BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Homosexuality is a choice

Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind, as it is an abomination. In the Bible, it clearly states that God creates all people. It clearly states that homosexual acts are an "abomination". Why would God create a person to be an abomination? Why would God make someone a sinner. God making a person gay is like a parent wanting their child to grow up to be a rapist or a murderer. Homosexual acts are a sin in the Bible, and sins are choices. Therefore, homosexuality is a choice. I will wait on your response.
Homosexuality is a choice

I am an advocate for gay rights only because I believe, through following scientific evidence, and my morals which I was taught from at home, at my catholic school, and from people I have talked to that homosexuality is without a doubt not a choice. TOPIC OF DISCUSSION We are not debating whether or not Gay's should be allowed rights or whether or not its their rights to begin with but rather we are debating the concept homosexuality being a choice. In hopes we can wrap up this debate fairly quick I have made it allow only 48 hours of time before our arguments will be do as opposed to the default 72 hours. Please do not incorporate religion into the debate as we are not debating that. However, if you feel your point can only be made from a religous outlook or you feel its appropriate then I encourage you to use it. As we get into the second round please try to use sources and reliable sources.(No bias fox or MSNBC reports) lets try to stay strictly with facts and studies that have been done to help prove one point or the other. As I have set it to only four rounds of debate I will not waste any time and begin with my first round debate. HOMOSEXUALITY A CHOICE? It was often believed that for anyone who expressed the unusual way of love, homosexuality, that they chose to do so. However our great country which was founded to be simple has grown and changed and was never for one second a simple place. As our understanding of things change and as more and more people are becoming comfortable with their sexual orientation and advocating for rights we are left to wonder why they would choose this life.(this is of course in context as someone who believes homosexuality is a choice) It seems like an odd thing. However I invite you to ponder upon this question; "When did you choose your sexual orientation whether it be gay, straight, bi, or if you have no desire at all?" An odd question to think about but it brings up my next question perhaps even a little harder to answer, why did you choose this as your orientation. If your like most people and can't remember why you choose your orientation or when you did then maybe from just that question you can begin to understand or you can then fully understand. However this may not suffice, and for all intents and purposes lets continue and examine the science of it all. THE GAY GENE Many supporters of gay marriage often mention a gene which can be found in unborn babies, toddlers, children, and adults who are homosexual. Most researchers have found there is no such thing as a gay gene but rather what causes people to be gay is brainwaves that may come from genetics inherited my a mother.(In a homosexual male and vise-versa in a homosexual female) http://www.pbs.org... This is going to be the closing of my first argument, I look forward to a lively debate and your objections to my statements.
Darwin's theory of evolution.

No, we have never observed evolution, and picking up fossils anbd saying that they evolved from eachother, therefor evoluytion is true, is only a circular argument and founded on circumstancial evidence. Either way, the mutation would need to affect your entire body even if your body does not reject the foreign material because this is only one cell, your sperm/egg cells pass on genes, and mutations would be vitrtualy impossible to happen to them. Besides, considering how often these rare mutains occur, and how subtle they are, it would take more time for a bacterium to evolve into a human than the lifetime of the universe. See here {1} 13:00-15:00{1}. ;
Darwin's theory of evolution.

There is fossil observe fossil evidence to satisfy Alders razor. Claim 3: Not only that but we can observe DNA mutations. Warrant 3:"Other drivers of mutation: Environmental agentsRadiation, chemicals, byproducts of cellular metabolism, free radicals, ultraviolet rays from the sun—these agents damage thousands of nucleotides in each of our cells every day." [5]Impact 3: DNA mutations provide supporting evidence for the hypothesis."Hitchen's Razor which says that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." harrytrumanThere is ample evidence for evolution via my claim two, fossil evidence, which you did not dispute. "or the organisms body will reject the foreign tissue" harrytrumanClaim 4: Mutations happen more incrementally than you imply. One mutation takes place and isn't destroyed. No major changes so the body doesn't attack. The mutation is passed onto the offspring and the immune system sees this as normal. After enough generations another mutation takes place, and so forth, until you have significant genetic variation. Warrant 4: "Mutations are changes in the DNA. A single mutation can have a large effect, but in many cases, evolutionary change is based on the accumulation of many mutations."[6]Impact 4: As you can see you almost always need multiple mutations. Meaning the change is too subtle for the immune system to destroy. This leads supporting evidence for the hypothesis. Claim 5: Sometimes there is just too much damage for the immune system to repair. Warrant 5: Cancer, this is common knowledge.Impact 5: Mutations, particularly in the case of cancer can slip by the immune system. Thanks for the debate.Sources5. http://learn.genetics.utah.edu...6. http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
Darwin's theory of evolution.

First of all, Alders Razor specifically mentions "experiment and observation," out "thinking and contemplating," this means that it is referring to science, not philosophy. Newton was a scientist not [philosopher, and this logic would have no applicable use in philosophy since philosophy does not deal with physical and tangible evidence but rather with philosophical evidence. Second of all, even if there was no proof for or against evolution, this wouldn't verify your point. It is true that a lack of proof for an argument or theory does not disprove that argument or theory, but this falls under Hitchen's Razor which says that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. So I don't need evidence provided you cannot verify evolution of prove it, I can just dismiss it. Third of all, I have demonstrated, in that link, that multicellular organisms evolving is impossible. If they mutated, the mutation would have to affect all cells in the same way simultaneously, or the organisms body will reject the foreign tissue, and this form of mutation is extremely unlikely if not impossible.
Darwin's theory of evolution.

Claim 1: Alders razor applies more to philosophy than science. Warrant 1: " Mike Adler suggests that the flaming sword is a useful tool against Platonic philosophers, who may ask one to engage in an older type of game, than the one usually played by modern science and mathematics." [2]Impact 1: I think my opponent has brought the wrong tool to the duel. I just don't see how my opponent mentioning Alders razor impacts the resolution, possible red herring.Claim 2: Archaeologists have found copious amounts of fossils including transitional fossils that support the hypothesis of evolution.Warrant 2: [3]Impact 2: I have supported the resolution with evidence."We have never observed or tested evolution in multi-cellular organisms" harrytrumanIrrelevant, a lack of evidence is not proof against the hypothesis of the theory of evolution. "which as I have demonstrated here, is impossible:" harrytrumanYou make the claim its impossible, you provide a long link as a warrant, but then you fail to show how this impacts back to the resolution. How am I supposed to know what's inside my opponent's head? I can only guess how this statement impacts the resolution. I'm not going to impact your claim back to the resolution for you. Here's a link on how to debate.[4]Sources:2. https://bainite.wordpress.com...3. http://evolution.berkeley.edu...4. http://debate-central.ncpa.org...
Darwin's theory of evolution.

I accept. Alders Razor says that anything which cannot be established by experement or observation is not worthy of debate. So this really isn't worthy of debate, but considering how absurd it is, and how widely accepted it is, I believe that it deserves to be exposed for all it's idiocy. We havenever observed or tested evolution in multi-cellular organisms, whjich as I have demonstrated here, is impossible:https://docs.google.com...
All drugs should be legalised, change my mind.

I do not want free health care, but I do want the people doing drugs to be offered psychological help. But free health care is another discussion.Driving while on drugs should be illegal. Just as it is today. But all your arguments seem to be standing on one belief: If we legalise heroin, everybody is going to use heroin!Well, how many people reading this would start using heroin if it were legal? I bet nobody would start using it just because it would be legal. Nobody think like this: oh I cant take care of myself, and I don't want to use drugs, so I need the governments laws to take care of me!Nobody see the law as an obstacle for drugs, you either want to do drugs, or you don't. There is nowhere in between. Simple as that. My point is that there wont be a large amount of people who start doing drugs just because it will become legal, and that is what your arguments seem to be based upon.1 in 3 adults have been doing illegal drugs at some point in their lives. I don't think that anybody would think that 1 in 3 adults have been suffering from all those negative aspects of drugs that you just mentioned. Which means that you are taking a bunch of exceptional and extremely rare cases, in order to prove that all cases of drugs are bad. There is a really big and important difference of guns and drugs. If the rate of drug use goes up and down, there that wont be a big problem, since it is only hurting the drug users themselves (actually, a very small proportion of the drug users). But if the rate of gun violence goes up, we have got a really big problem at our hands. Guns are made to harm other people, while drugs are made either for medical reasons, or for an experience. A man has his own choice if he would like to do drugs or not, but no man has a choice if he will be shot by a gun or not. The legalisation of drugs would in my opinion stop the development of new, less expensive and potentially more dangerous drugs. Take cocaine for example. The main reason that cocaine got as popular as it did, was because of the high marijuana prices. If the marijuana price would have been lower, cocaine would have never been popular. That brings the question, why were the marijuana price so high? The answer to that question is that it were illegal. If marijuana would have been legal, the price would have been low thanks to competition. But since it were illegal, it got harder to sell, so the drug dealers could set a higher price. By then, the demand for a new, less expensive, and potentially more dangerous drug also went up. So my point is, the more money we put into the war on drugs, the harder it get for the drug dealers, forcing the price to go up and forcing a faster development of new, cheap, and more powerful drugs. This is the reason for so called internet drugs today. If the price would be low, nobody would develop new drugs, because there is no demand for it.I hold it to be the inalienable right of anybody to go to hell in his or her own way.
All drugs should be legalised, change my mind.

Legalising drugs is very ominous! Here is a summary of why not to legalise all drugs: *Productivity costs to the economy *Negative social aspects *Addiction leads to crime *Legalising drugs will shift the deaths associated with gang/cartel/mafia warfare to drug overdoses *Impact to family and individual wealth *Impact to family and individual well being *Health care costs will sky-rocket *General tax payers will be impacted due to the shift of money being fueled into health care costs and in turn neglecting other areas of focus that have proved positive social impacts such as medical and science research, infrastructure *Driving under the influence of drugs will increase; which will lead to increase fatalities on the road As a society we need to focus on areas that will improve society, not hinder the progress and especially impose an unnecessary evil that will corrupt people. We need remember as humans we are vulnerable, and have moments of weakness that result in regrets. Lets look at a comparison of American gun laws V's Australian and United Kingdom gun laws. America has profound negative implications with guns literally being passed around like air around society, just look at all the mass shootings. Compare that to Australia and United Kingdom, for example the last mass shooting (massacre) in Australia was in the mid-to late 90s (Port Arthur Massacre); since more regulated gun laws no such event has occurred. I guess my fundamental argument in this paragraph is that when something, that may cause or have negative implications in society, is readily available it will do so, and on a grand scale. And even people that are morally opposed to consuming drugs, will have moments of weakness and this could irreversible regret. You might argue that legalising all drugs might be safer, because there would regulation and the chemical composition be in turn regulated, and hence deaths resulting from dud drugs could reduce; this might be accurate, but my above arguements would superseed that as mortality would increase due to utilising the substance even if it chemical composition was stable for a human to consume.
Same-Sex marriage should be allowed in the United States.

I've seen many debates concerning the topic of same-sex marriage. However, I haven't seen what I consider a justified reason for same-sex marriage to be illegal. The common cons for same-sex marriage are: 1.) This country was developed by Christians, and same-sex marriage is a sin. - Ok, so our Forefathers developed the nation under God. However, the United States isn't purely made up of Christians, and it is supposed to allow religious freedom. Using Christian views in government, is influencing Christian views. 2.) Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. - Whose to say this definition cannot change under various circumstances. When two people of the same sex feel strongly for each other, why should the be denied the rights of other couples. In addition, I'd like to say that banning same-sex marriage has no effect on anyone, except for those who plan on having a same-sex marriage. If a person is morally against same-sex marriage, or against it for any other reason, then they can choose not to attend a wedding of two people of the same gender. There are no negative effects on people who aren't homosexual.
'God is everywhere'

There you have it, just like people consider that a fresh sea breeze is good for clearing your chest, they also consider the presence of God as being actual. Let us be honest here, and state that there are enough gaps in our real self awareness to allow for the existence of this entity to remain a bit of a mystery to us. People feel God. People arrive at God by a process of deduction. People are pulled further into God if they allow their instincts to help them. God never sleeps. God never disappears. All life forms participate in God. Inanimate objects are in themselves, components of God, as are consequences such as shadow, moonlight, wind, current etc. God is in a constant state of well being. Our position and purpose in all this is to participate and wonder as only humans can. Our exuberance and wonder has blinded us as to our real role within God. We were meant to participate and share within God and not to gather and redistribute. We have been one of the more idiotic aspects of the God phenomena and we are about as objectively useful as Canadian mosquitoes or the midges of the Scottish Highlands. I do not want to be too harsh but it appears that we are bent on self exclusion from the healing that is God. Such are the implications of our 'free will'. Is it free will to insist on stupidity?? Your guess is as good as mine. Thanks Batterman for your participation here. You make good points about the various manifestations of 'God belief ' that have occurred down through the ages. Yes, there has been superstition and fear and exploitation throughout this story but the fact remains that all this 'belief' is squarely based on our perceptions of our own reality. There is something there that we describe as 'God' We feel God, we deduct God, and we find God to be beneficial to our state of being and we therefore believe in God. Unfortunately, that is the point where we take out our box of crayons and we attempt to draw God. God is best understood when we are in direct contact with our physical world be that through simply living, working or just enjoying physical activity outdoors. God is a wonderful experience if allowed to happen.
'God is everywhere'

Now, when you said 80% of the world believe in God. Assuming you are a Christian, you are saying the Christian God. I did a little research. Only 31% of the world is religious. Of that percentage, 70% are Christian. Now that that is out of the way, I'd like to explain what I said in the last round. In early times, people had no explanation for natural spooks, and no science could provide an explanation. They would say that it all happens because of an angry deity is punishing the world for it's wrongdoings. Also, the first religion is thought to be Christian, but that is false. The first is Hinduism: a belief in multiple gods, not one lone creator. A religion that believes everything is immortal. A religion that does not flow with Christian beliefs. Christianity is a creation. Therefore, it's beliefs are a creation.
'God is everywhere'

Hi Bat(ter)Man, You state 'Simply believing in something does not mean that is is real necessarily. ' Can you give me real examples of what you are talking about. As Cher says 'Do you believe in life after love?' If there is consistent 'God belief' in various isolated locations during human history then this is proof that there is a single cause for this phenomena. It also indicates that the source of this belief is tangible and local to each of these human groupings.If not then why not? The essential existence of God within the range of human awareness explains why 'God belief' appears to evolve and mutate rather than to wane and disappear. over time. Correct me if I am incorrect but last time I checked over 80% of the world's population profess a belief in God. Why do people believe in God?
'God is everywhere'

"God Belief" emerged because one man alone believed that there is an afterlife. It is up to all other people to accept that theory. God belief, as you said, is everywhere. That does not support the theory that God is everywhere. Simply believing in something does not mean that is is real necessarily. And a God is not the only thing that can explain all curiosities. Science, however, is able to provide an explanation to a myriad of curiosities. I consider myself quite good at picking holes. And, it's not Batman. It's Bat(er)man
'God is everywhere'

Hi Batman, Why is it that 'God belief' emerged independently among human societies all over the world. God belief is everywhere. This fact alone displays a, common everyday source or cause. Do you agree? Danger is everywhere, cohesion is everywhere, chaos is everywhere, Why not God? Think about it. The God of our existence captivates and attracts us in a myriad of ways. It is all-encompassing and awe- full to us. It transcends the universe to logically hold within it 'omnipotence' What have I missed? Have I lost you yet. I will respond to all and sundry via comments and we can move on slowly. Are you any good at picking holes in something, Batman?
Labor Unions should be abolished.

Thank you for Con! It was just a lapse for not putting superscript that directly attributes the sources, but anyway the sources are found at the bottom. In round one, I used my own arguments; however, in round two, I decided to put evidence from different sources in support with my arguments in round one. Conclusion: Arguments why Labor unions should be abolished1. It leads to higher prices for consumers.2. It prevents the firing of clearly incompetent workers. 3. It leads to job losses.
Labor Unions should be abolished.

Labor union- an organization of workers formed of advancing its members’ interests in respect to wages, benefits, and working conditions.Arguments why Labor unions should be abolished1. It leads to higher prices for consumers.For instance, a Union of company (x) demand for wage increase, then the employers(board) accepted the demand, so to recover the losses, the board of directors of company (x) decided to raise the prices of their products. This would affect a wider circle of people than the fewer people of labor unions.2. It prevents the firing of clearly incompetent workers. An incompetent worker can depend on unions to maintain his employment, even if he is not doing his job very well. This mentality should be avoided; otherwise it would harm the company and the products they make. Another, the idea of labor union destroys the idea of competitive worker, as an incompetent worker may rely to the union anytime to avoid work termination.3. It leads to job losses.Many workers may lose their job because the company could no longer afford to pay for their wages because certain Union workers demanded wage increase. And worst, the company may shut down because it could no longer profit; this would result to loss of jobs for everyone working in the company. Or else, the company will go abroad because of cheaper workers, resulting again to loss of job.Without labor unions, workers are still protected because there are laws that protect them in their workplace. Let us think of the Economy! Let us promote competitiveness among workers! Let us not succumb to violent demands!