BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Consensual incest is permissible.

Consensual incestual relationships (CIRs) are thought by just about everyone to be 'disgusting'; however, personal disgust alone is not a reason to punish someone. I might think that drinking your own urine is disgusting, but this is no reason to prohibit it. CIRs are also not an endorsement of paedophilia; there is a clear difference between sex with someone who can be reasonably expected to consent and someone who cannot. Sex between a mother and a son may resemble paedophilia, but 'resemblance of paedophilia' could be seen in sex between a forty year old and a young-looking eighteen year old. The idea that CIRs may cause discord in the family is correct, but this too can be thought of any relationship, such as the relationship between a Jew whose family is strictly orthodox and an Arab whose family follows a strict interpretation of the Qur'an. I believe the possibility of deformed children is the key concern; however, it is not a valid one. 'Normal' couples are fully entitled to give birth to deformed children, and a non-incestual couple who possess an incredibly unlucky combination of genes would also theoretically be allowed to have children, in the effort of maintaining coherency, incestual couples should also be allowed to have children, even if it should be discouraged. Furthermore, all this has nothing to do with the permissibility of a relationship between two brothers, or even a sterile couple, or even a couple who have no intention of having children and use contraception to that effect. I realise this is a difficult issue, but I implore you to see reason and goodness.
Consensual incest is permissible.

I think there is definitely a fundamental difference between thinking that all adults should be allowed to be together and thinking that adults should be allowed to have sex with children. You raise a very complex issue. The idea of 'forced abortions' does seem to be cruel, even if it is intended only to reduce suffering. So, I point to the fact that currently, people are allowed to give birth to severely deformed babies. In fact, it is entirely possible to conceive of a very unfortunate couple who are not incestual but have an incredibly high chance of conceiving a child who will suffer greatly.[1] It is after all possible that by examining the genetics and family history of the couple that it will be determined that their child is at high risk of developing schizophrenia,[2] polycystic kidney disease,[3] Huntingdon's disease,[4] cystic fibrosis, [5] and so on, until it seems that in all likelihood the child will live a short and sickly life, as there are a great amount of genetic disease that are, to my knowledge, not exclusive of each other and it is fully possible that they can be present in a couple.[6][7] I am merely trying to make the point that it is possible that there could be a couple who are so unlucky in their genetics that they are at similar risk to incestual couples of having children who are likely to have a very low quality of life, particularly considering that the couple may be poor and unable to cope with the needs or expenses of the child. Regardless, we do not prohibit these people from becoming married or having children, and so we should not do the same with incestual couples, although clearly it should be made very clear to them that reproduction may be a bad idea. I apologise for the 'wikipedia spam', it is a very convenient resource. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_disease [5] http://en.wikipedia.org... [6] http://en.wikipedia.org... [7] http://www.genome.gov...
Consensual incest is permissible.

sex between adults and children cannot be consensual, then it does not create the possibility of paedophilia.My point was, if it becomes commonplace for adult children and their parents to be together, then pedophilia would not be thought of as that bad a crime. It may also increase the chance of pedophilia.Well, first cousins without history of inbreeding are likely to suffer little in terms of deformities.First cousins, as far as I know, have a 2% higher chance of deformities in children. This isn't really that bad.However, parent/child/brother/sister relationships have a much higher chance of deformity in children.If the child will be seriously deformed, so that it will likely suffer in life, then the pregnancy should be aborted as an act of mercy.While I agree that this is the responsible choice, this would be very traumatic on the mother, and the abortion may be murder. You cannot ask someone to kill their own child. If they see it as murder, then you cannot ask them to commit that murder.
Women ought to be required to register for the draft.

RulesRound 1- Acceptance, Historical Background, and Definitions only.Round 2- Constructive Arguments only.Round 3- Free choice.Round 4- Rebuttals/Defences only. Round 5- Closing Remarks. No new rebuttals/defences/responses/arguments may be made in this round. You may, however, make fresh cross examinations of points, using your own points.Any rule violation constitutes an immediate loss of conduct points.Forfeiting more than 1 round constitutes a full 7 point loss. The BOP is shared.DefinitionsDraft- the selective service system for millitary conscription in the USA. For this debate, what is "Ought" is the option that yields the most net benefits. The Pro will argue that Requiring women to register for the draft (just as men do) will yield higher net benefits, then not requiring them to do so.The Con will argue that the status quo has higher net benefits than the action proposed by the resolution.
Should Fairy tales be for children

[Watching or reading a large number of fairy tales can cause serious anxiety. research shows that reading fairy tales right before bed leads to numerous nightmares and bad thoughts during the night. Children are incapable of fighting their anxious thoughts and they get to them.]"Research shows". What research? Do you have a source you can provide so the reader can view this research? ["Some studies have suggested that girls who read a lot of fairy tales or watch a lot of fairy tale related movies have lower self images than others" Danick from "Browse online"]"Some studies have suggested." What studies? Do you have a link you can provide to this study? My opponent once again has failed to meet his burden of proof. I encourage potential voters on this debate to vote accordingly. Thank you.
Should Fairy tales be for children

It's no secret that classic fairy tales aren't the bright and happy stories Disney would have you believe. (The way the Brothers Grimm tell Cinderella, one of her stepsisters resorts to cutting off her own toe to fit into Ella's dainty glass slippers.) Now, rather than skipping over the bleaker elements at bedtime -- or just hoping kids can handle rather dark ideas -- parents are chucking fairy tales altogether, says a new study conducted by British TV channel, Watch. The Daily Mail reports that some of the books most commonly left on the shelves include Rumpelstiltskin and Rapunzel because kidnapping is the centerpiece of their story lines. And, Little Red Riding Hood -- that Big Bad Wolf is too gruesome when he gobbles up Red's grandma. A staggering one-third of parents reported that their children were actually brought to tears by the scene. Real relationships don"t involve knights in shining armor, soul mates, gleaming carriages, castles or living happily ever after. Girls grow up finding themselves depending on men their entire lives instead of trying to be independent and in charge of their own happiness. When these women are not able to find a "Prince Charming" it can lead to depression because their lives are not just like the fairy tales. Another psychological issue that can occur is "The Cinderella Complex," or a women"s fear of independence and desire to be taken care of by others. Fairy tales have brainwashed girls into thinking that you must get married to have a fulfilling life, when in reality a young woman should have other dreams. Women should want to be able to take care of themselves and not depend on a husband for everything. In fairy tales the princesses are always beautiful, with flowing hair, soft skin and a skinny waist. This can lead to body image issues where children grow up thinking they will never find true love because they do not look like the characters in the movies. "Some studies have suggested that girls who read a lot of fairy tales or watch a lot of fairy tale related movies have lower self images than others" Danick from "Browse online" Watching or reading a large number of fairy tales can cause serious anxiety. research shows that reading fairy tales right before bed leads to numerous nightmares and bad thoughts during the night. Children are incapable of fighting their anxious thoughts and they get to them. "Fairy tales do not tell children the dragons exist. Children already know that dragons exist. Fairy tales tell children the dragons can be killed"- G.K. Chesterton
Should Fairy tales be for children

[1]["Stories may not actually breathe, but they can animate. The breath imputed by this book’s title is the breath of a god in creation stories, as that god gives life to the lump that will become human. Stories animate human life; that is their work. Stories work with people, for people, and always stories work on people, affecting what people are able to see as real, as possible, and as worth doing or best avoided. What is it about stories—what are their particularities—that enables them to work as they do? More than mere curiosity is at stake in this question, because human life depends on the stories we tell: the sense of self that those stories impart, the relationships constructed around shared stories, and the sense of purpose that stories both propose and foreclose"]- Arthur Frank, Letting Stories Breathe (2010)[2]["A fable is a type of fairy tale that is attempting to teach a lesson in its telling. It often has the same fantastic elements, but most the important part is the meaning behind the story."]My opponent has not provided any evidence with the exception of personal opinion that contributes to his initial argument. He has also chosen to ignore scientific fact stating that works of fiction are actually BENEFICIAL to our health and contribute positively to our development. I hate to be a stick in the mud but I believe this debate is pretty much over unless he can provide me with information that can at least refute science's claim on this matter.Sources:[1] The Cultural Evolution of Storytelling and Fairy Tales: Human Communication and Memetics; Princeton University Press; http://press.princeton.edu...;[2] http://knowledgenuts.com...
Should Fairy tales be for children

People, seriously why read fairy tales when we have books from other genres. Fairy tales don't have facts and what's the point reading a book about make believe characters instead of reading books which have facts and things to learn. We let younger readers to read fairy tales and make them believe that everything in a fairy tale is true. If we let them read total rubbish what will they be when they grow up.... a fairy or a well educated human. Don't take advantage of yourself by reading fairy tales and believing stuff that's not real. THINK ALIVE NOT DEAD!
Should Fairy tales be for children

"In an utilitarian age, of all other times, it is a matter of grave importance that fairy tales should be respected." - Charles Dickens[1]Folks, this debate over whether or not fairy tales are suitable for children is absolutely ridiculous. Their intent is not to bring about physical or mental anguish, but rather promote an increased level of activity within the brain through the human abstract thought process commonly referred to as "the imagination". Are we to believe that mankind would be better off if the canvas of life were only painted with black and white strokes, and had no color? No! As a colorblind man even I strongly oppose this dangerous, static mindset. Knowing this, one then could conclude that I view fairy tales as being not only suitable for children, but guard them as a vital element within the realm of [2][fiction] in which both children and adults should readily partake in, and enjoy, in order to encourage positive internal and external developments.[3] In reference to the above quote made by Mr. Dickens, these genuine works of the [4][imagination] serve a purpose as a means of 'escape' from the burdens of a hard-pressed society. A society that is overworked and mentally strained by the presence of our own self-fabricated reality.My opponent still has yet to make a valid argument as to why he knows that fairy tales are detrimental to children. He has also failed to provide any proof to corroborate his argument except that of the personal opinion in which supports his assertion. Sources:[1] "A Transcription of Charles Dickens's "Frauds on the Fairies" (1 October 1853)". Victorianweb.org. 2006-01-23. Retrieved 2015-10-2.[2] Define: [fiction]: http://dictionary.reference.com...[3] Fiction Improves Brain Connectivity & Function: https://www.psychologytoday.com...[4] Define: [imagination]: http://dictionary.reference.com...
Should Fairy tales be for children

Kids shouldn"t be taught that everything ends well".Not everyone wins They imply things that aren't true eg. That stepsisters and stepmothers are bad/ugly or that some animals are bad Fairy tales make us believe that life always has a happy ending Most have good morals but in fairy tales it always ends up as: "And they lived Happily Ever After." They usually have things like crime, characters ignoring health problems and safety issues in them Sometimes there is a lot of child abuse eg. Hansel and Gretel getting threatened to be put into an oven Kids should not read Fairy tales because it can make them believe in the supernatural from a very young age Some young girls feel that after they have seen the image of a princess they feel that they have to be slim and beautiful so they can find their prince charming They can cause nightmares from characters eg. The wicked witch. She comes up in a lot of different Fairy Tales Some fairy tales stories are far from reality eg. Some girls are waiting for their prince charming figure to come and rescue them from their reality "Fairy tales do not tell children the dragons exist. Children already know that dragons exist. Fairy tales tell children the dragons can be killed." Fairy tales have a lot of make believe characters which they then expect children to believe in, eg. Fairies, Dragons, Mermaids, Unicorns" There is really no version of a fairy tale that is perfect for children, The classic ones are too gory and violent and the Disney versions teach them bad values Fairy tales shouldn"t decide your life for you, you should decide it yourself. "Beauty is only skin deep, what"s really important is finding a balance of mind, body and spirit"
Should Fairy tales be for children

No they shouldn't be for children... Life isn't a fairytale Good guy's don't always win There many other guy than just Prince Charming Imagination shouldn't take over you life There are other stories, not just fairytales Fairytales have no facts but make believe Things in fairytales aren't real Fairytales give false promises Frogs don't turn to prince if you kiss it...like ewww You can't just be a servent one day then a Princess, like in Cinderella Imagination is not always good.
George Bush Cannot Be Charged With Genocide

My opponent only makes two points. 1. That every country "attacked by the Bush regime is Muslim".and 2. Genocide can be against a religious group. My refutations are simple. First of all to say the countries "attacked" by Bush are Muslim is simply an ignorant statement. In Iraq we attacked the Hussein regime which was a secular regime meaning we weren't targeting religion at all. Iraq is a conglomerate of many different cultures not just a blanket "Muslim" culture. Secondly, as religion falls under the cultural umbrella I already stated that religion can be counted in as part of the definition of genocide. Thanks for reaffirming that and showing us you don't know that religion counts as culture.My opponent makes no points. Does nothing to undermine the points I made and has not furthered this debate. When the United States attacked Germany in WWI were we committing genocide on Protestants? No. War is not genocide. Bush has not committed genocide an all of my points stand unmolested. I extend all arguments forward.
George Bush Cannot Be Charged With Genocide

President Bush ordered no deliberate and systematic destruction of any such group. My opponent is going to argue that Bush had systematically gone after Muslims which is simply an absurd and ignorant case. Bush pursued a war in Iraq and Afghanistan with specific goals - to remove Saddam Hussein from power and to secure Afghanistan from the influence of terrorist organizations. Neither of these goals beget genocide in any way. I say: not true. 1. Every country attacked by the Bush regime is Muslim. 2. Please stick to whether Bush is guilty of genocide and not the validity of certain wars. We can debate that later. 3. Genocide can be against religious groups too as exampled in Nazi Germany. I am not currently calling Bush a Nazi, so don't get mad.
George Bush Cannot Be Charged With Genocide

Genocide is a widespread, systematic elimination of a group of people, as defined by Merriam Webster:genocide - the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial or cultural group [1] President Bush ordered no deliberate and systematic destruction of any such group. My opponent is going to argue that Bush had systematically gone after Muslims which is simply an absurd and ignorant case. Bush pursued a war in Iraq and Afghanistan with specific goals - to remove Saddam Hussein from power and to secure Afghanistan from the influence of terrorist organizations. Neither of these goals beget genocide in any way. The killing of combatants in a war in order to secure a war goal is not genocide. It's not even illegal. There is no evidence whatsoever that shows a mass killing of a particular group and thinking that there is, is both paranoid and foolish.The term genocide has been used only a few times in human history and usually it is associated with the death of millions. The Holocaust, Pol Pot's racial genocide, Rhawanda, all of these genocide events saw the death of hundreds of thousands to millions. The casualties of the wars in the Middle East don't even come close to this which is telling that these events were not systematic mass killings. Also, civilians are to be avoided as targets of the US military at all costs as is military policy in the US. Genocide includes the express killing of civilians. If you're ignoring civilians you're not out to destroy a group but rather combatants.Again, George W Bush cannot be charged with Genocide. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Fox News...... unfair and biased

Sean Hannity, in his role as commentator represents the Fox Network, the same as a CIO or executive of a corporation. The fact that he is allowed by the Fox Network to manipulate video and voice his opinion citing incorrect facts and dis-information proves my point that the Fox Network is unfair and biased in the extreme sense. You may recall that Dan Rather was pushed out after he utilized dis-information in his commentary / report. A commentary which reaches millions of people and ultimately can convince many of their viewers of their particular point of view, should provide honest and factual information. While BIAS does not typically contain any earthshaking revelations, it systematically and irrefutably lays out its case, point by point as it's goal is to convince it's viewers of the commentators position. The particular format used by Hannity closely resembles that of the news broadcast and many viewers are convinced that since the commentary is on a national news network, then it must be factual. A distortion of the facts in a commentary is close a distortion of the news. Again, by the mere fact that this practice is condoned by Fox News serves to proves my point.
Fox News...... unfair and biased

Sean Hannity is not a news caster, he is a commentator, there is a big difference. Commentator: a person who comments; especially someone who is paid to give one's opinions in the media about current affairs, sports, etc[1] Newscaster: someone who broadcasts the news[2] Seeing as he is a commentator and not a newscaster he can be however bias he wants. Fox News has never claimed that Hannity was a news show, they claim there news hours run from 9 am to 4 pm and 6 to 8 pm, and seeing as Hannity does come on during this period of time they acknowledge he is not a news show.[3] [1]http://www.google.ca... [2]http://www.google.ca... [3]http://www.nytimes.com...
Fox News...... unfair and biased

The point I am making is that while certain networks will favor a specific party as mentioned by my opponent, the degree to which Fox News does this with does-information and other questionable tactics is unacceptable and borders on the unethical. Case in point is the Hannity broad cast of June 4, 2009 Hannity crops clip to claim Obama "decided to give 9-11 sympathizers a voice" in Cairo speech June 04, 2009 10:35 pm ET SUMMARY: Sean Hannity edited a clip of President Obama's speech in Cairo to claim that Obama "decided to give 9-11 sympathizers a voice on the world stage." In fact, the context of Obama's words makes clear that Obama was condemning those who would "justify the events of 9-11." http://mediamatters.org... I see no evidence that the news organizations mentioned by my opponent have been cited for manipulating video clips etc. as what has been proven in the above example with Hannity.
Fox News...... unfair and biased

Before I begin my debate I would like to point out that my opponent has failed to understand their position on this debate, they are con in the debate "Fox News....... unfair and biased" yet the state in R1 "Is it me, or is Fox News the most unfair and biased "news" organization that has ever existed ?" and so I shall assume the position of con for the purposes of a constructive debate. Now I shall affirm that all news outlet have a certain degree of bias. In R1 my opponent stated "Fox News the most unfair and biased 'news' organization that has ever existed" but seeing as my opponent has made a statement and made no arguments for me to counter argue I shall instead use this debate round to showcase the bias in other news networks besides Fox News. Thank You. Thank You. ABC: Video 1 CNN: Video 2 MSNBC: Video 3 http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...
Gay Marriage

I was expecting a real debate, but in vain. I will only post one case as anything else would be a waste of time:C1:Economics benefits of gay marriage "The Comptroller’s Office estimates that the economic impact of marriage equality would add $142 million, on a net basis, to New York City’s economy during the three years following legislative approval. It would add about $184 million, on a net basis, in spending to the State’s economy. The $142 million benefit to New York City’s economy includes spending on weddings by New York State residents who live outside the City but choose to marry here. " . http://www.debate.org...ConclusionI hoped for a real debate, but unfortunately I didn't get one.