BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
THBT important decisions about children"s health should be made by medical professionals and not by

I personally believe that children's (child being under 21) health decisions (being defined as any medical procedure or action) should be made by medical professionals (being defined as liscenced doctors in the concerned field, generally to pediatricitons), not by the parents(parents being the legal guardians of the child). Please accept my definitions for what they are, since I am interested in debating the resolution, not its interpretations. Also, I would enjoy constructive critisicm, for although I have debate experience, this is my first tiime using this site.
I blame all of you

I blame all of you You know, I was circumcised And I blame all of you for that You are the reason I molest children You will never stop me I will never stop molesting children I was bullied too I blame all of you Little bit of insults here Little bit of bullying there And a part of me is lost forever I blame all of you You are the reason I have Obsessive compulsive disorder You are the reason why I am addicted To molesting children You will never stop me I will never stop molesting children Even when I die I will still molest children And I also blame God Because he created your free will Which you used to attack me I also blame him for ordering Circumcision in the Bible And I blame all of you You are the reason I molest children
Both Empiricism and Rationalism are flawed views of Episteomology

This is a debate regarding Rationalism and Empiricism, two directly conflicting ways of gaining knowledge and of looking at the world. I will be arguing that though each of these theories have obvious pros to them, there are enough cons that we can confidently say that Empiricism and Rationalism are not the answer. I will not be arguing over what is the answer, just that these two theories are not.
Batman (with no additional weapons or armor) would defeat Bruce Lee in a street fight

first off I would like to say that if batman is in a fight with a real life person he need to have more realistic but still impressive abilities. but again your greatly underestimating the abilities of bruce lee. but again batman wont go full force because he is unwilling to kill so even if he knows 127 types of martial arts he wont go all out. . http://www.budoseek.net... . http://en.wikipedia.org... this debate has been fun.
Batman (with no additional weapons or armor) would defeat Bruce Lee in a street fight

This is no specific batman. It is just a general batman from the comics. Even if you say bruce lee can bench 500 ( no source), that is still a 500 pound difference from Batman's 1000 pound bench press. You have proved nothing to me that he is even a better martial artist because batman mastered way more martial arts and fights way better people more frequently. As for what you said regarding that batman uses mostly his gadgets to defeat people, that isn't necessarily true. He has many times defeated super-powered opponents with his martial arts skills. Even without Batman's superior strength, he could still win in my opinion because of his superior speed, his superior martial arts background, and his superior experience. The batman in the comics as my previous source showed . http://batmanfeats.blogspot.com... can dodge bullets and I have heard of Bruce Lee doing no such feat. I cannot see any possibility for bruce lee to win because batman is better in every aspect. All of my opponents sources show that Bruce Lee is really good, but I have agreed with that from the start. None of his sources have refuted my arguments that Batman has accomplished those feats and far beyond. I had fun debating.
Batman (with no additional weapons or armor) would defeat Bruce Lee in a street fight

first I would like to say that batman only won his fights with people stronger than him because of his weapons not just his martial arts skills alone. that and heres a link about Bruce lee's speed. http://www.factfiend.com... but i also need to know which version of batman you're talking about. theres more than one version of batman each differs from another in some way. but other than that Bruce lee could bench press 500 Ibs thats only a 100 pound difference so Bruce lee could with his speed and strength win a fight against batman. keep in mind if your using a live action version of batman he cant chase cars but even in the versions of batman ive seen hes never chased a car on foot not even in the cartoon version have I seen that. I am just saying that batman's size and strength doesnt automatically mean he will win and rather hes actually stronger than Bruce lee is debatable because again batman wont go full force he can kill allot of his villans with his bear hands but doesn't so in that sense he stays very restrained. but also most of batman's villans aren't greater in strength because most of them are human and without superpowers.(exept for clay face and poison ivy and a few others)
Batman (with no additional weapons or armor) would defeat Bruce Lee in a street fight

Just because batman doesn't kill doesn't mean that he wouldn't go full force until Bruce lee was incapacitated. Con tries to say there is not much of a strength difference, but I beg to differ. Batman can bench over 700 lbs what Lee can bench. If that is not a major strength difference then what is? http://batmanfeats.blogspot.com... Also, I would not say Lee is faster than batman by any means. Batman is faster than an Elite sprinter and he has been shown chasing down speeding cars. Also, for quickness, he has been shown to dodge bullets and catch arrows from green arrow in the air. http://batmanfeats.blogspot.com... Batman is just a better fighter than lee. As I said he completely mastered 127 martial arts and has way more fighting experience. Con posted a link that did show that Bruce Lee used to fight often. I find this interesting however Batman did this everyday protecting the streets of Gotham. He has also fought many individuals with super powers and held his own. I do not believe Bruce Lee could do that. http://writing.wikinut.com...
Batman (with no additional weapons or armor) would defeat Bruce Lee in a street fight

but first off the weight and height don't make to much difference strength does even if Bruce lee is smaller that can give him and advantage he would have more agility and be able to move faster than batman Bruce lee was a strong man no doubt about it. that and batman is limited because hes not willing to kill so he wont go full force ( it of course depends on the version of batman but about 80% don't kill on purpose) plus hes allot stronger than you might think so he could even if hes a smaller guy could do enough damage to get a knock out hit on batman. but just to bring this up Bruce lee was as involved with his martial arts career as he was with his acting one he did martial arts many years before his acting career even began. that and Bruce lee actually did allot of fighting at tournaments and even on the streets. . http://listverse.com...
Batman (with no additional weapons or armor) would defeat Bruce Lee in a street fight

Here is the scenario Batman and Bruce Lee walk into a vacant space such as a parking lot facing one another. Neither fighter has any weapons or armor (only their body) and they are both in street clothes. This scenario is also assuming neither fighter will run away, there are no foreign objects available to use against one another, and that Batman is brought to life in our universe along with a version of Bruce Lee in his prime. There are no rules and it is a fight until one of them taps out, or is beaten dead/unconscious. The rules for the debate are 1st round accept 2nd round - 3rd round debate 4th round conclude No major foul language allowed and no semantics. I will be taking the side of Batman good luck.
Men should not have the ultimate decision in abortion.

How about a joke? So a blonde, a brunette, and a redhead just died and were at the steps of Heaven. God told them "there are 1000 steps to Heaven. On every step, I will tell you a joke, and if you don't laugh once you get to go to Heaven." The brunette lasted 14 steps before laughing, the redhead 35. The blonde stepped onto the 999 step and laughed. God said "I didn't even tell you the joke yet !" The blonde said "I know, I just got the first one".
Donald Trump should be our next president.

I accept your challenge. Since the burden of proof is on you to prove why he is best suited and why is policies are good, it lies on me only to refute your claims. And actually you saying that it is not a debate on the person who is better than Trump goes against your own debate, because you are trying to prove why Donald Trump is the BEST option for president and so for you to effectively prove this you have to prove that he is BETTER than any other candidate, or else you fail to prove your point. I will start my arguments in round 2.
Resolved: Capital Punishment is a beneficial policy

Elie Wiesel once said, "I do not believe any civilized society should be at the service of death. I don't think it's human to become an agent of the Angel of Death." There are multiple factors to be accounted for when deciding whether or not Capital Punishment is a beneficial policy. I negate the resolution that Capital Punishment is a beneficial policy and therefore believe that it is not beneficial and ultimately should not be practiced. I will introduce my argument first, then assess my opponent's. First and foremost, lethal injection is much more expensive than life in prison. Executions cost about 2 million dollars per person whereas life in prison is about 500,000 dollars. Neither one is particularly preferable in terms of cost. However, executions are about four times more expensive than life in prison. In a time when the economy is in swift economic downturn it is necessary to do something that is not only efficient, but does not cost the tax - payer an arm and a leg. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... Second, death sentences are handed down arbitrarily, not in a fair manner. Serial killers such as the infamous Gary Ridgway in Seattle who admitted killing 48 prostitutes and runaways got life in prison. An "angel of death" nurse in NJ who admitted killing 17 people got life. Meanwhile, mentally ill and impoverished murderers who could not afford good lawyers and did not warrant much media attention were given the death penalty. In Alabama, David Hocker was executed after a one-day trial. Not only is this ridiculous it goes against the constitution. His mental illness was not sufficiently described to the jury. Alabama also executed a 74-year-old man (James Hubbard) who had been on DR for 27 years and was beset by medical problems which would have probably soon caused his death by natural means: cancer, high blood pressure and the early stages of Alzheimers. In Texas, a man with schizophrenia was executed (Kelsey Patterson) even after the Board of Pardons and Paroles recommended clemency after learning of his time spent in mental hospitals and his unintelligible rambling. Third, the death penalty is not a deterrent of crime contrary to what many people believe, in fact crime rates have risen. In fact, the murder rate in the US is 6 times that of Britain and 5 times that of Australia. Neither country has the death penalty. Texas has twice the murder rate of Wisconsin, a state that doesn't have the death penalty. Texas and Oklahoma have historically executed the most number of death row inmates, yet in 2003 their state murder rates increased, and both have murder rates higher than the national average.
Resolved: Capital Punishment is a beneficial policy

Resolved: Capital Punishment is a beneficial policy I negate the resolution. Capital Punishment : "Capital punishment, the death penalty or execution, is the killing of a person by judicial process for retribution, general deterrence, and incapacitation. Crimes that can result in a death penalty are known as capital crimes or capital offences." http://en.wikipedia.org............ Beneficial : "something that promotes well-being" http://www.merriam-webster.com............ Policy: "a definite course or method of action selected from among alternatives and in light of given conditions to guide and determine present and future decisions" http://www.merriam-webster.com............ I'll defer to AFF for constructive.
Resolved: I am God's gift to women

"Just very briefly, in response to that, I will refer to my definition of "women". I clearly stipulated in there that it is to include "both plural and singular"." Women, by definition, is the plural of woman. Therefore, the singular of women would still be 'women', which is more than one. When one speaks in generalizations, they are generalized in the broadest possible way, making the proposition mean 'I am God's gift to all women,' 'to womankind,' etc. So the point that even if my opponent -is- a gift, he still cannot possibly be a gift to all women. In regards to my opponent's passages... So a woman must submit to her husband in all things, and the husband just has to make sure he supports her (through food and such). And he also has control over her body. OH, but he's supposed to love her, too. A gift is not conditional. A gift does its intended purpose regardless. A ribbon is always a ribbon, a shirt is always a shirt. A man, however, is not always loving, does not always have a wife, and does not always provide for a woman. If I were to receive a puppy on the condition I love him, and I did, that's wonderful, and it counts as a gift. IF, however, the puppy had rabies, bit me, scratched me, and ruined my life despite my love of him, the puppy would hardly be a gift. It would be more of a curse. God did not make men forced to be kind to women. That is the man's choice, and as God refrains from interfering with such things, there is no guarantee that a man will be a gift to a woman. So here's a little god, to provide for you (if he has a job), to honor you (if he remembers), and have control over your body. He's stronger than you, and he'll guide you whether you want his guidance or not. And you have to love him and be faithful to him regardless. A gift does not come with maybes. God made man, God made woman. Period. One is not a gift to the other from God. Women and men make gifts of themselves.
Resolved: I am God's gift to women

If a man and a woman shall become one, the woman's hardly getting a gift, is she? It's more "here's a husband, assume his identity and obey him for the rest of your life," which is like saying "Here's the gift of slavery. Aren't I generous?" as slavery is no true gift. Ephisians 5:22-23 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. Colossians 3:18 Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Also, you state that you are God's gift to women, but clearly only one woman can become your wife, making you a gift to "a woman" not "women". Or a gift to about 10 at the maximum. But hardly all women. Furthermore, God created men for an entirely different reason - to run the earth: "Let us make man in our own image according to our likeness. Let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over ALL the earth, and over everything that creeps or moves" (Genesis 1:26). If anything, women are a gift to men: "The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper fit for him. 21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; 22 and the rib which the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man." (Genesis 2:20-22).
Resolved: I am God's gift to women

The logic is really quite simple. God has commanded man to leave his parents, be united with his wife, and become one with her. This is made clear in the passage below. Note the usage "a man SHALL leave his....". Men have effectively been ordered to give up their "liberty" and become "one" with a woman. They have thus been GIVEN. Since I am a man (I can prove that if put to my proof, but would get banned from the site most likely), I have therefore been given to women (or a woman) in the above fashion. By God. Hence I am God's gift to women. Genesis 2:24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and shall become united and cleave to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
Resolved: I am God's gift to women

I am firmly convinced that I am God's gift to women. Since God is involved, this of course is a debate within the field of religion, specifically Christian in this case (although of course I am not a believer). Assumption: God exists as per the doctrines and writings of the Scriptures (Old and New Testament of course) Definition: "Women" is to be defined as human beings of the female gender (who were born female) of all ages and is to include both plural and singular. Anyone care to disprove this statement? nb: since the subject of this debate may be considered to be personal, I am happy to answer any (reasonable) questions in a private message so as to allow my opponent to decide the course of their argument
Nuclear energy is clean and safe

My first argument is that a nuclear reactor can't explode as a nuclear weapon. Nuclear weapons require uranium-235 or plutonium-239. When the nucleus splits, the huge energy comes from the enormous forces that hold the nucleus together. To split the nucleus of uranium, all you have to do is hit it gently with a neutron. When a nucleus is broken, the pieces fly apart with great energy. The energetic breakup is called fission. Typically, two large fission fragments and two additional neutrons fly out. The extra neutrons fissions in other nearby nuclei. Four mour neutrons emerge, followed by 8, 16, 32 and so on. Each doubling is called a generation. The whole process is called a chain reaction. The kinetic energy of the fission fragments is turned into heat, vaporizing all nearby material, and that's what makes the explosion. Well, the physics of the nuclear reactor is very similar to that od nuclear bombs, that why people fear them. In both, the energy is released from a chain reaction of uranium-235 or plutonium-239. The bomb uses doubling to get all the fission to take place in a millionth of a second. In contrast, the reactor uses a sustained chain reaction, with no doubling (I skip the explaination on how this works just to make the argument shorter, if you want i can explain it). In the reactor fission releases two or three neutrons, but on average only one of those goes on to hit another nucleus and trigger another fission, so the rate of reaction doesn't grow. Energy is released at a constant rate, heats water, and produces steam, which in turn runs a turbine that runs a generator that produces electricity. A nuclear reactor CANNOT explode like an atomic bomb. The physics reason for the safety of the nuclear power reactor is the fact that the presence of lots of the uranium-238 in the core means that the nuclear chain reaction will stop if the neutrons are not moderated. Unless the neutron are slowed down, they will be absorbed by uranium-238 and the chain reaction will cease. This are the physics involved in the nuclear power. I explained it as simply as I could and without making it to long to read it. To finish my argument, i would like to repeat my main idea: Nuclear reactor can't explode as an atomic bomb does.
Teleological Morality is Superior to Deontological Morality

I would agree that judging a persons intentions is harder than judging their actions. However, it is definitely worth it as we gain a better, more accurate insight into the moral judgement of the person. With teleological morality, there is a much larger scope for error in judgement. This is because the future is uncertain. A person may make a decision hoping that a certain situation occurs, but there is a chance something else will happen outside of the control of that person, much like my example of the person helping someone across the road (which went unrefuted, I'd like to add). In that example, we would judge that person immoral (using a teleological morality) when all he did was help someone cross the road. This shows why teleological morality is unreliable and unfair. My opponent said that deontological morality can't be used to "resolve moral disputes" . I feel this is ignoring one of the most important reasons for morality, which is to allow people to choose a moral course of action. This is important as, although people can disguise their intentions from others, they cannot disguise it from themselves. As for my opponents example, although the action was moral, his intention was not to help the people, it was to help himself. So yes, I would see him as a immoral (or at least not moral) man. Imagine the same situation, but this time the man is doing it to help others. He doesn't want any fame, and in fact tries to stay anonymous. Out of those two men, which would you say has a better moral compass? To conclude: It is illogical to judge someone's actions on the outcome, as the future is not predictable, meaning uncontrollable events can happen that makes the action look bad. Deontological morality is very easy to use when making decisions of your own which is the most important part of morality. If two men did the same thing, one for personal gain and one to help others, there is a clear difference in the morality of the men.
Teleological Morality is Superior to Deontological Morality

I apologize for forfeiting the last round and delaying this one. I appreciate my opponent only posting short arguments. I shall do the same. Contention One: Resolvability The point of any moral framework is determine what is moral and what isn't, otherwise you haven't got a moral framework. So obviously, we need to be able to use this framework in our lives to resolve moral disputes, otherwise the framework ay as well not exist. Because of this, a framework needs to be able to be capable of being used based on observation by humans. Humans cannot observe the intentions of other humans, but we can observe the consequences of human behavior. So right off the bat, teleological morality is superior because we can actually use it. Subpoint A: Determination One might counter this by saying that we could simply ask people their intentions. The problem with this is that people can simply lie about their intentions, whereas our observations about reality are uncontradictable. Contention Two: Intention Another problem with deontological morality is that it turns actions immoral based on intention. To illustrate how silly that is, imagine a very rich man donate millions of dollars to charity to feed homeless and starving people. He may simply be trying to improve his image, but does that mean that these homeless and starving are not being fed? That it is immoral to feed millions if your ultimate intention is to further your own glory? I think that the people being fed ares imply happy to be fed. I hope that this example illustrates why determining based on intention is silly.