BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The history of the world is just made of biographies of great men.

I totally understand and I agree with your definitions. Sorry if I didn't clarify myself, but I am not that experienced in written debate. The history of the world is not JUST made by biographies of great men, actually there are a lot of other factors that have contributed to the history of the world. Some of those factors are natural disaster, such as hurricanes, tsunami's like right now in Japan, earthquakes, ice ages and even a whole society, not only great men. I will use your example of the American Civil War. The Civil war as you mentioned lasted from 1861-1865, in which several Southern states tried to secede from the US. In here I can rove that this states are not ONLY great men, but instead a whole society made by "great" and average people; yes led by a great men, but by reading the biography of this man you cannot read about how other people live, or how people thought, etc; instead you read about what that "great" man thought and did and just that. When you said that in the biographies of Ulysess S. Grant and Abraham Lincoln the Civil war would e included, well obviously yes, but your missing that you wouldn't read about the complete Civil War, but instead only what they saw or thought, but not the troops point of view or maybe how the weather affected, nor the geography, etc. I can prove this by giving you the link to Abraham Lincoln's and Ulysses' biography that was posted on the government's web page, which I can reassure you it is a very reliable source. . http://www.whitehouse.gov... . http://www.whitehouse.gov... As you can now see, it does mention the civil war, but it does not mention how people reacted, or if climate intervened, etc. No I want to write another short example to prove that History in not JUST made of the biographies of great men. My example is the Ice Age. I would like my opponent to mention the name of one great man that was part of the Ice Age, that by reading their biography you can read about what happened and why during the ice age. I don't recall there being such.
The history of the world is just made of biographies of great men.

I would like to start by the clarifying some terms before we start this debate. Biography: The story of someone's life. . http://dictionary.reference.com... By history of the world I'm referring to the history of the world even before men. I would like for Pro to start this debate because I'm used to start a debate with the support team's argument so that's why I would like for my opponent to start with his argument. thanks! !! ! !
Punishing 17 Year Old Children

Glad you asked. Here is my answer #1 The First Amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion. The pastor has chosen as part of his ministry distilling advice on what he believes to be the proper way to correct disobedient children and teenagers.. A way which he finds clearly spelled out in the Bible in various places. #2 The pastor does not believe what he is advocating if practiced as he advises is not child abuse as is understood in current case law. The mere fact of using a switch to punish a 17 year old child or any child for that matter is not in and of itself abuse. It is a myth that the use of an implement, a switch, belt, paddle etc is against the law and using them is child abuse. It is not and case law-- that is decisions by appellate courts generally agree it is not abuse. What is abuse is what could result from the use of an implement if not handled properly while corporal punishment is being administered. A heavy leather belt can cause serious bruising that is abuse- a switch on bare skin can cut the skin-- each of those things is abuse-- but merely using the implements is not #3 Yes a parent who follows the pastor's advice runs the risk of ending up in jail but only if they follow it no further than deciding to use corporal punishment. Additional advice is given on how to use the switch when punishing a teenager. Let me give you the name of the church-- I think it is a real church located in Nebraska-- La Vista Church of Christ,
Punishing 17 Year Old Children

It may be the advice of most pediatrician, social workers, psychologists,, psychiatrists, and other experts for parents to not use corporal punishment when correcting their children but it is not what the law requires--until you get to the part otherwise hurt-- that's against the law. But hurt is defined as to what it is and what it is not. What is abuse are bruises, lacerations, contusions, fractures, internal injuries. But redness on the buttocks is not If one is going to abuse a child through unreasonable or excessive corporal punishment one doesn't have to use an implement. The open palm can also work. Here is the point. The pastor differs from most of the experts in that he believes the use of a switch to punish a older teenager is both effective and not abusive as long as the totality of his advice is followed. I don't know if it is effective or that there aren't better ways but it is not child abuse as defined by current statutory and case law.
Punishing 17 Year Old Children

First of all, it IS child abuse to hit, slap, or otherwise hurt a person under 18. And if a parent or legal guardian thinks hurting their child as a form of punishment is okay, then they need it institutionalize themselves and child services needs to be called. There is always a better alternative to punish a child without abuse. If there was anything that the child did that he or she actually deserved to be hit, then the parents should blame themselves by raising them that way. I personally don't believe that anything a child does can be fixed by hitting them. It just makes them more violent and it makes them hate their parents or guardians. Anything as bad as hitting your child the law could justify.
Was Stallin guilty of war crimes during WWII

Having searched around for a while, and being initially unable to find anyone with the specified name, 'Stallin', I eventually found out that it was this guy on facebook : http://www.facebook.com... I am not sure I can prove that he didn't commit any war crimes during WWII, but I am sure that Pro has every intention of proving that he did, him being the instigator as well as being Pro. For clarity's sake, here is synopsis of WWII: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Hillary Clinton (Pro) or Bernie Sanders (Con)

Apology accepted. I'll jump right into refutation. 1. "Clinton has been favored by 56% of people." Eh, that figure is subject to change in the next poll. Also, it is important to remember the demographics. Mostly older Democrats (Pre-1990s) are supportive of the Clintons because of name-recognition. By contrast, Sanders is especially supported by America's young (i.e. Millennials). 2. "Secretary Clinton has changed her stances on some issues." I forgot to mention that Clinton also voted for the disastrous Iraqi War. Sen. Sanders - true to his integrity - voted against President Bush's invasion. Historically, Clinton is a poll-follower. She has consistently changed her position as the polls change. If Roe were unpopular, I suspect that Clinton would be against it as well. 3. "Clinton was not necessarily holding the same opinion." No, she did hold the same opinion. There is video evidence that Clinton - up until 2004! - opposed same-sex marriage entirely. [1] Ironically, Bill Clinton now says that DOMA is unconstitutional. Oh the hypocrisy! [2] 4. "Clinton has been a supporter of marriage equality for years." Allowing for homosexual sex in the military is not the same as supporting marriage equality. The difference should be self-evident. Again, video evidence confirms that Clinton recently flip-flopped in accordance with changing polls. 5. "Mrs. Secretary look corrupted even though she is not." Ah ha... How do you reconcile the exorbitant speaking fees? [3] How do you reconcile her statements against Wall St. while she simultaneously accepts large political donations from Wall St.? Even if Clinton is not actually corrupt, her lack of integrity on the issues is enough reason to distrust her and oppose her presidential campaign. I would go further and assert that the very appearance of corruption is disgraceful to the presidential office. Do you think our allies will trust her? Do you think our enemies will fear her? The correct answer is a great resounding "NO!" I look forward to Round 4. [1] (Please ignore the profanity) [2]http://www.salon.com... [3]http://abcnews.go.com...
Hillary Clinton (Pro) or Bernie Sanders (Con)

Greetings, I apologize to the Con for my delay in posting my rebuttal. In his opening arguments, Mr. Speaker said, "By contrast, Hilary Clinton has been inconsistent on these two issues. That would explain why Sen. Clinton has been called "dishonest" by voter both in 2008 and now." Secretary Clinton has been favored by 56% of people, while Senator Sanders has been favored by 50% of people. [1] I would like to acknowledge that Secretary Clinton has changed her stances on some issues. However, I would like to note that Mrs. Secretary did not let her changes of her stances affect her decisions as Secretary of State. Secretary Clinton has changed her stances on many issues during the time that she was not holding the role of Secretary of State. Secretary Clinton has not changed her stance on many extremely important issues. For example, in 2006, Secretary Clinton said that agrees with the decision in Supreme Court Case Roe v. Wade. [2] [3] Mr. Speaker also said, "Regarding marriage equality, Sen. Sanders was one of a few members in Congress to vote against President Bill Clinton's discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act." First, I would like Mr. Speaker to acknowledge that just because Secretary Clinton"s husband was not a supporter of gay rights in 1996, Secretary Clinton was not necessarily holding the same opinion. [4] The Con also stated, "On marriage equality, Sen. Clinton is only a recent supporter, largely because public opinion now supports it." Secretary Clinton has been a supporter of marriage equality for years. She has said that "Fitness to serve in the military should be based on one"s conduct, not one"s sexual orientation." Secretary Clinton has also said that "One of Bill's first challenges as commander in chief became the promise he made during the campaign to let gays and lesbians serve in the military as long as their sexual orientation did not in any way compromise their performance or unit cohesion. I agreed with the commonsense proposition that the code of military conduct should be enforced strictly against behavior, not sexual orientation." [5] Despite the fact that Senator Sanders has many years of legislative experience, Secretary Clinton has been in scrutiny under the public eye for over 10 years. While Secretary Clinton has been accepting money from big corporations, she is not corrupted. Anti-Clinton Republicans have been trying to make Mrs. Secretary look corrupted even though she is not. [6] I look forward to hearing Mr. Speaker's rebuttal. [1] http://www.gallup.com... [2] http://www.ontheissues.org... [3] http://caselaw.findlaw.com... [4] https://www.govtrack.us... [5] http://www.ontheissues.org... [6] http://thedailybanter.com...
Hillary Clinton (Pro) or Bernie Sanders (Con)

I thank Mr. Speaker for accepting this challenge. My opening arguments will be brief but accurate. Hillary Clinton would serve as a better president than Bernie Sanders. Secretary Clinton has plans to make America a better place for the next generations of Americans. She has plans that can be put into action. For example, Secretary Clinton has plans to build upon the Affordable Care Act, which would save a lot of money. Senator Sanders is a socialist democrat. This is common knowledge. Socialism is a great ideology for countries like France, but not for the United States. Senator Sanders has plans to give free health care and college to all. All together, he would need to spend a lot of money to get his way. For every major spending bill, there is a corresponding tax plan. Senator Sanders will raise taxes on all big businesses, some of which have done nothing to deserve this prejudice. Senator Sanders would put a tax on workers" wage, which would make it nearly impossible for paid family and medical leave. Senator Sanders"s single-payer health care plan will drain more money than any of his other initiatives. To get the money for this program, the Senator would have to increase a variety of taxes. Senator Sanders would have to increase income taxes, and would need to create new tax brackets for millionaires and billionaires. And with all this, let us not forget that the US National Debt is at $19 Trillion and counting. Senator Sanders said, "we should look to countries like Denmark" and learn what they have accomplished from their working people." In Denmark, for every dollar earned, about 51 cents go towards taxes. However, Denmark is a much smaller country, so it is possible to do that. In the United States is too large for this to be possible. Secretary Clinton has an even better plan for debt-free college. In this plan, secretary Clinton would get debt-free college tuition, just as Senator Sanders would like. However, this plan would make students still contribute towards their education, but through work, or other activities on campus. This way, the students get a debt-free college tuition, but also help the American economy. Senator Sanders wants to "expand social security" for everyone by increasing payroll taxes. Secretary Clinton will improve social security for those "who need it most." Secretary Clinton will not increase payroll taxes to accomplish this goal. All in all, Hillary Clinton will be a better president than Bernie Sanders. Sources: 1. https://www.bostonglobe.com... 2. http://www.slate.com... 3.http://www.usdebtclock.org... 4.http://presidential-candidates.insidegov.com... I look forward to hearing Mr. Speaker"s opening arguments.
Hillary Clinton (Pro) or Bernie Sanders (Con)

This debate is whether Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders would be a better president. I will be arguing that Hillary Clinton would be a better president than Bernie Sanders. The con will be arguing that Bernie Sanders would be a better president than Hillary Clinton. This debate is focused on the two democratic candidates. Please stay on topic and do NOT change the topic to Democrats vs. Republicans. The rounds will be administered as followed: Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Opening Arguments Round 3: Rebuttal Round 4: Closing Arguments A few rules that both parties should follow: 1. Please use correct grammar 2. Please use reliable sources 3. At the end of each round, please type your sources for that round of the debate. Thank you to whoever accepts this challenge and good luck!
Girls being conscious of their body image is the medias fault

Great counter argument, will answer your argument right away!I would like to correct myself on one note, however, by using education as an argument I mean that our parents learn us to eat healthily and to exercise, which will automatically make us grow up as a normal sized person. Thing is that being normally sized is automatically being skinny. In this case skinny does not mean anorexic but skinny means normal, this idea is also integrated in our norms which is clearly visible on the boy's side, we need to have the magnificent "six-pack" else way this means we are not exercising. So skinny is automatically normal, anorexic is not however. I would like to bring another point of view on the matter yet again. Media: ( usually used with a plural verb ) the means of communication, as radio and television, newspapers,and magazines, that reach or influence people widely: The media are covering the speech tonight. As http://dictionary.reference.com... points out. What would be the benefits of the promoting of this be for the media? How does a paper, radio or television company gain anything from promoting those ads? Apart from the ad money, they make no indirect benefits out of this. What would be the benefits of the actual company sending out their ads? None, yet again, the weight does not influence the image of the product. I will expand this idea. If a girl sees this beautiful, stick skinny model, she will not relate to it and she will try to look like her because she thinks this is the norm. The company does not gain anything from this girl trying to get skinnier and slimmer, they do not get the benefits weigh watcher does have, not do they get any good publicity out of it. So they are not to blame, nor is the media for this. I do agree that there is indeed a problem with the image the girls have of themselves, but I do not think the media is to blame. The guilty of this is society in general, from parents to grandparents to employees and boys, not to forget the company leaders. Somehow the media and the clothing companies felt like there was a need for skinny models, but this idea did not come from themselves, this idea came from the society. Which automatically means society sent out a signal saying they are in need for skinny girls and they prefer it. Truth is beauty is something subjective, and unless a population has a great lack of critical thinking, they will not go for the obvious choices. A boy with a least bit of critic thinking will not go for the pretty one, especially if he knows she flirts. Then again, this way of thinking gets sparser these days, this causes the problem to expand and to make more girls feel socially impaired, while in fact, a healthy girl is far more enjoyable.As of the ads you pointed out, those are a side effect of the signal sent by society, and they try to take a piece of the pie. I wish you the exact same thing! Great debate overall and great conduct, very enjoyable opponent! Hopefully we will get in another debate!
Girls being conscious of their body image is the medias fault

Thank you for the answer to this debate. To make this debate progress I will try to take a whole other point of view on the matter (I will still answer your arguments afterwards).In the course of history, we have seen all sorts of trends, in the 19th century pale, fat woman were 'in' because this meant they were rich and did not work. In the first half of the 20th century the "pretty woman" was totally different, this changed again in the second half. Now in the 21st century the normal girl is a normal (not too skinny nor too fat) girl who has a decent overall ratio. We prefer a girl who is skinny not because the media tells us to but because our parents educated us this way. They have always taught us to eat healthily and to exercise, which automatically makes us prefer the skinnier girl because we can identify faster to her lifestyle since it fits in our educational scheme. I will now answer your arguments. The thin, pretty one is always admired more for rather simple reasons, she seems to take care of herself. This is only applicable to a certain level, all schools and boys have specific types of girls they would rather look at, the question is why they look at that specific type and not at another. This because she is nicer to look at, but does this mean the boy would rather talk to her or to the other, shy girl next to the pretty one? I am not that sure. In my closer circles I have asked what would be chosen first. The answer was the same, the pretty, skinny one is the model, but they would never, ever think about more, simply because they realise that that is only superficial. This for reasons I have mentioned before concerning education. Lets turn this debate around, imagine if the media would, tomorrow, decide that the new 'hot' are obese, hobo-looking girls. What do you think the reaction of the male population would be? Would they all change their images of the nice looking girl? I am afraid your media is a standalone in this case since most mainland tv and radio stations do not promote dieting, they do promote healthy eating which is something of a totally different order. I am honestly looking forward to your response.
Girls being conscious of their body image is the medias fault

Thank you for your answer and do not worry about the late reply! Yes I did the problem with the girls is the fault of the media, so I began by explaining the problem and how the media affects this. That's the problem though, often boys think that they are going for the normal weighted nice girls, but when teenage girls look at one and other it is ALWAYS the thin, pretty one that everybody admires including boys. Because of the media girls believe that all boys look for is image when in fact it is not. It is interesting to hear that of boys, but the fact of here (England) boys tend not to refer to a girl by her personality they would refer to her as her image, perhaps they would not refer to her weight, but they tend to find the thinner girls 'prettier', 'nicer' or 'better' again because of the media influence. You said decent looking which again means that looks are involved, which is again not surprising of corse referring to image, probably indirectly because of the media. In England many boys drool over women like Megan Fox for example. They have no idea what her personality is like, but she is a thin, made up, breasty woman. By the media spreading the word of how desirable this woman is; boys are influenced to desire her and girl then from the media and boys feel that this is how they should appear. Of corse their opinion has to be respected, but I would also like to add that BMI results do not accurately portray a said persons weight. For example my older brother is small, but incredibly muscular. His BMI says they he is grossly overweight, when in fact there is not an ounce of fact on his body, so not all BMI results are accurate to go on. So you think that image is not influenced by the media? You do not think that the media drives whats 'hot' and whats 'not'? Media in England promotes the same thing, but unfortunately many people are lazy, so would not bother to do that. The media instead also heavily promotes dieting. Thank you very much. I look forward to hearing your counter-argument.
Girls being conscious of their body image is the medias fault

I think you pretty much explained the problem there is with girls nowadays is explained in your answer. " Girls then feel that the only way to be desirable is to appear like this because of the general public brain-washed opinion of the ideal person. "and"I also would like to present myself as an example, I am a teenage girl who spent the whole of my childhood believing, because of all the models I saw that I was fat. I now look back at pictures of myself an I can see that I was, in fact, as the doctors said underweight. I listen to other teenage girls every day moan about their body weight and how they wish to be the weight of a supermodel or size 4. "These are the problems girls have nowadays, I will concretely explain what is wrong about it: Girls nowadays think they are underrated and overrate the opinions of the boys, as a teenage boy I can confirm this by simply listening to my surroundings ( Statistics available on demand ) boys do not look for the most pretty and skinny girl, its quite the opposite in fact, boys nowadays prefer something normal. They would rather have a friendly, decently looking girl than an overcomplexed skinny girl. As to answer your question about the two far ends of the market that have to be normal, I totally understand your argument but to me it is not valid. You (and professionals) think the normal BMI is actually normal, now those 2 far ends will disagree with you and their opinion has to be respected. Your counterargument could be that the professionals did say the opposite, but then again, Scientology would not exist if that were to be valid. The fact that it starts earlier and earlier on (the watching on weight trend) is something I can not explain and would love an explanation too. As I think the media is not responsible at all. In my country media does not promote dieting but rather healthy food and healthy living, exercise is considered quite important where I am from. (Belgium)As for your sources, I will take you on your word.