BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay adoption

If you would like me to counter your argument for the child I would be more than willing to oblige. This is case of adoption and the care system, trial periods are set up for adoptive parents and child interaction, therefore, if at the end of this period they felt they would rather have one male and one female parent, because they too find these stereotypical traits in the both female or both male parents, they can make a choice to deny this family and instead look for a heterosexual to be adopting by. Although, in the regards to the interest of the child, same sex parents are not proven to have any negative impacts in later life.
Gay adoption

I never said male and female traits could never be made up for, I'm saying that, in most cases, it won't. Stereotypes can't be applied to everyone, but as a general rule, men are more serious, and females are more emotional, and children need that balance. It's unfair to the child to be forced to have two fathers or two mothers, and only get one side of that coin. And yes, gay marriage is being more accepted into society, but there is still discrimination and potential bullying. The couples may be fine waiting for people to accept it, but it's unfair to the child to have that forced onto them. Put yourself in this child's shoes. You're forced into a homosexual family, and only get the seriousness of men or the emotions of women, along with the potential of being bullied or ridiculed... It's unfair to the child, which is what you're not countering. Yes, this isn't every case, but it's a rule of thumb.
Gay adoption

In an increasing secular society surely religious standards are much less accountable in this scenario? Furthermore, I believe in the case of gay adoption, some of the express traits of both male and female could be subsidised for, and although men are stereotypically more serious and females stereotypically more emotional this cannot be applied to everyone. Also, in the case of bullying, same sex couples and children of same sex couples are now more accepted into society and although there will be a certain level of criticism, there is with everything, and happy couples can surely overlook and accept that for understanding to take place, time needs to be given.
Gay adoption

"There is no evidence that anyone within the LGBTQ+ community would make lesser parents than any heterosexual". I completely agree, but the issue isn't really that they would make lesser parents. It's not a matter of a gay father being a worse father than a straight father, but rather the fact that there isn't any mother. From an evolutionist or religious standpoint, humans were either created or evolved to have a mother and a father, each with their own unique traits. When it comes to homosexual parents, there is no balance of these traits. You either have 2 females, which tend to be emotional and caring without any of the traits of a father, or the other way around. It's not that they would make bad mothers, it's that you need more than just mothers. Not to mention, it's unfair to the child to be forced to have homosexual parents, and, in a society that discriminates against homosexuals, the child could be made fun of or bullied for it, which is unfair to them. Children deserve to have the balance of male and female, rather than leaning too heavily towards the emotional female traits, or the more serious, staid male traits.
LeBron James is the MVP

The parameters for what qualifies one as a MVP is so subjective that one can argue it has become a popularity contest. In my opinion, the most valuable person on a valued team is Kawhi Leonard. He has taken on the role of team leader for the San Antonio Spurs during a transitional period in which arguably, the greatest power forward and all around team glue, Tim Duncan retired. The major supporting parts are over the hill and the Spurs have not missed a beat. Leonard is as strong on the defensive end of the floor as the offensive. The Spurs sits in 2nd place overall in the West behind the Golden State Warriors. A team who landed the prized free agent in the off season. Leonard also poses the intangible quality of making the guys around him better. Something that does not show up in the stat sheet. Some can argue that James and the Cavaliers have under achieved so far this year. They were projected to cake walk through the East to the finals to face the Warriors. The Celtics, as of this post is tied with the Cavs for 1st place in the East. Please understand, before you question my sanity, I believe James to be the best player in the NBA on a consistent basis but best player does not equal MVP.
LeBron James is the MVP

LeBron James should win the Most Valuable Player award for his performance in the 2016-2017 NBA season. The two leading candidates, Russell Westbrook and James Harden are both averaging more points, assist, and Russell has more rebounds than LeBron, but LeBron is much more efficient from the field, has far fewer turnovers, is a better defender, and is the number 1 seed in the eastern conference, Russell's team is the 6th seed and Harden's team is the 3rd seed.
Death Sentence Should be Banned

THIS IS A REPOST BECAUSE ON THE LAST DEBATE, ME AND THE CON WERE BOTH ON THE SAME SIDE IN AN HONEST MISTAKE.Should the death penalty be banned? I think so. The death penalty does much more harm than good.Argument One: High Cost [1]I'm going to start out this debate with something pretty straightforward: The high cost of the excecution. The death penalty has literally costed us MILLIONS of dollars, which could've gone to roads, schools, saftey, etc. In North Carolina, they have put down 43 people since 1976, and each has costed 2.16 million [2], making a total of over 90 million dollars spent on the death row. But that is a very mild example. In California, each excecution costs 250 MILLION [2], and 13 people have been put down since 1976. That's 4 billion dollars spent on excecutions. Considering we are chest-high in debt, the death row is doing nothing to help us. Just stick them in jail for life, they will feel the wrath.Argument Two: Innocence [3]1,264 people have been excecuted in America since 1976 [4]. Thats a thousand families casted into misery. But even worse, what if the culprit was proved innocent... after the excecution? My first prime example is Carlos DeLuna, who was excecuted in 1989. But in 2006, evedince arose that we excecuted an innocent man. Larry Griffin was excecuted in 1995, but evidence has come close to proving that he was innocent of his crime. There is no way to tell how many of the 1,200+ people that we convicted were innocent, but hopefully not more than ten of them.Argument Three: Death Row is Doing Nothing to Stop Crimes I looked all over the web and I could not find anything that proved the death row is good because it stops crimes. If it doesn't stop crimes, then why do we even do it? Just stick them in jail for life. That's a far worse punishment (I think anyway.)Good luck to anyone who accepts this debate![1] http://www.deathpenalty.org......[2] http://www.icomdp.org......[3] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org......[4] http://www.theguardian.com......
Global Warming is Largely Man-Made

Resolution: Global Warming is Largely Man-Made The definitions are obvious, and playing with semantics will result in a loss. Rules 1. BoP is split. 2. No semantics or trolling. 3. Follow the format. 4. Only sources may be posted externally. Any violation of the rules should result in a loss. Format R1: Acceptance R2: Constructive Case R3: Rebuttals R4: Rebuttals and Conclusion *Edit* This debate was going to be for the beginners tourney, but we have changed topic. But I'd like to debate this with someone, regardless. This debate should be impossible to accept. PM or comment if you wish to accept. If you manage to accept without my permission you get a free cookie.
Developed countries have to support developing countries in the fight for climate change.

Hello, I thank you for going for this topic a go and giving an in-depth analysis of the topic given Before I go point by point, I will re-crystalize my case for better understanding. Let us go to the motion. By definition "Developed countries have to support developing countries in the fight for climate change" now the key words here is "have to" which is morally obligated to help these undeveloped countries . Now why I oppose this motion is that why are developed countries obligated to help underdeveloped countries while they are both fighting the same climate change with the same causes. I agree that we have to change our economic world for better chances to fight climate change, but most countries can"t afford the technology as you and I said. But the reason why I said developed countries can"t help them is for the following reasons: (I won"t regurgitate my old points but I"ll brush on them briefly) As I said the foreign aid given to these undeveloped countries have been improving but it is not improving the country that is receiving it therefore the foreign aid will go to waste even if they go to the right places since people can properly manage the foreign aid on their own. Secondly, as I said more developed countries cannot support the underdeveloped countries in a bigger scale since they have bigger things to deal with, while the underdeveloped countries have smaller problems compared to developed countries. But if you consider the underdeveloped countries problems they are pretty huge in their perception like the poverty in the Philippines, it"s a small country but it"s a big problem over there so just like developed countries have big problems, underdeveloped countries have bigger problems since they are most probably poor while facing a problem like climate change that is a very expensive problem that is draining their economy. So these countries rely on foreign aid since they are already in a bad position in their economy and instead of money going to the fight of climate change it"s now going to different places instead. Therefore while developed countries can help them, they shouldn"t be obligated to the underdeveloped countries. It"s an obligation to the entire Earth to help preserve it. It is my responsibility, your responsibility and many others responsibility to help prevent it. That"s why I believe they shouldn"t be obligated to countries but to be obligated to the further future generations of humanity and to Mother Nature that helps humanity everyday. See you on the third round!
Developed countries have to support developing countries in the fight for climate change.

Hello, I'm glad to meet you. I hope this debate goes well. I represent those who are against this motion. First, why should developed countries NOT have the obligation to help these under-developed countries in the first place? The world itself is fighting climate change and every country has contributed to climate change at one point or another and it's every country's obligation to help prevent since it is affecting everyone. Most third world countries like Somalia, Maldives, Bangladesh, etc. fought tooth and nail with the help of other countries and the UN and there is not a lot of progress and they end up depending on other countries. Second, why do undeveloped countries need or depend on the help of developed countries and the UN? It is because of their economic vulnerability. Climate change will hit underdeveloped countries the most because of their economic vulnerability. And this is what makes these countries dependant on foreign aid since they can't afford it themselves which leads to lack of funding on better alternatives and better technology. Third, why can't developed countries help these under-developed countries when they themselves are in a better position? It is because more developed have bigger problems to deal with. Take a look at the US, they are considerably developed and have far more better technology to help their climate change crisis. Then why don't help on a bigger scale? It's like what I said, the more developed you are, the more likely your problems are bigger. This is what I currently have on my mind as I write this. I hope you can debate with me. Cheers.
Cats are better pets than dogs

a dog won't bring hundreds of other neighbourhood dogs and jump on you car or destroy your flowers. Secondly a you can train your dog to be quiet. Lots of people have trained their dogs to stop barking at a night time or day. on a new subject, they are also very good with children. They are very protective of them and wouldn't let anyone hurt them. They can also be very patient with children pulling ears and tails and also hitting.
Cats are better pets than dogs

Once again I you can train your dog to sit so you don't have to worry about you leg being scratched. In response to you saying a dog would run off if it had the chance, I have to concur. A dog is about training it and moulding it to be a model dog that obeys your commands. Yes they can be a bit work but it does pay off. On another subject, exercise. At least you get the choice to play fetch with your dog. And it's not that bad walking them in my opinion. It can be quite nice just having a stroll thorugh the park.when you come home from work or school a dog will jump up and lick you whilst a cat will just sit there in the same spot you found it.
Cats are better pets than dogs

I think dogs are superior pets. They come in lots of different sizes and shapes. E.g bulldogs, poodles and jack russells. They can also be trained to do certain commands such as sit, roll over, and fetch your slippers and newspapers. They have more loyalty to their owners than a cat and they lavish you with affection and love rather than waiting for you to come home and feed them. There are also hypo-allergenic dogs like shih tzu's and schnauzers for those with allergies.
Federal Reserve

Although my opponent has declined to continue this debate, he has rushed to correct one of my Round 1 points via private message: I can only assume this is in reference to the following point I made in Round 1: Claiming that money has been smuggled to other countries is simply conspiracy. But for the record, I did not use the word false. or blame my opponent's lack of information on conspiracy theory. What I said was that my opponent's argument was "simply conspiracy", and nothing more. That is to say, an accusation in the absence of evidence.Without access to NSA records or video recordings, I cannot prove that the Federal Reserve did or did not secretly print and ship billions or trillions of dollars to Puerto Rico, but the burden of proof is on the accuser. A simple but strong accusation would show that the Federal Reserve had means, motive, and opportunity to secretly export money to other countries. On DBO we might expect many cases to be stronger or more creative than that. But what evidence did my opponent present? It's not my role in this debate to provide sources to back up my opponent's arguments, but I have tried, and my observations of the total currency of "our economy" are as follows: Raw data: http://api.worldbank.org...GDP Function (<r> language): https://github.com...The famous 2007 meltdown flattened our GDP growth, our GDP grew from roughly $14 trillion in 2007 to roughly $15 trillion in 2008, and it dropped back to roughly $14 trillion in 2009. Not only has my opponent failed to establish means, motive, or opportunity for the crime he has accused against the Federal Reserve, he has even failed to establish that the crime was committed by anyone at all. We can't blame anyone for taking $9 trillion unless $9 trillion has disappeared. So I assumed my opponent mean to say billions rather than trillions, but he corrected me when I challenged HarryTruman33 to this other debate:The Federal Reserve secretly sent $17 billion to other countries in 2007http://www.debate.org... Which publicly verifies that TheodoreRoosevelt1 and HarryTruman33 are the same person. I don't usually tell audiences to vote for me, but this time . . . vote Pro. Even after forfeiting two rounds and misquoting facts about the GDP, the Federal Reserve, and the 2007 economic meltdown, the Instigator's Truman account might still dare vote for his Roosevelt account.
CNN is fake news and biased

1. Just because other news networks do it, Doesn't make it excusable. 2. Thats not honest reporting. Honest reporting is getting both sides of the argument. CNN failed to do that. 3. Again, If you sign with Al-Qaeda, You are not moderate. 4. The television clip showed by CNN had four woman at the desk spewing nonsense and the clip went viral, The only he said/she said was supporting their nonsense. 5. CNN has spent 4 hours a day on Russia Investigation per day on average with an important week. How many minutes did CNN brush to even try and say that Hillary should be investigated. 3 MINUTES. Dishonest. 6. Unconfirmed information. You noticed something? Liberals craved this subject but every other network let loose this narrative EXCEPT for CNN. 7. Everybody has said one kinda weird/interesting thing. Is he mentally unfit? After The Second Presidential Debate, CNN oofed up and accidentally showed themselves scripting what to say.
CNN is fake news and biased

Well, This ought to be interesting. Your profile says you are 108 years old, Not sure how accurate that information is, Maybe that is fake news. I want to agree at the start that CNN is in fact bias. All major news networks are. My contention will be the first half of your position. Why do you believe that CNN is fake news? Can you present a story that is clearly fake? I would like to make a prediction now. You watch Fox News. Am I right? If I am, I would like to point out that Fox News is, And has been for as long as I can remember, Bias. I was registered Republican for most of my life. I agree with certain views on both sides of the isle. I am more independent, But voting independent does no good. We have a two party system, And often have to choose the lesser evil. I say that to let you understand that I do not care what party you are associated with. I only want to discuss why you believe CNN is fake.
Genetic Algorithms (e.g. Evolutionary/Darwinist) Improve upon a Given Basis

According to pro, although genetic algorithm is defined as a sub-class of adaptive stochastic optimization algorithms, the evidence is not limited to Mathematical/Computational theories. Therefore, as con, I will be utilizing natural observations along with mathematical theories and hearsay to argue my cases. As I have noticed that, under normal circumstance, hearsay cannot be admitted into evidence. Nevertheless, I would still like to introduce this piece of information primarily on the ground that I am a strong believer of such theories. The hearsay therefore should not be construed as evidence to advance my arguments, rather it acts solely as a personal view on the topic. I will be drawing references from the film Prometheus (2012) and the video game Mass Effect Quotations from Mass Effect: The Supreme beings articulated in the Video Game Mass Effect are identified as "Reapers. " The following quotations are the exchange between Sovereign (Reaper) and Commander Shepard (Human). All quotations are the words of Sovereign. Rudimentary creatures of blood and flesh, you touch my mind, fumbling in ignorance, incapable of understanding. There is a realm of existence, so far beyond your own you cannot even imagine. I, am beyond your comprehension, I, am Sovereign. "Reaper? " A label created by the Protheans [an extinct race], to give voice to their destruction. In the end, what they choose to call us is irrelevant. .. we simply, are. Organic life is nothing but a genetic mutation, an accident. Your lives are measured in years and decades, you wither and die. We are eternal, and existence. Before us, you are nothing. Your extinction is inevitable. We, are the end of everything. Confidence born in ignorance, the cycle cannot be broken. The pattern has repeated itself more times than you can fathom. Organic civilizations, evolve, advance and at the apex of their glory, they are extinguished. Your civilization is based on the technology of the Mass Relays, our technology. By using it, your society develops along the paths we desire. We impose order on the chaos of organic evolution. You exist because we allow it, and you will end because we demand it. My kind transcends your very understanding, we are each a nation, independent, free of all weakness. You cannot even grasp the nature of our existence. End of Quotations. May both of us enjoy this debate and Let"s begin.
Genetic Algorithms (e.g. Evolutionary/Darwinist) Improve upon a Given Basis

The formal, complete statement of the Pro goes as follows: "Genetic Algorithms improve upon a given basis, no matter the complexity, given a reasonable time of convergence." This is not a semantic argument; please do not treat it as such. Definitions: We define a Genetic Algorithm as follows: A Genetic Algorithm is a sub-class of adaptive stochastic optimization algorithms involving search and optimization [1], mimicking the random-mutation and fitness-selection apparent in natural selection as posed by Darwin. I define "...improve upon a given basis..." as follows: A basis is an organism or other self-contained system which can be observed and measured in a manner consistent to the necessary values for a Genetic Algorithm. To improve strictly states that, given some fitness function, we reduce or increase the value, respectively, for benefit to the basis (i.e. if we have a cost function, the basis seeks to minimize such, to achieve the best results, the converse (or maximization) is true for a fitness function). Rules: The argument is to be structured as such: Acceptance Opening Statements/Definitions Rebuttals Rebuttals/Closing If the argument given by any party centers or is significantly impacted by a definition, please be sure to clearly state the definition used—be sure to maintain that the definition is universally accepted. Conduct: Please, Place all arguments and sources inside of the debate. Structure the debate in a legible, coherent manner. Seeing as such is my case, the burden of proof is my own. Notes: Any and all Mathematical/Computational arguments may be used against, no matter the level or formality of such. Of course, it is also granted that one can use natural observations, et al. I will respond in a manner and language similar to what is initially presented, or explicitly stated, by the acceptance. Seeing as I am new here, I’ve structured the first argument page in a very similar fashion to that of ‘Microsuck’. References: [1] http://mathworld.wolfram.com...
Male Privilege Exists

Umm. . . Well, Most of your argument isn't male privilege, It's male sexual harassment. And the question of birth in an interview is just something that comes with being a younger woman. Now I in fact think women are probably as or maybe even more privileged than men. Let me show you: Why don"t women be in the draft. Why don"t we be equal in sanitation work force. Why don"t we be equal in work related deaths. Why don"t we be equal in hours worked per year. Why don"t we be equal on gender suicide rate. Why don"t we be equal on likeliness to be fined and arrested for the same crime as a woman. Why don"t we be equal on prison sentencing for the same crime as a woman. Why don"t we be equal on divorce custody cases. Why don"t we be equal on life expectancy. Why don"t we be equal on chance of dying. Why don"t we be equal on rape. Anyone who says women are more privileged than women is an idiot. Sure you women can get catcalled and stuff, But we die more. Freaking DIE more.