BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It is not okay to be an adult over the age of 25, and still live at home for no legitimate reason!

Well since you set no parameters I'll assume I am free to go against your statement any which way I please. How kind of you to allow me this honor I must tell my parents whom I live with right away! 1) "There is absolutely no reason for any grown adult in general, male or female, to live at home under their parents roof, with their parents financially supporting them." What if the parents like their company? I mean my parents love having me around and they pay for me to live here. Who is to say there is no reason?! There are reasons everywhere!! Also you make no mention of animals!! Is an adult animal allowed to stay at home or will that poor mongrel be kicked out for freeloading!? Also why is 25 the age limit? Is there a law that says all persons 25 and above must move out of the house? I'd like to believe there is no law! 2) "There is no reason that they cannot simply go out each day and apply for any and all job opportunities and move out."Tis seems there is no reason for anything here eh? I say there is a reason they cannot. What if.... the parents are absolutely loaded!! I'm pretty sure if my parents had millions and millions of dollars the last thing I would be doing is applying at the local market basket. 3) "But at what point in time do you realize that it is not okay to rely on your parents for the rest of your life" Exactly! What point in your life do you realize it? It is different for everyone and not every person has an alarm in their brain that goes ding! Lets go out of bed out of the house to work we go now now now! Uh no. 4) "But if it is simply, "I can't find a job. No one is hiring.." THEN YOU SHOULD HAVE THOUGHT OF THAT! But I really can't find a job.... And I certainly cant go buy an apartment right away. Please Daddy don't cut me off yet! I need time I'll find a job I praaaaamise!!!! 5) "You're right!" Oh I know I'm right thank you for saying so! 6) "Our economy is horrible! But that is even MORE of a reason NOT to rely on your parents who are only getting older! You are not their problem." Tell that to my illegitimate child. That thing certainly is my problem if I have ever seen a problem good net. Also the economy is bad yeah so getting a job is tough and making enough money to live in an apartment especially at that age and let's not forget paying back the student loans you will be so far in debt than you would be just chillin' relaxin' with the rents.
It is not okay to be an adult over the age of 25, and still live at home for no legitimate reason!

There is absolutely no reason for any grown adult in general, male or female, to live at home under their parents roof, with their parents financially supporting them. There is no reason that they cannot simply go out each day and apply for any and all job opportunities and move out. I can understand if you are a young adult, still figuring your life out and needing a few extra years at home... But at what point in time do you realize that it is not okay to rely on your parents for the rest of your life, to support and take care of you? I think there is no excuse for this topic, UNLESS the child of the parents has something wrong with them to make them UNABLE to move out. (not able to live alone for various reasons...) (wheelchair, disease of some sort, illness, brain problems) And so on... But if it is simply, "I can't find a job. No one is hiring.." THEN YOU SHOULD HAVE THOUGHT OF THAT! You're right! Our economy is horrible! But that is even MORE of a reason NOT to rely on your parents who are only getting older! You are not their problem. I don't agree unless you have a substantial reasoning.
Resolved:The Federal Reserve Should Not Be Ablished

Intro I am challenging Georaphia for Round 1 of bsh1's March Beginners' Tournament. The resolution holds clear: Pro shall argue that The Federal Reserve indeed should not be abolished, and Con shall argue that it should. The burden of proof is equally shared between both debaters. Definitions Federal Reserve: The Central Bank of the United States of America. Should: Ought to Abolished: To officially come to an end. Stucture Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Cases Round 3: Rebuttal of Cases Round 4: Rebuttal of Rebuttals Rules 1. No forfeits 2. No trolling or semantics 3. Second round is arguments only 4. Maintain a civil atmosphere 5. Breaking any of these rules results in a loss Thanks to Geographia and good luck!
An Afterlife is NO threat to an Atheist viewpoint :)

I once complained before in a past debate of mine that when a person forfiets on me, i get all the same joy out of debating with them as I do to debate with the fencepost in my backyard. and by all means I can carry on a debate just fine with a fencepost and still have some fun, it just wont debate back.but you have not been like a debate with a fence post, but rather like me having a debate with a bird in the tree nearby the fencepost. you see while the fencepost will suffer my delusion we could be in a debate about whatever topic I talk about by not interupting to show me otherwise, the bird will not. It will go on chattering about lots of stuff that has nothing to do with what I was trying to debate with it about. also the bird does not the ability to understand much of anything, so its actually must be pretending that I am conversing with it about whatever frivolus thing it feels like ranting about with its short attention.devient.genie, you might as well have chattered on about the early worms you ate for breakfast. the resolution was about the afterlife and its affects on your beliefs. in fact it had nearly nothing, it anything at all even, to do with my religous beliefs which I told you you in the begining I would not be arguing from. and it would make no sense to as this is about the athiest view. a rational athiest view anyway.I made a case for how that athiest view would be altered to a panthiest view by accaptance of an afterlife, and you have not shown any signs of even reading more than one sentace of my post so its unclear if you even comprehend what a panthiest is. Its the only one I asked you to give special attention to in the form of a response because I had previously decided to take special intrest in you over the audience. But you could not do even that.While we had planned on debating other resolutions with each other in the future, dont bother sending me another challenge, as its clear to debate with you is same as having not debated with you at all.....after the 2nd round anyway. I might consider a 2 round debate with you....mabye, we will see.all of my points stands, my opponent has carried mostly on about irrelevant material, generally lacked decent conduct, forfieted a round and I think thats about it.please vote all points CON! :)
Is Religon Good for us.

Hello there, fellow debator. The reason why I think Religon is good for us is because we need a variety in our lives. If we do not have a varity in our lives, the world would be a boring place. Religon was also brought forth to explain why we are here, who we are, and what rules we shall follow(I am an Atheist). Can,t we just accept other people,s belliefs( assuming the religon is not extremist)?
Gender role expectations should be equal

I think that some people do need to do things for themselves when they are with someone or even alone. But when it comes to a man holding the door, paying on the first date or something that's a sign of how nice a guy is and isn't like those jerks in the world. Now women have to learn to be lady like too by not burping in front of anyone, chewing with your mouth closed etc. Also i know many ladies who have been with someone for long and they pay sometimes when going out.
Gender role expectations should be equal

Gender roles are just degrading and annoying. It's unfair that men are expected to do things like, hold the door for women, pull out a chair for women, escort women, protect women, text women first, pick women up for events/dates etc. Women can do all that themselves unless physically incapable to do so. Though out of curtsy women can do it for men too! Most men feel as if they need must be superior to women and do everything for them when women can do it all by themselves, instead of it always having to be the "Big Man" to do everything. Forget the idea of men being the ones doing everything. Therefore, instead of expecting just men to have courtesy, why not expect women to do so too? Nothing's wrong with splitting up the check after the dinner date or allowing the women to pay every once in a while.
Gender role expectations should be equal

I think that PEOPLE need to say excuse me or hold it in if they burp in front of people, otherwise that would be disrespectful. Also when i would leave school with my dad and the door was closing ladies would hold the door for him and he would reply with a thank you. I mean I see ladies doing nice things to for men all the time in public, ask your'e friends or family its not just mean who do these things. Also i think men do need to take the chair out for women to sit this goes with what i was saying about showing that not all men are jerks and he is trying to show that.
Gender role expectations should be equal

Hold on... "Women have to be a lady like too" So, are you implying there's a certain way to act like a lady? If burping and chewing with your mouth open is so rude for a lady to do in public then why not just get away from the woman who's doing it? It's not very polite, but men do it so it had absolutely nothing to do with being or acting like a lady. Though, I do agree with you for implying that paying for a date and stuff is a way of showing kindness unlike the other jerk offs in this world, but a woman doing the same thing would be just as kind and honorable as a man. If a man can pay for dinner and hold open doors, then so can a woman! If she makes her own money and has 2 working hands and arms the let her do what the men are expected to do! http://news.nationalpost.com...
THB Death Penalty Should Be Apllied to All Major Crimes

Take this scenario. There are three people stranded on a deserted island. Bob, Joe, and Jack. They ration out the resources they find between themselves. One day, the resources they find are scanty, and Joe is at least temporarily incapacitated because he was bitten on the leg by a beast on the island. So, at night, hungry Bob, figuring that Joe is not able to defend himself, sneaks to Joe's tent to take Joe's ration of food for himself. While Bob is scrambling together the ration, Joe wakes up and yells for help. Jack comes to the rescue and knocks Bob out. Now, Jack and Joe have three options within reason as to what to do with Bob. They know now that they cannot trust Bob to not take advantage of them if they are incapacitated. So they can kill Bob, they can ostracize Bob, or they can hold Bob as a prisoner and seek to reeducate him. If they kill Bob, they will lose a resource-gatherer and someone who can potentially help them, and take a life when there are other options. If they ostracize Bob, they will lose a resource-gatherer and someone who can potentially help them; they will have less resources as Bob would fend for himself, and they will live under threat of Bob. Now, if they reeducate Bob, not only will they have more assuredness that Bob will not try to take advantage of or hurt them, but they will then have Bob on their side to gather resources and help them. What is more, they would do the more compassionate and ethical thing. Therefore, even though it would take up their time and resources, reeducating Bob is the best option that there is. This scenario is analogous to the question we are discussing. I have successfully demonstrated why prisons that have reeducation programs are the best way to deal with major crimes.
THB Death Penalty Should Be Apllied to All Major Crimes

Take the example of a school shooter or a pedophile. They KNOW and UNDERSTAND what they are doing wrong! The school shooter knows it is wrong to take lives, who doesn't? Only if we were a psychopath and guess what? Being a psychopath is a medical condition that can't be healed, they just don't have feelings. About the pedophile, he knows that raping someone is wrong, especially a child that barely knows what is going on. Is it so hard to understand that forcing someone to have sex against their will is wrong? Your argument that they don't understand it it's now proven wrong. About they being educated to understand the philosophy behind why it is wrong, okay, it COULD (not granted) work in some cases ( I gave the example of psychopaths, they will never be "healed" and now I'll add this - still as refutation to your argument of re-education - they are really good at pretending, they would pretend to have understood that his/her crime is wrong so they could pass any test we used to check their recovery) so your argument isn't even good. I've asked 12 friends what they would rather happen to a criminal if they killed their family and presented them a) jail as we already have b) re-education in jail c) death penalty. I consider this data relevant because debates are about people and we are thinking of what would be people best interests and here it is: a) 3 votes b) 1 vote c) 8 + me, this gives death penalty a 67% preference so people would rather the criminal to die without a second chance. Also, why does the criminal's, in this case, the murderer's happiness even considered? He took a life! The opposition brought that the taxpayers would have the same amount of money going to the Government but that is not truth since the cost of prisons and the cost of prisoners is far higher than the cost of the lethal injection and you will raise the prisons to cost even more if you want to re-educate the criminals. Ending round 3, all the Opp arguments have been proved wrong or insufficient and the Government shall win but I will explain better why in the next round. Thank you!
THB Death Penalty Should Be Apllied to All Major Crimes

I think that criminals have an intuition that what they are doing is wrong--not necessarily an understanding that what they are doing is wrong. If they are educated to understand the analytical philosophy behind why it is wrong, then they probably will come out of prison enlightened. As for the victim and their family, their best interest that is not at the expense of another's best interest, is to have the criminal reeducated, so everyone can end up happy, including the criminal. As for the taxpayers, they are going to have the same amount of money go to the government anyway, so it is not like they themselves are paying for the criminal's reeducation.
THB Death Penalty Should Be Apllied to All Major Crimes

Extending this to minor crimes as well isn't necessary. It would be necessary a really cold thinking to be Pro in that debate, that is another debate, you see? Why would you kill someone for dropping an empty cookie bag on the street? Yes, the person wouldn't do it again but. .. is it necessary? No. For that, we could, for example, give the criminals x hours of community work as cleaning the streets and not being paid for so and a fine. Even though it wasn't the debate I hope I answered you- So you think that giving a second chance to a murderer is of the best interest of all the parts involved? What about the victim? What about the victims family? What about everybody that's going to pay taxes for those criminals to get that re-education? That is indeed a good painting and you're showing great hope on people but let me tell you, criminals already knew it was wrong to commit the crime but they decided to commit anyway. You can't be 100% sure the criminals won't relapse and even though the rate decreases, it's still wrong to put an ex-convicted back in society if there is any chance of him/her relapse. Let's take the example of a murderer called James. James, a Russian male living in the US and his wife Kate were taking a walk with their son when four black men came from an alley with guns and told them to give them their phones and wallets. James didn't want his son or wife to get hurt so he gave them his belongings but then two of them started taking his wife away with intentions of raping her and he decided to act in her defense, holding back the tears. He fought with one of them but quickly got shot, as his son. Kate got gang raped but lived, with her soul destroyed. She lost her family, her dignity. Her will of living was to get justice. The police caught two of them, they cooperated, they all went to trial(. .. ) and after 16 years they all got out sooner because of good behavior. They went back to crime because this time "they wouldn't get caught" <- Criminal Minds working. Sorry for the long story but I wanted to show you the kind of justice we have now and, even with the system you suggested, there are still chances of this happening and I don't want ANYONE to go through anything like this and by killing them after proved guilty the first time, we take out that chance! I believe I'm winning this debate because you're failing to refute my arguments and most of them are still standing strong. You brought morality and utilitarianism into the debate and I totally agree but it is on my side because of bringing justice to the families and not getting so much from the taxpayers as well as protecting all the citizens that could be victims of this people. Also, I'd like to underline, because it is really important: by only approving this, we would reduce criminality because people won't want to die. This is far better than the status quo and far better than your counter model and so the Government is winning this debate. Thank you!
THB Death Penalty Should Be Apllied to All Major Crimes

I grant that the death penalty would be a stronger incentive to not commit major crimes. But why shouldn't that be extended to minor crimes as well? The reason for that may be why the death penalty should be used seldom, or not at all.Moral FrameworkMorality is by definition that which is in the best interest of all individuals involved in interactions. In the interactions of a person, or group of people, with another person, or group of people, or any combination thereof, both sides must compromise to carry out an interaction in which each side of the interaction is benefited to the maximum extent possible. This is because, if one party gets the better of the other party, and they don't compromise on the resolution which results in both parties having their best interests met, then the party that was unfairly dealt with might reasonably refrain from further interactions, or harm the opposing party. Using this framework, we shall proceed to investigate whether assigning the death penalty to all major crimes is morally acceptable.Main ArgumentRather than the enforcing the death penalty such that it punishes all major crimes, that which is in the best interest of all individuals involved--criminals as well as inoccent citizens--is to make prisons reeducation centers for the criminals, as well as disincentivizing institutions. The criminals should be forced to provide a defense of the position that crime is wrong, perhaps with a section of their effort dedicated to their particular crime(s). This way, the criminal is forced to understand that he should not commit the crime again. With this system in place, the best interests of all individuals are fulfilled.
Islam is an Evil Religion

Religion is something which was created by Humans thousands of years ago in order to discipline themselves. Its important to have boundaries in life. Islam as a religion is very much valid as any other religion on this earth. However, few militant groups like Taliban and Al-Qaeda our using this religion in their favor to gain control over the world. For Instance, world war 2 was fought with guns and aircrafts and soldiers, but how were accused for the crime. The guns or the people? It is the people who make religion prosper.
Bullish's position on abortion (restarted)

So, I created this debate thinking that I'd be able to compete all of the way through, but I've been putting it off far too long. I have been more attentive towards things much more important than this debate as of late and I think that I'm going to have to concede. I hate to forfeit and I have 7 minutes left. I have no intention to restart this debate, I've already done that once. Anyway, I'd like to thank Bullish for a fun debate and I hope that the voters vote in his favor. Thank you.
Bullish's position on abortion (restarted)

This is the restarted version of my debate with Bullish over his view on abortion. I had Ore_Ele restart it because extenuating circumstances on my part caused me to forfeit. I don't anticipate that I will be forfeiting this one, so I think the debate will be uninterrupted. Burden of proof is on Pro to defend his position.Debate Rules:1) Pro will write his case in round 1.2) Pro will abstain from posting any arguments or rebuttals in round 3 in order to ensure an equal number of rounds for both sides to debate.Definitions:Abortion- a medical procedure used to end a pregnancy and cause the death of the fetus. [http://www.merriam-webster.com......]Bullish's position: Bullish says: "First, cutting off nutrients to a fetus is not killing. As Batman once said, "I don't want to kill you, but I don't have to save you either". Second, I believe in the "right" to no life. If a bundle of flesh can make no rational choices, then it the duty of the mother/universally agreed upon governing body to make that decision for it. I extend this to infants, mentally retarded humans, and animals. How we know what is reasonable is another issue." I invite you to defend this position. Please state your case in R1. We will argue over it in the following rounds. But, please do not post in R3.
Private ownership of a gun in the US should be illegal for every citizen.

Round 1Lack of reasonThere is no reason why a citizen of the US should require a gun for personal use. There may be a reason for a Police Officer, when properly trained, to require a gun. However, the Police Officers ownership should not be private (i.e. he should not have one in his home), he should only be able to pick one up whilst at work and then have to return it again when he leaves. People do not 'need' guns to protect themselves from the possibility of a tyrannical government as that is something that simply would not happen in the US.A country is safer without gunsLet's take a look at this graph: It's interesting to note that in the UK, where gun laws are a lot more restrictive, gun homicides per 100,000 are a HELL of a lot lower than in the US. As, in fact, are non-gun homicides, therefore proving that less guns does not mean more murders.Ok, you may think, why not just ban automatics but let people have handguns? This is why: Here, again, we see that, in general, the more handguns are owned per 100,000 the more handgun-related deaths there are per 100,000. Israel is an anomaly, but that is purely because a vast majority of Israel citizens are involved somehow with the military. This shows that stopping US citizens, who do not NEED guns at all, from buying any kind of gun, handgun or otherwise, could only be a positive thing.The second amendmentAmerican's tend to get very uppity about how gun laws breach the second amendment. However, in the case of Cruikshank V. the United States in 1876, the Supreme Court of the US 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. Later on, in 1939, the supreme court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia. Thus, the second amendment is not breached by any kind of gun laws, including the complete illegalization of their ownership. It is the right of an American citizen to be kept safe, which they will be if they are not allowed to own a gun, for their own good.