BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay marriage should be legal

I'll start by laying out the first premises I have adopted for this debate. Governments exist. Here are a few examples: . http://www.usa.gov... . http://www.madagascar.gov.mg... . http://www.royal.gov.uk... . http://english.gov.cn... Whether a government exists to protect its citizens (Switzerland, Israel), to serve a more powerful government's ends (East Germany, the Marcher Lords in medieval Wales), or merely to line the pockets of the rulers (Cuba, Saudi Arabia), it needs power to achieve that end. That power is based on the ability to wield deadly force. A country without ability to defend itself or impose order on its citizens is, in the normal course of events, waiting for a conqueror; and unable to effectively fulfill its purpose. Whatever diminishes from a nation's ability to defend itself is thus considered less desirable than an option that increases that ability, under this theory of government. As one cannot foresee how much power of coercion may become necessary to have available for future events, the logical course is to maximize one's available power to be as prepared as possible. . http://www.iep.utm.edu... There are two aspects of gay marriage that make it undesirable for the maximization of power: 1. Gay marriages do not result in any offspring, thus not creating additional potential soldiers or workers to increase the power available; and, 2: Any marriage results in one legally taxable entity where there was two before; decreasing the potential income through taxation. Marriages tend to collect dependents, reducing the working population; and the resulting potential emotional stability adds resistance to government-employed emotional conditioning/propaganda, potentailly reducing control and thus power. This second argument applies to any marriage, of any type; although gay marriages may be less likely to attract dependents (although adoption is still a possibility, as are mendicant in-laws) the arrangement still allows one partner to remain at home rather than contributing to the workforce. Thus, the arguments against *any* marriage being legal apply equally to gay marriage. It may sound harsh for a government to impose restrictions on its citizens merely to increase its power (or order, or stability); but in reality it is an everyday occurrence. Examples of such restrictions include: -Militia laws -Gun control laws -Traffic laws (forbidding un-liscensed individuals from driving certain vehicles) -Anti-sedition laws (forbidding conspiracy to overthrow the government) -Anti-trust laws (forbidding monopolies) ------------------------ From the viewpoint of the government, therefore: Gay marriage should NOT be legal, as it tends to diminish the power available to the government to fulfill its purpose for existence.
Gay marriage should be legal

I agree to with my opponent's definition of gay marriage, and am glad to see it includes the fact that it has tax and liability issues, and is not exclusively a religious institution (which many theists and atheists fail to see). I will also agree with my opponent's assessment that all humans have the same inherent rights - it'd be a whole other debate to talk about the meta-ethical merits of natural rights, or what have you. I don't know exactly what my opponent's argument will be, but alas that's for me to wait. Since my opponent states that arguments begin in Round 2, I will not post anything further. Good luck!
Gay marriage should be legal

First of all, my greetings and thanks to my opponent; hope this will be a good debate! :) PROPOSITION: Gay Marriage should be legal. DEFINITION: Gay Marriage: A legally recognized socio-economic union, treated as a single entity for tax and liability purposes, with or without religious sanction, between two humans of the same gender. Not arguing about the constitutionality or current legal status of same in America or any other country; just whether it SHOULD be legal. We are assuming that all humans have the same inherent rights, and that implementation is not an issue. I am approaching this debate from a centrist, authoritarian viewpoint, and will argue the CONVERSE. My opponent is welcome to argue any position he wants that AFFIRMS the proposition as stated. This is a philosophy debate; I don't have the time to dig out the most scholarly sources on this topic, and will not hold my opponent to a higher standard of research than myself. Wikipedia and a few online dictionaries/encyclopedias will have to suffice. Arguments begin R.2. Thanks again!
Stricter gun control laws

You are completely misunderstanding me. I meant at a minimum there should be tests administered before people are allowed to buy guns to ensure mental stability. I DO NOT in any way agree with your opinion. I never said it should be illegal. I said there should be stricter laws to protect people. In the south, businesses who allowed people to open carry lost business because so many of their customers were afraid of being shot because some people were "practicing their second amendment rights." I'm not wording my arguments to your advantage. If people are allowed to open carry, we won't be safer. There will be more violence and more crime. I don't know where you people get the idea that more guns equals more safety. It doesn't. There was a man who was practicing his right to open carry and had his gun stolen from him. At gun point. Do you really think that if "regular citizens" and people who are considered sane are allowed to own whatever guns they want people will be safer? Do you really think that the number of school shootings will decrease? Do you really think that some kid who decides he wants to hurt someone won't take his father's gun? Do you really think people are safer like that? I'm sorry, but the illusion that society will be safer if more people are allowed to own/open carry guns is just that. An illusion. I don't want to live in a place where my family is wary when they say goodbye in the mornings going to school, not knowing if maybe today is the day its my school. I don't want to go to a movie theater and think maybe someone will decide to bring their gun today. I'm sorry but that is not a safe society.
Stricter gun control laws

You disagree with me that I am wrong with stricter gun laws forcing people to abuse it even further. Yet you contradict yourself by stating in a few sentences later that they should not be as strict and only do so towards the mentally insane and evil, which I have stated to refute your arguments so you are partially agreeing with your opponent? Also, there has been many events in history where this was true - alcohol prohibition in the 1920's and video game ban in China. Guess what happened - people drank alcohol and played video games even more illegally. I agree that guns should not be owned by everybody, but if they are mature and responsible enough to not use it for criminal activity, then why not? You state that again you only want psychos and criminals to not have guns, yet you stated earlier that all should not have guns. Opponent appears to be contradicting themselves and constantly changes their stance of gun control. That is what I have said; put stricter laws only on psychos and criminals, and not on common citizens - you agree and disagree with me at once. I think you need to re-word your arguments so that they will not be used to opponent's advantage. Opponent says if all are allowed to have guns, that would ensue total chaos. Yet opponent keeps going back and forth, stating that only psychos and criminals should not have guns, then state otherwise. What are you trying to argue? Which side are you on? Please make it more clearer in the final round in order to understand what you are stating for opponent and voters' sake. Opponent then attempts to clarify things a bit by giving an example, but that example itself is flawed and hard to comprehend. How does making guns responsible for one person even if others use it related to gun control? Your example was great until the end; instead of that, opponent should have stated the obvious: that that person would have died for keeping the gun safe.
Stricter gun control laws

I see what you are saying and I understand where you are coming from and how you may think that stricter gun laws will cause people to want to abuse them. I disagree with you. If there are laws that actually prevent people from getting their hands on guns, there will be nothing for them to abuse. There needs to be mental health tests, drug tests, background checks, everything that a person should be required to take before being able to buy a gun. I don't think that people shouldn't be able to own guns at all. If someone wants a gun for hunting purposes or they are a cop or something like that, I obviously don't have a problem with that. I have a problem with psychos and people with mental illness being able to get their hands on a gun and able to put my life in danger. Strict gun laws are the only answer to protecting our public. If everyone is allowed to carry a gun there will be anarchy. Think about it. Say you buy a gun and you store it safely in your house, in a locked box, taken apart so its safe. Imagine someone breaks in when you are there. You will not have enough time to go wherever you keep your gun stored safely, put it together, put the bullets in and defend yourself. You will not have enough time. And that gun is in your name. If it gets stolen and a crime is committed with it, it is in your name. You are responsible. Open carry laws are unethical.
Stricter gun control laws

Guns are certainly a major social issue in the United States however they are often abused by the insane and criminals; thus, it gives the wrong impression that guns do not protect humans. In fact, they are quite the opposite of what many people assume. Stricter gun control laws are not necessary to moderate guns because they only promote the illegal use of guns; only certain minorities will use guns in unethical/illegal ways; and there are many benefits that come along with passive gun laws. Prohibiting or limiting the use of guns will only make gun users want to use them even more. Just as parents trying to limit an activity will only make children become addicted, so will with guns. As humans are wired to be curious and become addicted to things that are purposely limited to them, it will only make matters worse as gun owners will attempt to use guns even more with such laws. This has been proven throughout history as anything banned by the government would only make them be used even more by the people. Only certain evil or crazy people will use guns. Instead of trying to limit gun use, the government should only try to prevent guns from getting in the wrong hands. They should create laws that are fair and only limit those that are crazy/evil, such as requiring a gun license and attendance at certified gun training facilities to purchase a gun. As opponent said, only the insane and evil abuse such a privilege, so the government should only make laws to prevent guns from getting into the wrong hands. There are also many benefits that come along with using guns as a citizen. You can use it to protect your own or others' lives when there are criminals or crazy people that have illegally purchased guns to kill people. You can use it as self-defense against not just people but with animals and with objects in certain situations. Having a gun also makes you feel safe in case your country gets invaded; that's the reason why Japan never invaded U.S. in WWII.
Stricter gun control laws

Guns are a major problem in the US. People believe that more guns will save you. That is not the case. They can be stolen easily, especially by kids, if stored in the house and its just dangerous. I don't know why people are so in favor of guns. They are dangerous and bad. They say "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." That's just dumb. Yes the person used a gun to kill someone but a gun was still the weapon. It still killed someone. Our country needs very strict gun control laws. Massachusetts has some of the strictest laws in the country and you almost never hear about incidents with guns there. My family shouldn't have to be scared every time I go to school wondering if they will ever see me again, wondering if today is that one day, that one school that happens to have a student open fire. They shouldn't have to be scared for my safety. I should be able to go get an education without the fear of "What if today its my school?" There are some crazies out there.
The drinking age should be 18

Rebuttals1. My opponent states his first issue with lowering the drinking age to be increased alcohol dependencies.The current law induces fear to those who drink underage, thus they tend to drink in private places. Because of this, current underage alcoholics drinking away from the public eye, including older adults. If they drank in public, the older adults would be able to intervene and help them with their addiction. Lowering the drinking age would in turn lower 18-20 year old alcohol dependency due to the fact that this age group would be drinking in the safety of the public. [1][2]2. My opponent states the lowering the drinking age would be medically irresponsible. At 18 years old, a person can buy tobacco. I assume we can agree that tobacco is very unhealthy. Given that, an adult is allowed to damage their body with tobacco, but not alcohol. That doesn't make sense considering there are on average 480,000 smoking related deaths a year compared to only 88,000 alcohol related deaths a year. If lowering the drinking age is medically irresponsible, then why is the age to purchase tobacco not 21 years old? [3][4]3. My opponent says lowering the drinking age would have a "trickle-down" effect.80% of high school seniors admit to having at least one drink. This showcases that even with the current age restriction now, that the trickle-down effect will happen no matter what. Whether to lower or raise the drinking age, minors will always be able to get their hands on alcohol. There is no way to stop this, and it is something that only parents can fix. If the parents aren't responsible enough, then there is no way to prevent minors from drinking. [5][1] http://www.speakupcoalition.org...[2] http://drinkingage.procon.org...[3] http://www.cdc.gov...[4] http://www.cdc.gov...[5] http://alcoholnews.org...To be fair, my opponets rebuttals should only be regarding my main argurment, and not in regards to my rebuttals.
The drinking age should be 18

ARGUMENTS 1. Alcohol Dependencies “Alcohol dependence is a substance related disorder in which an individual is addicted to alcohol either physically or mentally, and continues to use alcohol despite significant areas of dysfunction.”[1] “Young adults, ages 18-20, have the highest rate of alcohol dependence in the U.S. population.”[2] Alcohol is an addictive substance, and young adults are more likely to form addictions because their brains have not yet reached full development. It is better for one not to develop an alcohol dependency, especially at such a young age, under 20. Around 50% of alcoholics started drinking at a very young age, whereas only 9% of alcoholics started drinking when they were over 21 years old.[3] The following chart chart shows that 18-20 year olds are almost twice as likely to abuse alcohol or develop dependencies than 21+ year olds, let alone 15-17 year olds are almost five times as likely and under 14 year olds are almost eight times as likely.[4] 2. Lowering the drinking age would be medically irresponsible Drinking alcohol before one has reached their mid-twenties can cause alterations in the function and structure of the young adult’s developing brain. Pertaining to young adults, the parts of the brain that alcohol can affect include, but are not limited to, the cerebral vortex, central nervous system, frontal lobes, hippocampus, cerebellum, hypothalamus, and the medulla.[5] Young adults should allow their brains to become fully developed and matured before they consume decent amounts of alcohol. If a young adult is legally able to purchase alcohol, then they are most likely not going to consume “just a sip.” 3. Lowering the drinking age would have a “trickle-down” effect “There is also some "trickle-down" effect in that when youth get alcohol they often give it to even younger teens. When the legal age is 21, 19- and 20-year olds can often obtain alcohol from their friends. When the drinking age was 18 and 19, 17- and even 16-year olds were often able to get alcohol from their friends. If the drinking age is lower, more alcohol will be available to younger high school students and perhaps even middle school students.”[6] To sum this up, 21-24 year olds typically buy alcohol for 18-20 year olds. If 18-20 year olds can legally buy alcohol, then the same effect applies. 18 year olds will, with no doubt, buy alcohol for kids 17 and under. We can see this already with tobacco laws, where 18-20 year olds buy cigarettes for those under 17 years of age. SOURCES [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.surgeongeneral.gov... [3] http://www.nytimes.com... [4] http://www.samhsa.gov... [5] http://www.toosmarttostart.samhsa.gov...; --------------------As agreed, there will be no new arguments in round 3. I await your rebuttals.
The drinking age should be 18

I am in favor of the drinking age being lowered to 18. My opponent is in favor of not lowering the drinking age to 18.Of the many reasons why the drinking age should be lowered, I will the select the top three reasons that represent why I am in favor of lowering the drinking age.1. Legal Adulthood is 18 in US. 2. When persons under 21 drinks, they tend to drink more for the thrill.3. With the current law in place, people still drink alcohol in private locations.1. When a person reaches the age of 18 years old in the United States, they are a legal adult. They have the right to vote in an election and they have the right to enlist in the army. To put it in limelight, an adult can choose who their leader is and can choose to take a bullet for the country. With these responsibilities, it is only right that they should be allowed to bear the responsibility of alcohol. The definition of a legal adult: a person who has attained the age of majority and is therefore regarded as independent, self-sufficient and responsible. A legal adult is responsible as the previous definition states. So with that responsibility, legal adults should be allowed to purchase and drink alcohol due to the fact that they are reasons to do so by definition. I ask, why can a legal adult have their right to consume stripped from them?2. With the current age restriction in place, drinking alcohol is a special privilege reserved for those older than 21. When 18-20 year olds get their hands on it, they tend to go crazy with it. This only happens because they are excited and thrilled that they have got their hands on this special thing and do not know when the next time will come where they can drink this special thing. The effect of this is drunk drivers and alcohol related deaths. If the age restriction was lowered, 18-20 year olds wouldn't view alcohol as a special drink, it would just be regarded as any other normal beverage. If 18-20 years could buy alcohol, then they wouldn't binge drink when they get their hands on alcohol because they know when they want more they can just go to the store and get some.3. Even now with the current age restriction in place, 18-20 year olds still drink in private locations, away from the public eye. This adds to the danger of unsafe drinking. If 18 year old were allowed to drink, they would drink more often in bars and other public places. This would in turn provide a safer drinking environment for them, as they would be under the supervision of employees, bartenders and police.Additionally, the current law does not good. The law in unenforceable with 18-20 year olds still able to drink behind closed doors. The current law is just a burden to those who have reached adulthood.http://healthresearchfunding.org...http://www.cognac.com...http://drinkingage.procon.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...
The drinking age should be 18

For this debate, my opponent and I will be debating whether or not the drinking age should be lowered to 18 years old in the US. I will take the pro/for position, in favor of the drinking age being lowered. My opponent will take the con/against, arguing that the law should remain the same at 21 years old, or be raised.Round 1: Acceptance/Basic ViewpointRound 2: Main ArgumentRound 3: RebuttalsMy stance is that the drinking age should be lowered to 18 because for the following reasons.- The current law in unenforceable- The current law only increases the dangers of alcohol.- The current law does not prevent alcohol related deaths.
The drinking age should be 18

Thank you Con for your rebuttals. REBUTTALS1. Legal Adulthood is 18 in USWhile legal adulthood is 18 in the US, the age of full brain development does not come until one's twenties. "They have the right to vote in an election and enlist in the army. It is only right that they should be allowed to take the responsibility of alcohol." These two arguments are not related to drug use, the intaking of alcohol. As I proved in my previous arguments, alcohol use physically affects the bodies of younger drinkers more than it does to older adults. Voting does not pose any immediate physical affects to the body. Yes, 18 year olds can fight for our country and take a bullet, but that is not drug related. 18 year olds are much more likely to die as a result of alcohol abuse or DUI than being shot while serving in the military. 5000 underage drinkers die every year as a result of alcohol, and 190,000 underage drinkers are hospitilized every year from alcohol related incidents.[1] The number of deaths of 18-20 year olds serving in the military are too low to compare. 2. Underage drinkers drink more for the thrillPro has falied to prove that alcohol "being hard to get" is the main factor in heavy underage drinking. Since Pro's argument here is opinionated, I will give my opinions as well. There are better alternatives in teaching underage drinkers the effects of alcohol by just letting them drink however much they want. Alcohol consumption and moderation should be taught by teachers and parents, not first hand experimentation. 3. People still drink alcoholPeople still get drunk at bars and other public places, even at the legal age. Allowing young adults to drink in public does not mean that they will not abuse alcohol."The law is unenforceable."Actually, it is enforceable. You must provide a valid ID to show that you are at least 21 years old in order to purchase alcohol. Drinking and driving underage has more consequences than drinking and driving at legal age. If someone breaks the law by drinking underage, it's called breaking the law. Yes, young adults are still able to drink alcohol. Someone underage being able to drink alcohol does not show that therefore the drinking age should be lowered if underage drinkers want to drink anyway. 4. SourcesThis is a rebuttal regarding Pro's sources. First source: Shows the pros and cons to lowering the drinking age, so it works in my favor as well. Third source: Same as above. Those two sources do not give your argument the edge over the cons to lowering the drinking age, they just show the pros and cons. By just listing the pros from a website that shows pros and cons, you are not arguing for the lowering of the drinking age, you are showing the pros which would leave the voters to vote based on their own opinions as to whether they agree with the pros or the cons.SOURCES [1] http://www.niaaa.nih.gov...