BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Homosexuality is not Immoral

The commands are inherently natural even though they may be hard to act out to the point that we may not what to act. However, I understand what you are saying. Okay so with P2 what I am saying is that we have reasoned certain moral principles that people will recognize upon removing factual barriers and the example I used was the African tribes murdering the deformed infants on the basis of them being made by evil spirits. Religious and secular "morals" are still defined by reason which can be corrupted by factual errors for example Islamic terrorism. Because you have not refuted P2 you made a mistake in not addressing P3. P3 is correct because most people who oppose homosexuality do not believe it is natural. This argument is mainly concerned with Christianity and popular culture who most in those groups would agree that marriage is more about love than sex. On divorce, While it is certain theologically speaking a sin if you can't refind the love than divorce may be the right move just like lying to save the life of an innocent is the right move. Most would scoff at the idea of marriage for simply for sex. On P2. Once again morality as a rational enterprise. My point here is that when someone uses that argument that homosexuality is immoral because of sex than I attempt to remind them that such is not the purpose of homosexuality. Also, Remember moral values are subject to reason and circumstance so while in Canada I have no reason to do what the Nazi' s did in the 1930s and 40s Germany me killing Jews may not have necessarily been wrong. You have not defeated the syllogisms. Therefore they shall not be thrown out.
Homosexuality is not Immoral

Welcome. Moral intuitions are the baseline for Morality as a rational enterprise which is the hook of this debate but it does tie into our inborn sinful nature. You have not refuted my arguments and have not addressed my statements. So I have little to say here because of a lot of what you have said is not a real argument in my opinion. The following are sins that are natural: Pride, Jealous, Rebelliousness against Just authority, Lust An example of something that we are to do that is natural is sex, Love, Fellowship etc.
Homosexuality is not Immoral

Against my better judgement, I'll bite. I am less familiar with the precise points of debate, So I will instead just follow my own pattern, Rather than syllogism. Admittedly I am a pretty recent convert to Christianity, So do not think that my points necessarily represent the faith, Though I do think they are well thought out. These are my thoughts, And I take credit for them. These thoughts come from my personal reading of the bible, And have not been taught to me at any church, So if they do not sit well with the reader, Know that it is I writing this, And not Christianity as a whole. There is no offense intended at all on any points I may present, And they are meant for entertainment and learning for both myself, You, And any readers. As you bring up Christianity in your background, As well as your arguments, I will comment from this standpoint. I will make my assumptions and statements from what I believe traditional Christianity teaches about our sinful nature. As a Christian you have been taught that man is in a fallen state. As such, Sin and death entered the world. Man is inherently sinful. We have a sinful nature. Examples of this nature are seen even in children. When did your parents teach you to lie? When did they teach you to take toys from your sister? When did they teach you to hit, Bite, Or kick? They did not teach this to you, And yet somehow we all learned these traits. This is our inborn, Sinful nature. From my reading of the bible, I believe that all of God's commands go against our inborn, Or biologically fallen state. For example, We are commanded not to lust, Full, Gluttonous, Selfish, Prideful, And gossipers. In fact we are commanded to do what which is most unnatural, To turn the other cheek. . Faithful adherents often fast, Which is absolutely against survival. Often the most difficult is that we are commanded to have faith, Worship, And pray to a being we have not seen. All of these go against our natural fallen state, And explicitly against evolution, Which selects against all of these traits. What God asks is for us not to follow our fallen/inborn/genetic state, And choose the more difficult one of self denial. The fact that something is natural, Or genetic, Should cause us to wonder if this is something we should overcome to more closely commune with God. It may be that the more work on puts into overcoming these traits, The more reward lies in wait, Like when Job did not curse God for all of his troubles, Which would be the natural thing to do, And therefore he was greatly blessed. From my reading of the bible, I do not believe you find one commandment that asks us to do something we naturally would do. I believe that all of the commandments contrary to nature and our inborn traits. I am interested to see if you can list a "sin" that is natural and easy for us to follow, And are hard wired in our genetic code.
It should be legal to have sex with animals

Considering that it's impossible for two separate species to conceive a child it's clear the "goat" was actually a really ugly woman, like hideously ugly, but how the hell did you two mistake her for a goat? You're both a bunch of morons. I reject the entirety of your story, while I do believe you are telling the truth (without evidence, such a photographs) I believe you were simply mistaken. "So, in closing, having intercourse with animals leads only to tragedy and despair." I also reject this. Humans are animals by definition. So you're saying that having the best sex in the world with a really hot woman causes despair? Even if you forget the fact that humans are animals, I don't think f**king a pig is going to cause despair, especially if you're into that sort of thing. Maybe the pig will be a bit upset, but raping pigs can't be a big deal considering we murder and eat their flesh anyway. To conclude: My opponent has written a nice little story that may or may not be true, but brings very little substance to the table. Also I would like to point out that my opponent said- "On a side note, it is very hard to type with one hand." It is highly possibly that my opponent was fingering a chicken while writing this, so keep that in mind.
It should be legal to have sex with animals

No. It is bad to have sex with animals. My friend had sex with a goat, and he and this goat were in love. Like long walks on the beach in love. The goat, of course, conceived. In spite of all pleadings, even from the the Crazy Right Wing Christians, to abort this unholy menace, my friend and his goat were determined to have a family. Soon the goat gave birth to a half-goat half-human monstrosity. They named this godless affront to nature Billy. Every day my friend would come home and play catch with Billy. Billy sucked at catch, as that he had human arms but hoofs for hands. No matter, my friend encouraged him anyway. He even signed Billy up for Little League Baseball. Billy was cut from the no-cut team because he sucked...and because he was the very definition of ugly. Finally, in his teenage years, Billy found something he enjoyed that he could do: hiking. So Billy hiked and hiked. Then one day somebody shot Billy because they thought he was the Jersey Devil. Billy died. My friend's goat was so stricken with grief that she climbed the highest mountain and jumped off. My friend now has no one and nothing. He just spends his days drinking cow milk, pretending it was that oh so delicious goat milk. He is on suicide watch. So, in closing, having intercourse with animals leads only to tragedy and despair.On a side note, it is very hard to type with one hand.
It should be legal to have sex with animals

I believe that it should be legal to have sex with animals. I don't practice animal shagging, but I firmly believe that it can be both beneficial for the animals and for the people involved. Some animals are pretty cute though and while I personally wouldn't want to shag them, I'd be open to start some form of relationship at least on an emotional level, now if this relationship leads to a mutual desire for sex then I guess that's my exception and in that instance I would be liable to get down and freaky with said animal. Obviously I wouldn't expect anyone to begin fingering chickens or deep throating dogs. It would only be animals of near human size, such as pigs, sheep, donkeys and apes. I can't imagine if it's even possible to penetrate an elephant, but this too, would be legal. I got the strangest boner while writing this.
We need more active voters

So many easy debates to vote on, yet no votes still. http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org...
Resolved: The sky over planet Earth is not blue.

Yes the BOP is shared. It must not have C&P'd to this debate. You see I tried to do this before and something weird occured, but anyways let's get to the debate. Contention 1: The Sky is actually Clear.The sky itself is clear! The reason that it appears blue is that white light travels to the Earth from the sun. The when it hits Earth's Atomosphere the white light is split into it's colors (Rainbow) and just because the light hits the Earth at certain angel the sky appears to have a bluish tint to it. The blue light is then scattered across the atmosphere. (http://xromata.com...) Warning link is in a foreign language. Use Google Chrome to tranlate it if needed.) See Diagram bellow for more info. Due to the scatter Red and orange, being on the opposite end of the Visible Light spectrum the travel further and thus is why the sun appears that color. (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov...) "Brad Panovich, Chief Meteorologist at NBC Charlotte, explained that when the distance between the sun and our eyes is the shortest, violet is the color that makes it through the atmosphere best without being scattered. Technically, the sky is violet, not blue—our eyes compensate and we see it as blue." (http://www.theepochtimes.com...) Here you can see that it's not actually blue, but violet. Our eyes make it appear blue. Contention 2: Sunset's and Dawn is Red and Orange During the sunset the Sun's angle in the sky is different so the color that get's through changes and the color that appears the most is red and orange which gives it the look it has. (http://www.theepochtimes.com...) Contention 3: TritanopiaPeople who have the color blindness Tritanopia will not see a baby blue sky during the day, but instead will see a dark blue-Greenish (emerald) color. We cannot exclude any groups of people in this debate as adding all is a must, because it includes the society as a whole. (http://www.color-blindness.com...)Contention 4: The Stary SkyAnother proof that the Earth's Sky cannot be blue is that When we look up at the night sky we can seeing the vast darkness out outer space which is only lighted by the stars. If the sky was blue it would also be blue at night. We all remember this iconic photo correct. If the Earth's sky was truely blue then we would not be able to see the land masses bellow or even the clouds.
Resolved: The sky over planet Earth is not blue.

THIS IS NOT A TROLL DEBATE.I'd like to thank domr ahead of time for accepting this debate. This debate is about weather or not the sky itself is blue. This does not include clouds, pollution, or a rainy day.RulesNo trollingFirst round is accpetanceRound 2 is Contentions, no rebuttlesRound 3 is rebuttles and conclusionNo semantics.Sky-the space over the Earth where the sun, moon, stars, and clouds appear (http://www.learnersdictionary.com......)Is-present 3d singular of be (http://www.merriam-webster.com......)Blue- color on the visible color spectrum that has a wavelength of range from 450 nm to 495 nm.
Resolved: The sky over planet Earth is not blue.

I would like to point out to my opponent that according to the rules round 2 was for Contentions only no rebuttal's. Contention 1: The Sky is ClearMy opponent here is incorrect when he says the sky is blue based off what the eye sees. You see this actually helps me out is, because everything comes from the sun's white light. Take a nice red apple for example. The reason that it appears red is because of the fact that red is the color that it reflects and the rest of the colors are what the apple absorbs. The same works for Con's T-Shirt. (. http://www.pantone.com...) Con ignores my arguments on the distortion of the color of blue through the sky via distortion. This point is important, because it makes the sky appear blue. He also dropps my argument on the sky actually being violet, but our eyes pick up the majority blue. Contention 2: Sunset at Dawn is Red and Orange My opponent dropps this point. He acknowledges that the sky appears to be red and orange at these times. Due to the definition of the word is the fact that there are times when the sky isn't blue up holds the resolution. Contention 3: Color BlindnessMy opponent says that we must discard the color blind, because their opinion doesn't count. This is a huge fallacy. We must include everyone in this debate as the resolution is that the Sky is not Blue. Thus meaning that it has to be a blue sky. Contention 4: Stary NightsMy opponent also dropps how the sky at night is black. My opponent is greatly misled. He states that the sky is not opaque, but he failed to give you it's definition so I'll define it for us. Opaque- nottransparentortranslucent;impenetrabletolight;notallowinglighttopassthrough. (. http://dictionary.reference.com...) If that was a true statement then we would not be here right now as Photosynthesis requires sunlight to work and if his state about the sky not allowing light through is correct then we would not be breathing as photosynthesis wouldn't be able to work. My opponent is again in correct as he states that a the ocean is blue, but water is clear. You forget that we filter our water in developed countries and we get clean clear water. The reason why the ocean is blue is that the majority of the molecules in the ocean absorb all the light that isn't blue (as I explained in Contention 1) and the blue light is then seen by others. (. http://www.loc.gov...) (photo on right is SVS Global Biosphere shot by NASA) (photo on left by NOAA) In conclusion, we can see that the sky is not blue through the fact that the sky at night is black, during sunset is red/orange, and that during the day it is actually Violet! My opponent has dropped several very important points in this debate such as the sky being violet, black, and red/orange at sunset all of these are highly important. We can see that the blueness is caused by the scatter of the blue light waves out of the white light from the sun. The ocean is blue due to the absorption of the blue molecule not a reflection of the sky.
Resolved: The sky over planet Earth is not blue.

Thank you Con for clarifying BoP. Your arguments are insightful and educational. However slightly misleading.Rebuttals: "Contention 1: The Sky is actually Clear."This is a common misconception. While yes, the gasses that make up our atmosphere(s) (aka the sky) are clear, when they are mixed together they absorb colors except blue. This is how most objects work when light waves come in contact. They reflect certain colors distinguishing them to the human eye.This is why my shirt is grey, or wood is brown, or grass is green. Therefore the gasses making up the sky are not clear, as their property reflects light to our eyes transmitting a certain color (in this case blue).http://science.howstuffworks.com... "Contention 2: Sunset's and Dawn is Red and Orange" I cannot argue this point, I can onyl clarify, that because the sun is furhter away from us during sunrise and sunset, it has to travel through more air, more gasses, which do change the apparent color of the sky. However, throughout most of the day, in which light is present, the sky is blue.http://www.sciencedaily.com... "Contention 3: Tritanopia" Color blindness affects 8% of men, and 0.5% of women. This is every type of color blindness. Which means people who have color blindness affecting only certain colors, such as the blue of the sky, is a much smaller percentage.While they are every bit as important to society, we must disregard their opinion when arguing color, as they're genetic difference compromises the majority's opinion on color.http://www.color-blindness.com... "Contention 4: The Stary Sky"This is wildly inaccurate...The sky is not opaque. You can use a small amount of food coloring in water to change the color of it, but still be able to see through the other side. The gasses in the sky make up the color blue (the majority of the time). http://dictionary.reference.com...The reason why we can only see the blue sky, and not space is because there is not a lot of 'anything' in space near us to reflect light off for us to see. (occasionally we will see a planet, or the moon during the day time as it is in the correct spot and is relfecting enough light for us to see. The reason why we can see the land from outer space is because the light from the sun is able to reflect off of it and it then reaches outer space for astronauts to see.Proof to why the sky is blue:Con's own picture of the world. You see many land masses and and also large areas of blue. This is the water. Anyone who has filled up a clear glass cup of water is well aware that water is in fact clear.The reason why we see so much blue, is because the water as reflective properties and is reflecting the color of the sky back up through space. Thus the only conclusion is, for the majority of the day while the sun is overhead, the sky is blue.(We cannot count night into this argument, as there is very little light to reflect off the gasses in the sky to show any color.)
Affirmative Action

== What is racism? =="Racism" is "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."== Is affirmative action racist? ==No. Affirmative action doesn't discriminate "based on the belief that one's own race is superior." True, both affirmative action and racism discriminate on the basis of race. But affirmative action discriminates to remedy the results of racism and to increase diversity; racism discriminates to disenfranchise, exploit, and enslave blacks. Two very different motives and outcomes.Consider this analogy: Killing in self-defense and killing for money both involve killing. But killing in self-defense is clearly not the moral equivalent of killing for money. So too with affirmative action and racism. Both involve discrimination on the basis of race. But just as killing in self-defense isn't the same as killing for money, affirmative action isn't the same as racism. The key distinction is motive -- affirmative action discriminates with intent to remedy racism, whereas racism discriminates with intent to harm blacks. The outcome is also different: affirmative action helps blacks whereas racism hurts them.== Conclusion ==My opponent concedes that affirmative action increases diversity, which in turn produces good outcomes for businesses and universities. In effect, affirmative action is good for the economy, good for learning, expands wordliness, enhances social development, promotes creative thinking, and prepares students for work in a global society. Given those impacts, my opponent cannot win this debate.
Affirmative Action

First Rebuttal:For my rebuttal, I'm going to address your arguments from the last to the first, in hopes of changing your mind upon the negative effects of affirmative action. "Affirmative action is about improving businesses and improving college experiences for everyone, including white folks. It's also about recognizing the adversity that blacks and Hispanics (and other disadvantaged groups like women or homosexuals) face, and remedying the effects of unlawful discrimination."Can I have some examples?"And universities want a diverse student-body because a diverse student-body is good for learning, expands wordliness, enhances social development, promotes creative thinking, and prepares student for work in a global society."This still doesn't stop the fact that it forces a company to think with a racist viewpoint. For a system that abhors racism, it is strangely ironic that the system would make people let race come into their decision when deciding about an employee. "Businesses and universities aren't forced to do anything; they choose affirmative action."While affirmative action is not an enforced policy, if a company head decides that they want affirmative action, they in turn force their employees to accept it, as well as their admissions staff (in the case of a school). Besides, it is irrelevant whether or not they choose or are forced to pick affirmative action. The debate is exclusively about whether or not people should have affirmative action, not whether or not they have a choice."1. Affirmative action doesn't prevent universities from considering "skill" in admissions. Universities simply consider race as one factor among many in their admissions. In fact, in the United States, universities aren't allowed to use racial quotas or set-asides; they must review candidates holistically. [6]"It seems that you agree with me when you say that affirmative action forces people to consider race when hiring. Anyhow, I never did say that it completely takes out skill as a factor, just that it forces people to think a lot about race. In some situations, that may change their decision on who is hired solely based on ethnicity. I believe that to be woefully wrong. So far, it seems to me that you agree that affirmative action is a racist system, and that was the main point that I was trying to prove. Sources:1: http://en.wikipedia.org......2: http://quickfacts.census.gov......3: https://nces.ed.gov......