BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Teachers should be allowed to discipline students, eg use a ruler for a cane.

I believe your whole round 2 should be invalid, as you didn't address the socio-psychological pros n cons to your argument. Moreover the alternatives you have suggested are HIGHLY INEFFECTIVE. Whilst in detention, a student typically doesn't learn from their mistakes, esp. if its not solitary detention. A warning is a "joke", especially if the child's parents are not authoritarian. The only reasonable alternative is expulsion, but that is highly disruptive in terms of logistics, child development and reputation of the school. Therefore strict discipline is the best way forward, as long as no malice is involved, as mentioned. Speaking of socio-psychological effects, if the recipient was to be traumatised and embarrassed by the events, (s)he should be given counselling support by the academic facility to adjust their attitude. (In r4 we will expand on our points will further analysis, after you refute my r2 argument)> ps. also assess the comments section (voters) as this debate expands in to it.
Abortion

Thank you Con for instigating this debate! No definitions were given, so I'll just define Abortion. [1] Abortion- aprocedure,technique,orwayofdoingsomething,especiallyinaccordancewithadefiniteplan (http://dictionary.reference.com...) First off, Con states; "The fetus should be allowed life, if the parent can't support it financially, I never said they had to raise it, they could very well give it up for adoption" This is set on moral beliefs, opinions and thoughts on what should be done. Just because you think this, dosen't mean its right. No structure was given, so I'll start my argument here. The Right to Abortion. Section 1. of the 14th ammendment clearly states that [3] "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Note that, the state shall not deprive someone of life, they can't take away a individuals rights, nor can they deprive them of life. [4] Deprive- deny (a person or place) the possession or use of something. If a women wishes to have an abortion, she should be able to because it is her right. As stated in the 14th amendment "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property," A women's body is her own property. The government can't tell her what to do with her body, they guarantee these rights to all Americans. Well-Being of the Mother Studies have shown, women whom are denied abortions suffer long term health and or mental problems. [5] "A Sep. 2013 peer-reviewed study comparing the mental health of women who received abortions to women denied abortions found that women who were denied abortions "felt more regret and anger" and "less relief and happiness" than women who had abortions. The same study also found that 95% of women who received abortions "felt it was the right decision" a week after the procedure. The goverment promises not to deprive someone of life. Women are deprived of happiness. Instead, they live with regret and anger. They are unable to live a healthy life, because they were denied of their rights. Gl! Sources [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...... [2]https://www.google.com...... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org......... [4] http://dictionary.reference.com......... [5] http://abortion.procon.org.........
It is ethically preferrable to give birth to an orphan than to abort pregnancy.

First, I will point out the points that my opponent has conceded: 1. An orphan can be adopted into a loving family. 2. Orphans and adopted children can live productive lives. 3. It is unethical to choose to end the life of another. 4. It is better to live as an orphan than to not live at all. That is, all of them. By not argueing against them, my opponent agrees with them. . http://www.geocities.com... Now, for my opponent's case. I will start by pointing out that life is greater and more ethically important than any suffering or pain (cenceded by my opponent). "it is wrong to plague the adoption system with these infants that normally would have been aborted" But it is even more wrong to kill the unborn. (Conceded by my opponent) "abortion is no longer allowed, the huge influx of adoptable babies would take away any chance of these already born children, most of them who have suffered through their childhood, from having any chance of adoption. " Dead babies cannot be adopted. .. And it is preferable to not be adopted than to die (conceded by my opponent). "Most people who end up with an unplanned pregnancy are irresponsible and poor. " Abortions are expensive. An abortion can cost as much as $1000 (soon to be $4000 dollars in a few years inflation) . http://wiki.answers.com... . Most "irresponsible" and "poor" people will not have this money lying around. Further, allowing them to abort teaches them to be more irresponsible. As a third response, the costs of living do not outweigh the benefits of living (conceded by opponent). "how can we possible afford to take them all in in the current economy" We can afford them by not giving them benefits. Problem solved. People pay for themselves eventually. Children grow up, work, and earn money. Killing off the future workforce is a silly suggestion to help the economy, especially when one considers the costs of social security. "Babies could also be addicted to drugs when they are born, causing them to go through painful withdrawals for weeks after they are born" It is preferable to live than to suffer (conceded by CON). "we are no longer allowed to practice safe sex" Another silly argument: By having unsafe sex, just as many sperm die as with safe sex. "where does this end? " Glad you asked. Sinse this is an ethical debate, I will examine it as such. Had the baby been born, he would have lived. Had the baby been aborted, he would not have lived. So, the person choosing to abort is choosing whether the baby ends up living or not. No human has the right to decide whether another lives or not. (Conceded. ) There you go. Abortion is unethical. "This" ends here. Your final argument is silly, with rash assumptions. However, where does abortion end? Are newborns living? If the abortion fails, do they still need to be killed? Are infants killable? What about teens? "This" goes both ways. The resolution is affirmed.
It is ethically preferrable to give birth to an orphan than to abort pregnancy.

Legally unborn children are not considered people. It doesn't matter what you or your favorite scientist says, this is fact, and this is a fact we will base our arguments off of, because as of right now, we might not be certain scientifically, but we are certain legally. Next, it is wrong to plague the adoption system with these infants that normally would have been aborted. I know one could argue that babies are in demand, but this does not solve the adoption issues. There will still be young children ages 2-12 and older teens 12-17 that will never be adopted. The only chance these kids have is to be adopted by someone who couldn't get a hold of a baby. This will only happy if babies continue to be in limited supply and high demand. If abortion is no longer allowed, the huge influx of adoptable babies would take away any chance of these already born children, most of them who have suffered through their childhood, from having any chance of adoption. Another often over-looked problem is taking care of all these pregnant women we would create. Most people who end up with an unplanned pregnancy are irresponsible and poor. Because they can't afford products that would cause them to stop their pregnancies from occurring in the first place. We can't leave these mothers-to-be-out on the street, but how can we possible afford to take them all in in the current economy and the amount of homeless people that their are already to take care of. Another issue with stopping abortions would be the parents who would irresponsibly take care of their unborn children. Why would they care how they baby comes out? They were the ones who just wanted to terminate it, and they are simply going to adopt it out when they are done, so what if it is born crippled, how does it affect their lives? They could cause physical and mental deformations from Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, by drinking during their pregnancies. Babies could also be addicted to drugs when they are born, causing them to go through painful withdrawals for weeks after they are born; this can also cause them to have a more addictive personality when they grow older, meaning they can become addicted to drugs, alcohol, or food much easier then regular people. Lastly, where does this end? If the government is allowed to tell us that the fetus is a live person, then what is to stop them from saying a man's sperm has a right to life as well, and we are no longer allowed to practice safe sex? This could easily become a slippery slope, and the first step is a ridiculous one anyways.
It is ethically preferrable to give birth to an orphan than to abort pregnancy.

It doesn't matter if the baby is the product of rape or a one-night stand, it is better for an unwanted baby to be orphaned than aborted. 1. An orphan can be adopted into a loving family. 2. Orphans and adopted children can live productive lives. 3. It is unethical to choose to end the life of another. 4. It is better to live as an orphan than to not live at all. 1. Many families look to adopt children. These families are loving and would provide a loving foundation for the rest of the child's life. 2. This seems obvious to me, but I suppose it can be contended. I'll wait to see what my opponent has to say. 3. In other words, murder is unethical. Because we only have one life to live, to cut it off before it starts is worse than killing an infant. 4. In general, a life not in suffering is believed to deserve extension. Anything else would be cruel. This is not the entirity of my case of case; it is just a summary of the points. I shall actually argue my case next round. Danke, wjmelements
Reality Shows Are Harmful

Watching reality shows with lots of what's called relational aggression " bullying, exclusion and manipulation " can make people more aggressive in their real lives. "We knew from past research that people who see relational aggression in media tend to become more aggressive," he explains to Tess Vigeland, guest host of NPR's weekends on All Things Considered. "Gossiping and nastiness is prevalent on these shows, so we wanted to find out whether it affected how aggressive people were after they watched." After they watched one episode, people were asked to do a separate task that measured aggression. The goal was to hit a keyboard button as quickly as possible. Participants believed they were racing against someone in another room and whoever won would get to blast the other person with a loud, shrill sound. Gibson and his team took notes on how long participants wanted to blast the sound and how loud they turned the volume up. "It turns out those who had watched Jersey Shore or Real Housewives actually gave louder, longer blasts after watching those shows than those who watched the more violent crime dramas," he says. Gibson is quick to point out that these findings are not a reason to censor what television content makes it on air. But, he says, it's probably worth taking note if you're a parent. "This is one form of media that may appear harmless, but I think our research provides a little bit of evidence that there can be some negative outcomes as well," he says.
Why Marijuana is not good to smoke and should be illegal

REBUTTAL"I have mistaken of not putting my sources up".....You still haven't provided any sources."Marijuana does have an effect, given that so many metabolites and other things are left behind. It also decreases the number of sperms in a male body or Habitual use lowers sperm count and causes a decrease in sexdrive for men. With the female reproductive system, it can It can kill of your eggs, so you will no longer be able to produce babies, and if your on marijuana while you are pregnant, your baby will be born with an addiction to marijuana, and most likely die in three to four days after birth."You've made some very bold statements here without any evidence whatsoever. Unable to reproduce? Miscarriages? Really? Do you really believe this? There are no legitimate medical research that suggests anything like this."It has not been actually proven that marijuana makes you brain regrow cells. Studies done on the subject have POINTED TO THAT POSSIBILITY. But nothing is conclusive as of right now."Sure, it isn't proven. All we did was introduce THC to lab rats and observe that they spontaneously started growing new brain cells. No biggy. Probably just a coincidence."Now let me copy and paste it so you can read it AGAIN."Thanks. That's really helpful. Especially when it makes it look like you wrote a bunch of new arguments when all you have are a few lines."But it is POSSIBLE TO OVERDOSE ON MARIJUANA."It is theoretically possible to overdose on anything. But no, no one is EVER going to overdose on marijuana. You would pass out loooooooong before you had enough time and effort to consume enough to kill you. Even then, it wouldn't kill you because there's anything inherently toxic about marijuana. It wold just kill you because it's a bad idea to put that much of anything inside you. OTHER MISC ARGUMENTSThe war on marijuana has ruined the lives of millions of people and has made America the number one country for locking up it's own citizens. http://monthlyreview.org...https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net...Also, it's worth noting that smoking marijuana, not only doesn't hurt lung function, but has actually been found to increase lung capacity because those who do it tend to take in deep breathes and hold.http://www.aidsmeds.com...
Why Marijuana is not good to smoke and should be illegal

I have mistaken of not putting my sources up, but how about your theories? 'Marijuana causes damage to the reproductive system.' 'source?' Marijuana does have an effect, given that so many metabolites and other things are left behind. It also decreases the number of sperms in a male body or Habitual use lowers sperm count and causes a decrease in sexdrive for men. With the female reproductive system, it can It can kill of your eggs, so you will no longer be able to produce babies, and if your on marijuana while you are pregnant, your baby will be born with an addiction to marijuana, and most likely die in three to four days after birth. "Marijuana causes brain damage and a behavioral disorder known as amotivational syndrome." 'Not only does marijuana show no evidence of causing brain damage, it has actually been shown to PROMOTE THE GROWTH OF NEW BRAIN CELLS. [2]' It has not been actually proven that marijuana makes you brain regrow cells. Studies done on the subject have POINTED TO THAT POSSIBILITY. But nothing is conclusive as of right now. "The Truth Involving Marijuana" 'You know you're arguing AGAINST marijuana...right? Did you actually read any of that or just copy&paste it? A lot of the is making a case FOR marijuana.' I know that i am against marijuana, i did not copy & paste any of the detail. Im explaining the truth. Thats all. Now let me copy and paste it so you can read it AGAIN. 'The Truth Invovling Marijuana There has not been one report at all that someone has overdose or had an accident relating to weed. But it is POSSIBLE TO OVERDOSE ON MARIJUANA. Marijuana has been known for many cancer patients. The reason for this marijuana causes the aging cells to die off before they become cancerous. Many people believe that smoking marijuana and driving is worse than getting behind the wheel drunk. Shockingly there is data that shows people high on marijuana show more sober, and more concentrated than a drunk driver. Notice how nobody hears about a car accident on the new relating to the usage of marijuana? The only thing being reported on the news involving marijuana are the traffickers that get caught with a large quantity of it. 65% of people who get arrest are for just simply having passion. Marijuana helps many illness symptoms. Like with cancer chemotherapy it causes the symptoms nausea and vomiting. Using marijuana the active ingredient THC reduces the vomiting and nausea. For the patients that are infected with AID/HIV's have the symptoms of low appetite, and loss of lean muscle mass. With marijuana it makes the patient have the craving to eat. Which reduces the loss of muscles. There is much more. With pain and muscles spasms witch is related to epilepsy marijuana reduces the muscle spasms, and relieves depression for this patient. Lastly with glaucoma (this is an illness that causes blindness due to increase pressure inside the eyeball) marijuana when smoked reduces the pressure in the eyeball. Marijuana also might reduce the blood flow to the optic nerve, exacerbating the loss of vision.'
God loves you.

You have violated the terms of this debate and you have forfeited. . "God is not there", or "there is no proof that God is there" are unacceptable arguments for this debate and will be automatic forfeiture. If you cannot argue that God does not love you without saying "there is no God" or "there is no proof of God", Please do not accept this challenge. If Con, in the debate or in the comments, says "you can't know God is there" or "God is not there" or "there is no proof of God" or any such denial or negative statement about the existence of God, Con agrees to forfeit the debate and Pro will not be required to supply any further arguments.
God loves you.

I did not violate the rules. I followed them to the number. My opponent can not accept the fact, that to prove god loves you, he must prove his existence. This is very different from denying or saying something deragotory against god. Seriously, he's a troll who has done this debate several times. I believe in divinity for gosh sakes. Maybe not the same god as this guy.If my opponent will not argue his BOP, then all 7 points should be forfeited to me.
God loves you.

The Con postion for this debate is "God does not love me". "God is not there", or "there is no proof that God is there" are unacceptable arguments for this debate and will be automatic forfeiture. If you cannot argue that God does not love you without saying "there is no God" or "there is no proof of God", Please do not accetpt this challenge. If Con, in the debate or in the comments, says "you can't know God is there" or "God is not there" or "there is no proof of God" or any such denial or negative statement about the existence of God, Con agrees to forfeit the debate and Pro will not be required to supply any further arguments. Con may ask questions, but a rhetorical question that allows only for denial of God's existence is disqualiying and forfeits the debate. Con must argue how he knows God does not love him or her, and not argue that God is not there.
The United States federal government should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in

P1: Wind is unpredictable. In order to generate power, a large amount of is need to support wind turbine. When winds strength is too low, the wind energy will not be working. http://www.conserve-energy-future.com... P2: Wind power is not efficient. The wind turbine only extract a low percentage of wind power into energy. "A wind farm rated to produce up to 468 megawatts... will on average only produce an expected 174 megawatts" the percentage is lower that half. http://www.ff.org... P3: the problem with job in U.S is not that we do not have jobs. It is because the jobs that we created are going overseas. Study found that Nearly $2 billion in money are spent on wind power, and "nearly 80 percent of that money has gone to foreign manufacturers of wind turbines." So, Wind farms in the U.S. do not bring jobs. http://abcnews.go.com... C: The United States federal government should not substantially increase alternative energy incentives in the United States.
The United States federal government should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in

P1 The National Nuclear Security Administration to construct the federal government"s largest wind farm at the Pantex Plant in Amarillo, Texas. The wind farm"s five turbines will generate annual energy savings on average of $2.8 million and will supply more than 60 percent of the annual electricity required for Pantex. http://www.usa.siemens.com... P 2 As fossil fuels diminish; energy solutions for the future depend on the increased use of renewable energy resources. P3 As the wind industry develops, it is creating new jobs throughout the U.S. Siemens is contributing to this job growth with the creation of more than 50 jobs at the recently opened Siemens Wind Service Training Center in Orlando, Florida. C "If an investment group has a 20-year contract to supply a utility with wind-generated electricity, it's much easier for them to set up the financing," said William Marcus, the principal economist at JBS Energy, a consulting firm based in West Sacramento, California. http://www.nytimes.com...
The United States federal government should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in

P1. nuclear power is dangerous. In terms of fatalities, nuclear power ranks higher than oil, coal, ad natural gas system. P2: In 2013, a nuclear meltdown in Fukushima, Japan, caused a radioactive disaster that not only impact Japan but the rest of world. One area of the Pacific Ocean floor was 98 percent covered by decomposing sea creatures in July 2012, which there was originally only 1 percent before the meltdown. http://thetruthwins.com... P3. After the radioactive disaster in Japan, Germany has temporarily shut down seven of its reactors. U.S. should also consider the risk of nuclear plant meltdown because it is dangerous.
The United States federal government should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in

P1 However, this argument is irrelevant because traditional nuclear reactors is danger to our environment . Without the shift to IFR technology, those traditional reactors will continue to generate waste which will be stored in Yucca Mountain. P2 We, as a country, have lost a lot of credibility over the last decade. This would surely help us out in that area. P3 as stated in 2008 by Dr. James Hylko nuclear power is one of the most cost effective forms of energy at 1.6 cents per kilowatt hour. C That why we should increase alternative energy incentive.
The United States federal government should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in

P1 "In the United States, coal is used to generate more than half of all the electricity produced." Since renewable energy is insufficient, we need fossil fuels to meet energy needs of our society. http://www.api.org... P2. It is true that fossil fuels are not infinite. But, nuclear plant is not a good solution. On average, a nuclear power plant annually generates 20 metric tons of used nuclear fuel, classified as high-level radioactive waste" which causes tremendous harm to any living organism. http://science.howstuffworks.com... P3. The alternative is cost. According to the New York Times, Ivanpah solar plant, which located in California, will presumably costs 2 billion our tax money, and a large area of land. With that much amount of cost, it will only produces 3600 acres that is far from the state"s demand of 52,000 megawatts. http://www.nytimes.com... C: The United States federal government should not substantially increase alternative energy incentives in the United States.