BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Homosexual lifestyle

The bridge between is and ought(1) Normalcy, contrary, and usual behavior in regardsMy opponent argues that in our everyday life, we tend to discourage actions contrary to the norm of a society. He brings up the example of eating through one's ear rather than through one's mouth as an example. My opponent jumps from the fact that one would usually try to help someone to eat properly to the position that one should do this. This reasoning isn't bridging the gap between what is and ought to be at all, it's merely a re-framing of the proposition. The is is being changed to the fact that we do these things. My opponent still doesn't provide any reason why one should act in this way. On helping children with Autism or teaching them manners, I wouldn't argue against people doing this, I'm merely pointing out the fact that we do do these things doesn't necessarily mean that we have some sort of prescriptive obligation to do so.(2) The ability to change sexual orientationMy opponent brings up the question of how one's opinion would change if it turned out that homosexual attraction could be changed or "cured". If it could be changed, my opponent argues, than we apparently should do so. However, even if the possibility of altering sexual orientation existed, how does this bridge the gap which my opponent has not been able to? How does the ability to do something translate to a reason why a person or a group of persons have an obligation to do this?(3) The existence of a Creator and teleological functionMy opponent has decided that instead of substantiating his position and premise of an intelligent designer, that I should just assume it for arguments sake. However, I'l remind my opponent that all premises on which one bases their arguments must be properly justified for a point to have any intellectual value. If my opponent did not properly justfy this premise than that isn't my problem and I'm under no obligatino to waive it. As such I will not be assuming the existence of any intelligent designer in the scope of this debate.
Homosexual lifestyle

Contention 1: Physical incompatibilityThe religious perspectiveMy opponent first argues that if humans were designed in a certain way by an intelligent designer (God) to "fit" a certain way, than to act contrary to that design would be immoral. Since immorality ought to be discouraged, my opponent comes to the conclusion that homosexual acts ought to be discouraged. I see no problem with the validity of this argument, however the soundness is incredibly dubious. Mostly because my opponent in no way attempts to substantiate his seemingly assumed premise regarding the existence of an intelligent designer. If my opponent cannot prove that such a designer exists, then this argument can hold no weight.The evolutionary perspectiveMy opponent next argues that there is no evolutionary advantage to homosexuality and that evolution discourages homosexuality as they cannot produce progeny. I will remind my opponent that the resolution which he is defending is that society "should" discourage homosexuality. This implies a moral prescription on how a group of individuals ought to act. But my opponent arrives at this ought from an is. The simple fact that nature may or may not discourage homosexuality or that homosexuality IS not advantageous to a species does not bridge the gap to a prescriptive ought. Hume called this the is/ought gap and my opponent has not shown why the IS (the non-advantageous nature of homosexuality) implies the OUGHT (that society should discourage it). If my opponent cannot do this than his contention is insufficient in uphlding the resolution.Contention 2: It's not a choice to having homosexual feelings, it is a choice to act upon them.While I personally disagree with this contention of my opponent's (that homosexuality is a choice), I see no reason why it is necessary to uphold or negate the resolution. Since my opponent has not shown any reason why homosexuality OUGHT to be discouraged, the reason one commits homosexual acts is of no relevance. Therefore I will concede this point to my opponent as it is of no value in this debate and I'm a bit too lazy to argue for why it is not a choice when it holds no meaning to the scope of the debate.Contention 3: It's not God's designMy opponent has as of yet provided no evidence of any intelligent designer of the human species and so this point holds no weight in affirming the resolution. I pointed this out in refuting his sub-religious argument in his Physical Incompatibility contention.
Firearms Suppressors should be removed from the NFA

Hello, Thank you for starting this debate, never has the issue of gun control been more prevalent in the United States than in the wake of the horrors of gun violence that dominates the news with each event. I will start by making a few definitions: "Firearm Suppressors" - Any device that reduces the amount of sound produced when a fire are is operated. "Removed from the National Firearms Act" - Stricken from the aforementioned act and therefore be permitted to be sold, traded and created without restriction on availability or price. I look forward to debating you. Have a pleasant and civilized debt ate.
Pregnancy Abortion

An accusation of guilt to a crime can still be made on a human being that is degraded publicly by insult, Or some lack of documented recognition. The excuse does not rule out admission as a possibility of abortion. The whole truth is that Con does not address a human egg or human sperm independently alive. They are not a citizen of a nation he said at this stage of their life. Both egg and sperm are declared medically alive by science, And never declared dead when the two form a union with each other. No death certificate is ever issued to support the living human is official dead before this stage. Quote (It"s all in your head. It"s not a child until it comes out. ) It is not independent till the child is separated from the mother. The confession in whole truth is that this child lives even though many of its brothers and sister have died before it was even born.
Pregnancy Abortion

As Con has taken the side of accusation of guilt, Pro will take the side of confession of guilt. As a man locked in truth I can only hold all woman as created equal. It is both the woman"s egg and the man"s sperm that are alive as a shared state in basic principle connected to legal precedent. A woman may be driven from some burden of hidden maternal guilt to allow herself to incriminate to a meaning set by word definition, While only seeking United States Constitutional liberty. It is by both our negligence, Man and woman we chose in our past to let life end, Not once, Not twice, But continually. It is upon that past burden she and he stand a United States Constitutional right rests, Liberty to insure her ovulation. Even if she cannot find or understand how to create it without assistance.
High self esteem is bad trait to have in our youth. They should learn to be humble.

High Self esteemed is a state everybody should be in.. After they learn and understand the true meaning of humility,empathy, and compassion. However most kids aren't taught that. They were just told to focus on themselves. Thus creating a culture entirely based of image. People with high amounts of esteem without empathy usually devalue others who aren't as superior to them. When people start devaluing other peoples life, it leads to the one of the major roots of all conflict.
it is perfectly normal to feel like you are hunting when eating with only a fork

Sorry about the spelling error I did mean exciting. I was at work on my lunch break and in a hurry, but anyways back to the debate. My opponent says that the fork looks like a spear but you can see this is false. Forks look like a trident that Neptune would have. (. http://www.seiyaku.com...) You also see that people carried knifes around with them so that when they killed their prey then they could eat up (. http://gizmodo.com...)
it is perfectly normal to feel like you are hunting when eating with only a fork

Con refers to his experiences as "exitting" rather than "exciting". I typed it into Word and the first suggestion was "exiting". I think he's just a bit of a scaredy cat and is scared of the idea of this wild safari hunting adventure, so he exited. My tip to Con is to not be scared, and you can do this by remembering that the closest thing to a wild animal on your plate is a dead pig, which probably won't move.Con talks about using the knife to hunt, but he's wrong. The fork looks more like a spear, which is typically used in hunting [1]. With the knife, you have to go up close to the dead pig, and then if it hasn't eaten you whole by then, you start to cut it with the knife. It can be quite a bother.Thank you.Sources1 http://goo.gl...
it is perfectly normal to feel like you are hunting when eating with only a fork

The reason that I am against this is because I tried it and it wasn't so exitting. The really exitting part, however, was the knife. You see throughout history we have been using the knife to hunt and kill. So the knife actually gives us the rush that humans have been longing for. That's why we have masicists. People who enjoy inflicting pain on themsevles. You see the knife gives us thrills that why people kill and hurt themselves. You can see that the knfe gives humans the thrill of the hunt that we cannot enjoy this day due to the people who have hunted before us. You see when eating with a fork is like eating with a spoon. It's boring, but when you eat only with knives man, woooo-weee what a rush you get.
it is perfectly normal to feel like you are hunting when eating with only a fork

Sometimes when I am eating my dinner and the only cutlery I have to eat with is a fork, I feel like I am hunting. I think this is perfectly normal because you need a bit of excitement in your life once in a while.Suddenly, a battered sausage and chips dinner from the chip shop turns into a wild Pig and Potato hunting safari. Perhaps this tomato liquid may even come into use, and this salt will come in handy as well. Some of my friends think this is odd because I celebrate when I catch something, but I think that's just a normal reaction. Thank you.
The United States ought to extend to non-citizens accused of terrorism the same constitutional due

From Manhattan to Mindanao, Islamist zealots draw no distinction between combatants and non-combatants. Jihadists target women, children, and the elderly without even the pretence of discrimination. In June 2004, an Al-Qaeda affiliated group distributed a video proudly documenting the beheading of a U.S. civilian, proclaiming: "the mujahedeen from the Fallujah Squadron slaughtered the American hostage Paul Johnson."[2] By spurning the laws of armed conflict, Islamist terrorists have created a conundrum for democracies: how do you fight people who throw the rulebook of warfare out the window? Human rights are relevant to terrorism as concerns both its victims and its perpetrators. The concept of human rights was first expressed in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which established "recognition of the inherent dignity and inalienable rights of all members of the human family." The innocent victims of terrorism suffer an attack on their most basic right to live in peace and security. The suspected perpetrators of attacks also have rights, as members of the human family, in the course of their apprehension and prosecution. They have the right not to be subject to torture or other degrading treatment, the right to be presumed innocent until they are deemed guilty of the crime and the right to public trial.[3] The focus by human rights groups and others on the preservation of terrorist suspects' human rights may seem jarring, or as if that focus comes at the expense of attention to the human rights of terrorism's victims. Human rights, however, cannot be considered a zero-sum game. Law Professor Michael Tigar put the issue eloquently when he reminded that governments, because they are the most powerful actors, have the greatest capacity for injustice. In the long term, an insistence that all states prioritize human rights and prosecute illegitimate violence will be the best defense against terrorism. I shall now quote a man named Michael E. Tigar: When we see that the struggle for human rights in all the world is the surest and best means to prevent and to punish terrorism properly so-called, we then understand what progress we have made, and we will see where we need to go from here. Sources: [1] http://www.meforum.org... [2] http://www.cnn.com... [3] http://terrorism.about.com... [4] http://terrorism.about.com...
abortion

Ok I see what your saying that this earth is being over populated but it is still wrong One reason is that we do not own are bodies God does two God has a plan for that child for instants I read this cartoon and this man was looking at God and he asked God why haven't you sent someone to cure Aids and God said " I have you just killed them in abortion" we have so many problems, diseases, and ect. in this world what if we killed that person who could of fixed it by abortion
The Media is the Religious Institution of the Western World

So, first I must define my terms. Since I did not clarify this in the first post, I am demanding that Con strictly adhere to this.Media: All News, Entertainment, and Advertising that is Televised, Online, or in Print.Religious Institution: Organization which espouses Moral Dogma and Doctrine. These do not need to have a deity at the center, only dogmatic doctrines.Western World: European countries such as Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, France, United Kingdom, Spain, and Italy. It also includes the North American Countries of the United States and Canada.______________________________________________________________________________________________________The Media behaves today much in the same way that one would expect the Catholic Church to behave in the Middle Ages or Islamic clerics behave in countries like Saudi Arabia. They offer forth party propaganda and preach a moral dogma which listeners are expected to adhere to. For example, during the recent US election, many news sources lambasted every move that Trump made, going so far as the quote five words from a sentence he spoke more than a decade prior. However, there was little to no coverage of Clinton's scandals - whether it be the DNC staffer who died[1] in much the same way as other people who's names have been added to the ominous Clinton Body Count[2]. (I know that this might appear very much to be a conspiracy, but when there are ten deaths in just 2016 alone, it starts to look like something real). In addition, various stories which push a narrative (Whether that narrative be institutional racism or Feminist doctrine) are widely publicized while those stories which do not push that narrative are ignored as long as possible, such as the New Year's Eve Cologne Attacks[3], and/or dismissively discussed with plenty of apologetics, for example CNN's Don Lemon refuses to call the action of the Four kids in Chicago "evil"[4].The purpose of this, I propose, is to lure the populace back into sheepish submission, just as they were before 1789 and before the Englightenment. This is done in two ways. The first one is by enforcing strict moral codes. In the past, under the Catholic Church, it was a command to say daily prayers and rules to control behavior in the bedroom[5], today it is speech codes and (surprise!) trying to control behavior in the bedroom[6]. The other is the obvious one, which is propaganda, and has already been discussed. Sorry I'm so brief with this, it's late and I've been very busy lately.
Nobody Can be Born Gay it is a Choice

My opponent has conceded that genes do play a role in the outcome of homosexuality with " Genes can increase the likelihood of someone being gay" thus if something outside of our free will which determines choice affects us and our sexual orientation, then how can my opponent argue it is a choice. My opponent has admitted that our free will can be affected by our genes this obviously leads to a conclusion that the desire for homosexual relations is not a purely based on choice. The genetic predisposition to addiction or the 'addiction gene' works the same way as the gay gene If a child has the addiction gene they are 8 times more likely to develop an addiction(1). Just like the gay gene if you have it you are much more likely to be gay. In relation to my opponents alcohol point if one never comes into contact with alcohol even with the addiction gene one can not become an alcoholic this is true(1) but it only hinders my opponents argument. As just like the addiction gene if a male with the gay gene never comes into contact with another male how can he be gay? The homosexuality still exists just as the addiction there is yet though no desire to act it out as one does not know what it is they desire. However no such hypothetical situation exists and unlike those with the addiction gene whom may never taste alcohol thus never 'trigger' the addiction males will always come into contact with other males thus 'triggering' the homosexual response from the gay gene. Again reaffirming the fact that homosexuality is not a choice. On my opponents last point this is known as the 'Anecdotal fallacy' and should be dismissed as evidence. Also you say your parents raised you to be straight, I have to ask where is your choice in that? I feel it obvious that I have the stronger case and have used much more credible arguments and evidence to support my claims unlike my opponent who used only one reference as evidence and presented no real arguments to refute the choice except for his biblical verse which was easily dismissed. I however used factual evidence and several different sound arguments which all lead to the one conclusion homosexuality is not a choice. Thank you reference: 1. http://www.addictionsandrecovery.org...
Nobody Can be Born Gay it is a Choice

The fact that an animal can be homosexual just shows that you know a bit about nature. Just because an animal is engaged in homosexual acts does not mean you are born gay. It just means an animal wants to have sex regardless of the gender it is having sex with. The animal is being bisexual instead of homosexual. Nature does not support animals being only homosexual. If you are saying that homosexuality is based on genes, all homosexuals would be bisexual. It is impossible that genes erode the notion of a choice if two people with identical genes don't have the same sex orientation 100% of the time. Genes can increase the likelihood of someone being gay but they do not make the person gay, if they made the person gay then everyone with that gene would be gay. Affecting something does not mean you have complete control over it. Genes can"t control behavior completely. Genes regulate the production of amino acids, which combine to form proteins. The existence or absence of a protein can have an effect on things like alcohol tolerance or mood. You cannot be born gay all because of a 'gay gene'. Let's take the alcohol gene for example. If someone was born with it they are not automatically going to be born an alcoholic. You are influenced by it. If you come from a culture where alcohol consumption is forbidden, it will be difficult for you to become an alcoholic, no matter how your body metabolizes alcohol. A hypothetical child who has the supposed gay gene, it didn't make them gay because before the child had sexual impulses they knew that girls go with boys so their body found the info to be contradicting and dismissed the effect of the gay gene. Biological process just influences the mind. The mind can override biological processes. I chose to be straight when I knew that boys are suppose to go with girls, not boys and boys or girls and girls. That is how my parents raised me. Even if I had this 'gay gene' as a child and it was influencing me. My mind did not know of men and men or women with women. Only man and women. There for my mind knew it didn't make sense, dismissed the gay gene and right there I chose to be straight.
Nobody Can be Born Gay it is a Choice

I shall argue in the same order as previous. What do you mean my asexual argument is irrelevant your argument clearly referred to the fact that humans brains(implying all) are naturally influenced to lust the opposite sex, I then refuted this with obvious evidence, and you say it doesn't count? I'm sorry but that's not how a debate works. However my opponent may say he didn't imply all If that is then the position he wants to take than his entire 'brain naturally to lust' argument in reference to homosexuality collapses on itself as if one's 'brain' can be can be asexual it would follow that one's 'brain' can be homosexual. Great bible references, because we all know this book should be the moral compass for humanity, the very same book that gives consent to slave owning, slave beating, raping virgins, stoning women, general acts of genocide, supports xenophobia and racism the list goes on. Obviously my opponent wants us to live back in the first century. I'm sorry this is the 21st century and we are having a 21st century discussion. Also this isnt a religious debate and as far as I'm concerned your gods not real so that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. I'm sorry gense still have a huge influence on the way the human works and as I said with a reference scientist Alan Sanders declaring that the work "erodes the notion that sexual orientation is a choice". "majority of all animals individuals that have homosexual behavior also have some heterosexual behavior." So you just admitted that some animals still engage in natural homosexual acts, again putting my opponent a steep behind in his arguments. Again I must ask my opponent when he sat down and decided to be straight, I know I never did I just am straight and if you the voters and opponent didnt choose to be straight then obviously there is no 'choice'. Choice by definition is "an act of choosing between two or more possibilities" (1), thus the option to be gay or straight must be one that is consciously made every time you think about sex with a certain gender. I find it painfully obvious that being gay is not a choice. (1) https://www.google.com.au...
Nobody Can be Born Gay it is a Choice

First off calm down the whole world isn't watching the debate and second you are trying to tear apart my argument and twist my words. You statement on asexual people is irrelevant due to the fact that obviously a person being asexual was not being referred to my statement "Your brain is naturally influenced to lust after your opposite gender." My statement on being gay should consider being a mental disorder we be to the fact that mental health experts see abnormal thoughts, feelings, or behaviors as symptoms of a mental disorder. (Corinthians 9:9-10) Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. The sin of homosexuality is listed right next to theft. Just as there is no genetic excuse for stealing, there is no genetic excuse for homosexuality. Environment, culture, and choice make one a thief, and the same factors make one a homosexual. Genes do not guarantee everything, there are many natural influences as well as epigenetics which can turn off certain genes. Genes merely increase the likelihood of being gay. Some twins can have the exact same genes but can have different sex orientations. Rarely an animal is only homosexual, majority of all animals individuals that have homosexual behavior also have some heterosexual behavior. http://guardianlv.com...