep, the American government, primarily under the Reagan Administration. And now they were using these weapons against us. On other fronts, Reagan also supported oppressive regimes in Latin America based solely on the fact that they were anti-communist. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Reagan's Foreign Policy Was Ultimately Bad, Both for Others and the United States

I thank our new member for offering this debate. Since we have 5 rounds, I will just accept and await my opponent's full argument, as many of the terms in the resolution are vague. My opponent probably wishes to reserve specifics for round 2, which is fine. I will not offer definitions until I see how my opponent defines his position. I await his full argument, and reserve any definition of terms until he provides his full position.