BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It's time to bring back the scold's bridle

I would like, first of all, to welcome Zhal to Debate.org. I would also like to thank him for choosing this as his first debate on this site. I would also like to congratulate him on his English, which is quite different from his native Kazakh, that being a Turkic language with a very different structure to English. I wanted to return the compliment by writing the opening paragraph of my response in Kazakh using the Cyrillic alphabet but this site doesn't support that text so here it is in Latin script instead: Barlıq adamdar twmısınan azat jï¿½ne qadir-qasï¿½yeti men kuqıqtarı teï¿½ bolıp dï¿½nï¿½yege keledi. Adamdarğa aqıl-parasat, ar-ojdan berilgen, sondıqtan olar bir-birimen twıstıq, bawırmaldıq qarım-qatınas jasawları tï¿½is. That was an extract from the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights which translates into English as: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. (1) My opponent echoed this when he stated: "today is the 21st century - the time of democracy and humanism! We have to remember that "mouthy miscreants" are still being human and they have their own rights." Whilst the above statements have some validity, we must also remember that with rights come responsibilities. The members of 'problem families' who are guilty anti-social behaviour have not discharged their responsibility to behave in a civilised manner: they are barbarians and, until they learn to conduct themselves with appropriate decorum, deserve to be treated as such. Nevertheless, the scold's bride, although it looks like a medieval instrument of torture and, indeed, was first introduced in the 14th Century, causes discomfort rather than pain and the punishment is psychological rather than physical. Problem families use fear and intimidation to dominate their neighbours and terrorise their communities with abusive language and threats of violence – they would not seem quite so formidable if they were paraded around the streets, shackled to a cart and wearing a humiliating piece of headgear that prevents them from remonstrating with the crowds of jeering onlookers and that's why I reaffirm that it's time to bring back the scold's bridle. Thank you. (1) http://www.un.org...
It's time to bring back the scold's bridle

Well, I really find this idea reasonable, because I am so tired from living near such people. But, we should remember that today is the 21st century - the time of democracy and humanism! Maybe, very many years ago such kind of punishment was quite normal; however, nowadays it will be ethically wrong and morally awful to use it. We have to remember that "mouthy miscreants" are still being human and they have their own rights. Furthermore, it is hard to imagine someone locking crime-maker's mouth just for revenge. The idea of it sounds inhumanely. George Herbert (English metaphysical Poet and Clergyman, 1593-1633) said: "Living well is the best revenge." Maybe we should think about it… At present date, our society has a set of laws we must follow, and punishments for breaking them are also included in different lawbooks. And a person, who crossed the rules, will be either required to pay his/her "victim" for a moral harm, or will be sentenced to n-period of time. Anyway, crime will be punished. Isn't it enough? Even being tired and annoyed by mouthy miscreants, we should remember that the best society is the society with developed morality and humanism. With respect.
It's time to bring back the scold's bridle

Our society is blighted by anti-social behaviour but the jails are packed to the rafters and, in any case, incarcerating offenders costs the taxpayer a small fortune. But we can't allow foul-mouthed yobs to go unpunished. Thugs who harass members of their communities with abusive language and violent behaviour must be brought to justice. Up until the 19th Century, mouthy miscreants in England were dealt with by means of a scold's bridle: a punitive gag made by blacksmiths from iron which was fitted over the offender's head and had a piece to hold down their tongue. Often, a bell would be fitted to attract further attention, derision and ridicule to the wearer. [1,2] This would be the perfect solution for the type of people who appear on the Jerry Springer Show and then go home to quarrel with their neighbours and generally make nuisances of themselves. They could be fitted with bridles, be strapped into a handcart and be paraded around their communities by willing volunteers, possibly the victims of their abuse. This humiliating experience would surely deter them from reoffending and would be a more cost-effective punishment than jail, and I, therefore, duly affirm that it's time to bring back the scold's bridle. Thank you. [1] http://www.bbc.co.uk... [2] http://gallery.e2bn.org...
Canada Is Better Than The USA

My opponent forfeited the last round (all arguments extended). A few more points I would like to add:Canada Breeds More Polite PeopleFor example, a survey conducted showed that 90% of Canadians aged 18 - 25 will say "sorry" if someone bumps into them, which is a higher percentage than anywhere else in the world [1].Canada Is Home To The #1 Summer Vacation Spot In The WorldNational Geographic Traveller named Muskoka as the #1 summer vacation spot in the world [2][3]Water And Air (expanded, as I mentioned these in my last round)World Health Organization dubbed Canada has the 3rd cleanest air on the planet (which beat the USA), also we have more lakes than any other country in the world (3 million), and 1/3 of the worlds fresh water is in Canada [4]. Our Economy Is Doing Better For The PeopleWatch video, SummaryWhy is Canada better than the US? Well, none of these points by themselves would warrant the resolution. But, taken as a whole, the resolution will be seen as clearly established to any reasonable individual. Canada is better than the USA because we live longer, we have a better banking system with way less corruption (same with government), surveys show that more of us are satisfied with our lives, Canada has a lower suicide rate, is better educated, is home to higher IQs, Canada has the #1 summer vacation destination, our ecomony is better (Canadians make more money, while the USA is still jumping over hurdles), people are more fit in Canada, Canada is more peaceful, more safe, there is a lower crime percentage in Canada, there is less income disparity, we are better at winter Olympics despite the odds, our air is less polluted (3rd best in the world), Canada breeds more polite people, we have more/ cleaner water (most of the fresh water with most of the lakes in the world), we will be a super-power with all of our land and resources by the year 2050 while the USA will probably dry up, plus the rest of the world likes us better, and we are more popular, as polls show. It seems as if in all the important ways, Canada is better than the USA. The resolution has been established. Sources[1] http://www.queensu.ca...[2] http://travel.nationalgeographic.com...[3] http://greatworldgetaways.com...[4] http://www.cnn.com...http://www.youtube.com...
Canada Is Better Than The USA

I think there are many good reasons, that when combined, paint a clear picture; Canada is a better country than the USA. I have no hatred towards the USA, in fact, much of my family lives there and I am actually a dual citizen (I love California as well). This will be quick and easy. Why Is Canada Better Than The USA? 1. People in Canada live longer (we live around 3 years longer than Americans) 2. Surveys conclude that we are more satisfied with our lives than Americans 3. We have a lower suicide rate % regarding to the population 4. Canada is better educated (over 48% of Canadians have a post-secondary degree, compared to the USA's percentage, which is around 40%) 5. We are more fit then Americans. Over 35% of American's are obese, while in Canada, it is less than 25%. 6. In Canada, there is less income disparity 7. Our banks are better run and regulated (Four of the best world banks are Canadian, the top USA bank only came in 9th). 8. We have more gold medals than USA in the olympics 9. Our air is less polluted 10. It is predicted that due to our climate, and global warming, we will be a world superpower by 2050, with the USA faded out as a superpower by then 11. We have more water 12. We are more peacefull (we were ranked the 8th most peaceful country in the world) 13. Canada has WAY less crime percentage 14. Mass shootings here are extremely rare 15. Canadians make more than the average American 16. The rest of the world likes us better then the USA Source for above: http://www2.macleans.ca... All these facts paint a clear picture; Canada is a better country than the USA in almost every way conceivable. Also, the USA is overpopuated, and has less land than we do.
Cities are for people not cars.

First, Cities are for people, it is definitely. But, cities are for cars, too. For example, it can be said that villages are not for car. I can agree with this, as a village is small and people can go from one place to another by foot there, it is not so hard. While, cities include a territory in average 1,000 km2. For example, Almaty's area is 324.8 km2 (1), Tokyo's area is 2,187.66 km2 (2) and Moscow's area is 2,510 km2 (3). How much time and force it will take to go from one side of the city to another on foot. Pro said "what need of going to somewhere far if OUR health will not be good". I think, he is wrong. People frequently need to go somewhere far in their daily life, one general example is if you live in one place, while your work is far away, you must go everyday. If your health bad, doctors will come to you and if you live far away, they will go long distance. Ambulances go far to get patient, from one side of city to another almost every hour. Firefighters have the same situations. Cities have daily routine, people go from one side of city to another because of different cases. So, they need cars. From these arguments, it can be said that cities for cars. Second, I agree with Pro that humans should invent new transportation that are not harmful for our environment. But it definitely does not mean that all cars should be destroyed. Just a second, imagine, there will not be any kinds of cars in big cities. What will happen for people? Honestly, before this time I have been confident to destroy cars and ride only bicycle. But I have understood that cars are important in our daily life, now. Think a bit, a person is bleeding and a doctor is riding bicycle to come and help to the patient from another side of city. How much time will pass till the doctor achieve the patient? What will happen to the patient during this time? It means cars are necessary in such situations. To conclude, I would like to say that cities are really big, so they are for cars. Moreover, cities were for cars, cities are for cars and cities will be for cars, but, I hope, for less harmful cars. (1) http://en.wikipedia.org... (2) http://en.wikipedia.org... (3) http://en.wikipedia.org...
Cities are for people not cars.

No, i didnt present my topic wrong, dont get me wrong, it is definitly true, it is true metaphorically speking as you paraphrased it . Today we know that cars are polluting our environment that we live in. And it brings to the bad illnesses that is couseing peole to die before the age of they should die. The most serious illnessess are that we should deal with. it is fact, and we must decrease the number of cars . But dont get me wrong i am not going to persuade you that all cars, of course it is ineviteble that we cant do that. So my point is not to increase that sort of cars but instead to destray if we can , and live in the clean air that we are inhailing. And in this case it would be great to our health system. Also , we can survive without cars, what need of going to somewhere far if OUR health will not be good. in short, what is need of such pollution? with cars comes pollution and it is beter if the cars are destroyed and were build other kind of cars as i mentioned befire like it might be energy cars and it will be increased in the future and also, as the research claims it is already in charge of people in some countries. SO, cars must be changed to the sort of cars that is beneficial to our environment and health.
Cities are for people not cars.

I guess I see what you mean, but it seems to me that your topic is not appropriate to your arguments. It will be better to call your topic like "People should destroy harmful vehicles and invent new transportation". While, the topic "Cities are for people not cars", from my point of view, claims that transportation must be destroyed in cities and only people should be there. The result is that your topic and your arguments are not related or I do not understand your point of view, as you do not explain your arguments and opinion clearly. But, about the current topic, I would like to say that cities are for cars, too, as people need cars in cities to get long distances. If we claim that cities not for cars and destroy all vehicles, people will not be able to go from one side of the city to another. So, I am against the statement that cities are not for cars.
Cities are for people not cars.

My refutation of Pro's case will be in two points. First, I will show that cars are necessary for cities, also that cities are for cars, too. Second, I will show that Pro's argument contradict his topic. First, cities are called cities, because they are big and there are a lot of people. Cities take a big territory, which caused people to have vehicles to drive between long distances: such as home, school, job and etc. Try to imagine cities like New York, Washington, Tokyo and even Almaty. How human beings will reach their distinctions, if there are not any vehicle in such places. It will take a lot of time and force. Besides, cars are necessary to cities, to be called city. A city should have advertisements, supermarkets, theaters, clubs, cinemas, also hospitals, prisons, which caused having a big territory. If cities will not have cars, they have to decrease their territory. However, with small territory cities must be called villages. So, why do not say that cities are for cars, too. Second, Pro claims that cities for people not for cars, while he suggests to build other transportation. He contradicts to himself. If people build new transportation, it means vehicle will be in cities again. That means cars are necessary for people to live in big cities, especially in the 21st century.
Cities are for people not cars.

The world is becoming more smaller than it is, The one reason that cars or planes or any others are making the world small. It is good that if we look its posative side but there are a lot of negative side than the posative side. one striking example is pollution. It is the main reason that we should lessen the transportation system in the limited extend or we even can say that it would be great if we destroy all the transportation that is working with harmful oils and build new kind of transpotations insted of that transportations. it might be energy cars that will fit our benefits in the system of health care or also save money.
PC gaming is superior to console gaming

This debate should be impossible to accept. I realize I've posted this many times in the past few weeks, but I have failed to find an opponent who can successfully refute my arguments. If you would like to participate, please leave a comment of acceptance so I can see who you are before I accept. First round for acceptance only. Second to fourth round are new arguments and rebuttals. Last arguments are for rebuttals only. For examples in consoles we can use new/refurbished/used Xbox Ones and PS4s. For PCs we can use any self-built/store bought/used PCs that can run AAA games from either 2016 or new additions in 2017. This levels the playing field in price and quality. You don't use PS3s as an example and I won't use 200 dollar PCs that can only run Minecraft.
Will the blazers make it to the playoffs

Again, my opponent is just listing off players that the Blazers have. Nowhere has he given any reason as to why the players on the team make the team a playoff contender. You may say that the players you listed were good, but I can say the same for the Mavericks, who have Vince carter, Dirk Nowitzki, Oj Mayo, and Shawn Marion, three of which have been an all star. That however did not guarantee them a playoff spot this season. You could also make the case that Damian Lillard won the Rookie of the year award, thus propelling them to the playoffs, however Kyrie Irving was also the Rookie of the year last year, but his team was no where near the top 8. I think it is clear to see that my opponent hasn't provided a shred of convincing evidence to prove his claim.
Will the blazers make it to the playoffs

For starters, the NBA playoffs are currently underway, and the Blazers are not in it. Because of this, I will assume you are referring to next season. You say they will make the playoffs because they have Damian Lillard. I fail to see a connection. You have to prove to me that Damian Lillard is so good as to make the team he is a part of automatically make it to the playoffs. Also, the very fact that they are not in the playoffs this year when they had Damian Lillard nullifies your argument. I'll leave it at that for now.
Polygamous marriage should be legal

My response to contention 1: If partner A wanted to divorce partner B, partner C would not have to divorce either of them. This is entire up to the partners how they want to solve the issue. When writing my arguments I was focusing on the scenario where multiple people are married to one person, I didn't really consider three people being married all together to each other but I still support it no matter how it's arranged. There are also imbalances in monogamous marriages in terms of power, household responsibilities etc and I don't quite see how polygamy itself makes it more asymmetrical. Did you perhaps mean it creates an imbalance when an odd number of people are involved in a marriage? I still don't quite see how this is especially affecting polygamy more than monogamy. My response to contention 2: Many of those traditional societies have been undeveloped in social justice issues and they have been much more male-dominant and sexist than the modern western society. Therefore I can't quite see how we can use that as a basis for making assumptions about what would happen if polygamous marriage was legal today, in the western society. My response to contention 3: To prevent STDs, there needs to be more information on safe sex. Not allowing people to get married to multiple people doesn't stop them from having unsafe sex. Men who have penetrative sex with men also have a higher risk of STDs because sex education is often heteronormative and many men don't even know how to have safe sex with another man. This is not yet a reason to not legalize gay marriage. Inbreeding is reproduction from the mating of pairs who are closely related genetically. This article talks about inbreeding in a specific community not all polygamous families in general. Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm a human too, I can miss something or misunderstand things you know :) My response to contention 4: Higher levels of psychological distress, low self-esteem, behavioral problems in children, and low levels of academic success are signs of unhealthy relationships and also occur in monogamous marriage. My response to contention 5: Each person should decide who gets to decide for them if they're in a coma etc when they get married. Child custody is up to the partners to decide. If they disagree, the case would be solved in court just like in monogamous marriages when the couple divorces. How would you address my arguments on the jealousy and dependence issue I brought up in my first set of arguments?
Polygamous marriage should be legal

Polygamous marriage should be legalized. I am not talking about the kind of polygamy where a man can have multiple wives and the woman can have only one husband. I am talking about everyone having an equal right to choose who they want to marry regardless of whether they are already married. In this case, the person(or people) one is already married to, would also have to give consent. Example: John is married to Sarah. He now wants to also get married to Nick. In this case, Sarah would have to agree that her husband is marrying another person in order for Nick and John to get married. The aim is to reduce divorce rates. Current divorce rates are high for several reasons, one of them being people not being able to satisfy 100% of their partners' needs which is totally normal and natural. This often leads to so-called "cheating" and seeking out to get one's needs satisfied elsewhere which leads to jealousy and that's one of the biggest problems destroying relationships. If society accepted polyamory and polygamous marriage as a norm, people could live together in harmony and accept that their partner loving other people as well doesn't mean their partner does not love them anymore. It simply means that the partner needs something different for a change. Allowing polygamous marriages would eliminate the issue of jealousy in several relationships because if one does not feel like they own the other person entirely, there is nothing to be jealous for. People often claim that monogamy is a sign of civilisation and intelligence of the human kind. They say that we are able to be monogamous because we have evolved to a point where we are mentally capable enough to do so. When we look at the divorce rates, it does not seem to me that humans can handle monogamy very well. Some can, some can't. This is why I think everyone should have a choice of whether they want to be in a monogamous marriage or a polygamous marriage. This does not force anyone to be polygamous but gives the people that already are that way a chance to share their lives with the people they love. A problem that some people have with this idea is the concern over children. I personally don't see how having more than two loving adults in their lives can affect children negatively. I don't think it would confuse them either. The people who are afraid that the children would be confused might just as well be confused themselves. Legalizing polygamous marriage would reduce divorce rates by helping people become less jealous and more loving. The changes would be gradual but definite. Polygamous marriage does no harm to children nor adults and allowing it would do more good than damage.
Religion should have no part in law

Once again my opponent refuses to accept my valid arguments. The first few items in the Ten Commandments are noted in respect to Christianity and its morals, not law per se. As I have aforementioned, morality has paved the way for law, as they constitute the same fundamental building blocks, even judging by their nature. Morals are a set of concrete rules that must be abided by, laws follow the same form and ideology. Morals are about right or wrong, so is law. As you can see, morals and law go hand in hand and so judges and the jury must acknowledge that religion plays a deciding factor in how verdicts should be made. I don't plan to further extend this conclusive round to a large degree, so I'll conclude by summing up with coherence. Religion is the origin and basis of moral principles. Morality has a direct and inextricable correlation with 'set and concrete rules'. Law is all about morality and monochromatic right or wrong. Law is an absolute extension from basic moral principles, and thus has an inexorable tie to religion. Therefore, religion is inseparable from law.