BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay marriage

Firstly thank you once more for initiating this debate. Secondly let me once more remind you I am playing the Devil's Advocate. Now let me come to my counter refutations: 1. The concept of marriage originated in men far before Jewish people, it was means of communion, as I have already said. As for proof of Spirit, please post what prove you have for Spirit being real. I do not believe in ghosts either, tell me something that I could take to the Royal Academy of Science. 2. Is there the possibility they are marrying for love, and marriage is a means to strengthen that love. 3. How can religion having a patent over marriage be similar to a government and taxes. For one a government has an actual president. Secondly let's recognize that priests are not the only one's who have the right to join people in holy communion, secular judges also have that power. 4. Your page (source) is temporarily unavailable. 5. No democratic means majority, and majority are for gays marrying. 6. As for your last points, would you deprive single parents (whose spouse has died) of their children for those children too will not have the "choice" you so refer to. Thank you once more, I await your response. Ajab
Gay marriage

I shall play the Devil's Advocate, basically I will be supporting gay marriage. I shall start with a deconstruction of your argument: Firstly you have made a whole lot of claims, and not once have you provided any evidence. I shall systematically go about this: 1. I believe you are supposing that the foundations of marriage are Biblical? That is farcical, marriage evolved from the basic relations that had come to be in the first men. It is an association which originated due to the very need of people to make unions. It is not Biblical, not one bit. 2. You assume man has Spirit, I deny such a thing exists. My proof for denying such a thing is that it cannot be rationally nor empirically explained. 3. I find your opinions on gay marriage slightly bigoted, do you have any psychological, or social proof that gay men marry due to tax cuts. 4. I do not believe religion has a patent over marriage, also there are many differences: gay men living together is a sign of love, you have to understand that this allows a lot of closure for them, is emotionally important, not to mention it allowed them to adopt children. 5. One's rights end where the other's nose starts: if one's religion is being offended because of gay marriage, then too bad. In a democratic society they have the right to do as they please. Now on to my own argument. Let's understand that gay marriage has multiple benefits for the society and the gay people in question. Let's also understand that other than a select few who get mad at almost everything gay marriage does not have any adverse effect. The onus upon me is to show that gay marriage has a higher productivity than not allowing gays to marry. Lets start: 1. By allowing gay marriage we are supporting something more than LGBT rights, we are supporting a democratic, tolerant system. In the recent world, tolerance seems to be a lost element: people are often bigots, people commit murders for their honour and there is a hate for change: for evolution. If al-Qaeda is not enough of an example, there is nothing that will satisfy my opponent of the fact that the society needs tolerance. (Perhaps the proof lies in people like my opponent who actually believe or stoop to the ignoble level that gays marry for tax benefits: disgusting). 2. It would allow the gay men to adopt children more easily, buy houses today and transfer property. The essence of marriage is love, and therefore if two men or two women are in love then they have a right to marry. For these reasons, and the fact that my opponent has nothing to say other than that Levictus is against gay-ism turns the debate in my favour. Ajab
Gay marriage

Alright, we can both be con. :) For the viewers, I hope this will enlighten you. Marriage, was not established by the law, only recognized. This means that the law has no power to marry people in spirit, which is what marriage entails. Gay marriage is not advocating gay right, that can be done whilst living with another person of the same sex. The latter is not against the law while the former, gay marriage, is more of an intrusion upon religious practices. You see, if two men wanted to be together, they can. There is nothing stopping them. Absolutely nothing. The only differences between marriage and living together are the belief that they are married in the body of Christ, or similarly in other religions, and tax benefits. And since those who advocate gay marriage say it's not intruding upon religion, if that is the real case, then tax breaks seem to be the only cause. Taxes breaks, which they still receive by marking boxes of dependency and how many live in their home, are the goal. Much like what Al Capone went to prison for, they are wanting larger tax breaks that could be received by marriage. In final conclusion of this round, marriage does not belong to the state, so it is not theirs to give.
Resolved, that anarcho-capitalism, is in theory, and in practice, the best economic philosophy.

Alright then.Really, all we need to understand about this debate is the fact that Anarcho-Capitalism is a formula for disaster. Capitalism unfettered is a nightmare. Anarcho-Capitalism would take us back to the days of industrial capitalism, the days where businesses ran relatively free, and abused that power. People working ungodly hours, in horrible conditions, with no rights, no minimum wage. Children being put to work in textile mills, and dying at heartbreaking young ages as a result. Or when the American railroads were being built, and the immigrants died laboring in the heat and cold, or from explosions gone awry. And what happened when the workers of the nation protested the abominable working conditions? The government sent the army in to smash them into submission. The anarchist may say "but without a government, this will not occur." But what's to stop a private militia from forming, for the express purpose of hiring themselves off to companies, to out down protests with violence?No, Capitalism in the modern age is bad enough. The worst thing humanity could ever do would be to give it even more freedoms than it had in the industrial age. The free market is a dangerous evil, and must be contained.
Resolved, that anarcho-capitalism, is in theory, and in practice, the best economic philosophy.

Considering that I literally have 5 minutes on the clock, this will be super brief, and not very well written, first argument. In addition it is slightly difficult to present my argument because the opponent in the previous round, did not clarify what economic philoshophy he would be defending/ showing is superior to anarcho capitalism. Here is a quick summary of m y main contentions (I have literally 1 min 45 secs to write this because the deb)ate time is running out First that capitalism and a free market are superior to communism, socialism, or any other economic policy. I invite my opponent to attack this. Second that people coming together because they share a common passion/job/career, is superior to people coming together simply because of were they were born. Sorry for the shortness, really low on time, 10 secs right now.
Flag Burning Should Be Illegal In The United States

First, the phrase "Slander, libel, and defamation" is redundant. Slander and libel are both subcategories of defamation. Second, you misunderstand the concept of defamation here. You can "degrade" another's character, as long as you have reason to believe it is true. It is only demonstrably false statements that are a legal issue. Third, you are very rarely if ever "punished" qua the goal of punishment for the issue- defamation is a tort, not a crime. Generally you are only required to make amends, usually through money, a separate concept from punishment. "If I held up a picture of Con to act as a symbol of Con, and went to his or her workplace and said negative things about Con, while destroying or abusing the symbol of Con, I could get in big trouble." For trespassing on the workplace maybe, and if you make it look like a threat, aggravated assault. But as long as it's clear there is no threat, you are quite free to burn a person in effigy, and insult people (as long as you aren't saying demonstrably false things), etc. And of course, if one is doing this in relation to a public figure, you're even freer. "But the United States as an entity should have rights too. " The United States is not an entity, it is an area. The United States Government is an entity (a voluntary group). And has long ago surrendered any claim to rights by violating the property rights of millions of Americans. "These rights should be protected by the people, since the U.S. often protects the rights OF the people." "The people" is not an entity, and has no rights, nor ability to protect rights. Individuals within that abstract label are entities, many of whom have rights. And the U.S. government violates the rights of individuals much more often than it protects them. "There should be a love or at least a loyalty to one's country." See property rights, violation of. Or just go look at the IRS. At most there should perhaps be a mild affection, and only that because other governments do worse things, but that's up to the people in question. "t should be illegal to burn a U.S. flag in protest because it is the same as libel or slander or defamation of one's character -" No, it's not. In what sense is the burning of a flag a "False statement?" Burning a flag is an action, which can convey many statements depending on the context, many of which are true, and others of which the US courts are in essence constitutionally forbidden from deciding a "Truth value" of (See "If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act. ") Also, most flag burners own the flags in question. I'm really annoyed by the idea of the government violating property rights EVEN MORE.
Flag Burning Should Be Illegal In The United States

In this country, slander, libel, defamation... they're all illegal. One cannot degrade another's character without the possible consequence of punishment by law. So why is it that people feel it is okay to damage or deface a symbol of the United States? If I held up a picture of Con to act as a symbol of Con, and went to his or her workplace and said negative things about Con, while destroying or abusing the symbol of Con, I could get in big trouble. But the United States as an entity should have rights too. These rights should be protected by the people, since the U.S. often protects the rights OF the people. There should be a love or at least a loyalty to one's country. It should be illegal to burn a U.S. flag in protest because it is the same as libel or slander or defamation of one's character - the character of the United States. This symbol may be meaningless to some, but for others, it is a very emotional and meaningful emblem which should be respected. If demonstrators were truly trying to protest in peace, in a way that showed reverence and respect (such as Martin Luther King's protests in the 1960s), they would find alternative ways of getting their point across without striking that sensitive nerve. Thanks for hearing me out.
Birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants

Since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution on July 9th, 1868, the citizenship of persons born in the United States has been controlled by its Citizenship Clause, which states: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." This has been interpreted to give "birthright citizenship" to anyone born in the United States, except for the children of diplomats and Native Americans. The main reason for dispute is due to the fact that many illegal immigrants travel to the United States and give birth. I am XStrikeX and I am arguing that the 14 amendment of birthright citizenship should be ended. Here are my arguments. 1. Birthright citizenship is offensive to legitimate immigrants. When a person desperately wants to come to America, and must wait in line, or who was born in another country a week or a month before moving to America, it seems offensive that they are less deserving of citizenship than the child of someone who came illegally. Citizenship is also something that should be earned. Citizenship is about much more than where you were born. It is about your willingness to contribute, engage in a society, perhaps learn the prominent language of that society, and more. The idea that citizenship can be acquired by the mere fact of being born in the United States seems to cheapen this social compact. 2. Birthright citizenship creates incentive for birthright tourism. Senator Lindsay Graham said: "They come here to drop a child. It's called drop and leave. To have a child in America, they cross the border, they go to the emergency room, have a child, and that child is automatically an American citizen. That shouldn't be the case. That attracts people here for all the wrong reasons [1]." Also, another incentive for illegal immigrants to have children here is because that child, being an automatic American citizen, becomes an "anchor baby." This means that the child's parents can take advantage of the free citizenship and be sponsored for residence and citizenship thanks to the American immigration law's family-reunification bias. Also, the baby's illegal mother will not be deported. In 1993, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors reported that two-thirds of births in L.A. County hospitals were to illegal aliens, mostly Mexicans. Conservative estimates of illegal-alien births here, assuming an illegal alien population of between 8.7 and 11 million, run from 287,000 to 363,000 per year [2]. 3. This birthright is a problem. It accounts for a disproportionate amount of births. A recent study by the Washington Post found that Congress has heard testimony estimating that more than two-thirds of all births in Los Angeles public hospitals, and more than half of all births in that city, and nearly 10 percent of all births in the nation in recent years, have been to mothers who are here illegally [3]. Sources: 1. http://www.guardian.co.uk... 2. http://www.mnforsustain.org... 3. http://www.commercialappeal.com...
Phasers are better than Star Wars blasters and light sabers

Lightsaber Versatility A lightsaber can also be highly versatile. The length of the lightsaber can be adjusted to allow the user to fight at different ranges while in melee combat [1]. Due to the modular nature of the lightsaber, it could be argued that a lighsaber could be relatively easily converted into a training lightsaber, which is a non-lethal lightsaber (thereby being the "stun" setting) generally used for younglings [2]. Range Secondly, while it is not very debatable that a lightsaber is out-ranged by a phaser, a lightsaber is still capable of closing the gap between the lightsaber wielder and the phaser wielder, as lightsabers are known to be able to deflect blaster bolts [5]. Since blaster bolts are similar to a phaser beam, as both are highly heated, and eletromagetically charged gases (phasers being plasma, and blaster bolts either also being plasma or particle-based, but still known to bounce off magnetically shielded walls) [6]. Your analogy also fails here, because a knight does not wield the power of the force that most lightsaber users can, which is why (as asserted above) lightsaber wielders can deflect blaster bolts and phasers. Sabotage While you state that there is "plenty of time to get away", such a sabotage is able to cause significant damage to it's surroundings, and still managed to nearly kill three crew members [7]. Radiological Effects When it comes to the hyperonic radiation, it should be noted that the asserted regenerative phaser is allegedly capable of working in radiogenic radiation, not hyperonic radiation [8]. This regenerative phaser that you cite also was never put into production, so its true effectiveness remains unknown [8]. Blasters Versatility Blasters are capable of having stun settings. Some, like the GLX Firelance had such effective stun settings that they were used by bounty hunters to capture their targets alive [9]. Recoil Firstly, recoil does not necessarily mean that the system is less accurate. For example, many high caliber sniper rifles that utilize .50 BMG ammunition are still accurate out to 1800 meters [3]. Accuracy might be a problem for the phaser however, as I have never witnessed any form of optical sights on a handheld type 1 or type 2 phaser. Gas Secondly, a phaser must use some type of gas to function, as it utilizes plasma as the main component of the beam [4]. Therefore, a phaser is subject to the same ammo limitations that a blaster must deal with. Tunnel Vaporization Thirdly, you do not cite evidence of such vaporization of tunnels. Bolt Capability Lastly, you do not cite evidence of the "bolt" setting on a phaser. 1. http://starwars.wikia.com... 2. Note the ease at which players can change lightsaber crystals in many Star Wars games. 3. http://world.guns.ru... 4. http://en.memory-alpha.org... 5. http://starwars.wikia.com... 6. Chewbacca fires his bowcaster inside the Death Star's trash compactor. The rounds deflect off due to (as stated by Han Solo) the walls of the trash compactor being magnetically shielded. 7. http://en.memory-alpha.org... 8. http://en.memory-alpha.org... 9. http://starwars.wikia.com...
A gun ban should be instituted in American law.

Pro, you have brought up good points. I wish to keep my argument short. The founding fathers were very smart men that lived through the tyranny of Great Britain. The right to bear arms was added into the constitution not only for self defense or for hunting, but was to ensure that if the government ever became to tyrannical then the citizens could overthrow the corrupted government. If you disarm citizens then the citizens have no defense from a corrupted government. And in the case of murders, if you ban guns the murderers can still obtain guns from the black market.
Dr's role in the rising prescription drug abuse

The rise in prescription drug abuse should fall into the hands of the Dr. Considering they force patients to take them exactly as prescribed even if they do not need them everyday, once a patient is obligated after agreeing to the terms of the "Pain Contract" if there are people who suffer from pain, they seek whatever comfort measures they are offered by their Dr, people become tired and emotionally drained due to the pain they suffer from. So, they see their health care provider, after the pain contract is signed by both patient and Dr, and are prescribed many forms of narcotics and I am baffled at how, Dr's cannot figure out why narcotics abuse continues to rise. I never thought to much about the use of narcotics and the damage it can cause the patient and their families until a family member had a total of 6 brain surgeries over the last 17 years. So her Dr had her sign this contract for the pressure and pain she experienced, at any time she could've been called in by the Dr for a surprise pill count and urine test, she never thought becoming addicted until her Dr called her in, the nurse counted the pills and asked for a urine sample, which she did, and was shocked by the Dr's action. Since she had good days as well, there were several times she could go an entire day without needing any,however this Dr informed her that she had violated her pain contract, because she had more in her bottle that she should've had, and because he had her on 2-30mg morphine, 1-15mg morphine and 4-10mg of Vicodin everyday except on days she didn't need all of that, and could get by with only taking 1 Vicodin for a few days here and there. He terminated her contract because her urine did not show any of the morphine in her system, and she had more morphine than she was suppose to have. About 2 or 3 days after her Dr terminated it, she started to become more tired, emotional, her headaches came back in full force and felt she was having flu like symptoms, and that is when we all realized she had become addicted and dependent on them, so she returned to her Dr. who gave an impression of "Just another addict looking for narcotics" and refused to help her even after she said she didn't go in for narcotics, instead she was looking for help to get through the detox she was experiencing. That didn't help and after 4 days of going through hell, she was rushed to the hospital, where she sat for 2 days in ICU, she lost so much weight and looked like she was on her death bed, finally a week later, she was discharged. Now she finds other ways to deal with her pain, and refuses to use prescription narcotics EVER again, all because of the pain she went through. Now what Dr out there can force narcotics on a patient regardless if there is any pain or not what so ever, and terminate the contract because for not taking EXACTLY what the bottle says to take. Can any Dr out there see just how one of the reasons prescription drug abuse on the rise, it starts right in their office for many!
Can u be a christian and Gay

It is true that Being christian is all about belief 100 percent actually. Belief is what gets you to heaven not your deeds. But, If you are a christian then your deeds will reflect it. Being Gay is rebellion against how God created you and against his word. James 2 look at this "What good is it, My brothers and sisters, If someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to them, "Go in peace; keep warm and well fed, " but does nothing about their physical needs, What good is it? In the same way, Faith by itself, If it is not accompanied by action, Is dead. " Why would someone be a christian is they rebel against huge principle of the religion. In the bible homosexuality is a sin (in mind and in deed). But when your a christian you have a different perspective of sin then a non christian. You believe that every sin a person does was 1 reason why Jesus got slaughtered on the cross. You also believe that you deserve to go to hell because of things like sexual immorality. So my argument is this. Why would you do a sin like sexual immorality when God clearly hates. People who read this I want you to fully grasp what I am saying. God burned a city with fire and sulfur because of simply being Gay. God does not tolerate mockery of his word and his will. He may give mercy to them now, But not when they go before him in judgement. 1 corinthians 6:9 Also I would like to give full respect to my opponent. I give full respect to you and hope, May the Lord Bless you and Keep You