BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Issues Pertaining to Homosexuality

My opponent started her argument by wondering why the issue of Gay and Lesbian marriage has taken the back seat to the "War on Terrorism". Well that is very simple, whether you support the war effort or you would like to pull the troops home men and women on both sides are dying in Iraq, Afghanistan and other places across the globe. Frankly gay marriage should not even be an issue. If one takes the time to read my profile I am against gay marriage but I am really neutral when it comes to civil unions. The reason for that stance is because although I am not a bible thumping son of a preacher I still believe that God whether you are Jewish, Christian or Muslim intended marriage to be between a man and a women, but I have no problem making some sort of legal contract giving your life insurance and or your benefits to your life partner. My opponent is correct when she states that what she does in her own personal life is of no importance to anyone, but I do not know how many times homosexual individuals will introduce themselves as, "Hello I am so and so, and I am gay". I am always annoyed when people introduce themselves as gay because I do not go around promoting my preference for my sexual preference. Imagine me responding to that person by answering, "Nice to meet you so and so my name is Freddy and I like white girls". It is absurd that they feel the need to advertise their sexuality to others because honestly their being gay is no benefit nor is it a detriment to their ability to go to school, work or serve in the military. Honestly the United States is just as good with Europe or better when it deals with Homosexuality because honestly I feel that when you start portraying people as minority groups or helpless individuals it is a form of reverse racism that shows others that you are weak and inferior and we all know that is not the case. There is only individuals and certain fringe right wing groups that still show prejudice towards gays and Americans of color but honestly you would have to show me some proof of Constitutional Rights being interfered with because I do not see them. Gay marriage should be determined on a state by state basis by vote by the people or the representatives that serve them, because the Constitution grants the states powers for those issues that are not written into the Constitution and I really do not want to see more power granted to the federal government determining what marriage is. When we change constitutional law we must look at it through the eyes of the founding fathers and they would never approve of "Gay MARRIAGE" simply because marriage a ceremony that is religious based in my humble opinion. Like I stated early I am no bible thumping person so with that said I nor any other person of this world has the right to judge you, that judgement is reserved for God himself. So if anyone is damning you to hell my friend you simply politely recite to them the words of Jesus "he without sin cast the first stone". Once again thank you for the debate and I will await your response.
Issues Pertaining to Homosexuality

While it has taken a back seat to the war in Iraq, the issue of why gay marriage is even an issue at all in this country boggles my mind. Now, I've been to many countries in Europe and most of them (Spain and Holland in particular) are far more progressive minded about gay matrimony than America is. Their entire outlook, for the most part, on sexuality in general is healthy and largely tolerant, which is why I love Europe so much. Some people claim that marriage is rooted exclusively in religion which may be true for some but certainly not for all. I am not advocating forcing all religious houses to perform same sex marriages; they have the right not to if they so choose. But it really saddens me that here we are in nearly 2008 in a so called "all men are created equal" society and gay people are still being treated as second class citizens. Have we not learned from the past about the awful things that can happen when people are prejudiced on the basis of race, religion, sexuality or anything else? Two consenting adults that love each other shouldn't be kept from marrying because they happen to be of the same gender. If I decide to marry a woman, how exactly is that affecting anybody else? What it boils down to, I believe is fear and an obsession with control. Bottom line is, if you want to damn me to hell for loving another woman, go right on ahead. But when you start using those beliefs to actively prevent me from having marriage rights, then there is certainly a problem.
Gandalf (PRO) vs Dumbledore (CON)

1. Gandalf is a Maiar whereas Dumbledore is mortal. The five Istari, or wizards, were sent to Middle-Earth to aid in the fight against the dark lord Sauron. Gandalf was one of them, and after Saruman's betrayal, Gandalf was considered the wisest and most powerful of the five. The Istari were actually Maiar, an almost god-like race of powerful, immortal spirits. [NOTE: I will not consider immortality as an argument in accordance with my statement in round one]. They were also able to change their physical form into virtually anything they chose. Dumbledore, on the other hand, is a mortal man. I concede that Dumbledore is very wise and powerful, yet it would not be enough to defeat an Istari (especially the wisest and most powerful) in combat. Gandalf, as a Maiar, is simply superior to the mortal Dumbledore. 2. Gandalf is more powerful. Gandalf is equipped with his powerful staff, his sword, and the Ring of Fire. If Gandalf's staff is broken, he is able to acquire a new functional staff as he has done many times, including in his transition from Gandalf the Grey to Gandalf the White. Even so, he does not require a staff to perform magic. He is also an expert swordsman, whereas there is no evidence that Dumbledore is capable of wielding a sword. Gandalf also possesses the Ring of Fire, which surpasses Dumbledore's abilities to wield fire. Dumbledore, although he is powerful and he wields the elder wand, is not as powerful as a Maiar such as Gandalf. SOURCES: 1. . http://lotr.wikia.com... 2. . http://harrypotter.wikia.com... 3. . http://lotr.wikia.com... 4. . http://lotr.wikia.com... 5. . http://lotr.wikia.com... 6. . http://scifi.stackexchange.com...
Gandalf (PRO) vs Dumbledore (CON)

Welcome to this debate! The debate poses the question of who would win in a hypothetical battle between Gandalf the White (from the Lord of the Rings franchise) and Professor Albus Dumbledore (from the Harry Potter franchise). Pro (TheConservativeSocialist) will argue that Gandalf would win. Con, my opponent, will argue that Dumbledore would win. For the sake of this debate, it will be assumed that neither individual would return after death.
Flat Earth (Pro) vs Spherical Earth (Con)

So, the Earth, according to what you said, is the "center of the Galaxy. And look every other planet in the known universe! All of which are spherical. And your "dome atmosphere" would not work because of the sheer size of Earth! And, is there a place that you can look and see into "infinity"? No? That's what I thought too! You can't possibly beat this 13 year old genius!
Flat Earth (Pro) vs Spherical Earth (Con)

Again, somewhat convinced my opponent isn't interested too much in debate and is just overly excited thinking they'll get a free win. "My response to your argument 3 is cameras do not take 3 dimension pictures!" So, your reasoning for those images showing no curvature, is, cameras don't take 3d pictures. Wouldn't 3d just distort it? "And you pretty much proved yourself wrong on number 4, because how and why would they exist if they were not real" That's not what I said. My argument was, we are told that, although we have gone to space which is much more frigid, we can't fly over antarctica because the planes instrument would fail. "And do you know what a satellite is? It orbits earth, keyword orbit." I will put it in a simple way so children can understand https://pbs.twimg.com... . "We wouldn't have an atmosphere." Let's say the Earth is domed. What would prevent the atmosphere from being contained inside the dome? "Also the horizon makes it seem like ships come out of the water like submarines, unlike if the earth was flat, they would just appear. We can't see a curve in the Earth because we are on the ground." So, the reason we can't see a curve is because we are on the ground, but we can see ships sailing over the horizon due to a curve? Also, that argument has been debunked many times before. Perspective, not curvature. "Oh, also the phases of the Moon and time-zones!" I know a GIF doesn't accurately represent our model, but its meant as a representation. The reason we have time zones and moon phases on a flat Earth is because the sun and moon are much smaller and closer to the Earth than we are told, and they both go in a circuit around the Earth. https://i.imgur.com...
Flat Earth (Pro) vs Spherical Earth (Con)

My response to your argument 3 is cameras do not take 3 dimension pictures! And you pretty much proved yourself wrong on number 4, because how and why would they exist if they were not real. Nobody would create them if it were not remotely possible. And do you know what a satellite is? It orbits earth, keyword orbit. We wouldn't have an atmosphere. Also the horizon makes it seem like ships come out of the water like submarines, unlike if the earth was flat, they would just appear. We can't see a curve in the Earth because we are on the ground. Oh, also the phases of the Moon and time-zones! Please try to disprove me!
Flat Earth (Pro) vs Spherical Earth (Con)

THE EARTH IS FLATBurden of proof is on both sides. I will prove the Earth is flat. My opponent must prove the Earth is spherical.STRUCTURERound 1 is for your acceptanceRound 2 is for argumentsRound 3 is for rebuttalsRound 4 is for counter rebuttalRound 5 is for your closing statement and conclusion (no arguments or rebuttals)
Flat Earth (Pro) vs Spherical Earth (Con)

I meant that this is something even a 13 year old would know. And the last "real" pictures of the Earth clearly show that it's spherical. https://www.google.com... and https://www.google.com... prove that the Earth is a sphere! So you proved yourself wrong another time! And no, the dome wouldn't work because some thing cant be scaled up that size . Also almost the entire world, including the greatest mind on the face of the Earth, Stephen Hawking, know I am right and support. You said that the Sun and Moon rotate around the Earth, so that is what I thought you meant! Still, a kindergartner would know this! If you can prove almost everyone on the face of the damn Earth wrong, then do it! If you think your right, than prove it!
Flat Earth (Pro) vs Spherical Earth (Con)

"So, the Earth, according to what you said, is the "center of the Galaxy. And look every other planet in the known universe! All of which are spherical. And your "dome atmosphere" would not work because of the sheer size of Earth. And, is there a place that you can look and see into "infinity"? No? That's what I thought too!" So, your argument is, if the Earth is flat, it would be the center of the galaxy and therefore the dome couldn't "fit", and besides, the other planets look round? First off, I never implied that the Earth was the "center of the galaxy". I believe my opponent is getting that interpretation from artwork of the dome with a galaxy. A more accurate representation would be the dome with stars. "You can't possibly beat this 13 year old genius!" I thought you were 23?
ObamaCare is a failure.

This is unfortunate, I was looking forward to debating this subject. However, I realize sometimes real life issues interfere with our hobbies and I respect my opponent's wishes to withdraw without argument. I ask in the spirit of fairnesss that all members refrain from voting on this debate, I purpose, for the purpose of not leaving an open debate on the site for about two weeks, that in each of the subsequent rounds we each simply enter the word "void".
ObamaCare is a failure.

I will be challenging someone to a debate about ObamaCare. I will be taking the side that it will have ill effects on our country and economy. Rules: 1. No pathos. (No shouting "all dis poor people need dis duznt muatter that they dunt wunt a job") This is about strictly facts with little opinions. 2. There will be 5 rounds. 3. The first round is only to accept the challenge. 4. Grammar and punctuation is to be used at all times. 5. Do not call anyone racist. (this is the 21st century, grow up) Just because you are in a particular party does not mean you are racist, sexist, gay, southern, northern, hippy, soldier, gangster, etc. 6. You will have 72 hours to give each round's argument. 7. My opponent must take the con position. 8. Your sources must be cited, otherwise your arguments will be invalid no matter if they are wrong or completely right.
Believing in a religion is illogical

I reserve the right to add arguments in the next round, up till but not including the last round. Since my opponent has not defined illogical, I will define illogical as: "lacking sense or clear, sound reasoning" [1]For my argument I will also present the definition of Apologetics. "The logic-based defense of a religion or theory" (Based on [2] and [3])I have two arguments. Argument 1 - Apologetics Apologetic thinking is logical for two reasons according to my definitions:1) My definition of illogical reads "lacking. .. sound reasoning". Since my definition and the second and third source support Apologetics as having reasoning, the definition is fulfilled. 2) The obvious reason that my definition and second source support Apologetics as LOGICAL. Since apologetics assumes belief in religion, Believing in religion is not always illogical, although it can be. Argument 2 - Inductive ReasoningThis argument is more important than the last. Rather than a strict definition of inductive reasoning, I will provide this "definition" from a dictionary:"The term "inductive reasoning" refers to reasoning that is "bottom up. " Inductive reasoning takes specific information and makes a broader generalization that is considered probable, allowing for the fact that the conclusion may not be accurate. " [4]Inductive reasoning is logical. [5] It IS more risky, and I'm sure my opponent will argue that, but the question is not which is more sound logically: religion or lack of it; but rather whether believing in religion is logical at all. An example of inductive reasoning causing faith: A person is hurt, and prays for a miraculous recovery. It happens. Whether it was miraculous or not is irrelevant, the person perceives it to be and to the doctors it is miraculous. But this man has a similar situation two more times. And his friend tells him a similar thing happened to him. If this person believes based off his experience, he is using inductive reasoning. Whether or not he's right, he's being logical. (Another source, even though it's unneeded: [6])Because apologetics is a reasoned, logical activity, and because inductive reasoning can cause faith, my opponent is incorrect in asserting that believing in a religion is illogical. One last note: The resolution asserts that ALL belief in a religion is illogical, not just some. So if my opponent proves there are some beliefs that are illogical, that's not a reason to vote Pro. I eagerly await my opponent's reply. Sources:[1] . http://oxforddictionaries.com...[2] . http://www.apologeticsindex.org...[3] . http://oxforddictionaries.com...[4] . http://examples.yourdictionary.com...[5] . http://www.fibonicci.com...[6] . http://www.biblicalworldview21.org...
Is Anonymous really "bad"

"Bad and other concepts are merely constructs of perception. Many people percieve Anonymous as "bad." http://mic.com... To answer your question, much of anonymous' attacks in some way or another restrict free speech. They do not tolerate alternate viewpoints aside from their own. They block websites and people that oppose their own views and shut them down. Anonymous' attacks also have unintended consequences. Anonymous has brought down many Isis websites that could have been used for gathering information to destroy them. Anonymous has hacked into the Ku Klux Klan's twitter. This clearly defies the free speech on the internet. I believe that many of Anonymous' attacks are for their own "good." These attacks are against anyone who stands in their ways of their ideal version of the internet. Anonymous does target harmful people and bigots, but by doing so they endanger the internet to be as a free place to exchange ideas. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Is Anonymous really "bad"

This is purely an argument for the sake of your opinion if you choose to do so. My future opponent, just give your beliefs and a reason why you think that they are bad. Best of luck to you. In my eyes the hacker group known as Anonymous is not bad. Now, they do things in ways that may not be the best, but they are purely for the people worldwide. From the U.S to France , to Greece, to Germany, and many more countries. They do not tolerate unfair judgement of people or the use of lethal force. Such as the KKK threatening to use force against non-violent protesters. Anonymous shut them down. The Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris led the Anons there to declare cyber war on ISIS and Al Qaeda. They were able to shut the Al Qaeda down on and off making it difficult for them to do anything. They have shut ISIS down and stopped them for only a few hours before they were back online. They are all over the world and try hard to expose threats such as the two terrorist groups I've mentioned earlier.
Abortion is Morally Justified

>>>Life Begins at conception, when the fetus is killed, its life is over. <<< Who ever said life was the category we are basing this debate on? We kill many things that are alive, like plants. Would someone who picks a flower out from the ground, sniffs it, then throws it away be charged with murder? >>>About 4,000 babies are killed everyday. <<< FETUSES. >>>How is this any different then abortion? Sure, abortion involves the killing of a fetus or an embryo, but in reality a fetus and embryo are forms of life and should be considered human beings. <<< Ridiculous statement. Not all forms of life are human beings. Is a dog a human being? Is a plant a human being? >>>Many people will argue that the fetus and embryo are not considered human beings, since they have only begun to form into a human being. <<< Perhaps, but I did not argue this. I argue that the fetus is not a person, i. e. hasn't a fully functioning brain (until it's self-aware). >>>Should I be permitted to put a gun to your head and pull the trigger, just because I convince some people you are either not alive, or your 'quality of life' is not worth sustaining? <<< This can be broken down into two parts: 1. You are threatening my life by saying I'm not alive? Contradiction anyone? But also, I never used life as a criteria, so bad analogy there. 2. I never used the "quality of life" as an argument. So again, bad analogy. >>>If you believe murder (the taking of an innocent human life) is wrong, who has the authority to decide when a human life begins? <<< Personhood. I doubt you have read my argument. >>>Less than 1% of abortions are performed for reasons of rape or incest. What is the driving motivation behind promoting them? Is it profit for the providers? <<< Irrelevant since I never used this as part of my argument; I'm well aware of the statistics. ===== Conclusion ===== My opponent's primary argument relies on the premise that murder = taking life. This is simply not true. As I've stated before, killing plants is not murder and yet a plant is alive. My opponent has completely dodged my argument: abortion is morally justified because a fetus is not self-aware thus granting it personhood.
Abortion is Morally Justified

Life Begins at conception, when the fetus is killed, its life is over. About 4,000 babies are killed everyday. No, this is not due to disease, SIDS, or even mal-nutrition. 4,000 living beings are killed everyday due to abortion. This is one of the most controversial topics in America. Many people even chose their president based on their view. But what I wonder is, how can the murder of a living being possibly be so controversial? Abortion should be considered murder, immoral, and illegal. Abortion is defined as the termination of pregnancy and expulsion of an embryo or of a fetus. Abortions are most commonly performed between the sixth and twelfth week of pregnancy, where conception occurs at week two and birth occurs at week forty. Abortions are also performed routinely up to sixteen weeks and then less often into the later months of pregnancy. And what is the definition of murder? Murder is the unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice. How is this any different then abortion? Sure, abortion involves the killing of a fetus or an embryo, but in reality a fetus and embryo are forms of life and should be considered human beings. Many people will argue that the fetus and embryo are not considered human beings, since they have only begun to form into a human being. Should I be permitted to put a gun to your head and pull the trigger, just because I convince some people you are either not alive, or your 'quality of life' is not worth sustaining? Is a doctor who performs a Caesarean Section delivery creating a life where there was none before? If you believe murder (the taking of an innocent human life) is wrong, who has the authority to decide when a human life begins? If there is any uncertainty, would you rather murder than not murder? Less than 1% of abortions are performed for reasons of rape or incest. What is the driving motivation behind promoting them? Is it profit for the providers? An egg and sperm are each alive even before they've joined in fertilization. Each of your body's cells are alive, but they don't have independent legal protection.
Abortion is Morally Justified

I affirm the resolution: termination of the fetus is morally justified. I will go through a few definitions and a few simple opening arguments. [Definition - Abortion] http://www.medterms.com... In medicine, an abortion is the premature exit of the products of conception (the fetus, fetal membranes, and placenta) from the uterus. ===== Argument - Fetus is not a Person ===== By definition, murder is the intentional (first degree and second degree) killing of a human being usually with malice afterthought (meaning not an accident)[1]. I argue that a fetus is NOT a person because it is not self-aware and it's brain is not fully developed (i.e. it's personality or "personhood" has yet to form). ===== Conclusion ===== Stemming from that one argument, I argue that the right over abortions should be placed into the mother's hand. Since she is carrying the fetus, who in itself is not a person, she is allowed to choose whether or not to abort it. ---References--- 1. http://www.merriam-webster.com...