BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
People should not intentionally have children if they know full-time daycare will be required.

Ok so like right we don't the ability to tell people to do this. Also what if they don't know it will be required or unintentionally have kids what do we do then. In so far aw we make this kind of rule or maintain this idea then we drive the day cares out of busniess and then leave ourselves open to problems for the cases I disucss above. Also the benefits of a full time day care are infinite to the kids because they learn many necessary social skills which will help them in life so day cares actually are benefitially. So again it comes back to one thing the question of why. To be honest there is no reason to stand for this because 1.) its wrong and 2.) even if the advcocacy was right its unenforcable and by standing for this your standing against the mothers free choice to use a day care and the day cares right to make money thus going against our constitution.
People should not intentionally have children if they know full-time daycare will be required.

What is the point of having children if you don't intend to raise them yourself? People should not have kids until they can afford them. And by "afford" I mean the financial ability to raise them in person. If you want to sponsor a child (i.e. pay for his food, necessities, schooling, etc.), you can sign up with any number of charities. If you want to raise a child, you must be present to do so.
People should not intentionally have children if they know full-time daycare will be required.

Ok so basically looking at your entire argument, because you did it this way its correct. Also look at some logic right, there is no negative impacts to the kids and they do only learn social skills when they are introduced to others at a day care. You also believe that all day care employees are negligent and could care less which is simply not true. Also full time day care required could be temporary so your claim that if the mother may need it for a month then she shouldn't have kids? That just doesn't make sense. So for the previous reasons I gave and the fact that this is illogical vote eng.
People should not intentionally have children if they know full-time daycare will be required.

For one, I do not think you really comprehend the arguement and its ideas. Your grammar and spelling is so confusing, I'm not sure what are your opposing points. I never said that there should not be any day care facilities. I am all for a free marketplace. However, my point is that if people intentionally choose to get pregnant and have the responsibility of a child, then it is the parent who should and needs to be at home to raise that child. It is the PARENT who really loves and has INTEREST IN THE CHILD...that is where the child begins to learn their value and identity. A person who is an employee only cares, (and in some cases doesn't), if there's a smelly diaper and that the child has food. A child does not care about the parents career...it has NO relevance to their reality...they just want mom. You asked who I was...I am a mom. A mom who at the age of 23, almost 16 years ago, put my child in "day care" because that's "where you put a child at 6 weeks of age", only to arrive there unexpectedly one day to see the "caregiver" hold up a 15 month old to eye level and after screaming into his tearful face drop him to the ground. My daughter was never in day care again. I have since raised 3 girls who are social standouts in the fact that they are value driven, fun, happy children who have the undeniable peace and knowledge that they matter because of the love we have demonstrated in our care of raising them. Social standouts because they have respect for authority and others, are not cutters or drug addicts, do not hide things from their parents, and would rather build the best self they can instead of trying to find their identity with a boy. I do not believe that any one person is perfect, but it is in the best interest of a child to have a parent who makes the sacrifices necessary to set their child up for success thus ensuring their own. By the way, my first child was born out of wed-lock and was 2 when her father and I finally married...we are together 17 years today.
People should not intentionally have children if they know full-time daycare will be required.

Ok so I put responses to your main arguement. I argue that we should be able to have day care if we want. Also I discuss the benefits to the kids from going to day care, and at the point where you show no negative effects of going to the day care you don't prove a reason to affirm. Also you don't explain a single reason why who are you to determine the "point" of having a child if you have them at day care. Your advocacy just doesn't make sense and its not actually grounded in any way. Also it leads us to have day cares because if more people felt like you they would go out of business and then what if people needed them. Also you don't define your brightlines for full time day care vs. part time day care. Furthermore you don't explain what you mean by intentionally have a kid. Also since you don't prove harms, and provide no justification for your PERSONAL opinion we vote neg.
Bacon, Duct Tape, and WD-40 can fix the world's problems.

First of all, WHO IS ALLERGIC TO PORK? Second of all, please use proper grammar, punctuation, and spelling. It is very hard to understand and read what you are saying. Third of all, you do not use duct tape and WD-40 in the same place unless you are an inferior chimp in an insane asylum. No offense man.
Prostitution should be legalized

Prostitution's History Prostitution has been found in nearly every civilization on Earth stretching back throughout all recorded human history. wherever there have been money, goods, or services to be bartered, somebody has bartered them for sex. Prostitution underscores the concept of supply and demand, which may explain the longevity of this practice. as long as there are people in need of and willing to pay/ barter for the services provided by prostitutes, they will always exist to supply that demand. In essence the profession is here to stay. why it should be legalized Legalizing prostitution will allow it to be taxed and regulated, not only making the government money but also making it safer for thousands of women who are drawn to this profession. Taxation It is a fact that thousands of women, for whatever reasons have turn to prostitution at some point in their lives. This has allowed the practice to flourish and is a thriving estimated billion dollar a year business. A large percent of that money goes to the underground economy and is never taxed. if legalized government would be able to tax those incomes and profits and use those monies to not only develop communities but establish programmes to assists the prostitutes themselves. Regulations. Through legalization the government will be able to regulate the system. Regulations will allow the act to be managed instead of ignored and allow the government to work to prevent underground prostitution that occurs daily. Regulations would be able to curtail the number of teens that are swept up into prostitution every year by enforcing the age of consent and other rules. The regulations will also be able to affect all areas of prostitution such as health and safety and would establish guidelines and implement improvements. ultimately legalized, and regulated prostitution would transfer the power from pimps or organized crime rings to the government. Legalized Prostitution at work As seen in the city of Amsterdam in the Netherlands where it is legal , the prostitutes are tax paying citizens and the government ensures that all prostitutes are able to access medical care and work in better conditions by regulating and monitoring working practices and standards. In turn the government enjoys the benefits of steady taxable revenues. (1) http://www.liberator.net... (2) http://www.amsterdam.info...
Prostitution should be legalized

Please Note: This is a 5 round Debate. Structure 1. Acceptance: brief introduction to your position 2. Pro' s opening arguments/ Con's rebuttal 3. Pro's rebuttal/ Con's 2nd rebuttal. 4. Pro's 2nd rebuttal /con's 3rd rebuttal. 5. Closing arguments and final rebuttals I believe that prostitution should be legalized. Prostitution as defined is the "The practice or occupation of engaging in sex with someone for payment". This is classified as the oldest profession in the world. it is very obvious why this profession has survived so long and why it has continued to strive. Therefore I believe that decriminalizing this profession will yield many benefits and legally open doors once closed. (1) www.dictionary.com
People with cancer are not faking it.

Thank you for accepting. People with cancer are not faking it. I know from personal experience. My grandfather had cancer and a close family friend had cancer. I saw my grandfather struggle for over a year and a half and my friend struggle for nine months. They both have died from the disease. According to the American Cancer Society, every month, almost 50,000 people will die of cancer in just the United States alone. That is almost 600,000 deaths per year. According to said website, almost 1.7 million people are diagnosed with cancer in the United States yearly and according to the National Cancer Institute, almost 14 million people had cancer in 2012. Does that mean that 14 million people were playing us for chumps, including my grandfather, who died of the disease that he was, according to you, faking? According to U.S. News, global cancer research has reached $100 billion. Why would we be wasting our money on researching a disease if people are faking it?https://cancerstatisticscenter.cancer.org...#/http://seer.cancer.gov...http://www.usnews.com...
Quote argument

I enjoyed finding funny, and deep quotes. Good Luck. 1) "I just broke up with someone and the last thing she said to me was "You'll never find anyone like me again! " I'm thinking, "I should hope not! If I don't want you, why would I want someone like you. " -Unknown 2) "Life is one fool thing after another whereas love is two fool things after each other. " -Oscar Wilde 3)"You know the speed of light, so what's the speed of dark? " -Unknown 4)"Where there's a will, there are five hundred relatives. " -Unknown 5)"When in charge, ponder. When in doubt, mumble. When in trouble, delegate" -Unknown Sources: . http://thinkexist.com... . http://www.indianchild.com... . http://amadeus.upr.clu.edu... Please Vote Con. Thank You
Quote argument

So bookworm to make up for the missing quotes i decided to change the rules for the last round (me already haved talked to you so you know already so this is more for the voters) but for the last round you can post up to 5 quotes, good luck. 1."The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them."-Mark Twain 2."Anger is never without Reason, but seldom with a good one."-Benjamin Franklin 3." Whatever you are, be a good one."-Abraham Lincoln 4."Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves."-Confucius 5." If two men agree on everything, you may be sure that one of them is doing the thinking."-Lydon B. Johnson
The United Nations should be dissolved

Okay so no. It is true that allies can talk to each other and that already happens if you watched the news lately you might know all the jazz going around concerning Trump and NATO. The point of the UN is to dissolve conflicts through "nonpartisan moderated" debate. For example, I live in Canada and we tend to have issues with who controls the Arctic waters. These issues contend for control between Us, the U.S., Denmark, China, Russia and other countries such as France and the United Kingdom. The UN allows such countries to debate the issues at hand and removes the need for military actions. Since the establishment of the UN, we haven't seen military conflict similar to ones prior to it. It is true that charity can happen other ways but why do we need to dissolve the UN the more charity the better. The UN is a hallmark of international cooperation which has seen no parallels in history. I see no reason for dissolution.
The United Nations should be dissolved

Founded by the original world war 2 allies. The United Nations stands as a beckon of the success of what can happen when nations come together for the advancement of humanity. The idea of the United Nations was that this could be an organization where nations would come together to debate global issues instead of using their armies. Countries act in their own interest but with a forum to debate policy, they are forced to act together. The United Nations is a very large charity organization such as the United Nations Foundation and UNICEF.
The United Nations should be dissolved

The United Nations is an international group that claims to be necessary, but is, in reality, is a group that can be replaced by isolationism and charity. If you want to prevent war, the countries can resolve it themselves. If there is a world war, the UN could be used, but only as a temporary measure, because that is what the UN should be, a temporary measure. You could mention foreign aid, but that can be done through charity. Also, while the conspiracy theories are fake, it would be wise to make sure they stay fake.
The existence of evil proves God must exist

I apologize for my minimal response. I was traveling and ran out of time to reply. I had 10 seconds to post a response, but I will reply to my opponent with much greater detail this round. Reply to #1 “How does [my opponent] know that ‘nearly every person believes that stealing from them is wrong?’” The non-Christian German Philosopher, Immanuel Kant, gives proof for this point in this article http://documents.routledge-interactive.s3.amazonaws.com...; Reply to #2 “I refuted this in Round 2, it was an inappropriate use of Godwin's Law” I already addressed this and admitted my mistake. Reply to #3 “How does Pro know that the German soldiers who killed Jews were upset when Russians raped ‘their’ women?” This is one of many historic articles discussing this fact. http://en.wikipedia.org...; Reply to #4 “How does my opponent know all Southern plantation owners felt [that stealing their slaves was wrong]?” This statement is based purely on history. See http://www.history.com... or http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com... Reply to #5 “I never stated my opinions one way or the other. Also how does Pro know they ‘believed certain things were wrong?’” My opponent did state their opinion though in Round 1 when they said, “my opponent and I may find human trafficking to be "evil"(I hope he does)”. As for how I know they believe things were wrong, see replies 3 & 4. Reply to #6 “My opponent claimed "evil" existed in all civilizations, therefore he must prove it.” Evil is defined by Merriam-Webster as “morally bad, or causing harm or injury to someone” (http://www.merriam-webster.com...). Since one can cause harm or injury, no matter where or when they are, then, by definition, evil exists in all civilizations. Reply to #8 (There was no #7) “You have not proved that Nazi Germany believed in evil.” See reply #3 Reply to #9 “you did not prove that all civilizations believe in evil.” See reply #6 Reply to #10 "Pro has not shown one iota of evidence that substantiates the existence of ‘evil.’” As demonstrated in reply #6, evil exists by definition. Please keep this discussion professional. Misspellings, poor grammar and asking for votes does not add to your argument. My intent is strictly to gain information for a paper I am writing, not to win an internet debate.
The existence of evil proves God must exist

"That is incorrect. What I did prove is that all civilizations believe in evil, though their perception of it differs. This does not mean that we determine right & wrong."Is civilization not made up of homosapiens? Also my opponent has not proven all civilizations believe in "evil." My opponent has only shown the concept of "evil" exists in some societies, not all. This is fallacious to say the least to suggest all civilizations believe in "evil." He himself has made the claim " all civilizations believe in evil." Therefore he must prove that all civilizations believe in it. It is not my responsibility to to find a civilization that does not believe in evil. My opponent made the claim, he must prove it."If it is recognizable that evil does exist (even if your definition of it is different that the person next to you) then we are aware that the world is not the way that it should be."The world is not the way is should be? That is exclusively of my opponent's opinion. My opponent has previously shown that the concept of evil prevails among us in some civilizations. This means evil is a normality not an abnormality if it exists in some civilizations as my opponent has shown. Therefore, there is no other way the world "should be" since the concept of evil is a normality, not an abnormality. Essentially meaning, civilizations without evil are abnormal not normal according to my opponent's reasoning.
The existence of evil proves God must exist

"My opponent has just shown it is 'we,' the homosapiens who determines what is 'right' or 'wrong.'" That is incorrect. What I did prove is that all civilizations believe in evil, though their perception of it differs. This does not mean that we determine right & wrong."Where am I comparing anyone to the Nazis?" My mistake. That was not a fulfilment of Godwin's Law, since there was no comparison being made, but my point remains. Even Nazi Germany believed in evil. The Logical Argument for the Existence of God from the Existence of Evil: If it is recognizable that evil does exist (even if your definition of it is different that the person next to you) then we are aware that the world is not the way that it should be. If the world is not the way that it should be, then there must be a way the world ought to be. If there is a way the world ought to be, there must have been an original "design plan". If there was a "design plan" there must be a designer. If there is a designer, he/she/it must be all-powerful, for it created the world, and all-good, for evil is a departure from his/her/its plan. If a being is all-powerful, or omnipotent, and all-good, or omnibenevolent, then it must be God. It is recognizable that evil exists. Therefore God must exist.
The existence of evil proves God must exist

ARGUMENTS:"Sure, they may believe that they can steal from others, but if you were to steal from them, or harm them, or treat them negatively in any way, they would surely say you were wrong for doing so.""Southern plantation owners may have viewed their cruel treatment of slaves as ok, but if someone stole one of their slaves, they viewed that as wrong. Both people groups committed action which we would declare heinous, but they approved of, but both groups still believed certain things were wrong."My opponent has just eviscerated his own case that the "existence of evil proves God exists." My opponent has just shown it is "we," the homosapiens who determines what is "right" or "wrong." Not once, has my opponent proven how God has deemed what is "evil" and what is "good." My opponent has shown according to his very reasoning, that "we" selectively choose what is "right" and "wrong.""As my opponent has already fulfilled Godwin's Law, they are correct, many German soldiers had no problem with murdering Jews, but when Russians raped their women, they viewed that as wrong, or evil. "Caught in LIE #01. Where am I comparing anyone to the Nazis? A petty attempt at distraction and a failure at understanding Godwin's Law. "I challenge my opponent to find one society in all of world history that has no concept of right and wrong, or good and evil."I don't have to prove anything related to the concept of "right" or wrong" because I never asserted nor denied the concept. I only questioned it.LIE BY PRO:"As my opponent has already fulfilled Godwin's Law"Godwin's Law: "Godwin's law (or Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies)[1][2] is an Internet adage asserting that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1"[2][3]—R03; that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler or Nazism.[1]"[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
The existence of evil proves God must exist

If I were to boil down my opponent's objection, it is simply, "evil is subjective so how can it prove anything?" That is true. The opinion of whether something is right or wrong varies from person to person, society to society, but still nearly every person believes that stealing from them is wrong. Sure, they may believe that they can steal from others, but if you were to steal from them, or harm them, or treat them negatively in any way, they would surely say you were wrong for doing so. As my opponent has already fulfilled Godwin's Law, they are correct, many German soldiers had no problem with murdering Jews, but when Russians raped their women, they viewed that as wrong, or evil. Southern plantation owners may have viewed their cruel treatment of slaves as ok, but if someone stole one of their slaves, they viewed that as wrong. Both people groups committed action which we would declare heinous, but they approved of, but both groups still believed certain things were wrong. I challenge my opponent to find one society in all of world history that has no concept of right and wrong, or good and evil.
The existence of evil proves God must exist

DEFINITIONS & ASSOCIATIONS:Evil: "Profoundly immoral and wicked[1]"[1]http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...INTRODUCTION & PREMISES:I as Con will refute my opponent's claim that the existence of evil proves God exist. My opponent has the burden of proof since he is affirming the resolution. Therefore, Pro must show us that without a doubt that the existence of evil proves the existence of god.ARGUMENTS: #1. The existence of evil does not corroborate the existence of God.Evil is an adjective which can be applied relative to each individual. For example, my opponent and I may find human trafficking to be "evil"(I hope he does) but does the trafficker consider what he is doing "evil[1]?" In the United States. people will often consider the enslavement of Africans "evil[2]." Did the slave owners themselves who owned slaves consider themselves "evil?" After all, let us not forget many of America's founding fathers owned slaves[3]. People often consider the NASDP and Hitler to be evil. But how many of their German supporters actually considered them "evil[4]?"[1]http://www.fbi.gov...[2]http://www.history.com...[3]http://www.smithsonianmag.com...[4]http://www.johndclare.net...In all of the cases of alleged "evil," there were two parties both which are homosapien. One side says someone is "evil" and the other side is the side that is deemed "evil." If "evil" is presented to us both voices of human beings, how does the concept of evil have to do prove the existence of god?
Black lives do not matter to #BlackLivesMatter

The movement #BLM or #BlackLivesMatter is a political activist movement supposedly for campaigning against the violence towards black people - as well as broader issues like racial profiling and racial inequalities within the justice system (in the US). I for one do not believe this is true, or if it is then the movement is clearly misguided. Therefore I am for the statement: "Black lives do not matter to #BlackLivesMatter".