BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Whether safe sex should be promoted through education at schools.

1) i understand what your saying, what do you Mean by having The option if learning it? Accord ding to you, there's no option of learning it because if they teach it at a school they would teach it to everyone 2) even if they do teach this in which in my case when I was in highschool I knew about it, many of us don't think and still do things like have sex with out protection not thinking about pregnancies or STDS 3 ) therefore they shouldn't teach it at school .
Whether safe sex should be promoted through education at schools.

Every person is different, what may be the right and perfect time for some may not be so much for others. That is why we cannot just expect all of the kids to start being sexually active around the same age just because it is easier to. Teenagers should be taught that having sex is a very serious thing, that it isn't a game and explain to them the very serious outcomes of unsafe sex. Just imagine all of the unwanted pregnancies and STDs related cases that would end. I completely agree that this is a very sensitive topic and it would be so perfect for parents to take the time and explain to their kids the importance of safe sex, but the reality is that most parents do not do it. Some parents do not even have a good relationship with their kids and that creates zero trust between them to converse about sex much less about safe sex. There are also other parents who straight forward just do not feel comfortable talking to their kids about such a sensitive topic and to be honest they may not have all the answers and information that a professional can provide. Safe sex should be promoted through education at schools.
Whether safe sex should be promoted through education at schools.

1) Contraception was the most popular topic that parents said should be covered in sex education lessons, followed by puberty, homosexuality and sexually transmitted infections. Sex in General is a very sensitive topic and can bring curiosity to a child/Teenager to do things that they probably aren't even ready for. 2) This is a sensitive subject and parents have their own way to approach it and want to control what their children know, even more so at a young age. 3) therefore it should not be taught in schools,
Whether safe sex should be promoted through education at schools.

In America, education is considered a human right. Parents are not necessarily expected to take it into their hands to teach their kids about history or math so the government gives the kids the opportunity to learn about many different things. Why should safe sex be any different than any other subject? I personally believe that in its everyday life a person would most likely need to know how to perform safe sex than how to solve a quadratic equation, if not then just as important. We cannot automatically expect parents to teach their kids about safe sex because what if they never explain the whole concept? the problems that have already been caused by parents not having proper talks about safe sex with their kids are extremely and shamelessly high. Young adults should not be expected to wait until marriage to have sexual relations. They should be encouraged but in the world in which we live in today, let's be honest, they cannot be expected to. and therefore not teach them about safe sex would be barbaric. We should start now before is too late; before more kids start suffering from STDs that they were not even aware of to begin with, or before its too late and kids start dropping out of school to become teen parents and let's not even get into the topic of the psychological effect abortion has on young women. This taboo of talking about sex to young adults has to stop for their own good and that is why, once again, I believe sex should be promoted through education at schools.
Whether safe sex should be promoted through education at schools.

1) How is it the governments place to teach kids about safe sex at School? Parents should be the ones to talk to their children about this.its their Job, some do not feel comfortable having their kids learn this. School should be a place of learning and focusing on your future, not on how to put on a condom! Teaching the kids about sex and practicing safe sex is just feeding them the idea that if you use contraception there is no consequences for your actions! 2) they should be abstinence till marriage, might be difficult but possible to not cause STDS and prevent pregnancies. 3) therefore, safe sex should not be promoted or advertised through education at schools.
Whether safe sex should be promoted through education at schools.

1) Now more than ever young men and women have been suffering from numerous STDs and teen parenthood still remains as one of the most important issue of the younger generation, therefore It is very important for young adults to learn about the many sexual transmitted diseases that exists and how to avoid becoming parents at a young age; they should have the option of learning the Information, statistics, and treatment guidelines of STDs as well as how to take good care of themselves to avoid any unwanted pregnancies and they both can be achieved by teaching kids, as early as it is convenient about safe sex. Teach them why it is important and how to perform it. 2) Although it is understandable that abstinence is the best way to go, unfortunately the sexual desire of many teens cannot be controlled- there is a point when a young teen becomes aware of this fundamental desire to be part of something or someone special and the experimenting begins and it is important that when this happens they understand what it's the right thing to do. C) Therefore, safe sex should be promoted through education at schools.
I am richer than my opponent

I will prove that I am richer than my opponent. First, allow me to establish the structure of how this debate will proceed.Vocabulary:Rich - Having an abundance of materialistic wealth, money, and capitalRicher - Being more rich than the oppositionRules: My opponent can lie In fairness, I am allowed to lie too (probably won't need to though) ;) Any resources can be used to prove a point Vulgarity and trash talk is allowed, but spam is not No one may fabricate the voting process through malicious coding or multiple accounts Violation of any of these rules results in automatic defeat Rounds: Round 1) Acceptance of debate Round 2) Life story/accomplishments Round 3) Reasoning why you are richer than opponent Round 4) Further arguing; pointing out false claims/exaggerations Round 5) Counter arguing round 4 and wrap up (no new arguments allowed) Voting basis: The voter will vote on the person who they believe is richer.
I am richer than my opponent

I would like to end on a shorter note and explain to all voters why they should vote for my arguments over my opponents. What this debate boils down to in the end, is simply whether or not my opponents story was more believable than my own. The biggest problem with my opponents arguments are that he had fled to Canada, used 130million dollars of fraudulent money that somehow wasn't seized by investigative forces. And then re-entered the country after being involved in an illegal investment firm. I strongly believe that the refutations made for these arguments were really weak. My opponent dismissed the idea completely and simply said that he wasn't under anyones radar. Seriously? My story was a lot more realistic and believable. In response to the arguments made by my opponent in R5, I would like to ask voters to disregard them completely. The outline of this debate was made clear, NO NEW ARGUMENTS in R5. Seeing as how my opponent has violated his own terms I ask that voters give me conduct also. (Also, the list posted by my opponent is inaccurate and has missed many major purchases by google. For any voter who is more curious just look it up and see for yourself) VOTE CON. -Doug
Homosexuals on kids TV shows

This debate should be impossible to accept. I don't want troll or someone not looking for a real debate accepting this. Comment or message me if you are interested. This is debating open homosexual relationships or people being featured on shows directed to an audience 8+. You don't have to be homophobic to accept this debate. I can see both sides. I have done this debate before but a troll accepted and reasonable debaters were afraid of being called homophobes. There will be 4 rounds of this debate: 1. Acceptance after I have chosen someone to take part in this debate. 2. Opening arguments 3. Rebuttals/New arguments 4.
The God Trinity is a Fallacy

1. The Absolute Creator(God) can not have a relative existance(god in human form) 2. God can not be composed of parts(god, Jesus, and Holy Spirit) 3. The belief that because Jesus did not have a human father, therefore he Must be the divine son of the creator. Adam has more right to claim god as Father because he was the first human. 4. Biblical record is not a preserved historical text and therefore Can not be proven as an absolute authority claiming the divinity of Jesus 5. The Quran, a historically preserved linguistic miracle of divine speech That categorically rejects partners with god(ie trinity) and entitles Jesus as the messiah and prophet of god
Bisexuality

Initially I would like to address a few points in the opening argument and invitation "If you were getting married to the guy/gal of your dreams would you want people staying away from you like you were a weird disease?" Of course no one wants people to stay away from them like that but research shows diseases are higher with homosexuality. - Homosexuals only account for about 5% of the population at the most. - In 2008, men who have sex with men (MSM) accounted for 63% of primary and secondary syphilis cases in the United States. ( The National Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC) (National Aids Trust, NAT) - MSM are 17 times more likely to develop anal cancer than heterosexual men. (The National CDC and Prevention) (NAT) - CDC data released 2010 National STD Prevention Conference: There are 522 to 989 cases of HIV per 100,000 MSM, compared to 12 cases in other men and 13 cases per 100,000 women. The primary and secondary syphilis rate among MSM is over 46 times higher than the rate among other men, and over 71 times higher than among women. - 78% of homosexuals are affected by STDs (Rueda, E. "The Homosexual Network.") If homosexuals are treated like they have a disease unfortunately research shows that is likely to be the case, they most likely do have a disease. Although there is less divorce there is greater diseases that affect everyone around them. For example, It takes approximately $300,000 to take care of each AIDS victim, so thanks to the promiscuous lifestyle of homosexuals, medical insurance rates have been skyrocketing for all of us (Kaifetz, J. "Homosexual Rights Are Concern for Some). Here are some verses: Romans 1:24-27,Leviticus 18:22,1 Corinthians 6:9-10,Romans 1:27,Jude 1:7,Genesis 1:28,Romans 12:2. I can provide more but I am curious did you just use judging in the Bible, out of context, to prove a point or do you really understand scripture? Next round I will mention more negative affects on children and scripture verses
Bisexuality

The situation I used was real and the girls did not come on to one another. They were just opening a line of communication with each other and their friends. You may use the Bible in your argument, it would be greatly appreciated if you site the information. There are many positive effects bisexuality has on society. States with legalized gay marriage have a lower divorce rate than the ones who don't by at least 20%. Massachusetts was the first states to legalize gay marriage and they have the lowest divorce rates in the country.
Bisexuality

I am a Christian who believes that homosexuality and bisexual behavior are both immoral and wrong. However, since this is your debate I will let you decide if you want me to use the Bible as a source or not except to address that judging aspect of your argument. In your last paragraph, of questions there is so many scenarios that fit into that situations. Did the person come onto you, did they just say it........ This would probably play into my reaction. If they just said it, I will nicely tell them no. However, we might hang out less for obvious reason and it could be more their choice than any. My point is we cannot say and it is different in every situation. I look forward to hearing your reasoning more and and having an interesting debate. Thanks! My arguments will include the negative affects homosexuality and bisexuality has on society, the individuals, and more just for an insight.
Bisexuality

Bisexuality is not wrong. It should not be shunned. Being bisexual is not something you can change, and you are often born with it. It is sometimes a choice, but it is a choice due to love for one another. If you were getting married to the guy/gal of your dreams would you want people staying away from you like you were a weird disease? I know a girl who's best friend had a crush on her. She felt the same way toward her best friend so they told two of their other friends. One friend was perfectly fine with it and didn't any differently. But the 2nd girl never looked at either of the best friends again in the same way. How do you think that effects a person's way or feeling of expressing themselves? It makes it harder to be themselves. I think it is wrong to think of another person as evil or weird to be gay or bi-. What would you do if you knew someone of the same sex who liked you? Would you tell them to back off? Would you tell the nicely you didn't feel the same way, or would you feel the same? Don't judge that person who lives next door to you. Live without judging. If you are one of those people who don't like gays because the bible tells you to. Then look closer at the book; it will tell you not to judge, and by not liking them just because they're gay is judging.
Abortion

Abortions effect the human body of a women in many ways. After a women gets an abortion they can have bad abdominal pain, nausea, internal bleeding, infections, damages to the organs, high fevers, and even deaths. This shows that abortions are risky to a women and not only can they cause the death of their fetus but also of themselves if their body can't handle it. http://americanpregnancy.org...
Abortion

Abortion is about allowing woman the right to make choices about when they want to have children in relation to their age, financial stability & relationship stability. It is the not the place of government to legislate against woman's choices. Women should not be forced to keep a child if they do not want it. For example, if a woman conceives a child then the couple become divorced, the woman should not have to keep the child because she needs to get back on her feet without the burden of having to raise a child as a single mother. http://abortion.procon.org...
Abortion

A fetus at about 20 weeks feels pain so while the women is receiving an abortion the fetus is going through pain and is helpless. This is putting an end to a life in a harmful and painful way. Also abortion reduces the chances of women adopting children. About 80% of women abort babies who are suppose to have Down syndrome which shouldn't happen because people with Down syndrome contribute to society in many ways. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 protect people with disabilities so they can have a long and full filling life. This means that there is no reason for women to abort. http://abortion.procon.org... Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as Amended , ada.gov, Sep. 25, 2008
Abortion

Making laws against abortion, will never stop abortions. All it will do is make abortions less safe. Women will get an abortion either way if they really want it. The only thing that changes is more women die. Every year 78,000 women die from an unsafe abortion. Women who become pregnant from rape should not be forced to keep the child. Odds are 1 in 3 women will be a victim of rape or incest. that is almost 33% of women. They should not be forced to carry around a reminder to the horrors that occurred to her. Also if you are really against abortion, people should be educated about safe sex and lower the cost of birth control. But Pro-Life supporters are also against teaching things like this in school. So if they really want to lower abortions they should be for these things. http://amplifyyourvoice.org...
Abortion

59% of women have abortions and have already had a previous childbirth. If they were able to care for their previous child then they should be able to care for their second. They should be able to care for their second child because women in there 20's are more likely to get an abortion than girls who are 15-19. This means that the women getting abortions are older and it's wrong for them to have an abortion since they should be more responsible and understand the concept of sex better. These women in there 20's have more access to protection than these younger girls. https://www.guttmacher.org...
Civilians Should Not Be Able to Own Guns of Any Kind

You say that the Constitution does not necessarily condone gun ownership. In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government. Statistics prove that there is no correlation between crime and gun ownership. For example, (http://www.dailymail.co.uk...) proves that Honduras has the highest homicide rate in the world, even though it has extremely restrictive gun laws that do not allow citizens to carry guns without permission of local authorities. Switzerland, however, has an extremely low crime rate at 0.7 per one hundred thousand citizens, even though it requires for all adult males to own guns. In Israel some teachers carry assault rifles, and there are no massacres there. This interactive map(http://www.cato.org...) shows how thousands of crimes each year are halted by gun carrying civilians. Gun laws will only take away guns from law abiding citizens who are not going to use their guns for crime. After all, by definition criminals will not follow the new gun laws and will be able to freely kill if they can manage to evade the outnumbered policemen. In conclusion, guns do not cause crime. In fact, they are a great help in reducing it. Next I shall give an overview of all my points and conclude.
Civilians Should Not Be Able to Own Guns of Any Kind

These phrases: "right of the people peaceably to assemble," "right of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people" all refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the state.
Civilians Should Not Be Able to Own Guns of Any Kind

Guns allow people to defend themselves, both from the State and from each other. Without guns in the hands of the people they are extremely vulnerable to any kind of tyrannical government. Note that every genocide in the past century has been preceded by efforts to disarm the population. Adolf Hitler said at a dinner talk on April 11 1942: "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty." Josef Stalin, the sole leader of the Soviet Union from 1924 to 1953, said: "If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves." There have been many cases in history where a gun bearing people have managed to overturn a tyrannical and abusing government. For example, during the 18th Century the undemocratic British refused the Americans a vote in parliament and imposed heavy taxes. Thanks to their guns they were able to win independence for themselves. Even today there are still many Hitlers. Take the corrupt governments in North Korea, China, arguably Russia, South East Asia, Somalia, Nigeria, Kenya, South America. We cannot even guarantee that the West will experience its own dictators (like Donald Trump). If the people are defenceless and there are enough mindless sheep among the masses, then there will be nothing to stop them. The right to overthrow an abusive government that does not represent the people is extremely fundamental. However, guns also bring other natural and God given rights. For example, do I have the right to protect myself and my family from a man who kicks down my door and threatens to kill them? Does a woman have the right to defend herself from a gang of rapists? And no, people cannot defend themselves without guns. Look at the above example. A woman attacked by three rapists naturally needs a firearm to defend herself. I end my argument with this final quote from Adolf Hitler, just to show that the people will always need defending. "To conquer a nation first disarm its citizens." Next I shall show how guns do not cause crime.
Civilians Should Not Be Able to Own Guns of Any Kind

I'm afraid it's just not that simple. Here's a summary of my points. -Self defense is a natural right and only can be achieved by guns(for example, a woman attacked by three men naturally needs a gun to defend herself). - If the main body of the people does not have guns the government can do whatever it likes(for example Hitler disarming the Jews before the Holocaust). -There are many incidents where citizens with guns stop a criminal(see my first argument for source). -In America the mass shootings are not the fault of the guns but of the social problems(poverty, lack of equality and education, etc.). http://www.cato.org... -In Switzerland all adult males are required to have guns but they have the lowest homicide rate on Earth while Honduras bans guns(without permission from the authorities) and they have the highest crime. In conclusion, banning guns would remove a fundamental right(self defense) while rendering the people powerless against both the government and criminals. I have shown that guns are not the cause of crime.