BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Political Parties Should Not Exist

Good argument, but unfortunately, the points you brought up are just not how it is these days in America. Most Americans are very biased towards only one political party. For instance, a few weeks ago, I met a lady who was a big supporter of pretty much every Republican presidential candidate. When I asked her about what she thought about the Democrats, she angrily responded by saying that no Democrats are good enough to be president and that there is no need to consider them much. Unfortunately, I have met many more people like this. Americans are biased towards one party while not even considering the other party and blindly following their favored party without looking at all the facts. You also stated that political parties create an organized government and an organized way for voters to vote. While this is true, this "organized government" would not work out as the voters would pay TOO much attention to labels without actually checking the facts. The benefits of you argument just do not outweigh the negatives. Theoretically, your arguments sounds like a good idea, but, just like socialism and communism, these ideas sound good theoretically but have not worked out well in real life. Many of the people the voters elect these days are not qualified to run our country at all as they are just buying votes and tricking voters with their political party. Finally, you stated that political parties are beneficial because they can keep checks and balances on each other and can inform the public about each other. Unfortunately, many Republicans and Democrats these days are NOT keeping checks and balances on each other but are instead trying to make their political party's agenda the way of the government. Political parties are basically trying to shove their ideologies down the government's throat. With no political parties, the different positions in the government can still keep checks and balances on each other to make sure nobody gets too much power. Also, as my arguments have clearly shown, political parties are not informing the public but are instead making the public biased and making voters uneducated as the voters are only voting for their favored party without looking at the facts.
Political Parties Should Not Exist

First off, I would like to address the invalidity of Pro's last argument. He says that because voters select candidates on political affiliation alone, that the political parties should be abolished. The one negative Pro has presented, namely, the ignorance of the average American, compared to the several benefits presented by myself, is nearly insignificant. Running candidates for political office. Parties select candidates for many elected positions in American politics. With so many officials to choose, most voters would be overwhelmed by the decisions they would have to make if candidates did not wear party "labels." Parties present policy alternatives for voters. Some voters even choose a straight ticket, or candidates from the same party for all positions in that election. Checking the other party. A party that does not hold the majority in Congress often keeps the party in power from taking complete control. Party leaders can publicly criticize actions of a President who was elected by the opposite party. The criticism of "PARTISANSHIP" comes from this party role because many Americans think that the "checking" becomes petty and self-serving. Informing the public.Parties take stands on issues and criticize the points of view of the other parties. Their well-publicized discussions help to inform citizens about important issues and present alternative ways of solving societal problems. Organizing the government.Congress and the state legislatures are organized according to party affiliations. LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVES usually support their party's position when considering potential laws and policies, and most votes fall roughly along party lines. Virtually all candidates run for public office with party labels that define their behavior after they win. Thank you for reading
Political Parties Should Not Exist

On the surface, political parties seem like a good idea. However, when we analyze what effect they have had on our nation, they are hardly anything beneficial. You stated that you believed that political parties are "essential to our nation's overall development for they aid in defining the beliefs and positions of potential voters on crucial issues." This, however, is not true. Many voters today only vote for different political candidates only because they are Democrat or Republican. This leaves voters uneducated about what the different political candidates actually believe in and what effect they might have, which leaves them vulnerable to be able to be taken advantage of. Many of the political candidates today are just buying votes instead of actually voicing how they will help a country and actually moving a country in the right direction. The different political parties only create unfair voter bias for some candidates and leave most voters uneducated. By taking away political parties, voters would not just vote for a candidate because the candidate is a Republican or a Democrat. They would have to be educated about each candidate, which would mean that they would vote better candidates into office. I have a lot more arguments to support my case, but for now, I would like to hear more of your arguments. Sources: One Nation by Ben Carson (although I do not like Ben Carson, I do agree with him on some subjects) http://www.debate.org...
Political Parties Should Not Exist

Definitions: Political Party: A political party is an organization of people which seeks to achieve goals common to its members through the acquisition and exercise of political power. Democratic Party: The Democratic Party is one of the two major contemporary political parties in the United States, along with the Republican Party to its right. Political Parties are essential to our nation's overall development for they aid in defining the beliefs and positions of potential voters on crucial issues. In truth, the political parties have the similar duties in the field of politics as different denominations have in theology and religion. The different political parties represent the multiple opinions within a society.
Frozen is Overrated

Once again the resolution is "Frozen is overrated". It's endorsement or non-endorsement of feminism is really not important, as pro has not argued this as a property of what makes a film overrated or not. I apologize for addressing pro as a male. "I can easily rebuttal my opponent's accusation by saying not once have I said in my previous argument that a movie has to be unique in order for it not to be overrated. In case I wasn't clear enough, I meant to say the world is treating Frozen like it was the most unique thing ever made. There is absolutely nothing wrong with non-uniquity in a film, but when people treat that film as if it was something that was never done on a screen before (by having aisles of merchandise, costumes, dolls, etc), they're overpraising it. My opponent unnecessarily tried to refute my argument by talking about The Lion King and it's similar lack of uniqueness compared to Hamlet, when all I did was talk about how I misjudged Frozen by thinking it was something that was never done before the first time I watched it. " 1) Pro really has not eve provided any evidence that the world is treating it uniquely and this has nothing to do with if the film is overrated. 2) And even if they are, pro still has provided no evidence of how this entails it being overrated. All of pro's arguments are red herrings. Pro then goes on to address character relationships, but this again not worth addressing. Pro has not argued how any of these relationships entail the film being overrated. Once again she draws comparisons between frozen and other films, however once again she fails to address the resolution and does not explain how this entails overratedness. "here is absolutely nothing wrong with non-uniquity in a film" This single statement negates all of pro's arguments from uniquity. And if she wasn't arguing from uniquity, what was her point in making all the connections in the first round? In conclusion: Pro has grossly failed in upholding the BoP, as zero of her arguments entail Frozen being overrated. She didn't even make one argument for Frozen being overrated. She attacked uniqueness, which she even said is not an intrinsic property of appropriately rated movies. And the character relationship arguments merely express a personal disposition and say nothing objective regarding the quality of the film. Also pro had a forfeiture, which is the equivalent of just declining to provide an argument in an in person debate. Primarily for complete failure of addressing her own resolution, please vote con. Also my lack of spelling stems from the spell check feature of DDO's argument box wasn't functioning.
Disciplining Children

To clarify what I was trying to say earlier, I guess what I wanted my real debate topic to be was if it was necessary to discipline our children, which is an obvious yes. And if so, how much discipline would be too much discipline. I see what you were saying that to smack a teenager may be too much rather than smacking a child, but I do not see how that could be. If anything I would say smacking a teenager would be much more acceptable than smacking a child because a teenager actually has the ability to see their mistakes and teenagers actually have the ability to control themselves and their own actions. With a child, on the other hand, they are still learning the differences between what's right and what's wrong and to hit a child that is clueless may not be sending the right message across. Though yes they do get hit because they did something wrong, does not necessarily meant that they will learn their lesson, especially if they are too young to even understand what they had been doing wrong in the first place. Another question that I wanted to cover was how much discipline would be too much discipline? When is it that parent's cross the line. I have heard of parents putting hot sauce in their child's mouth for cursing, but is that enough to put a parent into prison or to take that child out of the care of their mother or putting that child into the care of child protective services? I do believe that physical discipline is necessary to a degree, but I do not believe that the parent should be put into prison for putting hot sauce into a child's mouth. On the other hand, I do believe the mother Jessica Beagley, the woman who was found guilty of child abuse of her adopted son, had gone too far to put the boy into cold showers and to make him drink hot sauce. I do understand that she saw this as a way to teach him a lesson, but to make a seven year old boy drink hot sauce for lying is too much. If a child lies the mother or father should actually speak to them of why lying is wrong and what lying can do, this is when I believe that it is necessary for the child to have a grounding, this though would not be a good reason for a parent to lay a hand on a child would be too much for a situation such as this. I believe if disciplining a child is taken too far it may result in trauma for the child and this may take a toll when growing up and developing mentally and emotionally. If a child is continuously disciplined in a certain manner on various occasions for simple and minute things, this may result in the child having problems connecting with their family in the future and possibly even relationship problems with their future spouses and children, all of this being traced back to the disciplining methods of when they were much younger.
Disciplining Children

In my own opinion, I do agree with you that as parents we are obliged to discipline our children but I was not exactly sure what you were saying your stance was on the point of the argument. Now were you saying that you agree with the point that we should discipline our children? This I agree with. Were you stating that disciplining our children must consist of more than just a grounding and that we should take slapping and smacking into the picture? With this statement I do believe that sometimes a grounding of a child may not be enough for the child to learn a lesson but to what extent would you say that slapping and smacking is necessary for a child? I do understand spanking for children but to repeatedly smack a teenager or someone who is actually old enough to understand the situation that they are in may be too much. Maybe a smack for back talking every now and again is necessary, but if this is constant and is used in excess, I then believe that this would be a form of child abuse and that the parent themselves should get in trouble with the law. Not exactly sure where you wanted to go with this argument, but if I had a little bit more clarification I'm sure it would be easier to see what you were trying to say.
Disciplining Children

In today's current day and society, many people have very diverse views and ideas about certain subjects. Some views on varying subjects are so diverse and opposite that it becomes almost a silent taboo where the subject is not even acknowledged or brought up. One of these subjects in this "taboo" category would be the idea of disciplining our children, and if we should discipline our children how do we do it the right way without society looking down upon us? Is it really abusive if a mother slaps a child for an out of line statement or action, or is it it too lenient for a parent to put a teenager in a "time-out" situation, leaving the child to sulk in their room till their hour is up. Are both methods just as effective when used to teach a child a lesson or is one much more effective than the other? Can certain methods of disciplining our children actually cause mental and emotional scarring in that in future years their development is lagged, or is all of the commotion caused over the subject merely propaganda as a means for someone to put their view across? For many years and generations, people claim that when they were younger, in order to teach them a lesson, their parents would slap them or hit them, none of this abusive just a slap on the back or arm to teach a lesson; years later these same people claim that the only way to teach their own children a lesson would be to go about the same way of disciplining. While these people and many others may agree that these slaps and smacks are harmless and that they do get the message across to children, there are many out there that believe laying even a finger on any child is too much discipline and is too harsh. Some of these people even go as far as saying that to slap a child is child endangerment and child abuse, and should never be done. Yet when asked how they would discipline their own children if something was done out of line or disrespectfully, the question that comes to mind is : Is grounding a child really enough? Will my child actually understand what they did wrong if I take away something from them? For many, including myself, I believe that to simply ground a child or to take away a belonging will not always teach a child a lesson. Sometimes that light slap or scolding may actually be quite necessary for the child to see and understand exactly what is wrong with the situation that they were in or caused to occur. A question that then comes to mind is should a parent be put in jail or their children in child protective services if their disciplining methods did not merely consist of a grounding but also of slapping and spanking children.
Disciplining Children

Okay, this was certainly not a waste of time in mind, this child was not abused and he probably deserved what he got. You don't follow the rules you get punished, end of story. This boy had a lesson to learn, and the mother taught him. You can say all you want that i am traumatized just like the kid but i beg to disagree, though i do not remember all of the reasons why i was punished i do know for a fact that i stayed out of trouble as a kid, even if it was because i was afraid of my parents, the methods worked and i refused to make the same mistakes again.
Disciplining Children

I cannot believe that I had actually just wasted all five rounds of this debate trying to talk to someone who had no supporting evidence to their own view. Whether or not hitting is on the list, what the mother did to the child was too much and all of that was definitely abusive. What do you mean she did not force submissiveness upon the child? Of course she did, if you do not see half of the time the little boy cannot even look the woman in the face out of fear, and of course there is a lack of respect, half of the time the lady is yelling at the boy as she forces him to drink hot sauce and then following this up with throwing him in the shower. What kind of lesson is little boy supposed to learn through this method? If anything this little boy is going to be traumatized and forced to believe that all American families are like this and this is how they teach children lessons, and this is totally inaccurate. If she wanted to teach the little boy a lesson she could have had a talk with him and explained to him exactly what went wrong and what he did wrong, she did not have to start off with yelling at the kid. How can you say that he will not end up with any scarring the little boy is only seven years old, he barely knows the difference between right from wrong and this is the time that we should teach them and not punish them. Additionally, you telling me that you remember when your parents yelled and hit you does not mean that you actually learned the lesson that your parents were trying to teach you, it just shows that that specific moment in time was SCARRING enough to you that you remembered it. Call me wrong, but would that not be considered emotional trauma, I'm sure that half the time that you remember the different times that your parents yelled or hit you you do not remember exactly what you did wrong all of those times. All that shows is that you did not actually learn any sort of lesson but that you do remember all of the times that they yelled at you because they scared you enough to remind you that you did not want to see that side of them again. Do you not think that the same thing applies to the little boy. Do you really think that in ten years from now that little boy is going to remember that the reason why his mother threw him in the shower was because he lied? No, of course not, the only thing that little boy is going to remember is that this woman forced him to drink hot sauce and threw him in a freezing bath because he had done something she did not like. With this in mind, the little boy will grow up learning no lesson, he will remember that he was punished and will not know why.
Disciplining Children

Before you claim that i said that none of this caused emotional trauma, I did not say taht ,i said that what the mother was doing did not cause any additional trauma, how would it anyways the child was not hurt he was learning a lesson. Of course I remember the different times my parents hit me and yelled at me, that does not make it abuse, it just shows that what they thought of as discipline was working because the message got across and I never made the same mistakes twice. Not only is it funny how everyone is considering what the mother did as abusive, but its hilarious and ridiculous as to how she was about to face criminal charges. Are you telling me that i could go to jail for teaching my children a lesson? I saw the list that you pointed out and I read what you were saying, but no where on that list does it say that hitting or spanking a child is considered abusive, it said allowing the child to be completely submissive with lack of respect as abusive. From what i saw on the tape, the mother was not forcing submissiveness on the child nor was there any indication that the child was not given the respect as the mother had. Emotional trauma or not, what i saw i do not consider abuse at all.
Disciplining Children

Wow, this is amazing, I think I can honestly say that I have never spoken to, met, or even debated against someone so close minded in my entire life. I find it absolutely ridiculous as to how you say that the only time anything can be considered child abuse is if there are actual marks that are left over to show what had happened. To clear things up, in order for anything to be considered abusive it does not have to leave marks. Ever hear of verbal abuse? Can you tell me one time when a word actually left a mark on your skin, highly doubtful. Are you kidding me, of course an experience like this added to the load of this child's emotional trauma. Initially the child was placed in a state of mind that he was unloved and that nobody wanted him, and then after experiencing continuous moments such as this where a mother is constantly giving him freezing showers because of a small act of stupidity, the child is in for some serious emotional trauma. Are you going to tell me that none of those moments that your parents spanked you or yelled at you are no longer remembered and no longer pass through your thoughts? I still can remember stupid situations in which my parents lightly scolded me when I was much younger and they still stand out in my mind. You continuously go on and on about how you do not see how any of these acts that the mother created could be child abuse and yet I even listed the differences between discipline and abuse, and it is quite clear that a few of the facts listed under abusive is what that woman falls under after what she did to her child. In the video found at: http://abcnews.go.com... clearly shows that the mother is putting herself in complete control, she is showing and making it known that the child is to be completely submissive, she does not seem to be showing any love, especially where it can be seen that she throws the little boy naked into a freezing shower, and of course the little boy does not seem to even have the chance to learn a lesson of any sort for he is too busy worrying of how bad this punishment is going to hurt because he lied, something that all of us do especially when we are kids. Not only can this be seen as abusive, but what kind of lie could be so horrible that this little boy told that caused this mother to give such a harsh punishment. I did say initially that sometimes a spanking may be necessary for a child to learn a lesson but not a spanking in which the parent leaves marks or the child is crying of excessive pain, just enough to get the message across, nothing to cause damage to a child already recovering from the adoption process.
Disciplining Children

I have no idea what you are saying of how any of that could be child abuse especially if the mother was simply trying to teach the kid a lesson. the kid should know by now that lying is wrong and should not be done, so the mother took it inot her own hands as to how she wanted to teach the kid a lesson. I still do not see that as child abuse, and i highly doubt that the child will have any amount of emotional trauma after experiencing something like this. When I was younger my parents disciplined me through spankings and stuff and I do not have any emotional trauma whatsoever. Even though i see that you said that the kid was adopted, so yeah he probably already has some issues, but I do not think that any of these issues were enhanced because of a cold shower. How can one even call that abuse? The kid did not end up with any sort of bruises or scarring, and he had to learn his lesson some way. To simply tell a kid what they did wrong and not to do it again is not solving anything you actually have to show them and let them feel what they did so that they actually learn their lesson and do not go about doing anything in the same manner ever again