BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay Marriage

I shall bring up the contractual issue than. You cannot buy cigarettes until you are 18 years old, you cannot buy alcohol until 21, play the lotto, vote, gamble (in most states) until an age of majority. However all these activities are not allowed to refuse service based on sex, religion, ethnicity, gender, and even sexual orientation. Why should marriage be any different? We used to deny blacks voting rights, it was in the fine print that blacks were not allowed to vote, but that was changed. Marriage is the same thing. A new civil rights movement. Not everyone agrees or has to agree with the gay lifestyle. But it also isn't your place to judge said lifestyle. Bible says it's okay to own slaves and for women to be inferior, it says no sex until marriage, but people decide to cling on to this certain scripture that says no gays? It makes no sense. Gays are people, and under the law they deserve equal rights and protections everyone else receives. They deserve to be able to get married, have a family even if they so desire. If you are religious, than I shall say this. It isn't your place to tell gays not to be gay, it is only His responsibility. Let God take care of them, and stop going against the Bible to enforce the Bible! And again, marriage is no longer a religious thing, but a law thing. Marrying someone gives many benefits, so people must look beyond the Church. In conclusion, this Gay Rights Problem shouldn't be a problem at all, just as slaves shouldn't have been a problem. This hatred stems from religion, but if you follow all the values of said religion, you wouldn't be fighting about this. End of story. Just listen to what the Pope said about gays. Someday I believe historians will look at this time period and shake their heads, just like we do to the times of the Civil Rights Movement.
Gay Marriage

In the United States the legal issue of a marrige liscence came after the Revolutionary War when the population was so damaged that they needed people to get married and therefore have children. To claim the founder's viewed this as a secular belief only is ridiculous. As per the atheist argument the church has nothing against people of other creeds getting married becaues it is still one man one women. But to take the core essence of it, destroy it, then parade it around in the same name is an insult. Furthermore you have yet to acknowledge my arguments of the contractural right
Gay Marriage

The debate is not necessarily a religious one. You can get married without a church's assistance. A marriage is not only a religious ceremony anymore. The state gives certain tax breaks and other benefits due to marriage, so it is not only a church ceremony. I agree, forcing a Christian Priest to preform a marriage ceremony is not right. But not allowing gays to get married is wrong. Should we also bar atheists from marrying? No, we don't do that and we shouldn't. My opponent will have you believe that marriage is only religiously based. Have you never heard of all the benefits a married couple can receive? That is the main reason gays wish to have their marriage recognized. No one will force the church to preform gay marriages, but churches and religion should have absolutely no say in the matter of gay marriage. It is the whole reason we have separation of church and state
Gay Marriage

My oponent claims to know of religious freedoms and the true meaning of the founder's intent. Our founders came to this country to escape the government demanding them to betray their faith. Just as it is wrong to force a Jewish deli to serve pork it is wrong for christians in the wedding industry to have to betray their faith by being forced to assist in gay weddings. Proponents of traditional marriage do not claim to want to bar gays from being in love or being together but if they want to enter the contractural right of marriage they must meet the prerequisits. Furthermore we as a people have progressed from the gay, polygamist, and all other forms besides monogamy between a man and a women, that was rampart in the times of Rome. On top of this, if there was a true seperation of church and state the state wouldn't be allowed to issue marriage liscences. If the state wants to get involved in the church, the church can get involved in the state
Gay Marriage

Hello, Gay Marriage should be illegalized on several grounds1. If gay marriage becomes legalized it will force christian businesses, specifically those involved in marriage, to provide goods for gay weddings which violates their beliefs, making it religious persecution. 2. If the Supreme Court makes it so that one cannot descriminate based on sexuality that means that you CANNOT DESCRIMINATE BASED ON SEXUALITY. This leaves no stopping for polygamists, incestuals, pedophiles, objectifiles to marry whoever or whatever they want 3. America has two types of rights, contractural and natural. A natural right is "I am born therefore I have the right to live." A contractural right is something like voting where as if I meet the standard (being 18, no criminal record, ect) the government cannot stop me from voting. Marriagee is a contractural right, if gay people don't meet the criteria, which they don't it's not descrimination. 4. I hate using this argument but, honestly, we are a christian nation, gay marriage is against the natural order of things, it turns a social inferiority into a protected handicap ect ect.
illegal immigrants

Everyone is always stating, How Illegals are a problem, The only problem is the Mouths it is coming from, if everyone would just mind their own business, and leave Hispancs alone... this would be a better place to live, but what is going to end up happening, the illegals are going to be forced to go back, and everyone will wish they were here again. THEY ARE HARD WORKERS, GREAT PROVIDERS FOR THEIR FAMILIES! MOST WHITE AND BLACK PEOPLE CAN'T SAY THE SAME THINGS ABOUT THEMSELVES HISPANICS TAKE THE SLACK FOR WHAT AMERICANS DON'T WANT. 50% OF AMERICANS START SOMETHING THAT 100% OF HIPANICS FINISH, I am a white american women, and I am ashamed that the united states has started this entire MESS!!!!!! something that should have never happend. and if some people want to get right down to it, the truth is many many many years ago, a portion of the united states, was Mexico..... America has been a blessed place, america has been built up, because we were thankful of all things, but in todays world, things are changing, and people aren't thankful anymore, people are not welcoming different cultures in our country, people are making big deals of nothing, there are no problems with hispancs...... only people who are making problems of it... I can't believe that this is happening, but I should because it is only the BIBLE fullfilling, everyone is growing weary, and becoming evil.... so really my words aren't going to matter, just like yours isn't.... whats going to happen is going to happen, and there is nothing we can do about it, But I do think people should lay off the hispancs and stop being so jealous... yes they drive new cars, yes their grocery buggies are more full than yours, yes they smile a lot, and they are happy....but it is only because they works their asses off... so if you have a problem with jealous, change your ways if you envy them..... work harder.... BUT FOR GODS SAKE LEAVE THEM ALONE...... THEIR HARD WORKERS, AND GREAT SPIRITED PEOPLE (I KNOW) I HAVE A WONDERFUL HUSBAND, WHOM I AM BLESSED FROM GOD ABOVE TO HAVE MET......I WOULDN'T TAKE A WHITE MAN OVER HIM ANYDAY.... ALLTHOUGH I KNOW THERE ARE GREAT WHITE MEN....AS IN EVERY RACE.....BUT EVERYONE NEEDS TO LAY OFF!
universities should not have competitive sports teams

Is college sports education? According to my opponent, college sport is a form of education. I completely disagree with this. I once attended a college football match. It was clear to me that the goal was not educational. There were several indications of this: 1. The “professor”, which I assumed was the guy with the striped shirt, never explained the rules of the game. 2. My “classmates” where shouting all the time, so that it was impossible to understand what the professor was saying. Such classroom behavior should not be tolerated. 3. Besides the distraction by the classmates, the cheerleaders were also a major distraction. My conclusion is that a football match is an extremely bad learning environment, and that learning is clearly not its purpose. I learned nothing. My classmates did not learn anything either. All of them already knew the rules of the game and they learned the rules of football as part of their high school “education”. There is no reason why universities should duplicate the teaching efforts. Besides, anything there is to know about football can be easily learned from the NFL. http://www.nfl.com... I had the same experience with college basketball, hockey and gymnastics. Distraction & corruptionBesides that college sports are not very educational, they also take away precious time from learning. This is especially true for the athletes themselves. Their education suffers from competing in sports.http://www.cnn.com...;"(CNN) -- Early in her career as a learning specialist, Mary Willingham was in her office when a basketball player at the University of North Carolina walked in looking for help with his classwork. He couldn't read or write. "And I kind of panicked. What do you do with that?" she said, recalling the meeting. Willingham's job was to help athletes who weren't quite ready academically for the work required at UNC at Chapel Hill, one of the country's top public universities. But she was shocked that one couldn't read. And then she found he was not an anomaly." How is it possible that a college athlete cannot read or write? Because the hire of a talented athlete is crucial for a winning team, universities are willing to lower their standards. This brings down the reputation of the whole educational institution.The problem is, that even the not so bright athletes have to go through college to get into the NBA or the NFL. But not all of them are college material, or at least not bright enough to make it through a top university, with a top athletic program. Decoupling college sports from college education would solve this problem. There is is a lot of money in higher education, but usually accepting some student or not does not have a big financial impact for the university. So there is no incentive to lower the standards. But for college athletes, the stakes are much higher, so for these students the standards are sometimes compromised.The emphasis of a university should be on education. But when the football coach earns more money than the university president, what kind of message does that send?
universities should not have competitive sports teams

I will argue that Universities should not have competitive sports teams. I will start right away.1. Sports and Education have nothing to do with each other In almost all countries, universities are not attached to competitive sports teams.In education one nurtures the brain, in football you get brain concussions.http://www.al.com...2. Sports teams are a distraction for learningA study has shown that grades go down with increased success of the football team.http://www.nytimes.com...3. Competitive College Sports leads to corruption and academic fraud and even pedophiliaMoney corrupts. A lot of money goes around in college sports (even though athletic departments are often not profitable) and this can lead to corruption, harming the integrity of the academic institution. Sports teams at universities are supposed to be amateur, but arguably these are professional teams.http://www.nytimes.com...http://bleacherreport.com...http://en.wikipedia.org...
should the government drug test before giving out food stamps

I would say extend all arguments, yet we have not even begun to debate at this point in time. Therefore, I will list one or two arguments to solidify my position. One main argument is that those paying taxes, or the money that goes towards these food stamps, are subjected to random drug testing. With this in mind, it is only fair that those who receive these food stamps be drug tested as well. Secondly, individuals who are in an addiction phase concerning drugs most likely (unless they can produce these drugs by themselves, or are in an elaborate and illegal free drug ring), they are spending copious amounts of money on these drugs. This money could instead go towards food they purchase for themselves. Knowing this, it is only logical that individuals be tested for drug use, and at that point (should a person be found under the influence of drugs) they should be assisted to be helped off of these drugs so their money can be used in a more positive way, such as purchasing their own food.
Tax cuts for everyone

Since superkamal26 forfeited, I will address Buddamoose concerns (found in the comments) Taxes are necessary for a) correcting market failure and b) expenditure on social goods. Without going into too much details. a) Market failure occurs where there is an external cost or benefits which businesses do not account for. Thus, the greater the mismatch, the greater the taxes levied. b) These are goods which the community as a whole deem to be important but businesses do not cover because there is no way to prevent free-riders to latch on. Example, defence spending, infrastructures…etc
Tax cuts for everyone

Hello, superkamal26, Nope my argument still stands. My point was never a pure calling for higher taxes but to show that an optimum point exists that it may be higher than the current level. It appears that you reused your stating premise, thus allow me to deconstruct it and rebut point by point. 3.0 “higher taxes … people will spend less money and save more” 3. 1 Assuming that we are talking about income tax, higher taxes do not encourage people to save. Instead, people would still spend according to the elasticity of the goods. In fact the reverse is true. Having less capital to spend, people would not be able to afford to save if they wish to maintain their current standard of living. 4.0 “When businesses make a lot of money … better it is for the economy.” 4.1 It is debatable that businesses would choose to reinvest back to the economy especially if there is an on-going financial crisis. Instead, businesses might want to build a hedge fund or worst, funnel their resources overseas. 4.2 You also assess that businesses create jobs. This might be true in the States. However, in some countries, the government is the main employer of jobs. This means in the short term, these workers would suffer a decrease in wages, this would lead to less consumer spending and, in the long term, lesser revenue for businesses.
Tax cuts for everyone

If you think the government should higher taxes then you're wrong because if they do that then people will spend less money and save more. Most people spend more money when they get a tax cut not a tax increase more money people spend the better it is for the economy. When people spend money, they usually spend it by buying something from a business or paying a business to do something. When they do that, businesses make money. When businesses make a lot of money they succeed and hire more employees, that's why the more money people spend the better it is for the economy. If the government cuts taxes then businesses will make more money because people will spend more. When the government first cuts taxes it will take in less money but like I said businesses will pay more tax dollars to make up for the decrease in government revenue. In the same time jobs will be created. There needs to spending cuts if this happens so that the tax cut does not add to the deficit. President Reagan cut taxes which stimulated the economy. By the end of his presidency the economy was a lot better than it was in the beginning of his presidency. Did this argument change your opinion on taxes? If not feel free to send me another argument.
Tax cuts for everyone

Laffer curve1. Your arguments center on the framework of the laffer curve where by a hypothetical economy would receive diminishing returns after a certain margin of taxation. (just rephrasing your argument) 1.10 Diminishing returns1.11 the idea that the curve slopes downwards is because there are no incentives for entrepreneurs to work at 100% tax rate. However, there is research that shows it is possible (Malcomson, J, 1986). In brief, it depends on technology and the elasticity of labor supply in which they share a negative relationship.1.20 Government spending1.21 What we see as taxes by the government are mostly pure transfers. Taxes by the government are usually spent on building infrastructures, which also improve the condition of businesses. With a reduction in taxes, the onus is thus placed on the businesses to come up with such infrastructure themselves.1.30 Market failure1.31 This leads to my next point. In the situation of having free-riders, it is possible for the market not to produce the goods needed as aspiring entertainers could benefit without contributing for said infrastructures.1.32 in the event of negative externality, it may be possible for the government to spend more to internalize these effects. For instance, pollution being an externality would become more than expected and government need to spend money cleaning up the environment which may be greater than the increase in tax. 1.40 Saving1.41 In most economy, saving plays a huge role in the multiplier effect. In countries where saving is a great deal, consumer spending would hardly seem to increase as the money would be hoarded by them. in contrast, if saving isn't a huge percentage , reduction in taxes would plays a more prominent role. Optimum point2. In your argument, you state that the highest income earners need taxes to reduce by 2% and the next income bracket by 3%. However, there isn't any economic backing to these clams.2.10 Proving too much2.11 By saying that reducing taxes increases spending, you are going in to the fallacy of "proving too much". This is so as by throwing back your argument to itself, one could keep reducing taxes ad infinitum until the government hasn't any percentage to tax from thus voiding the original premise.2.20 Optimum point 2.21 from wolfram|alpha, we could see a decrease in tax around 2003 led to decrease in state revenue even at prevailing mean value of 15-12%.2.22 In addition, statistical tax rate differ across countries and while some countries might have low tax, high tax revenue, it does not apply universally. ReferencesMalcomson, J (1986). "Some analytics of the laffer curve". Journal of Public Economics 29 (3): 263. doi:10.1016/0047-2727(86)90029-0
Tax cuts for everyone

The government should cut taxes for everyone including the rich. This is what will happen step by step if they do that. 1st: People will have more money. 2nd: People will spend more. 3rd: Businesses will improve. 4th: Businesses will hire more employees and pay more tax dollars. 5th: The government will regain the money they lost from the tax cuts. Also: if the rich gets a tax cut then businesses will improve because a lot of rich people own businesses. They also invest in businesses which helps start it. They should start off by cutting the highest tax rate from 35 percent to 33 percent and the second highest from 33 percent to 30 percent. The middle class and the poor should get a larger tax cut because they need a lot support.
Violent video games really cause bad behavior in children.

Yes you, your self, can play any type of video game, but a 8-10 year old or younger shouldn't. Simple, if you don't want your child to act like the man in "Grand Theft Auto" then do not let the child play with him.(LOL) The Grand Theft guy is such a roll mottle that he rides around with your child picking up hookers and killing people, cops, old lady's, and being as free as a mass murder would want to be! Not only that at the end of the day your child grows, up around the age of 13, stealing cars, killing cat's, dogs, birds, selling drug, and finally he kills a cop and murders a hooker!!("WELL IN GRAND THEFT AUTO IT WAS OKAY").. I guess the excuse is; the video game made me do it; but the child would have never had the idea in the first place.
Violent video games really cause bad behavior in children.

lol I agree, but I will do my best to give you a good debate.1. A person over the age of 17 is considered an adult in the realm of entertainment. Ergo, no argument.2. You stated that "You probably have the mental capacity to not go crazy and kill people." This argument helps to support my claim of "violent video games do not contribute to violence" Most people do have the mental reasoning capabilities to know right from wrong.3. Your third claim supports mine as well. You claim that people blame their violent actions on video games. Because you used the term "blame" it is safe to assume that you meant that the actions were not actually caused by the video game itself.ConclusionRemind me, are you for or against the idea that violence is caused by video games? It seems a bit unclear lolAnyway, have fun with your response!
Violent video games really cause bad behavior in children.

That is okay, just don't get all serious like some people do. LOL My Argument is: 1. A person over the age of seventeen is not an adolescent. 2. You probably have the mental capacity to not go crazy and kill people. 3. If you did go crazy and kill people you would probably blame your violent video games. LOL I am not saying that no one should play crazy violent video games because I have. Just should not get their hands on them, just like children shouldn't watch pornographic movies. (Well let just go with It, I'm not mad maybe I can get a few laughs out of this "argument".)
Violent video games really cause bad behavior in children.

According the American Psychological Association, violent video games can increase children's aggression. So when kids have anxiety, which they do, instead of soothing themselves, calming themselves, talking about it, expressing it to someone, or even expressing it emotionally by crying, they tend to externalize it. They can attack something, they can kick a wall, they can be mean to a dog or a pet." Additionally, there's an increased frequency of violent responses from children who play these kinds of video games. Violent video games don't teach kids moral consequences. "If you shoot somebody in one of these games, you don't go to jail, you don't get penalized in some way — you get extra points!"
Violent video games really cause bad behavior in children.

You know what I am saying.. BLAAAAAAAA!! You agree with me anyways smartness.. LOL 1) They would not have the excuse of "the devil made me do it" in the first place if there were no violent video games. 2) Damn it, you know what I am trying to say! 3) Kids do not have the mental power to control themselves. 4) You agree with me anyways. 100) Letting a child play violent video games is like someone letting a child watch a porno, or even a evidence tape taken at the scene of a murder. 1000) You agree with me anyways!!!! LOL Statistic sites: http://www.directhit.com... www.lionlamb.org/media_violence_video_games.htm (I am new at this, and I don't know if I am correctly linking sites.) This kids mom took away his world of war game (violent game)LOLOLOLOL!!!!! Proof it self, really funny though. http://www.youtube.com... Here is a video of a kid going crazy over a game not working properly. Just a little proof that video games it self has negative effects on children. http://www.youtube.com...