BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A secular debate about gay marriage

I will start by refuting your points, and then continuing by developing my own. Two of your points are very similar, and are lumped here for simplicity's sake."Gay Marriage will abolish many loop holes for relationship exploitation."Or, these people could just not get married in the first place. How many unmarried couples have exploited the system just by not getting married? I actually know of two heterosexual adults (like, in their 40s) who do this to get more money at their jobs. Making it okay to get married is not going to "abolish" these loopholes. These two ideas are essentially unrelated."Gay Marriage has the potential to create less discrimination in the public... Gay Marriage will create more opportunities for social progression."We should legalize more things to make it acceptable for those who do bad things. Like drugs, murder, and abortion. Obviously, these are extreme examples, but the concept remains. Making something legal in order to gain acceptance for those who do illegal and mostly frowned-upon things is very backwards and non-progressive. ___First of all, the amount of people who support the legalization does not warrant a change in our marriage laws. Today, almost half of all Americans don't support the idea- only 52% do (1). A mere 52% should not dictate a law- this idea is ludicrous. It would require 66% of the House and Senate to overturn a veto on that law. The only time we should consider the idea of passing such a law when such a majority exists.Second, the legalization of gay marriage would open the door for worst exploits of marriage. Homosexual relationships were a a major stigma as of 50 years ago. They were kept behind closed doors and seen as not only taboo, but abhorrent as well. Even though a (slight) majority favor the passing of such laws, this merely shows other minority groups that force enough pressure will make their endeavors a potential reality. NAMBLA (the North American Man-Boy Love Association) could start putting their message out. After all, if both parties are consenting and truly love each other, where's the harm in it? Same goes for those engage in relations with dogs. What makes wrong and the other okay? Just because half of America thinks it's okay? You say, "Of course no American in their right mind would ever encourage the legalization of those." Meh, give it 50 years. Gay marriage has come a long way in that time.1. http://www.gallup.com...
A secular debate about gay marriage

Thank you for acceptingI will structure my first argument on three main points.1. Gay marriage will create more opportunities for social progression2. It will abolish many loop holes for relationship exploitation 3. It has the potential to create less discrimination in the public I will now expand these points.1.Gay Marriage will create more opportunities for social progressionSocial progress is the idea that societies can or do improve in terms of their social, political, and economic structures.[1]Generally speaking it is the idea that society can progress. Same sex marriage is that kind of progression as it will end segregation between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples, by giving them the same rights, freedoms and responsibilities that the rest of the married population has. The legalization of gay marriage also has the potential to change some of the population to being more accepting of homosexuals because of the new laws in place. This will cause a more stable and accepting society and may even branch off into other aspects of humanitarian rights and freedoms.2. Gay Marriage will abolish many loop holes for relationship exploitationRelationship exploitation is where a two people pretend to be in a relationship or are in a relationship to reap the financial or other gains. Gay marriage will counteract some of this as they will become legitimate couples, at the moment Civil Unions are not seen as full marriage and are under constant scrutiny for exploitation as they are easier to obtain. [2] An example of this exploitation would be in the event of a split up between the parents of a child in a civil union, the parent who would usually have to pay child support, does not have to. [3] Loopholes like these limit Civil Unions, which is why they now should have Same sex marriage instead. 3. Gay Marriage has the potential to create less discrimination in the public.There is much discrimination in any society, whether it be racism, sexism, different beliefs, ideals and generally anything. Most people would agree that this discrimination is a bad thing, then why would we discriminate homosexuals?Discrimination is defined as Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice[4]. Meaning that homosexuals are being discriminated against because of lack of public acceptance. Personally I think that the legalization of homosexual marriage is a step in the right direction towards less segregation of people based on their sexual preference. Many people reject homosexuals as they do not share the same sexual preference as them, so making them equal may be able to change some peoples perspectives and create a less discriminative society.Hope to hear back from you soon. :)[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Earth is round

I really thought my opponent was going to give us some verifiable evidence that we live on a spinning ball. As I explained, a picture shouldn't be considered infallible scientific evidence for anything that can not be empirically validated. I've seen pictures of cats with a mouth full of shark teeth. With todays technology, it's hard to tell what's real and what's fake, based solely on a picture. My opponent even admits this in a silent concession: "Well pictures are sometimes proof of something. " Yes, when the pictures are of verifiable information, the information may be trusted. For instance, a picture of the Chicago skyline from across lake Michigan, a distance of some 60 miles, which is mathematically impossible on a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference, is verifiable. Thousands of people have witnessed this. Earth from space however is only verifiable by a few hundred people, all of them under oaths of secrecy with governments, who aren't very well known for honesty. The only evidence my opponent has for his claim is essentially second hand knowledge that we're NEVER going to be able to verify. Even without Photoshop, there are realist artists that can produce wonders. How would anyone here know if an image of earth is a painting or a photo? We don't, since none of us has seen it from that point of view, so it's not a fact if it is based on an image alone. This is pseudoscience at it's finest. Nevermind the fact that my opponent hasn't even produced ONE image here with his claim, his only evidence is that there ARE images. In order for it to be taken seriously that we live on a spinning ball there must be no doubt. I've SHOWN and EXPLAINED that images are not infallible because there exists Photoshop and other image editors/creators in the real world. This casts doubt. Not only that, I produced some images of earth as a ball, and proved them to be total fabrications. That, being my opponent's only argument sufficiently cast doubt upon, the resolution is negated, and pro's burden has not been met.
Earth is round

Well pictures are sometimes proof of something. You can show a picture of a horse with a horn and claim it’s a unicorn. But the picture only shows a horse with a horn, it’s a proof of that. It doesn’t prove the horn has grown from the horse, it doesn’t prove it didn’t grow from the horse. Claiming that the horn is the horse’s (making it a unicorn) is an additional claim outside of the picture. So this to me shows only that you don’t know how demonstrations work.
Earth is round

Pictures aren't proof of anything. Pro's argument is the equivalent of proving the existence of unicorns with pictures of unicorns. https://i.ytimg.com... You or I have never seen a unicorn, and our common sense tells us that they don't exist, so a picture would not serve as adequate evidence of a unicorn. Our senses tell us that the place we live is relatively flat (water is flat, in all measurable circumstances) and motionless, so should we take a picture as infallible evidence? I'd like to think that most of us aren't that gullible. I have created images of earth using computer software and most anyone could with a quick tutorial on YouTube. There are very few pictures of earth as a ball, and even less videos. Hopefully my opponent can offer us something more conclusive of the spinning ball he defends. https://lumiere-a.akamaihd.net... https://youtu.be... http://thecoincidencetheorist.com...
Ban Animal Cloning

Pro has yet to provide any offense, and thus automatically loses the debate. All he has done is cited a stat about the low survival rate of animal clones, but he fails to show why this is in any way detrimental enough to society to warrant banning the entire practice of animal cloning. Again, simply showing that something is unnecessary is not enough to warrant banning it. Anyways, Pro has failed to even show that animal cloning is unnecessary, as he has not adequately rebutted any of the three benefits of cloning that I presented last round: (1) Pro has completely ignored that STEM cell research, which has the potential to save innumerable lives, can benefit from animal cloning. (2) Reviving endangered/extinct species is beneficial because it provides the government with substantial revenue by featuring them in public zoos and national parks. (3) Even if livestock can reproduce on their own, cloning can still reproduce them much more efficiently, so it should he preferred. Pro has not made any attempt at fulfilling his burden of proof, while I have provided three reasons not to ban animal cloning. The resolution is negated.
Ban Animal Cloning

As a matter of fact, animal cloning has many risks, it has a High Failure Rate. Yet I need to say it also is unnecessary in many ways, first of all extinct animals are meant to stay extinct. Animals that live today, such as livestock, can clone by their selves, simply breeding clones them. Although another reason, when animals are cloned through somatic cell nuclear transfer only 1 out of 999 survive, roughly. Also the egg may not become compatible with its new life form. Sadly, the animals that do survive WILL have a genetic disorder, and will commonly have there lifespan reduced to 50%. Sources: http://learn.genetics.utah.edu...
Ban Animal Cloning

Pro's only real offense is that animal cloning is not "necessary". However that is not enough to warrant banning it; many things aren't necessary, including video games, professional sports, non-procreative sex, expensive clothing, and teddy bears. To ban something simply because it isn't "necessary" for survival is absurd. Without showing that animal cloning is significantly harmful to society, Pro has no rational basis to advocate a ban and thus automatically loses the debate. Aside from that, Pro also makes some claim about low survival rates for cloned animals but he provides no evidence for it, and he makes no attempt at showing how that affirms the resolution; thus, the claim should be dismissed. Furthermore, animal cloning has numerous positive uses such as STEM cell research, improving livestock quality, and reviving extinct/endangered species [1]. Animal cloning should not be banned. The resolution is negated. [1] http://learn.genetics.utah.edu...
MTV show Teen Mom Should Be Banned Because It Promotes Teen Pregnancy.

First paragraph rebuttalIn your first sentences, you say you "do not underestimate the importance of teens having free time". In reality, I think you do. While adults can stay up late so they have free time, teenagers cannot do that. Teenagers also cannot stay up late because they have growing bodies. In your third sentence, you suggest that young people rush "in love with [their] boyfriend or girlfriend". The same is true for adults as well. A great many adults have gone into relationships that are in fact abusive towards them. The difference is, is that teenagers don't struggle with alcohol abuse as much as adults, due in a large part towards their parents. Their parents would punish them severely if they came home drunk. Most teenager's dates have to go through a lengthy review process by their parents, which can severely limit their ability to rush into relationships. That is why, teenagers do have relationships that are respectful and consensual. In your fourth sentence, you fail to mention that the young girls more often then not have someone who helps them with their child, I.E. parents, boyfriend, grandparents. Second paragraph rebuttalMaci having to take online courses could affect her future job as in the chronicle of higher education, (http://www.freakonomics.com... is the specific article), one student reported that is was very easy to cheat on online tests. Maci might not get a job because the manager might see that she took online courses, which might have been easy to cheat on. The manager wouldn't hire her as he might think her credentials were cheated into. With your repetitive accusations that teenagers do not think things through before they do them, in my first argument I stated in A2 (section A, second point) that the show, in fact, causes teenagers to think things through before doing anything by showing the long-term consequences of these teenagers actions.Rebuttal to conclusionIn your opinion, you said that young girls do not think through the long-term consequences of their actions. Since this debate is about whether to take teen mom off the air, I say that teen mom should be kept on the air for precisely your reasons. Teen mom showcases the long-term consequences of teen pregnancy, which is important to lower teen pregnancy rates. Teen mom was released on December 9th, 2008. In the span between 2009 and 2010, (http://tinyurl.com... is the source) you can clearly see that teenage pregnancy rates have declined by a large amount between the year that most of teen mom's first season was aired and the end of it. As well as your statement that teenagers will experiment with drugs, alcohol and sexual activity at the same time, that argument is unsubstantiated.
MTV show Teen Mom Should Be Banned Because It Promotes Teen Pregnancy.

In your Section A, I do not underestimate the importance of teens having free time. That is something that is very much important, as I too was once a teenager. I think we can agree that having a child, no matter what age you are is difficult work. The way I see it; When you are young and "in love" with your boyfriend or girlfriend, you are not thinking a few steps ahead. Most young girls can not even take care of themselves, let alone another human being. As for Maci having to take online courses, I don't find anything wrong with online classes. Yes, it is a very different environment and you do not have the ability to walk up to your professor when you are having trouble, but there are still other ways to be successful in an online course. Even if Maci were to not be with her boyfriend, which she is not, her son is still able to see his father and has a very good relationship with his father. Again, I don't think girls think situations through before going through with the actions. Conclusion:There are too many young girls not thinking before they go through with many situations. Teenagers are not fully mature enough to handle the responsibilities of having a child. This is not the situation in all cases, but many teens like to experience different things and like to experiment with different things as well, such as drugs and/or alcohol. By experimenting with all of these things and then experimenting being sexually active, it can really harm your unborn child. Overall, I look at the show Teen Mom with more negative then positive aspects.
MTV show Teen Mom Should Be Banned Because It Promotes Teen Pregnancy.

Rebuttal ASection A shows a combination of different experiences that make teens not want to get pregnant. You also seem to underestimate the importance of a teen's free time. A teen will want to still have friends but she can't because of her baby. Adults can deal with this by becoming friends with adults that have children but since there isn't that many teens in schools that have children a teenager will lose her friends. Rebuttal B Having to take online courses from a local state college is an important issue as Maci cannot get into a real college/university. Online courses are usually inferior in quality to real college education as you cannot ask the "professor" any questions. They have little to no interactivity causing less learning overall. Losing her boyfriend is important for her as she has a child that will one day want to see his/her father. The child will also grow up without his/her father in the home. Maci will also only be able to live on one income when she gets older, causing less comfortable living arrangements for her child. Rebuttal C Farrah has to deal with the fact that her ex-boyfriend's parents want to go into the baby's life. The baby hasn't had the grandparents in his/her life before. A girl may not want to have a child due to this exact reason, the grandparents might be abusive. You wouldn't want some people you didn't know to go into your child's life. Free time is still very important in a teen's life, you don't have peer pressure or homework to do. Teens also need to go to parties and such. Rebuttal DGiving up your baby is a very brave thing to do, especially considering that the parent feels a very maternal bond to the child. Catelynn and Tyler, however, have not given up their baby, they still visit him/her. That makes them stuck between the worst of both worlds because on one hand, they still visit their child, which takes away free time. On the other hand, the baby is still adopted so they can't be involved in the baby's life.Rebuttal to your conclusion"Young girls with no structure in their lives think that getting pregnant is a good idea" is a very misguided sentence. Teenagers probably will only think that getting pregnant is a good idea if it actually is. For example, if a teenager gets pregnant so she can get child support, is that really such a bad idea in the (selfish) teenager's mind? Teenagers learn many lessons from this show, including that raising children is a hard experience. They learn from that and their own minds that getting pregnant is a hard experience. The girls in fact probably get a very small check from MTV that barely allows them to pay the bills for their children. Remember, they aren't professional child actors, only professional child actors get competitive rates.
MTV show Teen Mom Should Be Banned Because It Promotes Teen Pregnancy.

ii. The pain of childbirth is referenced Teens are not going to not have sex and become pregnant simply because they see how painful childbirth can be. If they can see the rewards after the child birth, then they will not think twice about the pain bearing a child can have. i. Maci, the stereotypical popular girl, is faced with losing her boyfriend. She also has to take online courses from the local state college due to her baby.There are many "popular" girls who are faced with possibly losing their boyfriend and also having to take online classes because of having a baby. This does not need to be televised to add drama where it is not needed. There are older women who are married and are faced with losing their spouse. It happens everyday. It does not need to be put on television for other young girls to see and make examples of. ii. Farrah, after proving to her baby's father's family through a paternity test that her ex-boyfriend is the father of her child, is faced with having her ex-boyfriend's parents butting into her baby's life.Her boyfriend had passed away due to a car accident. People deal with paternity tests and grandparent's wanting to see their grandchildren all the time, this is not going to be a decision that makes or breaks a girls decision to want to become pregnant. As far as "having little or no free time" that is all part of having children no matter what age you are. That child becomes the top priority over everything else. This isn't just merely the case of teens having children, this is the case when any woman, younger or older, have children. 2. The show also shows that Catelynn's baby's stepparents care about her, unlike how stepparents are portrayed in many fairy tales as abusive and psychopathicI am not exactly sure who you are referring to when you say "Catelynn's baby's step-parents" If you are referring to the adoptive parents, they keep Catelynn and Tyler very much in the baby's life, or as much as they can through their adoption policy. They show love and support where it is needed and that is very important. I am not saying that all teens should put their babies up for adoption, but what Catelynn and Tyler did for their newborn was a very brave and powerful thing that many people can not do. Conclusion:I still feel as if keeping this show on the air it will allow young girls with no structure in their lives to simply think that getting pregnant is a good idea. There have been many seasons of "16 and Pregnant" as well as "Teen Mom" and "Teen Mom 2". There has been 47 girls on 16 and Pregnant! http://theashleysrealityroundup.com... This show is not making teen parenting look hard. All of these girls get a nice check from MTV, they all have nice cars and live in good homes. I do not think this show shows how hard it can be to be a teen parent. It simply shows a young girl who does not have a good family life that this is an outlet because it could make them famous. Thank you.
MTV show Teen Mom Should Be Banned Because It Promotes Teen Pregnancy.

Section A (Effects lower teen pregnancy rates) 1. This show, in reality, showcases that having a baby is a tough experience for a teenager due to the fact that i. Responsibilities are showcased ii. The pain of childbirth is referenced iii. The awkward conversations with her parents is shown 2. In the show, the teen moms are faced with tough situations that scare teenagers into not having children such as i. Maci, the stereotypical popular girl, is faced with losing her boyfriend. She also has to take online courses from the local state college due to her baby. ii. Farrah, after proving to her baby's father's family through a paternity test that her ex-boyfriend is the father of her child, is faced with having her ex-boyfriend's parents butting into her baby's life iii. Catelynn places her baby up for adoption, showing there are other choices for teen moms then raising the child themselves iv. Amber has to deal with having little to no free time after having her baby and dealing with the consequences of her abusing her spouse, showing that not all domestic abuse is perpetrated by the manSection B (Positive role models) 1. Teen mom shows positive role models such as how the mothers care about their children in many ways 2. The show also shows that Catelynn's baby's stepparents care about her, unlike how stepparents are portrayed in many fairy tales as abusive and psychopathicSection C (Why they will keep it on the air) 1. MTV is allowed to broadcast this as it is not obscenity or adult scenes 2. Petitions won't work as they are a private corporation 3. The show is too profitable for them