BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I am against homo sexuality and I will take on anyone who wishes to debate this

I am not sure what your stances on creation are, so I am just going to assume that you are atheist or agnostic and believe in evolution, not that I am implying it. I am simply guessing. If this is so, I then point out the fact that we reproduce through sexual reproduction. Meaning, that two partners of the opposite gender are needed in order to produce life. I do not believe in evolution, but if I did, I do not believe that we would have developed the need to to have sex with some one of the same gender for no purpose. as for the cons. I can name one in specific that most people already know and a less known reason. The first con was obviously, aids. Although it may be true that strait couples can contract this disease, studies have shown that it is 30 percent more likely that a gay couple will get aids compared to a strait couple. The other less known reason is gender identification crisis. Many, but not all, homosexuals act like their opposite gender. If there began an acceptance of a man acting like a women or a women acting like a man to the point were this situation is common, it would throw the natural balance of humanity out of order. if you have a religion such as Christianity, Judaism, or Islam, what is wrong with you? This is a mandate by god, you should not be questioning this.
I am against homo sexuality and I will take on anyone who wishes to debate this

First, I have to say that I love debating while I don't have a lot of time to do it. So this 48 hour argument is perfect. Also I have not studied the art of debating so I hope this will be quite informal. As I understand, we keep first round for acceptance. I invite Con to state the cons and pros and prove that it is not natural for humans. Then I will add my pros, try to talk about his cons and argue that it is not necessarily unnatural. I suggest that we clearly mark in our arguments each pro and con so that it is easier to debate them. So bring it on!
Mujahideen, goats arse.

In this debate, I have challenged Pro's position that Mujahideen or jihadists are a "goat's arse," or in other words a goat's anus. My opposition has accused me of being a burkha wearing ISIS scientist which is impossible due to a combination of geographic location, race, religious views, and general views in regards to ISIS. As I have stated in defense of my statement, a jihadist, no matter their actions being immoral or not can not be animal's anus without prior surgery. I greatly appreciate my first debate opportunity and am looking forward to my next.
Mujahideen, goats arse.

Rebuttal: While the Pro has resorted to ad hominem in his earlier statement he has left no evidence and thinly veiled insults as his "proof". If more information of his comes to light I'd be happy to refute him. He has failed to show proof towards his arguments and quite frankly hasn't addressed the argument at hand, that Islamic supporters are "goats arse" Definitions: Ad hominem: Resorting to insulting the person, not addressing the argument Arguments: 1. A human can not be other animals fecal duct except with extensive surgery. This is evident by basic anatomy. If Islamic guerilla fighters were, in fact, abnormal then there would be a case to be had. As the evidence so far suggests by news of jihadists they have normal human anatomy or we would be aware of a difference in the media. Thank you, and vote Con! Sources: http://www.innerbody.com... http://global-security-news.com...
Mujahideen, goats arse.

I accept said debate as my first debate on this site. Hopefully, we will have a great debate with well-thought out with a fair-minded outcome. Now since the opposition has so graciously defined this debate under the title and his beginning statement I will reiterate what we are arguing. Definitions Mujahideen: A mujahid is one who strives or struggles on behalf of Islam; mujahideen is the plural of the same word. The word mujahid is an Arabic participle drawn from the same root as the Arabic word jihad, to strive or struggle. In other forms these are guerilla fighters of the Islamic people typically fighting non-Muslims. Goats arse: A goat or a hardy domesticated ruminant animal's anus. So I, the Con of the debate will be arguing that someone who strives or struggles on the behalf of Islam even in a time of war is not an animal's anus. I accept. BoP is shared, and Pro has to explain why Mujahideen is goats arse. BoP stands for the burden of proof. Sources : http://middleeast.about.com... http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... http://dictionary.reference.com... http://dictionary.reference.com...
Hitting a girl is okay in self defense

My statement from round 1; "It's clear what I'm arguing here any attempt to troll or snipe the resolution in any way should result in a 7 point forfeit" This attempt my my opponent to use the legal definition of the term self defense is precisely an attempt to snipe the resolution. This should be considered a forfeit and I should be awarded all points. Not to menion it's a new argument not mentioned until the final round. The debate is not about the legality of hitting a girl in self defense. It is about the ehics of doing so. Here is the definition from Merriam Webster; Self Defense: "1 : a plea of justification for the use of force or for homicide 2 : the act of defending oneself, one's property, or a close relative " http://www.merriam-webster.com... Some definitions include to defend a self interest. These definitions are actually looser than the ones me and my opponent have been arguing. Under the set of defiitions I've provided my opponent would have to show how punching a girl is okay to do even when she is merely stealing a candy bar you own. It is clear this debate is about punching a girl when she is physically attacking you. This theme has been repeatedly brought up, and no smacking an arm away doesn't count as a hit. We're clearly referring to the layman's usage of the term hit. When you discuss hitting somebody in self defense a slapping of the hands away doesn't come to mind. This debate was spurred from an earlier conversation, so it's extremely clear to my opponent what's supposed to be being debated here. It should be clear despite that anyway. What I've shown is that generally speaking if a man is being attacked by a girl he should run or restrain he until she is no longer a threat. My end of the resolution is met and my opponent even makes a partial concession that generally speaking a man shouldn't hit a woman in self defense. My opponent has only shown a few rare exceptions to this rule and he needs to do more than that to uphold his ind of the BOP. Vote me.
Hitting a girl is okay in self defense

Minimum debates needed to accept is 5 to help prevent forfeits.There are idiots on this site who think it's okay for a guy to hit a girl in self defense. I'm under the impression that it's okay for a girl to hit a guy in self defense but not visa versa. BOP should be shared for this type of debate. Pro is arguing that it's okay for a man to hit a woman in self defense. I will be arguing that it's not okay for a man to hit a woman in self defense.The exception to this would be clear life or death circumstances. So let's keep lif or death circumstances or any situation that is obscure and unlikely to happen in real life or extremely rare out of it.It's clear what I'm arguing here any attempt to troll or snipe the resolution in any way should result in a 7 point forfeit in accordance with the judge's discretion and common sense.
Obama being a Failure

In order to uphold the resolution, I must show that Obama is a failure. According to a CNN article [1] Obama's Foreign policy is dismal. With not punishing Syrian's use for chemical weapons, to Egypt's self-destruct being not only failed to stop by the president, but they weren't even sure if it was a coup or not. Their spying on other countries via the NSA has also angered all. The fact is, Obama's foreign policy has been a failure, and so he in that regard is one. I turn it back over to my opponent. http://www.cnn.com...
Obama being a Failure

He may have failed to put a stop to the NSA spying, but he didn't organize or start it. We do note however in your own article: [1] "Obama didn't stop the operation back then but let it continue," In a link IN that article: [2] "Quoting an unnamed NSA official, the newspaper reports that Obama knew that the NSA had been spying on Merkel's mobile phone since at least 2010" "US President Barack Obama was not only aware of NSA bugging of German Chancellor Angela Merkel's mobile phone but ordered the program be escalated, Germany's Bild am Sonntag reported Sunday. " Not only did he fail to stop it, he failed when he KNEW of the details of it, and SUPPORTED EXPANDING IT. That is a failure on his part, and the fact that he supported it doesn't make him a "murderer", but an accomplice, and certainly a failure. He would have to go through Congress and the Senate first. Ideally so, but with workarounds such as the MFO [4] and the war powers resolution of 1973 [5], the president can send troops in, which being his own doing, would be his own failure. In addition, The rise of Al-Queda again [6] is a drastic side effect of our intervention. From his source #4 [7] " Information about munitions: 23. Information gathered about the delivery systems used was essential for the Investigation. Indeed, several surface to surface rockets capable of delivering significant chemical payloads were identified and recorded at the investigated sites. These were carefully measured, photographed and sampled. Samples later confirmed to contain Sarin were recovered from a majority of the rockets or rocket fragments. For more detailed information and assessments see Appendix 5. " For his source #4, my opponent has not specified the report, or what was in it. My opponent will need to do that, as it seems on Page 7 under point #23, it directly contradicts my opponent's evidence. It is clear the Obama, whether at home with the NSA, or abroad in Syria, has messed up big time in his foreign policy. Sources: [1] http://www.ynetnews.com... [2] http://www.ynetnews.com... [3] http://www.capitolhilldaily.com... [4] http://www.thenewamerican.com... [5] http://articles.latimes.com... [6] http://www.capitolhilldaily.com... [7]http://www.securitycouncilreport.org...
Obama being a Failure

He may have failed to put a stop to the NSA spying, but he didn't organize or start it.[1] SO, if you have a gun, and someone else is murdered in front of, but you don't get involved, is it murder on your fault? It's a crime, yes, but it it full fledged murder? No. Can you be called a murderer? No. Also, you gave no actual examples of Obama's bad foreign, other than a post from the OPINION section of a website.[2] True, he did not attack Syria in retaliation. But you may ask, is it the right choice to attack for those reasons? Maybe. Maybe not. It is another country, and who are we to attack on account of our own beliefs. Imagine if another country attacked the United States because it didn't like OUR actions. There would be outrage. Also you, like many others, acted as if Obama has infinite power. He would have to go through Congress and the Senate first[3]. But he DID find a peaceful solution for Syria, and though I may be wrong, as far as I know Syria has stopped what it was doing, and is destroying its chemical weapons, along with allowing a" transitional governing body with full executive powers".[4] [1]http://www.ynetnews.com... [2]http://www.cnn.com... *(note the word OPINION) [3]http://en.wikipedia.org... *(overview, paragraph 3[can also be found in constitution]) [4]http://www.securitycouncilreport.org...
Allowing same-sex marriage shows that religion is the best way to decide morals.

1. Perhaps certain sects of Christianity accept gays, but this for not mean that Christianity as a whole accepts it. The bible clearly states that gayness is wrong. 2. I'm not quite arguing that gayness is wrong, since you will never agree with the bible and vice versa; but rather arguing that the movable morals are wrong. 3. You state that movable morals are better since they allow change if beliefs of right and wrong change. However, I feel differently. If a moral is movable, than anything can be allowed. If fifty one percent of America said that raping and killing was right, does that make it right? Non movable makes sure no corruption slips into the morality. Morality can't work when you put it right at the soles of your feet. For example: Some groups are pushing to abortion being extended till three days after birth. Is this right? If we allow it, what than. People will always push for more, and with movable morals, how can you say no? If you give society the ability to decide what is right and what is wrong, how can you tell someone something is wrong any more? If we allow gay marriage, what comes after that? Animal marriage to people? Are we going to say no to that? Religion does give direct instructions on right and wrong, clear morals, whether people have changed their mind or not. Set morals make sure things go good and right. Secular gives open morals that make it impossible to say that anything is wrong. This makes it so everything we do can be justified.
Allowing same-sex marriage shows that religion is the best way to decide morals.

Thank you for accepting. I know what I put was very confusing due mainly to the fact I wasn't sure how I was going to do this debate. I am not arguing God's existence nor whether gay marriage is morally right. I am arguing that allowing gay marriage shows that religion has the surperior morals as I will show. 1. The acceptance of gays in secular culture has gone up greatly. Forty years ago, you would barely find someone who believed in gay marriage as being right. It is true that some religious groups allow it, but I won't get into that. 2. Religious groups have an ultimate source for morals usually in a book form. This means that religions will always have a set line that shouldn't be crossed. Secular doesnt have this, as shown with gays. Forty years ago, gays was considered in the wrong, but now they are not. This shows that society has movable morals. That means that anything could be allowed with enough time. 3. The bible speaks against gayness, drawing a very definite line that shouldn't be crossed. Society has changed its views radically in the last few years. Can you only imagine what will be allowed by society movable morality in the next few decades. Religions= non movable lines of morality that shouldn't be crossed. Right is right and wrong is wrong. Secular= movable lines of morality. Right is right and wrong can also be right. This leaves no room for wrong.
Allowing same-sex marriage shows that religion is the best way to decide morals.

1. I'm staying with my original idea. The bible gives very precise laws on right and wrong. If someone goes against that law, his perspective may have changed, but not the religion itself. Secular laws can be changed when perspectives change, the bible stays the same no matter the current perspective of the people. 2. Perhaps your right, but I do not want to have a debate on the correctness of gayness since it will end religious. 3. Everything can be allowed with enough time. If you look through time, you will find that things tend to escalate quickly. In the French Revolution, what started as internal oppression ended up as the reign of terror. When laws are movable in history, you find people usually go slightly crazy. Because with movable laws, and enough time and pushing, anything will be allowed. Hitler did immediately put Jews in camps, he had to wait a while as the laws were twisted around. 4. As I have said before, the bible has laws set down, secular morals are not set down. They are changed by people the majority of people vote in. So your statement is wrong. The majority of people believe in abortion, so it is coming to be allowed since the majority wants it. 5. Set laws make sure no opinions can affect the outcome. 6. The bible verses you mention doesn't count those younger than a month as it is the grace month to make sure they live. If they count those children and several of them die, their numbers would not be exact. Numbers don't even count females. Are you implying that the bible doesn't count females as humans? Also, you assume that premature birth equals death, but this is not so. The baby could easily be alive and not be affected. You assume the worse side, showing biased ideas. Also, you find bad people usually have bad kids. That is why children was killed with their mother. 7. You say "we" will say no to this. Who is this we? You have the ones who support it, those who don't care, those who will stay out of it, those who don't believe in it but will side with them since it is freedom, and those who go against it. So who is the "we"? Are you thinking that everyone will magically come together against this idea. Please remember we as humanity stood by as the Jews were killed in Germany. Yes there was a "we" who stood against it, but that didnt work. You said it, also, as if everyone will side with you. What if you find that you are the only one that believes it shouldn't be allowed, what then? 8. The bible does not approve of slavery as we know now. It a much better back than, so you are taking it out of context. The bible doesn't considered woman worse than men, just more support depended. Which many people will agree with nowadays too. 9. I actually agree that many new bibles are awful. Usually just people trying to make money, however, this doesn't make the original bad. 10. Reason. A group of people reasonly decided to attempt genocide with Jews. We reasoned to drop an atom bomb, killing millions. Every evil thing has been thoroughly thought out and planned. Reason doesn't work for deciding morals.
The Theory of Evolution (By Charles Darwin) is more believable than The Creation Story (Genesis)

Before I start. I made this argument based off my own beliefs. I do not deem to insult any creationists, but I do commend myself if I do. First off. We all know that the belief in God is rather... A controversial topic. Don't you think that believing in something, that has ample evidence, (Even though it's a theory.) is more alluring, and "sane" than believing in something that only has Evidence in a Book? The Creation story states that Adam and Eve were the first two humans on Earth. Whilst the Theory of Evolution states that man, or known (More like introduced to us) by Charles Darwin as Homo Sapiens, came from Apes. So we are therefore in the Family of apes, according to him. Yes, that might sound degrading, but look at it. Think deeper. Ponder over it, rather than believing in some Fairy tail.
The Theory of Evolution (By Charles Darwin) is more believable than The Creation Story (Genesis)

Please note that from here on, I withdraw from the Debate. Due to being trampled on by a veteran, and some personal issues I'd rather not state. I would just want to state my own opinion of the topic. If I were to go back to the topic stated, I said that Darwinism is more Believable than Creationism. This is a conflict between beliefs. It's Science versus Religion. Yes, you have stated in your argument that The Theory of Evolution is a complicated belief, it's an "Advanced" belief as you have said. And you stated that," Belief in God is hard to budge, and is arguably a very believable thing." The Term Believable is described as an adjective describing something convincing or realistic. I would say that I am part atheist, because I do not like the concept of God myself, but that's completely irrelevant. Going back to Darwinism. As I've said in my first statement, I said the term "Fairytale" for a reason. And the Creation story is called a Belief rather than a Theory for a reason. Darwinism, or The Theory of Evolution has ample evidence. While Creationism, or The Creation story, has rather Unstable evidence. (And is "Proven" true AND false by Scientific means.) But, I do withdraw from this topic from here on out. But here's a question for all you Religious fanatics out there. "If God was real, why did he allow chaos to linger around the Earth?" Thank you, Envisage, for putting quite a lot of effort in my argument, and I wish to encounter you in the future, for you are a formidable foe.
The Theory of Evolution (By Charles Darwin) is more believable than The Creation Story (Genesis)

PrefaceNote the BoP is on Pro on this debate, and the character limit is 3,000. I have yet to see any argument from Pro in this debate, thus these are unnecessary to win. I will be arguing that it is easier to believe Genesis, and hence by extension, Genesis is more believable than the theory of evolution.Genesis is Easy to Comprehend Like most creation mythology, creationism simplified the events required to take place for creation to occur. Within Genesis, all the act of creation was performed by God's commands, and God is said to be all powerful, and all-knowing. Thus God is unbound by physical limitations, and hence for God, virtually anything is possible if he so willed it. The only obstacle to believing in Genesis is to believe in God, after which all considerations of the difficulty of creaion become irrelevant.Genesis is so trivial to understand as a result, that it was believed over 2,000 years ago, before civlisation had the technology to understand the mechanisms of the cell, and before Newton brought on the enlightenment which told us nature acts according to unbreakable laws and principles.God & Genesis is a Widespread BeliefMoreover, God has a viortually unlimited level of flexibility in his belief, as even today with massive scientific progress which now explains many of the questions that God once answered, belief in God remains incredibly strong. Just 2% of today's population are atheists, and just 16% are irrelegious.[3] Furthermore Gallup polls of belief in creationism vs. evolution found that most still believed in Biblical creationism over 2x more than darwinian evolution in 2014 (42% vs 19%).Furthermore, an additional 31% that did believe in evolution believed God guided it, which clearly demonstrates that belief in God is hard to budge, and is arguebly a very believable thing.[1] Evolution is an Advanced BeliefEvolution I argue is a more complicated and sophisticated belief than Genesis, and hence less believable. To believe evolution, one need to understand natural laws, such as reproduction, biogenesis, basic ecology and inheretance of traits. Furthermore, Evolution itself is a highly sophisticated topic, which encomposses both it's mechanisms (adaptive radiation, natural selection, genetic drift, mutations, molecular biology) as well as it's history (philogeny, homologous limbs, etc.). These are not understood without a level of education. On the other hand Genesis is relatively trivial.Our educational trends of level of education vs. belief in evolution clearly demonstrate that only the more highly educated individuals of society profedd a belief in evolution.[2] ConclusionI have demonstrated that Creationism is easily more believable than Darwinian evolution Back to Pro for his positive case!References 1. http://www.gallup.com...2. http://www.gallup.com...3. http://en.wikipedia.org...