BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Theory of Evolution

Even a school boy can give a better answer. APES evolving into humans whilst remaining in and still having their original form is devoid of logic and reason. It is because either they are transforming or they are not as they exist too along with humans. No facts or scientific evidence exist to firmly establish this claim. Evolution Theory at most is a theory and subjective analysis of few atheist hell bent to invent perverted analysis to counter religion and faith based values by calling humans as refined animals. You are taught by atheist that it is matter of survival of the fittest. SO basically being an animal you are free to do whatever you wish with absolutely no restrictions which is directly opposed to religious values. You can choose any identity no matter how perverted it is Our school boys are led to belief yes this it. This life is what it is and there is no afterlife. It all happened by accident and natural processes. All this order and natural laws have come from a disorder of big bang. Animals went to school became better and now are civilized humans. That is indeed Laughable Your claim is absurd and illogical for even a three year old kid. I invite you to understand and read Quran and save yourself from the eternal hell fire that Quran talks about for disbelievers and atheist. Stop consoling yourself with false logic as soon we all have to die and return to One GOD of all. If you realize one GOD you will be saved. For me I am only an informer not here to win debates or score points my matter rest with my GOD. I have informed you. The HALL MARKS of God are everywhere for you to observe. The evidence of existence of GOD is overwhelming and cannot be denied.
Capital Punishment

"Why do we kidnap people who kidnap people to show that kidnapping people is wrong?" I see your point, but then again, people who steal do not get stolen from as a punishment, but rather they are sent to jail or prison for x amount of time. That is not the way our society works; we don't do things in an "eye for an eye" sort of way. "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." We have prisons for criminals. Criminals are people who break the law. Criminals go to prison for breaking the law. And so people who murder have very much broken the law, and should spend their lives in prison for doing so. The verb, to murder, by definition, is to kill or slaughter. The noun, murder, is by definition, the killing of another human being. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but killing someone as a punishment isn't doing any less killing than that person did, is it? If you kill someone, you are taking their life, there is no way around that. It's when we start to try and alter definitions of a word that things begin looking different than they once did. Murder is murder because in murdering someone, no matter what the cause, a life is being taken. To bring something new to the debate, the United States is considered to be one of the most "civilized" countries in the world, but isn't it strange that as one of the most civilized countries, it is one of the only of those civilized countries to use capital punishment? Most European countries don't use it BECAUSE it is so barbaric. Also, capital punishment was used long ago when there were no alternative ways to protect society from criminals. Now we have prisons that criminals can spend their lives in, and in doing so, not harm society.
Capital Punishment

First, I am playing devil's advocate. I believe Capital Punishment is deeply flawed, but Con has presented no arguments I agree with; so here goes. :) 'There is a quote that goes something like this, "Why do we kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong?' --> At first glance, this seems like a persuasive and witty refutation; unfortunately, it crumbles at closer examination. For instance, consider the following argument against imprisonment: why do we kidnap people who kidnap people to show people that kidnapping is wrong? Surely, this doesn't mean we should abolish prisons? 'If that is the ideology that is to be used, then the person who killed the murderer should then also be murdered, and so on and so forth' --> Here, Con simply uses an incorrect understanding of the term 'murder'. Murder is the unlawful killing of a person, which is why fighting in wars isn't considered murder. This is also the other problem with Con's quote: it doesn't distinguish between killing and murder. Surely Con does not thing all killing is equal? Is using lethal force to defend yourself the same as murdering an innocent child? 'It is a barbaric form of "punishment" and is wrong' --> Con has provided no standard to distinguish between right and wrong. The death penalty is a way to remove dangerous criminals, and more importantly, it is a deterrent against serious crime. It is likely that people will think twice before committing some heinous act if they have the electric chair to look forward too after they do it.
Capital Punishment

Capital punishment is immoral and hypocritical. There is a quote that goes something like this, "Why do we kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong?" It is so illogical to murder a murderer because they murdered someone. If that is the ideology that is to be used, then the person who killed the murderer should then also be murdered, and so on and so forth. It is a barbaric form of "punishment" and is wrong.
hitting your children should be considered a crime

It looks that you had so much research on this topic and i just wanted to ask you whether you are a student or a parent because this argument may be seen from different eyes. let me just tell you that what you said is unquestionably horrible, and if you think i don't know my definitions you are wrong. I see no reason you would call hitting your children is discipline. Hitting children teaches them to become hitters themselves. In fact anger and violence build up in the child. children will get the idea that it is an appropriate way to express feelings and solve problem when really it is not. Punishment interferes with the bond between parent and child, as it is not human natural to feel loving toward someone who hurts us. parents are the role models of their children thus they should not hit them but show them acts of wisdom and kindness, and as Benjamin Spock said "Parents have come to realize that children can be well behaved, cooperative, and polite without ever having been punished physically." I see a big difference between discipline and abuse but not what you are stating you are claiming that hitting your child is okay because you are teaching them a lesson but i think it is horrible teaching them a lesson by hitting them.
hitting your children should be considered a crime

Ok let me restate myself cause apparently you are forgetting what discipline is. What if simply just talking to your child isn"t enough. What if they continue doing there bad behavior and disobey. Parents want to do what"s best for their kids and want them to be a well mannered person. You must be confusing the face between abuse and discapline. You children will not and should not be afraid of their parents just because they got a little tap on their rear end. Of course children are not going to forget that they got a spank but who says they won"t? You mean to be telling me that children are gonna hate their parents for the rest of their lives just because they got a Spaken? Now I can see that they constantly hit their child which involves DCF or whatever but if you get one once, I"m pretty sure you learned your lesson. And just in case you didn"t know or you didn"t In this case I decided to give you definitions of what ABUSE and DISCAPLINE mean so you can see the difference DISCAPLINE: the practice of training people to obey rules or a code of behavior, using punishment to correct disobedience. ABUSE:treat (a person or an animal) with cruelty or violence, especially regularly or repeatedly. Please do research and pay more attention in class before you confuse your self with definitions
hitting your children should be considered a crime

people say that hitting your children for reasons like lying about grades or breaking something on propose is okay, but parents cant teach them that those things are bad without hitting them i mean there are many other ways to teach children things for example you can have a talk with them or you can show them in another way, a way that doesn't hurt them. when anyone hits their child they shall not expect them to forget because children don't forget these things in fact when you hit them they will eventually be scared of you and this can cause damage in a family relationship
hitting your children should be considered a crime

ok, everything you just explained is called discipline. Yes, hitting your child for no reason is abuse, but for something they did wrong like braking something purposely or lying about grades or whatever, they need to know that this is wrong so when they grow up they don't do the same thing. abuse is a strong word when coming to this topic. you claim that it should be a crime, so apparently it is a crime to teach your kids a lesson?
Rand Paul for President 2016

-Paul supports cutting government spending, and lowering taxes. -He opposes subsidizing energy companies, and would support allowing tax breaks for companies that produce alternative energy such as wind, solar, or geothermal. -Paul says that American citizens have a right to privacy. -He opposes the use of federal, state, or local government funds for abortion -Paul opposes same sex marriage and he believes the issue should be left to the states to decide. -Paul supports returning control of education to local communities and parents and thus eliminating the federal Department of Education. -Paul would oppose all gun control legislation, a position he says is supported by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. -Paul opposes federal government involvement in health care. -Paul believes mandatory minimum sentences for marijuana possession should but eliminated but ultimately the issue of medical marijuana is a states' rights issue and that the federal government should not interfere.
Same-sex marriage should be legal

1. It seems you have misunderstood my argument, thus turning your argument into a strawman. To correct you, I simply stated that gay rights should be established but it shouldn't be labeled as marriage as it serves as a vow to God in tradition. Adding on to this, Christianity is against homosexuality, and being that marriage originated from Christianity, many religious believers may find this to be defamation. Also, allowing gay marriage to be legalized would affect the traditional definition of marriage, something that we already established. It would, therefore, impact the lives of many Christians. 2. These links were not arguments, rather, they served as bible verses or the beliefs of Islam to prove your faulty belief that the world wants equality. Simply put, they served my original statement, " You stated that "Our world does not wish to discriminate against race, religion or ethnicity", this is inaccurate." I even concluded that I would post links instead of establishing them as evidence, something that intuition would suggest. Rather then using google docs, which if I partook in would break the rules, I included links for you to connect the steps. I will not elaborate as that would be a breach of the established rules. 3. I didn't say "other countries legalized gay marriage, we should too" I said "other countries legalized it and it's working well there so there is a good chance that it will work in our country too" My opponent stated the two following statements as dissimilar, both of which I find are similar enough for them to serve as substitute enough for each other. His statement serves no difference, as they are both fallacious: Appeal to authority. 4. Unfortunately, his rebuttal is self-defeating as it serves no real purpose. Rather, he used an argument much like this Premise: A lot of adopting agencies don't let gay people adopt Premise: they did then they would be given the same status as straight people who have married Premise: They were given that same status Premise: Adopting agencies were forced to let gays adopt due to pressure Conclusion: Gay marriage will rise adoption rates From this, we can conclude that yes, adopting agencies do allow for gay people to adopt, as he even stated it. We can thus come to the conclusion that his argument is self-defeating. [1]http://www.religioustolerance.org... [2]https://www.lifelongadoptions.com... [3]http://www.religionfacts.com...
Same-sex marriage should be legal

Just because the tradition of marriage is between a man and a woman doesn't mean it still needs to be that way. It used to be a tradition that men work while women do the housework and look after the children and that's not followed today. There was also a law that women couldn't work in the army even if they were strong as the men in the army and that law is not followed today. Just because something is a tradition doesn't mean we should keep it. A lot of things go against the traditional principle of what something is and how it should be done. We might have done it in the past but that doesn't mean we should do it now. Yes, the historical definition of a marriage was a promise to God and the husband and the wife but we aren't living in the past we are living in the present. Just because it is the historical definition doesn't mean it has to be the modern one. Does it affect you if gays are married or not? No, it really doesn't. Now on to rebutting your rebuttals 1. Those are not your arguments you could have posted a link to google docs. 2. I didn't say "other countries legalised gay marriage, we should too" I said "other countries legalised it and it's working well there so there is a good chance that it will work in our country too" 3. A lot of adopting agencies don't let gay couples adopt but if they do get married that means they have the same status as straight people who have married so the adopting agencies will have to let gays adopt because of the pressure.
Same-sex marriage should be legal

Same-sex marriage goes against the traditional principles of what marriage is. In Western cultures, marriage is the union between a MAN and a WOMAN, ordained by God for a lifelong relationship. For this reason, marriage is also referred to as a "Holy Matrimony." Regardless of a person's belief, this is at the core of what marriage means. In the argument for same-sex marriage, this idea is completely ignored. Proponents' main concerns are the civil rights of homosexual couples. If this is the case, then the argument should not be if homosexuals should be allowed to "marry," but if the same civil rights should be given to homosexual couples. The simple answer is: yes, they should have all the same rights as any married couple but not the Christian title of husband and wife. Opponents hang on the words, "Marriage is not a right, it is a privilege." Proponents of gay marriage are deeply offended by this, and this seems to fuel their passion to fight for gay marriage. However, in this case, both arguments are erroneous. Marriage is neither a right nor a privilege. The historical definition of marriage is simply a promise to God and the husband or wife, that one will forever remain faithful and committed. From this simple idea, marriage has become a tradition. Non-believers also partake in this ceremony to profess their devotion to each other. So, when a woman in San Diego married her dog, Christians found this to be degrading. To believers, this was not a "true marriage", but defamation. Essentially, while gay rights should be established, it shouldn't be labeled as marriage. I will now move on to rebuttals Your first argument is a fallacy: Begging the question. I will refute it, however, they will be discarded as it's fallacious 1. You stated that "Our world does not wish to discriminate against race, religion or ethnicity", this is inaccurate. Since there is a character limit I will just post a link http://www.religioustolerance.org... http://www.religionfacts.com... I will rebuttal your 2nd argument in round 3 due to a character limit 3. Just because other countries or states allow for gay marriage simply does not mean that other countries or state should as well. Take this statement 'Other countries legalized gay marriage, we should too.' Now take this statement 'Other countries disband guns, we should too' These statements are equally true. In each case, there is no conflict between doing what others do and the following, but that does not call for gay marriage to be legalized. The fact that other countries have specific laws, ie that gay marriage is allowed in other countries doesn't call for it to be legalized in others. 4. There is no guarantee that allowing gay marriage will lead to children being successfully adopted in other countries. In other countries. Simply put, marriage is not necessary for children to be adopted, as single people could adopt. Your argument is, therefore, a false assumption.
Same-sex marriage should be legal

I accept your request on no logical fallacies. 1. Equality Our world does not wish to discriminate against race, religion or ethnicity. And saying that gay marriage shouldn't be legal is discrimination. Gay couples should be able to marry if they want and other people shouldn't interfere with people's life options if gay couples want to make their decision on their own. 2.Freedom of choice If two people want to get married to each other then let them. Does it really make a difference to your life if gay people are allowed to get married? People should be allowed to marry another people as long as both of them want regardless of their race, religion, ethnicity, sex or gender. 3.It's working out in other countries Gay marriage is working out in many states of America and in a lot of EU countries so why wouldn't it work out in the rest of the world. 4.Adoption More children will be succesfully adopted there are gay marriages.
"Anchor baby" term too misleading and insulting to use

1. To claim that it only applies to children specifically of illegal immigrants is disingenuous, even within context. The word more than implies it is specifically only women who come within the U.S. to have a child so the child gains citizenship. You are introducing another fuzzy term, "illegal immigrants", to say "anchor babies" is not fuzzy. "Illegal immigrant" could refer to legal residents that aren't citizens, people here legally without valid documentation (e.g. they face a fine, but can not be deported), those who entered illegally but can remain due to starting the legal process, or those who entered illegally and have not initiated the legal immigration process. In addition, it can mean those of the last group, but limited to only those who entered specifically to give birth. The difference between the different standard for "illegal immigrant" just by itself, changes the claims for the number of "achor babies" from 720,000 per year to 8,000, and even lower, with all of them being no more right or wrong. It's not clear in most contexts whether it only applies to **babies** or people in general (born in whatever circumstances). Are people NOT babies "anchor babies"? That changes the number from (assuming a "baby" is 2 or younger), from 16,000 total people, to all undocumented residents of approximately 14 million (not counting tourists). This is a change of 87,500%, which the listener supposedly is supposed to get from context. Without a set definition for any of these issues, it becomes clear the purpose of using the term is not so the listener will understand these sweeping issues, rather it is so the listener can use their own standard and ignore the issues. It is intentionally vague, as an appeal to emotion. http://www.14thamendment.us... https://en.wikipedia.org... http://cis.org... 2. While I agree the insultiness of a term is subjective - hence, my spellcheck have no clue about the word insultiness. Therefore, the only ones to determine whether a word is insulting are those it is applied. to. In this case, it is infants. I'm unable to find any polls among immigrants (let along those born to "illegal immigrants"), but I very seriously doubt they would find it to be a neutral or positive term. Indeed, it is universally or nearly universally used only by those who want to provide a negative connotation to infants, because of their birth condition. 3. There are several alternative phrases. "Birth tourism/tourists". "Immigrant children." "First generation citizens". "Natural born citizens". The only difficulty in finding an alternative, is that it is either too broad or too narrow. When too broad (i.e. "1st generation citizen"), it makes the vagueness too obvious, and looses its negativity. Too narrow (i.e. "birth tourists"), and it only applies to a handful of people. It is typically not used to explore complex immigration policy, but to simplify it to practical uselessness. To put it simply, the term is specifically designed to be a plea to emotion.
"Anchor baby" term too misleading and insulting to use

Hello. Thanks for the debate question. Here are my counter proposals: 1. Is the term anchor baby misleading? - I agree that in some situations the speaker who uses this phrase may not define it completely, however, it most instances the meaning can be derived from the surrounding context of the speech. For example, if in a debate about illegal immigration this word is used, then we can infer that the speaker is talking about babies of illegal immigrants and not babies of legal immigrants. If the topic is about parents who want to gain visas through petition of a child working in the states, then the term is obviously used to refer to a child who legally immigrated. It is up to the speaker to make the words clear, but the listeners can pick up on the intended meaning by using the overall context of the speech. 2. Is the term anchor baby insulting? - Insult regarding words is a subjective experience, so it's hard to see how this can be said to be insulting without specifying the exact person involved. For example, one of the worst words you can use is the word n****r (I don't know if the website allows me to post that word here so I censored it) and many people get insulted when called that. Yet a multitude of rap stars use it almost in every sentence without triggering an insulting reaction. In a more recent example, a black comedian was using the word so much on stage that his mic was cut, and this was in front of black audience who did not appreciate it.[1] On the following night he used it on a more receptive audience who applauded him. Similarly, anchor baby may or may not be insulting, but we don't really know. As a person who comes from a third world country, the common term here for children who petition parents is "ticket" as in "you're my ticket out of this dump." I do not find the word insulting and have been called by it numerous times. When we start policing language, it becomes really troublesome, such as what is happening in the West now where even the terms "master" is being banned in a school because some people might be intimidated by it[2]. In Sweden, the words "him and her" are not allowed in school because it is sexist[3], and so on. [1]http://www.theguardian.com... [2]http://www.infowars.com... [3]http://www.dailymail.co.uk... 3. Is the term anchor baby appropriate? - If it is not appropriate then another, less insulting term would be needed, and so far no one has arrived at a term acceptable to everyone. However, remember that this word is used to refer to a very uncomfortable situation in which a baby (or an adult) is used as a hook in order to gain entry to a much more prosperous country, so whatever word you substitute won't really change the nature of the situation; i.e. it will still refer to this very uncomfortable reality of babies (or adults) being used as a means to an end. So in the end it's not really the word itself but rather the nature of the phenomenon being described that is uncomfortable to the listeners, and I doubt making up a new word to replace anchor baby would make much a difference. Cheers