BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
there is nothing wrong with same sex marriage

Summary of opponents last speech + my responses: 1. Man and woman have more rights --> Marriage has nothing to do with rights; it is an institution. For example, is it wrong for an all woman's gym to reject males from working out there? Clearly no, because institutions have a right to pick requirements. Same with marriage; the traditional definition and institution is between 1 man and 1 woman. 2. Religion/Bible --> Has nothing to do with my proposed arguments. [My Case] 1. Slippery Slope --> He never truly refutes this. Basically my argument is that changing the definition of marriage will create a legal slippery slope. Once you change the definition everyone else will jump on that band-wagon and try to get w/e they think is marriage to be legal as well. E.g. polygamy and incest. 2. Civil Unions --> He never refutes this either. Instead of gay marriage, we can establish a nation wide civil union program.
there is nothing wrong with same sex marriage

let me ask this in response why is it that marriage is acceptable to 1 man and 1 women why do have more right than anyone else my logic makes perfect sense normally people who marry do it out of love no matter what it is what if they banned marriage with one man and one women people would think its wrong and they would get mad now I'm not saying I think its right if someone marries there dog or what ever what I'm saying is why take that right away from that person shouldn't we all have equal right. civil unions is not the same as marriage it still has complications and different circumstances as which marriage does not. I know all about religion and homosexuals but the bible does talk about understanding and acceptance. all I'm saying is why take away a right from one American no matter the cost so what about a slippery slop and stuff all people deserve equality why should we take that away from him or her why should we push them aside and act like there not there. there are people who are in love with a lot of things other people think are strange but should that person be locked up for loving those people or other things its not wrong its just different and that's why people think badly of it
we should debate issues of the highest practicality

My opponent's arguments were, yet again, comprised mostly of rhetoric. After sifting through said rhetoric, his last speech boils down to two main points.1. General philosophy is important but is less important than practical philosophy2. General philosophy is guided by practical philosophyRebuttalsRebuttal #1 - General philosophy is important but is less important than practical philosophyThis in itself can be said to be a statement of general philosophy. Again, my opponent's arguments are self-refuting because they call upon general philosophy to affirm that practical philosophy is of a greater importance, thus subjugating the latter to the former.I would also like to point out that what my opponent considers to be practical philosophical issues is very strange. Things that affect the day-to-day lives of people, such as whether or not it is ethical to eat meat or the health standards of the food industry, are labelled as impractical by him.Rebuttal #2 - General philosophy is guided by practical philosophyThis claim is simply wrong. A person does not say, "I am vegan therefore I believe in animal rights." Rather, he or she says, "I believe in animal rights therefore I am vegan."ContentionsContention #3 - My opponent has failed to uphold his resolutionMy opponent has made multiple statements such as, "philosophy is 'fun and necessary as a foundation to build your own philosophy on'" and "Yes debate for the sake of debate is fine, but we need debate for the sake of change."Any and all of these statements refute his absolutist resolution.
we should debate issues of the highest practicality

Thank you issuing this challenge, Pro. I look forward to a good discussion.Contention #1 - A person's general philosophy impacts his or her "practical philosophy"As I have gotten older, I have begun to realize how my beliefs in different areas are all interconnected and how they impact the way I live my life. For example, my Christian pacifism does not end with my condemnation of war. It also influences how I interact with people in my community on a daily basis.While a debate between a subjective moralist and an objective moralist (or any other philosophical clash you may see on DDO) may seem impractical at first glance, what you are really witnessing is an exchange of ideas by two people whose beliefs affect the way they live their lives as individuals.Contention #2 - My opponent's argument is self-refutingAfter all, claiming that we should invest in our community and work to benefit the lives of other people is itself a philosophical statement. Not to mention that all of the issues he says we should be debating are decisions that people make based on their philosophy."how to live a healthy, happy, righteous life how to have a strong family and build a strong local community local politics -multimillion dollar school bonds that don't get more than a few hundred votes local businesses not providing healthy reasonably priced food lack of jobs due to wealth retention in the community"A person's answers to these questions are highly dependent upon their religion and worldview.I look forward to Pro's response.
we should debate issues of the highest practicality

when we consider what we should take an interest in and debate about, a heightened sense of social awareness should help guide us towards learning about, debating, and working together on practical matters that change peoples' lives for the better. rather than focusing on large, philosophical, global issues where people are likely to have little impact, people should focus on local issues like: how to live a healthy, happy, righteous life how to have a strong family and build a strong local community local politics -multimillion dollar school bonds that don't get more than a few hundred votes local businesses not providing healthy reasonably priced food lack of jobs due to wealth retention in the community this helps create greater change and the emphasis on proximity of participants helps people meet their neighbors - creating the kind of strong community that a healthy society thrives on. of course if someone is especially interested about a specific field or topic, then they should follow their passion, but always with practicality in mind, even if in the back of the mind. philosophy is fun and necessary as a foundation to build your own philosophy on, but at some point we need to focus on restoring empowerment in all facets of life. the power to change things by learning about and discussing them is profound, but is hard to find when social organization is at an all time low. we are largely addicted to electronic, isolating entertainment mostly based on media created by a small enough group of companies as to allow strong collusion, corruption and exclusion of voices that could change the world - the world that so benefits those who are on top and have the most power over it and also the most to lose from it changing. now with the temporarily open, wildwest internet, we have the ability to connect and change things. we must make the most of this and hopefully sustain this open environment by shifting our organization and communication to higher practicality consciousness.
Personal Bankruptcy is worth doing

Okay, I think you are misinformed. Chapter 13 is not only for businesses, rather, Chapter 11 is only for businesses. Chapter 7: "A bankruptcy proceeding in which a company stops all operations and goes completely out of business. A trustee is appointed to liquidate (sell) the company's assets, and the money is used to pay off debt." Chapter 13: "U.S. bankruptcy proceeding in which the debtor undertakes a reorganization of his or her finances under the supervision and approval of the courts. As part of the reorganization, the debtor must submit and follow through with a plan to repay outstanding creditors within three to five years." Chapter 11: "a form of bankruptcy that involves a reorganization of a debtor's business affairs and assets. It is generally filed by corporations which require time to restructure their debts." http://www.investopedia.com... http://www.investopedia.com... http://www.investopedia.com... http://credit.about.com... As for your bizarre notion: "It's legal and it's free money the bank created just for you. It stimulates the economy and gets new money circulated into the system, and doesn't hurt the banks." It is not "free money". You took money and exchanged it for goods and/or services. Do you honestly think that money just appears? It wasn"t "created" any more than the digital number on your bank machine shows how much money you have in your account. Money isn"t kept in bank vaults anymore, you"re right. It"s a digital notation, but when you click withdraw $60, you still get real money. I"d appreciate it if you didn"t insult my intelligence. "With chapter 7 you can keep your home and your car." No, under C. 7, your assets are liquidated to repay a debt. That is the definition. However, under C. 7, in personal bankruptcy, you are allowed to keep certain things called "Exempt Property". This law is more lenient in some states. There is always a chance you could lose both your car and your house, depending on their value"and your state. The bottom line is this: By declaring bankruptcy, you are damaging your chances at success. You are contributing to the debt; to the current state of American economics in a deeply negative way. Even if you emerge scott-free, which is very rare, you are screwing someone over to do it. There is no free lunch, as I like to say. Its capitalism, you work for what you have. You are not given it. Bankruptcy will ruin you and your reputation, I"ve seen it before. It"s not worth it.
Personal Bankruptcy is worth doing

It's obvious that by opponent has never declared bankruptcy and doesn't know what he/she is talking about.I am speaking from experience.Chapter 13 is for business. The debate is about PERSONAL bankruptcy (chapter 7) "Bankruptcy will destroy your reputation. By law, bankruptcy is on the public record. People all around you will find out about it. Many of these people will not be kind, including people in your circle of friends, or even your family. You can bet it will be truly stressful."OK I'll admit my credit score went rock bottom after the first year after bankruptcy, but I didn't need any credit, so I didn't care. No stress at all. Friends and family didn't even know.,,,and so what if they did. It didn't hurt them. "First off, your credit will be absolutely destroyed for some time. Credit companies will make life hell. Banks and the like won"t give out mortgages, car loans, etc., so good luck buying things."I already had a new car (for free) so I didn't need a car loan. I put down $100 on a "pre-paid" credit card and kept that in good standing, which pretty much repaired my credit score in less than a year.In only 2 years after my bankruptcy, I got a Fannie May mortgage and got a house with only $10,000 down.After 7 years my bankruptcy was too old for anyone to care about and I refinanced my house from 8%to 3.5%. That's better than some people without a bankruptcy. "It will become more difficult to get a good job, being that many employers nowadays check credit information before hiring." If you have a career and and a good work reputation, you'll get plenty of work. Companies care more about whether you can do the job or not. "Future landlords will decline you, because they will check your credit."Who needs a landlord when you can own your own home!?"Your insurance may very well take a leap into the heavens, and, if you discharged medical debts, your health is at risk, because hospitals and the like won"t want to treat you."LOL...my insurance was just fine and every emergency room, by law, can't turn you away from treatment."If you discharge a mortgage or a car loan, you may lost them to the bank."With chapter 7 you can keep your home and your car."Aside from those reasons above, you must calculate how you will feel, as a person, who cheated the system, which is what you are doing. You are a failure and a liar in some respects."I didn't cheat anybody. I "borrowed" money that didn't even exist. The bank made the money out of thin air and lent it to me. I'm not the bad guy. Getting $50,000 for free is far from a failure.Summary: I spent $50,000 on trips, a new car, clothes, restaurants and electronic equipment. I had the time of my life and the worst thing that happened was that I had to use a pre-paid credit card for a year. I kept everything and got a mortgage 2 years later. It didn't hurt my job, my insurance or my friendships. I would do it again in a heartbeat and so should everybody else. It's legal and it's free money the bank created just for you. It stimulates the economy and gets new money circulated into the system, and doesn't hurt the banks.
Personal Bankruptcy is worth doing

Personal Bankruptcy is one of the worst choices a person can make. To be fair and honest, I"ll say there are benefits, much in the same way doing heroin feels great"for a while"then things start to go downhill. Benefits: You will be protected from the majority of a wide array of debt collectors. You will, on a chapter 13 plan, be able to pay back mortgage, etc., etc., at a chosen rate. Consequences: Bankruptcy will destroy your reputation. By law, bankruptcy is on the public record. People all around you will find out about it. Many of these people will not be kind, including people in your circle of friends, or even your family. You can bet it will be truly stressful. First off, your credit will be absolutely destroyed for some time. Credit companies will make life hell. Banks and the like won"t give out mortgages, car loans, etc., so good luck buying things. It will become more difficult to get a good job, being that many employers nowadays check credit information before hiring. Future landlords will decline you, because they will check your credit. Your insurance may very well take a leap into the heavens, and, if you discharged medical debts, your health is at risk, because hospitals and the like won"t want to treat you. If you discharge a mortgage or a car loan, you may lost them to the bank. Aside from those reasons above, you must calculate how you will feel, as a person, who cheated the system, which is what you are doing. You are a failure and a liar in some respects. Unfortunately, many folks are forced into bankruptcy, but to choose to declare bankruptcy to worm your way out of paying off debt"that is not okay. That is how the U.S. got itself into its current state.
Personal Bankruptcy is worth doing

Personal bankruptcy was designed to relieve a person of unsecured debt. Credit cards are unsecured debt because there is no collateral used to secure the loan.Most people are brought up to believe that not paying back a loan is "stealing". That's not the case with credit cards for 2 reasons:1. The money you "borrow" from a credit card is not real money from a bank. The money gets created by the bank out of thin air, so anything you "pay back" is 100% profit for the bank.http://zeitgeistmovie.com...2. The crazy interest rates of 20% or higher are really stealing from the public. If a person puts their money in the bank they get 1% interest, but if they borrow in a credit card they pay 20%. The ONLY "negative" or consequence of declaring bankruptcy is that it will be on your record. This is not as bad as it sounds. 1. Because after 7 years, nobody will care and 7 years is not a long time.2. During those 7 years, you will probably not need credit.3. Even if you did need credit during those 7 years it wouldn't be impossible to get it. If you build up your credit score, you will get many offers for credit cards. It's possible to get up to $50,000 or more in credit cards. just by paying the minimum balanceIf you are a college student, your student loans can not be forgiven with bankruptcy. However, you can pay back your student loans with credit cards. The same is true if you owe the IRS. You can't get rid of what you owe to the IRS with bankruptcy. but you can pay the IRS off with credit cards.If you have $50,000 is student loans or $50,000 you owe to the IRS, it would be very simple to just pay them off with credit cards and declare bankruptcy. Starting life with a zero balance rather than -$50,000 is much better. If no bankruptcy, in 20 years you would have the money paid back and be at zero or with bankruptcy, you could save money and be at +$50,000 or more due to interest. That's worth it!If you don't have college debt or IRS debt, it would still be worth spending the $50,000. You can buy new car, fly around the world, get new clothes and electronic devices.If you declare bankruptcy, they can't take any of that away from you. The car should last you 7 years so you wouldn't need a car loan again. Instead of spending 20 years to pay the $50,000 back, you can start at zero with $50,000 worth of things and SAVE money instead of paying back credit cards. Not only is it worth it, You'd be crazy NOT to do it! You get $50,000 for free and in return you get a mark on your record that nobody will care about after 7 years.No brainier!
Jokes are jokes, nothing is insensitive.

The title of this argument was "Jokes are jokes, nothing is insensitive." This title was misleading because my opponent is arguing the banning of offensive jokes, not whether or not jokes are insensitive. A quote that is good for both of my contentions today is by Lynn Namka, Ed. D. "Jokes are defined as being funny both to the teller and the audience. Otherwise they are just lame attempts to make the insensitive person feel good and puffed up while you feel bad." [1] Insensitive jokes destroy relationships. Everyone wants respects in a relationship, so if you are badmouthing the other person, they don't want it to happen and they can just end their relationship with you. The jokes are meant to bring other people down and at the same time, they burn down your relationships. Jokes can be insensitive and just a cover-up for when you insult someone and don't want to look bad. That is the worst thing that can happen. If I were to insult you right now, you would be offended. But, if you were to insult me right now, you would probably not think about whether or not it is right. People tend to think that if someone insults you, then you have a right to get upset, but if you insult others, then it's fine. This is because humans are naturally self centered beings [3] and we think of ourselves first. But, everyone is equal and so everyone deserves a right to feel good about themselves and not be insulted. Jokes are meant to be funny, not offensive, because, otherwise, it's not a good joke. [1] http://www.angriesout.com... [2] http://howmentalk.com... [3] http://www.express.co.uk...
Jokes are jokes, nothing is insensitive.

We do have a right to respect other people's rights, you are correct. However, banning certain phrases or jokes is an imposition upon the First Amendment. Yes, there are certain things that can "cross the line", but we have to remember that humor is subjective, and plastic. Just because somebody doesn't like a joke, that doesn't mean that they have the right to prevent that joke from being said. In 1978, FCC v. Pacifica Foundation decided that the government had the right to enforce censorship on public airwaves [1]. This was an OK decision, because it was on government funded airwaves. When it comes to private airwaves and public (as in outdoors) conversations, the government has no right to enforce censorship. If you find something offensive, you can either change the station, leave the conversation, or ask them to stop, but you do not have the right to enforce you standards of proper conversational etiquette upon other people. In 2012, comedian Daniel Tosh was heckled at a performance after he made a rape joke [2]. He responded by joking about the heckler being gang-raped. This was met with outrage by some, but Tosh's fellow comedians came to his defense [3], saying that he had every right to make the joke. It wasn't as if Tosh singled someone out at random, he had been heckled. Even if someone views his humor as off-color, he had every right to say what he said. [1] https://supreme.justia.com... [2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [3]http://www.theguardian.com...
Jokes are jokes, nothing is insensitive.

It isn't a matter of censorship. We have a right to say what we want to say (First Amendment), but we also have a responsibility to respect other people's rights (USCIS.gov). Jokes can be insensitive. There are blond, racist, and horrible jokes out there that are offensive. We don't know a person's individual case, but they can be offensive. That is violating the right that we have to be respected.
feminism is not needed in the west

Con, you are the one advocating for inequality of women. But I do have evidence of the contrary. Here are some statistics, note that these are for the U.S. only but the other western countries show similar data: U.S. Population is 49% male and 51% female. This gives us a basis of what the other statistics should look like. 79.3% of workplace fatalities are men, meaning men are four times more like to die at work than women. 78% of suicide deaths are men. While women are three times as likely to attempt suicide, men are just under four times more likely to die from it. This is because men mostly use 100% lethal means, firearm being prevalent, while women tend to bleed out from slit wrists and overdose on pills. The overwhelming majority of combat deaths are men, even though women are being integrated into the military. I will show statistics from older wars to compare. 1. Korea 99.99% of people who died were men. 2. Vietnam 99.99% again. 3. Gulf war 96.07%. 4. OIF 97.54%. 5. OEF 97.83% Men are more likely to commit murder, and more likely to be murdered. 78% of homicide victims are male and 64% of known killers are male. Men are fourteen times more likely to be sent to prison and receive 63% longer sentences than women for the same crime. 83% of felony defendants are male. 93% of the prison population is male. Chance of being bailed is 62% for men and 80% for women. First time offenders sentenced, 29% of male cases and only 17% of female cases. Chances of probation or parole for men is 66% while for women it is 85%. 72% of homeless individuals in shelter are male. 66-80% of divorces are initiated by women. Men win custody only 18% of the time. 674,000 men receive alimony while 5,588,000 women do. References Population by gender 2013 Workplace Fatalities 2013 Professions by Gender Suicide Rates 2013 Combat Casualty Statistics Combat Casualty Statistics OIF/OEF Murder Victims 2013 Murder Offenders 2013 Prison Statistics 2009-2013 Sentencing statistics Sentencing statistics 2 Homelessness 2013 Custody and Alimony Divorce Divorce 2 These are all public records
scariest Fnaf animatronic

My opponent conceedes on the bite of '87 and that's a key thing in this debate. The Bite of '87 is the thing that got the restraunt closed down for quite some time only to re-open latter. To know that Mangle is the one who did this and actually took out someone's frontal lobe and attacked a child is chilling while Springtrap only attacks the night guard. (http://freddy-fazbears-pizza.wikia.com...) A key thing about his "back-up" is mainly that he has two heads. One being the fox head and the other being that of the exoskelleton of the animatronic. We can still see that his attacks are scarier and the attacks I showed you, he is alone. No back-up. This was dropped by my opponent as well and since all my points were dropped. I can see no other option, but of that to vote Con. Thank you.