BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay Marriage should be legalized in the sate of California

Is there a right to same sex marriage? My opponent’s main argument throughout the debate is homosexuals need equal rights and have a right to choose whom they marry. But this is irrelevant unless my opponent can prove there is some sort of right with same sex marriage. He must prove, legally, they are being violated of some constitutional right rather then just assuming this right exists. This opinion is not universal; therefore my opponent must justify his claim. My opponent has failed to define or prove his terms on why banning homosexual marriage is illegal based on loss of rights, therefore fails on a legal basis on which the resolution is based. Benefits of marriage There are, indeed, many benefits of marriage. All of which cost the state millions of dollars to provide. They give these benefits out as they have subsidized the marriage business, hinting they have some interest in the institution. So they are giving benefits out for a reason, and only if there is a good reason are they obligated to hand these benefits out. So the question here is not what the benefits are, rather why the state gives these benefits out to specific classes of people (married couples). Marriage is a legal institution, which is former around one man and one woman in attempt to create procreative type unions. Many think marriage is about love, but this is a perk of marriage not its purpose. If it were, then ordinary friendships would also be regulated by the state. So the only viable state interest in marriage is a procreative type union that creates proper family structure that helps further the production of society. The states subsidization of marriage means they are using marriage to promote responsible and healthy procreation to raise a healthy society, as only procreation is not in the bests interest of society as a whole, rather how it is done is. Therefore the states interest only applies to heterosexuals, and not homosexuals. They love each other!! This is not a valid reason to allow homosexual marriage as love is not a valid states interest nor does it serve any purpose to the state worthy of millions of dollars in benefits. Therefore this point is irrelevant to a legal debate and is only an emotional argument. Conclusion: My opponents argument fails to prove on a legal basis whether or not gay marriage should be legal, it first asserts there is a right to gay marriage. But it is only backed up by assertion and not actual evidence. He later argues there are benefits to marriage; evidence suggests some type of government interest in the marriage institution. Therefore its not if there is benefits, rather why the state should grant them to certain people and not others. The reason they grant benefits is procreative-type unions, therefore there is no reason for homosexuals to get these benefits nor do they deserve them. Love is irrelevant as love serves no purpose to the state therefore they have no obligation to recognize their relationship as marriage.
Gay Marriage should be legalized in the sate of California

Some people believe marriage is a union between one man and one woman. The definition, at the moment, actually states just that; however, definitions change as time drives on, and I believe its time for a radical change. About ten percent of the population is homosexual, and many of them have legitimate reasons about why they want to get "hitched." Jennifer and Marie have been living together for eight years. They share a house, two cars, utilities, two children, and a puppy; however, their commitment is not legally recognized, they often receive little or to no help financially, and businesses often do not consider the couple as immediate family of one another. Marriage is a decision that all Americans, including homosexuals, should have the right to consider as marriage allows couples to receive special employment benefits and financial aid, permission to make legal decisions about inheritance, child custody, and visitation rights which could have been disregarded if there had been legal documentation of the partners' commitments. Situations such as this corrupt the lives of gays and lesbians everyday. Medical, dental, and life insurance for married couples is, in most places, not an options for long term committed gay and lesbian couples. Married couples also receive financial aid from many different sources. Taxes, loans, grants, scholarships, and bills all depend on things such as marriage; in a lot of the cases marriage greatly affects these issues positively and, once again, leaves gays and lesbians to fend for themselves as individuals. "We the people" say that America is a free country that is dedicated to making sure it's citizens obtain equal rights, yet everyday same-sex couples suffer from the lack of certain rights. I strongly stand for the concept that same-sex couples should be aloud to legally marry; after all, I, too, wish to get married someday, and if the law does not allow same-sex marriages then my marriage will be denied as well. I urge Americans to open their eyes and look at same-sex couples from my point of view. Denying same-sex couples from marriage is denying the basic rights regarding benefits, financial aid, inheritance, child custody, visitation rights, and legal documentation of a married couple.
Coming soon to a debate near you!

Greetings. I shall take advantage of this debate and choose which debates I want to concern myself with. Topic 1: In terms of Super powers, super speed would be more beneficial than the power of "absolute obedience" (I'll define in the comment section) - (I'm AGAINST:CON) Topic 2: The ending to "Death Note" is an example of bad writing (I'm In FAVOR: PRO) (arguing that bad is "opinion" is not allowed). Topic 3: RPG games (Final Fantasy being an example) should quit incorporating "random encounters" into their systems (NOTE: This debate is not to be argued based on a critic or sales perspective. In other words, don't cite the opinion of other fans, just argue how the elements of the "random encounter system" are good or bad.) - (IN FAVOR: PRO)
Coming soon to a debate near you!

As you can see, this debate is 5 rounds. Here's how the debate will work: Contender R1: Propose 3 resolutions of varying topics, and pick "PRO" or "CON" for each one. Instigator R2: Choose a resolution to debate. Contender R2: Choose first or second. If the contender goes first, he/she cannot post an argument in the final round. If the contender goes second, the debate will proceed as normal.
Coming soon to a debate near you!

As noted in the rules, I am not allowed to argue. in this round due to the fact that I was PRO. I still say VOTE CON though. With that said . . . [LeFou:] Gosh it disturbs me to see you, Gaston Looking so down in the dumps Every guy here'd love to be you, Gaston Even when taking your lumps There's no man in town as admired as you You're ev'ryone's favorite guy Ev'ryone's awed and inspired by you And it's not very hard to see why No one's slick as Gaston No one's quick as Gaston No one's neck's as incredibly thick as Gaston For there's no man in town half as manly Perfect, a pure paragon You can ask any Tom, Dick or Stanley And they'll tell you whose team they prefer to be on [Chorus:] No one's been like Gaston A king pin like Gaston [LeFou:] No one's got a swell cleft in his chin like Gaston [Gaston:] As a specimen, yes, I'm intimidating [Chorus:] My what a guy, that Gaston Give five "hurrahs!" Give twelve "hip-hips!" [LeFou:] Gaston is the best And the rest is all drips [Chorus:] No one fights like Gaston Douses lights like Gaston [Cronie:] In a wrestling match nobody bites like Gaston [Bimbettes:] For there's no one as burly and brawny [Gaston:] As you see I've got biceps to spare [LeFou:] Not a bit of him's scraggly or scrawny [Gaston] (That's right!) And ev'ry last inch of me's covered with hair [Cronies:] No one hits like Gaston [Townsman:] Matches wits like Gaston [LeFou:] In a spitting match nobody spits like Gaston [Gaston:] I'm espcially good at expectorating (Ptooey!) [Chorus:] Ten points for Gaston! [Gaston:] When I was a lad I ate four dozen eggs Ev'ry morning to help me get large And now that I'm grown I eat five dozen eggs So I'm roughly the size of a barge [Chorus:] No one shoots like Gaston Makes those beauts like Gaston [LeFou:] Then goes tromping around wearing boots like Gaston [Gaston:] I use antlers in all of my decorating [Chorus:] Say it again Who's a man among men? And then say it once more Who's the hero next door? Who's a super success? Don't you know? Can't you guess? Ask his fans and his five hangers-on There's just one guy in town who's got all of it down [LeFou:] And his name's G-A-S- T - G-A-S-T - E - G-A-S-T-O - oh! [Chorus:] Gaston
Flat Tax

You are arguing that the Flat tax is simple, fair, and enables growth unlike the progressive tax. However, you are missing the affect of what the flat tax would have on the middle class and the lower economic classes. You see, if the U.S. had a flat tax, or simply a "flatter" tax rate, income inequality would rise as it does in nations that do not have a progressive income tax as shown by the comparison of the U.S. to Western European nations and against Australia, etc. Consumption fuels about 70% of all of the U.S. economy. Now, the middle class and the lower economic peoples spend most if not all of their money. The wealthy spend less of their money comparatively. Also, a flat tax eventually creates a two-tier economic ladder. So, the flat tax would tax the middle and lower classes more and the rich WOULD PAY LESS. http://www.usnews.com... Earlier I said "The taxes collected (more revenue will exist) to pay for infrastructure, our educational system and resources, legal system, national defense, and economic opportunities that allow many people become very rich in the first place. Also, social programs and safety nets such as unemployment insurance raises the overall standard of living in a national allowing for more productive employees in the workplace, a larger amount of active consumers, more entrepreneurship in an economy, all of the government programs we rely on, and creates a more dynamic economy overall. With more revenues a government could help society more." -- If you have less revenues, society will have more debt, so a flat tax will reduce consumption in our economy, while the rich would have more money on their hands. A rich tax cut does not create jobs, just look at the Early 2000s Bush Tax Cuts. The current U.S. tax system needs to be simplified, more progressive, and more fair. This would save much money through closing loopholes and would make the middle class owe less in taxes and would help them, as well as helping the poor. When you said that the Flat tax is simple, it is not as much as you may think. -- Businesses point out that they need some mechanism in the tax code that will allow them to deduct their expenses in order to be fairly taxed on their actual profits. There is also the complex question of how to deal with the tax components of imports and exports under a flat tax system. http://www.debate.org... http://www.americanprogress.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.usnews.com... You mentioned that people wouldn't want a progressive tax with a 59-point plan. I don't know where this comes from besides Republican Mitt Romney's 59-point economic plan, which is off topic at the point and I think is actually a more flat-tax like change to our tax system (I doubt that Republicans want a more progressive tax system) So, would having a tax system that reduced consumption of our economy, increase our deficits and debt, damaged our economy and infrastructure, and reduced money to the middle class and lower classes be beneficial to the U.S. economy?
Flat Tax

A flat tax is simple, fair, and it enables growth unlike a progressive tax. Also unlike the progressive tax it provides equal taxation for all and fulfilling equal justice under law. A progressive tax is bias and punishes the nations wealthy for contributing to the nations wealth. A flat tax would take away the tax bias and would guarantee better economic performance in a global economy. My points of why a flat tax is more beneficial are: 1. It will spur economic growth, saving, and investment 2. It is simple and fair. People will understand a flat tax better than a progressive tax plan that has 59 points and just as many exceptions for certain groups 3. There would be instant wealth creation due to the after tax income that will be available and therefore it will be spent and circulated
Prostitution Should be Legalized

"Prostitution Should be Legalized"Definitions:Prostitution- The work of a prostitute : the act of having sex in exchange for money. . http://www.merriam-webster.com...Legalized- To make (something) legal : to allow (something) by law. . http://www.merriam-webster.com...Rules1.) Pro agrees to support the notion that "Prostitution Should be Legalized" and Con agrees to support the notion that "Prostitution Should not be Legalized".2. ) Con agree's to waive the last round.3. )
Predestination

I am disappointed that my worthy opponent chose not to finish this debate. It has been a worthwhile exchange of ideas. My opponent wanted an explanation of the Biblical quote presented below and it follows. Mark 4:10-12--- "But when He was alone, those around Him with the twelve asked Him about the parables. And He said to them, 'To you it has been given to know the mystery of the kingdom God; but to those who are outside, all things come in parables, so that 'seeing they may see and not perceive, and hearing they may hear and not understand; lest they should turn, and their sins be forgiven them.'" This is a recording of Jesus' explanation of why He taught in parables. Jesus saw that the Jewish church leaders of the time had already shut their eyes to what they saw before them, and closed their ears to His words, because for them to admit that Jesus could heal the sick and raise the dead meant that He was God and His words against them were true. Rather than accept the fact that "No man can do those things expect God be with him" rather than face their sin, they chose to close their eyes. So, Jesus began teaching to the multitudes, (you and me as it were) through parables: simple stories that the self-righteous rulers would see as folly, but the everyday man could understand. Simple stories that anyone with an open heart could hear, and could understand, and might turn to Christ to be saved. People could understand the parables if they wanted to – if they were willing to seek an explanation and accept what was being said. When the disciples, and others, asked for an explanation, it was given to them. Thus Jesus was not intentionally preventing people from learning; He was the one giving them opportunities to learn, and if His words remained a mystery to his audience, it was the audience's choosing. In fact, in the verses following the passage that you cited from Mark, Jesus says: "For whatever is hidden is meant to be disclosed, and whatever is concealed is meant to be brought out into the open. If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear." (Mark 4:22-23) While the title of this debate "Predestination" did not contain a question or propose a certain stand, it is clear that the proponent advocated the Calvinistic theory that only a chosen few will reach heaven, no matter what choices man has made on earth. He has cited several Biblical quotes as evidence of this theory. There are scripture passages that seem to support my opponent's view but there are at least as many, if not more, that support my stand. In fact, one has to be extremely careful in quoting scripture. While the verses are the ingredients of the Good Book, the Bible as a whole is the soup. As I demonstrated above and in my previous arguments, one should not name the soup until all of the ingredients are added. Each new verse adds to the general meaning of the whole chapter and the message of Jesus who indicated that all what anyone, not a chosen few, had to do was merely to heed His call, "Come, follow Me!."
Homeschooling

You stated in your post that public schooling was the only way to ensure that the required curriculum is "actually being taught" to students and that no ideological spin is put on things correct? Have you ever tried homeschooling yourself? While homeschooling does offer enormous flexibility in time management and teaching style it has many pros. For example, it allows kids who learn at a slower pace to really grasp a concept and other kids who grasp things easily to move forward and not have to stay behind waiting on other students to finish. To assume that homeschool students do not follow a curriculum is faulty, on the contrary the majority of homeschoolers academically perform multiple grade levels higher than their actual age. I have gone to both public school and homeschool and i can tell you the academic performance and expectations are much higher in homeschooling-in public school kids and even teachers, don't really care about what they are learning. They simply learn things for the test not really caring about long term effects or consequences. I have found public schoolers often cheat, skip class, are belligerent, sleep through class, or are under the influence. Public school kids are often very rude and disrespectful-a major contrast to homeschoolers who are taught from the beginning not only class room subjects but life lessons in manners and the level of respect and propriety you should hold yourself to. As for the ideological aspect-why does it matter to you what a child's parent's views are? Parental views are going to differ no matter where you go to school. I presume that you will teach your children your views and expect them to follow suit; it is the same with homeschool parents and their kids. Homeschooling is not a "brainwashing" or anything of that nature-it is simply a parents choice exercising their right to make sure their children receive a proper and WHOLESOME education-instead of one that wastes time and tax payers money with out any real positive outcome.
Faith is Dangerous to the Individual and His/Her Society

Is it dangerous to have faith in the idea of faith being dangerous? The answer is no. While pro appears to advocate that believing in something regardless of proof would be dangerous they fail to understand that if one is fortunate enough to blindly have faith in the concept of faith being stupid they'd actually be no danger to anyone at all.Having faith in pacifism, faith in logic, faith in scientific reasoning is , although blind and irrational, not DANGEROUS to anyone at all.Let use observe the justification pro attempts to give for it being dangerous."Once faith is adopted, the individual or groups of individuals faithfully believing in the proposed idea or concept (regardless of how ridiculous or absurd their faith is) are more apt to commit atrocities in the name of their faith." How can one fight for pacifism? If one has faith in the lack of any violence or causing of harm can they truly ever be dangerous at all? The answer is a clear and solid no.In fact because they would believe in pacifism regardless of any proof whatsoever, they'd inevitably never be able to be converted to doing harm as their faith is define as being "belief in a person or concept in spite of proof or evidence to the contrary"If anything a person with no faith whatsoever is the easiest to convince to do atrocities as one need only supply them with 'proof' of the benefits and they'd do it. Such as the Kamikaze pilots of Japan who were not killing in the name of God but merely out of the willingness to serve a country regardless of their Taoist/Buddhist faith. Faith is not dangerous if one has faith in something that isn't dangerous.To claim any and all faith to be dangerous to an individual and his/her society is to say that one who has faith in a harmonious self and society is dangerous to it (clearly the irony is too blatant).I conclude that faith is not dangerous to an individual and his/her society unless the concept one has faith in happens to coincidentally be a dangerous one.
Faith is Dangerous to the Individual and His/Her Society

Faith, which is the belief in a person or concept in spite of proof or evidence to the contrary, needs to be challenged because that faith can be very dangerous for the individual or the society which shares the same faith-based idea set. Once faith is adopted, the individual or groups of individuals faithfully believing in the proposed idea or concept (regardless of how ridiculous or absurd their faith is) are more apt to commit atrocities in the name of their faith. That point has been proven over and over again when an individual decides to carry out the ultimate act of faith (dying in the name of their faith). Please understand that when I am speaking of faith, I am speaking of religious faith and not faith in your doctor, faith in your pilot etc. Other usages, such as faith in your doctor, or faith in the police, have quite different explanations and are not relevant here.
Faith is Dangerous to the Individual and His/Her Society

I quote, "and yet has failed to realise that not all faiths even have a hell to begin with and additionally faith in Buddhism entails faith in pacifism for this is part of the religion." First, I will remind my opponent that even Buddhism has killed in the name of it"s faith. Moreover, simply because certain faiths are not on the extreme ends of it, does not take away from the fact that faith, in and of itself it is ALWAYS the root cause of an atrocious act being carried out when it is in the name of religion. My opponent seems to be speaking of religious moderates. We must understand that some faiths are committed to permissiveness and diverseness while others would destroy the earth in it"s entirety if heresy could be ended. Moderates often attempt to take the "righteous" high road by recognizing the equality of ALL faiths (Buddhism). However, as long as religions such as Islam believe that only it"s practitioners will be saved on the day of judgment, then he cannot possibly have respect for other faiths; and violence follows as I"ve already pointed out. In closing, faith is not necessary; in fact, it is harmful. A faith-based idea set is harmful because it intentionally constrains the efficacy of the individual. Faith can enable an individual or group to believe what they want, regardless of how ridiculous or crazy that belief may be. For example, at the core of Islam, there is a belief in Jihad and martyrdom and faith is the only motivator. Faith explains why a man can blow himself up in a crowded area and think of it as a win for his religion. People who faithfully believe they have god"s permission, enable actions that an average, faithless person would not think of. The torturing women, mutilating children"s genitalia, who would do such things without first employing faith? THIS is faith and this is why it"s dangerous.
Faith is Dangerous to the Individual and His/Her Society

My opponent in round one never stated this 5 point bullsh*t system of reasoning which he/she assigns to be 'faith reasoning'.In fact my opponent's five point system is refuted by the fact that they defined faith as " the belief in a person or concept in spite of proof or evidence to the contrary" and yet has failed to realise that not all faiths even have a hell to begin with and additionally faith in Buddhism entails faith in pacifism for this is part of the religion.It is thus a false assumption to link faith to violence if the faith is in a religion that advocates pacifism.All my contentions remain.