BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should School start later in the day

Teens do not get enough sleep. Ever. They are always horribly groggy even after a good night's sleep. Those who believe teens spend their nights staying up late and drinking, "I hate you. Die in a fire." -Vechs Anways, I sincerely hope whoever I argue with isn't one of the noobs that gives a complicated story that is obviously contradicted by the previous round, leaving them to look like they are deaf. Screw those people. I look forward to seeing which dick will take me on. SMD
We Should Feed Aborted Human Fetuses to Polar Bears

To transport the aborted human fetuses to the polar bears, all we have to do is send them up in a boat, plane, etc., and dump them in the arctic for the polar bears to eat; sort of like a buffet It's not wasting money; with the money women use to get an abortion, we could probably feed all the polar bears in the world An abortion costs between $350 to $950 dollars on average (https://www.plannedparenthood.org...). Worldwide, around 56 million abortions are performed (https://www.guttmacher.org...) . That means 1.96 * 10^8 to 5.32 * 10^8 dollars (US Dollars) are spent by females in getting abortions. 10^8 is 100 million, so that's 200 to 530 million dollars spent in abortion. That's certainly enough money to transport the aborted fetuses to the polar bears, with plenty of leftover money. If you give a baby to a couple that can't have babies, that is still bad for global warming. You see, every person contributes to global warming and overpopulation, which makes life even more miserable for polar bears like me. Also, you used the f-word in your argument.
We Should Feed Aborted Human Fetuses to Polar Bears

"bake your baby " i know that they are being killed in the first place but isn't this a bit fucked up., how are we supposed to transport the fetuses to the bears and if we did wouldn't we be wasting money on this. personally killing unborn babies is fucked up on its own and we as a society are wasting money on killing the babies. I say let them live and give them to couples that cant have babies.
We Should Feed Aborted Human Fetuses to Polar Bears

I think we should feed aborted human fetuses to polar bears. Why? Surplus protein and gives those polar bears something to eat when food is scarce to hunt due to global warming. So many women these days are aborting their fetuses and then dumping the corpse, where it lay to rot. With so much protein being discarded, why not use that protein and feed polar bears? Fetus meat is tender and sweet. A mix between chicken and fish, it"s rich in protein and the underdeveloped cartilage and bones have a nice chewy crunch to them. It"s one of the few meats that can be eaten raw, but boiled fetus is quite tasty too. In fact, there are many ways you can cook your fetus. Below are just 2 ideas: Recipe 1): Bake your baby in an oven until bloated and fat. You will need to bake your baby in oven for about 20 mins, when the baby begins to rise, pull it out of the oven and pop it with a kitchen knife. The rich, watery juices that seep from the babies popped boils will be perfect to add to a meaty gravy. Recipe 2): Fry your fetus in a pan. After the fetus baby thing, is fried up and crispy, it should be very dry and somewhat resemble a burn victim. The best way to serve up the meaty carcass would be with salt and vinegar. These are just two methods the Nazis and the KKK use to cook up dead babies and fetuses. I would love to hear your recipes, as well as those of other people, in the comments section. You are con, with 3 rounds, 3 days to prepare your counter-argument, and up to 8000 characters for every argument you make.
Stop the Minting of the American Penny

Thanks to con for relinquishing the last round, and for joining me in this debate.If we look at con's fifth source, which s/he used to stress his/her belief that the US will lose money, we see in exactness why Rodney Bosco, the author of the article, believes this to be the case. Mr. Bosco states that getting rid of the penny, a coin produced with money lost as a result, would "...increase demand for the nickel, which is also currently produced at a loss" (p.2). While this is true, simply keeping the penny and changing the contents of it would not be an adequate measure. Perhaps changing the nickel's contents, a coin that has ten times the buying power of the penny, would be (or we could get rid of it too, but that's for another debate, I suppose). Even using the multi-ply plating technology would not be enough. To stress this point, Bosco said that such technology has "...been successfully used by the RCM to manage circulating coinage for Canada..."(p.3) - a country that even with this method got rid of their penny three years ago as of this May. I must stress that the penny's content is something that can be changed, but is not worth changing when considering how low its buying power is.As for the argument "you don’t see people abolishing the car…. Or milk," I don't see this as a perfect comparison. Cars provide fast and effective transportation, and milk has nutritional value. Pennies, on the other hand, don't provide the services that they should. Even the argument pertaining to those who use cash to pay for things doesn't have much basis, and I'll explain why: the part about rounding up goes against what I've already said about the myth of the "rounding tax" back in Round 2. Most places that have gotten rid of the penny round both up and down, and it's worth mentioning that no significant effect has been shown to the economy and there has been no significant or noticeable rise in prices nor, for that matter, has there been any decrease in charitable donations [1]. It is also worth mentioning that people who are poorer and would use money more are statistically more likely to donate money to charity.Finally, I would like to say that the amount of money earned back from reforming the penny does not reach how much we have lost, as attested by my argument in Round 2.I thank con again for joining me in this debate. Vote for pro.Sources:[1]:
Stop the Minting of the American Penny

Contrary to the original post, the penny does actually provide a real purpose in our modern world. And not only this, this debate has been won by the Con side throughout various times in our nation's history. There exist many jobs in the zinc and zinc-related industries that produce these pennies, as well as transportation jobs in relation to delivering pennies to various institutions. By ceasing the production and minting of the penny, we see many of these jobs that would be otherwise lost. These providers of zinc and copper would lose contracts worth tens of millions of dollars every year if such pennies ceased new production. In 1982, these pennies were made from brass, and were also engaging in a higher production cost. However, in this year, zinc was used to provide 97.5% of the composition of the penny, with the thin copper plating on the outside of the coin. Initially this saved the government millions of dollars, but we have seen recently the rising prices of zinc. It is true that such rising zinc prices have increased the price of the penny, but there is no reason why the composition of the penny cannot be revisited as a way to cut down on costs on production, without having to cut the coin all together. Hypothetically, if the cost of ink and paper exceeded $1, would we eliminate the dollar? If it exceeded $100, would we tell all the Benjamin Franklin enthusiasts that his likeness and portrait will be less commonplace? Of course not, as there are many materials that can be made to provide coins and currency, and the re-visitation of such denominations is a sufficient way to address such concerns. As another example, in 1943, the Mint produced pennies made of zinc-coated steel to conserve copper for military use, yet we still kept the penny as a valid denomination. So conclusively, the point is not to abandon the penny all together, but provide steps to reform the concentration and the composition of the material that we use in making such a denomination.
Here is Practical Explanation about Next Life, Purpose of Human Life, philosophical/religious facts,

in answer to your Rebuttal #1: ) Intelligence has to do with the soul, not simply with the brain. Take electricity, for example. Electricity moves between gross elements and through a gross wire. But the electricity itself -- it is not those elements, not that wire. It is subtle. ___________________ you have written this link in Rebuttal #2: ( We DO have many reasons to doubt the "authority" of the men speaking on behalf of the gods of Hinduism, as the beliefs make no logical sense and contradict scientific knowledge. ) ________________ all right for what you are waiting for ? why don't you define what is Conscious on the basics of your medical language or on scientific basics ? explain it now. and the first step is to know the difference between a living body and a dead body. What is the difference? and then next Question is Why a dead child born does not grow, does not change body? The body is a lump of matter. Analyze the body. Where is life? explain about these points which i have written upside ^. go ahead and do it now. ____________
how old should someone be to start dating

[1] shows even if you’re relatively mature within that age group,you’re still not mature enough.Also,even if I didn’t use[1],I’d still have [2]&[3] to back up my argument. Rebuttal:1.Pro hasn’t any evidence to his claims.I could just as easily claim something else.2.Pro chooses 13+ almost arbitrarily.He does not fulfil his BoP in explaining why specifically 13+ and how is it a turning point. Conclusion:Teens are immature.Engage in dating makes teen prone to abuse.13 y/o shouldn’t start dating.
how old should someone be to start dating

[1] is an AGE GROUP(12-14), not a SPECIFIC AGE. It includes all 12-14 y/o with different rates of maturing. My point still stands and I still have the support of[2][3]. [4][5]show some appalling statistics of teen dating abuse. For example 1/3 US 14-20 y/o have been victims of dating violence. Immaturity is problematic because teens are less able to handle these abuses than adults. Research shows teen victims of abuse in dating experience increased depression, drug use and suicidal behavior.[6]
how old should someone be to start dating

Sorry for my short argument. Character limit is 500.Definition: Dating is a process of whereby two people meet to develop an intimate relationship and potentially a marriage.13 year olds are not as mature as older people. Human’s brains do not fully mature even after reaching the age of 18 [1]. [2] suggests that they are not as competent in making decisions and [3] gives evidence that it impairs judgement.I will explain in the next round why immaturity is a problem to dating. Sources in comments
Confederate Flag is a Battle Flag, Not Racist

Thanks Pro. I will begin my argument in a moment, but would first like to clarify that I am for private citizens having the right to fly the flag. I too believe that the Confederate flag was not originally a symbol of racism. It was morphed into that when hate groups used it, so I guess I'm kind of playing Devil's Advocate here. On to my arguments.Contention 1. Why does the Confederate Flag exist?The Confederate States of America were founded in 1861 [1].Many states seceded because of President Lincoln's election in 1860. "Convinced that their way of life, based on slavery, was irretrievably threatened by the election of President Abraham Lincoln (November 1860), the seven states of the Deep South (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Texas) seceded from the Union during the following months." [2]. Many people who joined the Confederacy believed that outlawing slavery (Lincoln's goal) would violate the States' Rights Doctrine, which gave many states more power in lawmaking. The mitigation of the States' Rights Doctrine would render slave states powerless in defending their ideology.Now we know what motivated their secession. The point? The Confederate flag only exists because it was made by separatists who wanted to defend slavery. If there was no slavery (which is racist) in America, the Confederate Flag would have never existed.Contention 2. Other hate symbols were benign when they originated The best example of this is the Swastika, used by the Nazis during WWII. It actually is a Sanskrit word meaning "Well-being," "Good luck," and "Perfect victory." It was used by Hindus, Buddhists in India and other Asian countries, Ancient Greece, Troy, Druids, Celts, Nordic tribes, and even early Christians. [3]. Once it was used by the Nazis, though, it became a symbol of hate and Antisemitism. The same happened when hate groups got their hands on the flag. If you don't believe that the cause of its existence is enough evidence, the history of symbols like the Swastika should show why the Confederate flag is now seen as a hate symbol.Contention 3. It represents all of the Ku Klux Klan"s lynching and hate crimes.Much like the Swastika, the Confederate Flag became a symbol of racism in the public eye after it was originated. The flag has to bear the shame of those actions because the KKK bore the flag.In conclusion, the resolution does not mention whether or not the flag was originally hateful. It only says that it is not hateful today, which I have negated.I thank Con for this debate and await his argument.Sources1. https://en.wikipedia.org... 2. www.history.com/topics/american.../confederate-states-of-america 3. http://www.ancient-origins.net...;
Confederate Flag is a Battle Flag, Not Racist

I actually got what I'm posting from another pro Confederate Flag debate. I'll end this with this post. : I would just like to say that I personally do not feel the flag is not racist. The first battle flag was not made because of slavery. It is a battle flag representing our confederate soldiers. Organizations such as KKK and white supremacy groups using this flag as a symbol of racism is a disgrace and being disrespectful to our confederate soldiers. By pushing that issue it will cause the African Americans to use it as an excuse for attention and to keep things stirred up. If we have a confederate flag or use the n*** word then we are considered racists. How ever, if the African American Indian have black power or Malcolm x shirts or flags then that's OK. They can call us white crackers & such but none of these are racist. Come on that's diverse discrimination against whites. God sees no color...we can't help what happened back in those days and we sure can't change it. Everybody just needs to get over it and live there life to the fullest. No one is promised tomorrow...
The United States of America can realistically achieve free healthcare for all of its citizens.

First off, how is it possible for health-care to have no cost? The money to pay for all of these expenses must come from somewhere. In an Ideal World where every person has some level of concern for their neighbor, yes, it is possibly for HealthCare to be free. But in our world, the REAL world, nothing is free. What are you suggesting would, in fact, render HealthCare virtually free of charge?
The United States of America can realistically achieve free healthcare for all of its citizens.

As my opponent is affirmative, I will allow him/her to open. I will however define the following terms: Free-Having no cost Healthcare-The prevention, treatment, and management of illness and the preservation of mental and physical well-being through the services offered by the medical and allied health professions. All-The group in its entirety Good luck to my opponent, and I look foward to a good debate.
Religion is wrong.

Knowledge: You say, to which I agree on some scale that “We are perfectly rational in believing our sensory experiences and intuitions to be true.” Sensory Experiences: Sensory experiences are a way of cognitively thinking and rationalising objects and outcomes. They can however be inaccurate or incorrect. Intuitions: “The act or faculty of knowing or sensing without the use of rational process.” “The sense of something not evident or deducible, an impression.” Your example of the mug potentially not being there would also have to be included in my argument for the existence of God. The mug however is a physical object and can be rationally broken down into its components, it can be also analysed from a sensory point. If were arguing against the actual existence of the mug, then we agree that we don’t know if it is really there. God’s existence is not a constant for the whole of humanity whilst the mug is. It would lead to suggest that the existence of God is actually unknown. In regards to Faith and Ethics, God’s existence is a crucial part to this debate. For it is the reason why Religions exist. Ethically speaking in truth values is not based upon strong a posteriori knowledge. It is mainly upon sensory experiences and Intuitions that God is perceived. On the basis that the existence of God is based upon a feeling, sense, or experience it cannot be justified to exist entirely. Anyone on this planet can teach right and wrong at the same time. It is humans after all conducting sermons and teachings across all religions, based on the back of previous human perceptions and feelings. Where faith and wrong come in, is that Religion itself cannot prove the existence of God. That is why they have to have physical and tangible objects to reinforce the mind. For me this leads to suggest that Religion is wrong to influence people’s lives based on a far as I’m concerned very little truths. Its teachings are wavering in modern day society, issues on contraception and homosexuality for instance. People die from direct religious laws such as stoning every year, from a result of Religion, and a result of the unanswerable question of does god exist? For something that cannot be definitively answered is the reason as to why Religion has succeeded. It plays on the fears of the unknown and offers warmth for the questions NOBODY has the answers to. I think that it is wrong on many levels. Ethically on the highest level of truth. It offers no truth, just faith. It sells truth and belief, at the expense of the believers mind. Note to readers, and against. My time is limited as I am at work. I also believe strongly in not having to “back-up” my point with references, and leave it to the thought of the reader. I find it tiring recycling points, all be it interesting of those before us. I think it’s important to create new thinking. Although I don’t think this will come from me. Just a belief I hold. Deduct the points if it doesn’t comply with the rules on this website. I guess it’s a rule.
Religion is wrong.

Thank you for your interesting response, and taking this debate. I have decided to reference or quote as little as possible in my arguments. Sorry if this seems uneducated or annoying. This is something I may change my mind on. Faith: I ask the question: Does God definitely exist? The answer is no. Thus no matter what the definition or thinking upon the word faith...It must mean that nobody knows the answer to God's existence. I perceive that I Don't Know. Wrong: Here I take the definition of Wrong. I am not going to expand too heavily upon these points. 1. Not in accordance with what is morally right or good: awrong deed. Religion has many aspects within its teaching that are not morally right or good. 2. Deviating from truth or fact; erroneous: a wrong answer. Religion also deviates from the truth and is questionable on facts. 3. Not correct in action, judgment, opinion, method, etc., as aperson; Religions must be incorrect upon judgement, and opinion, considering there is more than one religion. Many points to suggest that Religion is wrong. Many Religions: There have been many religions before the prominent modern day religions. The only existence of prominent religions now is the progression in education and mass media exposure. What about all religions that do not exist anymore? What about future Religions? Most likely Wrong. Ethics: If I was to punch somebody, and they cried. I would understand that they were upset. Having most likely experienced being upset me before; I would learn and understand not to punch someone. Religion holds to claim fundamental laws in society. These laws were always innately within us. Having held these claims of law and passing judgement upon its followers Religion merely tells people the obvious. I would say the first human’s beings on earth would have known these rules. Religion only assisted in the promotion of rules and law. Religion does not teach how to be good, it just enhances it. I think Religion is Wrong because it dictates false information. Sorry If my writing does not conform to usual debating literature.
Religion is wrong.

This is my first debate. My Religious Orientation can be left to your imagination. I would like to discuss this topic. Please excuse the broad topic question... Considering that Religion is based upon faith. Faith being a belief in something that has no proof. Would it not be ignorant to accept other Religions or none at all? Religion has constantly proved to have caused troubles within our history. Considering there is no proof of the existence of God, Religion misguides society and splits it apart. Thus it is wrong.
Aisha was married at six years old to the last Islamic prophet.

By migrations I mean migration to Abyssinia and migration to Madina. It seems, I have to explain few things. First, hadiths aren't told as historical records, or for that purpose. It is not the topic, so I skip it, you can do research for yourself. So when historians analyse hadiths, they use different set of rules. Let's say I want to prove the claim (subject) based on hadith given by Pro, then I have to ask who, when, where told it, and etc. (such as, if the narrator was too old too remember ). Secondly, let me give quote from historian - "In the time before Islam, Abu Bakr married two women. The first was Fatila daughter of Abdul Uzza, from whom Abdullah and Asma were born. Then he married Umm Ruman, from whom Abdur Rahman and Aisha were born. These four were born before Islam." [Tarikh Tabari, vol. 4, p. 50.] It answers my first question, and by extensionthe second question also. So, if Pro has the ability to answer my third question, all we need to do is to use Mathematics. Let me give some hints, look at Ibn Ishaq for first-year Muslims to average Aisha's age. And date of marriage relative to war of Uhud. And, it is factual debate and you are Pro. Use some evidence.
Aisha was married at six years old to the last Islamic prophet.

The first source was Sahih Muslim Book 008, Hadith Number 3310. [0] As for empirical evidence that seems like a high standard for religion. We could discount all the miracles in the Koran and Hadith while we are at it. Since, I highly doubt we will find any archaeological evidence of a winged horse flying to heaven. "Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64: Narrated 'Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death). " [1] As you can see she was 9 when married. Not sure what you mean by "migrations." Thanks for the debate. 1. http://www.usc.edu...
Aisha was married at six years old to the last Islamic prophet.

Pro rightly pointed out in comments section, it is debate about fact, not whether it's good or bad. And it's about a historical event. When dealing with historical event your primary evidence should be empirical (such as, archaeological evidence of some stupid battle ), if not all you have left with Testimony. And any historian knows not to just trust to claim, without checking and cross-referencing it with other sources. Returning to topic, I have few questions A. When was Aisha born? (not exact date) B. Her age during migrations. C. When she was married? And also I ask Pro to give name of book and etc. for sources, not just links.