BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The legalization of assisted suicide.

I am a pro for the argument, let us define the point. (1) Assisted suicide is defined as: The suicide of a patient suffering from an incurable disease, effected by the taking of lethal drugs provided by a doctor for this purpose. Round one will be accepting the debate Round two will be building the arguments. No rebuttals. Round three will rebuttal . No new evidence will be brought to the table at this phase. Confront each other
Parents must explain all current issues to children

Please inform me if I got the format mixed up or anything (this is my first debate). Many adults believe that refraining to tell children the whole truth will maintain their innocence, and thereby, their happiness. However, this cannot be further from the truth. In an article titled, "When Parents Lie," Kate Roberts from psychology. com explains that "when a child is told that his truth is a lie, his self-doubt generalizes to a distrust of the outside world. " No matter what those in oppositions may say, a child is capable of knowing right from wrong. In an article titled, "Why Young Children Are Curious," Bruce D. Perry from scholastic. com explains that "When [children] feel overwhelmed, [they] seek familiarity. " In other words, children are curious because they seek to familiarize themselves with the world around them. And when that curiosity is satiated with lies, and half-truths, it is not only dangerous for the children in their futures, it is devastating to their inner sense of control. For example, many children are told the misinformation that a baby is made when a stork delivers the baby to loving parents. This lie is bound to be contradicted when the child discovers the internet, asks an honest adult, and etcetera. So instead of avoiding the inevitable, why don't parents just tell the truth? Is it because they think love-making isn't suitable for children? After all, that's how they're made. The same goes for current issues. Children are bound to figure it out somehow so why not tell them the whole truth? Not only will this distinguish a honest relationship between parent and child, but it allows the child to trust their parent even more. I will make this analogy with profanity. It's everywhere, and children are certainly bound to pick it up from either a stranger, or family member. Understandably, parents do not want their children to use the f-word, or any other variations thereof. But refraining from explaining profanity to their children is a big no-no. I strongly believe that understanding profanity-and why not to use it- is the most effective strategy to getting children to not use profanity. For example, if a child knows the f-word exists but associates with a positive thing because she heard her friend say it, she is bound to use that word. However, if the parent had thoroughly explained to her exactly what the word meant, she is less likely to say it. Heck, she might even inform her friend of what it means. Thereby, decreasing the risk of profanity in children.
Do violent computer games make young children violent citizens

Violent computer games does ma children act brutal citizens since graphics and animation programs today allow computer programmers to develop far better graphics and animation effects that provide a realistic experience for video game players While this brings excitement to the palyers. In fact it has given more strenghth to debate that blames this technology to the increase od violence in the country. Parents should not be letting them to play graphic violent video games, i believe these technology affects their behaviour which leads them to critical ciricumstances. i also say that it spoils the childrens minds. MUCH EVIDENCE SHOWS A LINK BETWEEN THESE ACTS OF VIOLENCE AND A LONG TERM SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
Do violent computer games make young children violent citizens

Teenagers who play violent video games over a number of years become more aggressive towards other people as a result, according to a new long-term study. Researchers said the study was the first to show a clear link between a sustained period of playing violent games and subsequent increases in hostile behaviour. Girls who play violent computer games during their school years were found to be affected just as much as boys. is clear that there is a long-term association between violent video games and aggression. This is an important and concerning finding, particularly in light of the hours that youth spend playing these games.'
Do violent computer games make young children violent citizens

hmmm this debate would be quite intriguing ;)As far as I know, not every kids (:o 9-35) like video games, not every video gamers like violent games, and not every violent gamers become psycho-path killers. In fact hardly any of them become psycho-path killers. http://videogames.procon.org... In chart no.6, we can tell 15.5% of gamers had bought M rated video games in 2008, so you are saying that 15.5% of 68.8% of American households (chart no.1) are psychopath-killers. Anyways, gl hf and I look forward for a good debate!! =)
There should be no racial profiling in any place

There should be racial profiling because profiling is a good thing. Just like gender profiling is a good thing. If you need to hitchhike and you see a woman offer to pick you up, and a man offer to pick you up, the woman is a safer option. You profile the genders and knowing that you are less likely to get hurt with a woman, you go with the woman. [1] This is not to say that you should treat any gender or race with less respect than others, but if you know that one option is safer and act on that knowledge, that is common sense. 1) https://www.psychologytoday.com...
Religion is illogical

Morals evolved in humans to further the chance of that humans DNA being passed on to the next generation. One of the arguments that creationists often resort to is: If morals developed through evolution, why do we help people we aren't even related to? The answer to this is actually quite simple. If you help someone, you expect something back. You may not know it, but if you give someone food, you want something in return. But why do we have organizations like the Red Cross? They don't expect anything back when they help out after an earthquake. The reason for this is because humans' DNA to eachother is more than 99% alike. This means that if thay save people in an earthquake 99% of their DNA is passed down.Good debate Con. It's been a pleasure.
Religion is illogical

You equally have no proof that we can exist as a wlel-corordinated society without religion or LAW based on morals of SOME KIND!Thus, it is natural to assume you have a BoP to prove morality and harmony can be achieved without fear of hell or eternal punishment of some kind.Additionally, it remains unclear to me how one can achieve true happiness and the feeling of working towards a goal of ANY kind without faith in SOME FORM OF higher power watching over them.
Religion is illogical

Do you not agree happiness can be obtained without worship of a deity? First I suppose we have to look at what about religion makes people happy. Perhaps people like it when they are with other people moving towards a common goal. Surely you can see that one can get that same feeling by being in a book club. The difference between religion and a book club is that a book club has a has a legitimate goal; to further ones knowledge and intelligence. You still haven't provided me any evidence that there is a god, and therefore I will presume you don't have any. Surely you can see that having faith in some old man in the clouds, without any proof that he exists is illogical.
Religion is illogical

Religion: a particular system of faith and worship. http://oxforddictionaries.com...;Illogical: lacking sense or clear, sound reasoning. http://oxforddictionaries.com...;There definitely are religions with a sense of clear, sound reasoning based on a way of life that is best for both society and individual emotional/spiritual fullfillment. There isn't one religion on Earth which isn't based around making members feel a part of a great force of something supposedly 'morally superior' to others and this is merely to make people happy (which is actually why the human race began inventing language, to help people feel fulfilled and valuable).Religion =/= Illogical BECAUSE we always seek happiness.
Religion is illogical

You can't raise new points in last round?... (DNA morality nonsense)My opponent's entire pair of rebuttals were to arguments I hadn't even mentioned the ENTIRE debate? It is almost as if he were rebutting 'himself as con' so to say...In regard to the DNA theory, I severely doubt this. Given the option, any sane human wold rip the heart out of another man's child in order to save their own.Far more relevant is YOUR DNA being passed on being the source of an atheist's morality (even Richard Dawkins struggled with this issue). This would be a very chaotic society, where only the most brutal and disorderly survived.
Landfills are a better option than incinerators for waste disposal

landfills- they seem like a good idea, don't they? a big space for keeping all of our trash and we never have to worry about them again- Or do we? 1. landfills cannot be continuously built. Eventually we will have to much "landfill areas" because they cannot break down the trash and all manner of garbage down fast enough, which in this case you can use the incinerators. 2. As the landfill builds, up, it will produce a gas commonly known as methane. Methane is the stinky smell that you get from bodily waste and to much of it can cause nausea and headaches. In addition to this, the methane will eventually accumulate in nearby houses, and therefore increase the chances of a fire by far as methane is extremely flammable. 3. Since the landfills are pretty much open in nature, they are always posing a threat of polluting the environment. The trucks which carry the wastes to the landfills site often make a lot of noise can is responsible for generating serious traffic when they are on their way to the site of disposal. This is the reason why people living in the vicinity of such places often register complaints. Moreover, the trucks are generally old and often it is seen that they drop off a little bit of waste here and there when they are moving towards the site. The dust is a constant problem. Dust is lighter than most other wastes, thus, when the trucks and carriers move, the dust particles tend to fly around and create pollution. These dust particles then have the potential to cause many diseases, both acute and chronic. In addition to this, most of the landfills plants use very heavy machinery. The heavy machinery is often reported to make a lot of noise. Although, very rarely do we have instances of having settlements near such plants, but there does exist a few. This noise can be very irritating and is responsible for causing a lot of noise pollution. sources: http://earthuntouched.com...
Landfills are a better option than incinerators for waste disposal

1. Most new landfills are built as lined facility, with leachate collection and treatment on-site. Because landfills are designed and built to store waste, they are a safe containment of our garbage. 2. Methane gas is collected at a number of municipal waste landfills and some landfills have diesel/gas blended fuel fired electrical generation stations built on them. Therefore, they are a "free" source of fuel to generate electricity. 3. Upon closing of a landfill, some beneficial usage of these land resources have been realized. Certain closed landfills have become golf courses, ski mountains, etc.
one world's one government, and not many governments, in the future.

I am not saying the entire world should embrace such a system, starting today. I am referring to a near future where people won't be flying around in space or going on vacations through worm holes, but a future where every nation will have similar socio-economic conditions(or, assuming such will be the state of man kind). Yes, the topic isn't very urgent and is slightly vague, but we can have fun, can't we?
one world's one government, and not many governments, in the future.

I am going to start off by stating the disadvantages of having a single government. First - having a world government will not be effective in pleasing everybody and is not the solution to ending war. Having a single government may eliminate war between other countries, but will not eliminate wars inside the borders. Everybody is different, may I remind you, and we all want different things. Take Sudan as an example. It could not please both sides of its population - the Islamic north and the Christian south - and, therefore, it split into two distinct nations. Sudan had a war inside its borders because it could not please everybody. Allowing for a single government to take control will not eliminate war; Sudan had a war within its borders because it was too big and too diverse, religiously and ethnically. This could - and would - occur under a single administration. Second - there would be little uniqueness under a single administration. Cultural assimilation would take place. This would not only infuriate people but also influence them to rebel. This is an example of a war taking place within a nation's borders. Third - economic disparity would occur under a single administration. In the United States, under one government, we are faced with great disparity because of the availability of resources. States with a richer population and better resources and industries are further ahead than those that aren't. In a world government, the same would occur. The rich would reside in certain areas, and the poor in others: this would cause disparity on a larger scale. Areas like the Mid-East would benefit from oil production, while areas that aren't equipped with good, solid resources would be the poorer areas. What you are propoposing is a socialist/communist society where no disparity exists. Nobody is rich, and nobody is poor. But it is fair to argue that communism hasn't worked in the past (USSR) and doesn't work now (Democratic People's Republic of Korea). Fourth - the U.S. can't keep a majority of its people happy, with a population of 300 million people. How would a single government be able to function with so many ideas, so many customs? The US can combat differences on things like abortion, but when you get a legislature made up of Communists, Conservative Muslims, Atheists, Socialists, Buddhists, Christians, Jews, etc. who is the majority? The legislature wouldn't be able to pass anything or satisfy anybody with so many differences and without a clear majority. Fifth - what if the government turned corrupt? What if something horrible took place and the leader of this single government - the world, keep in mind, became corrupt? Who would be able to force him/her out of power and have the ability to save the people and their rights? My argument is that a single government allows for cultural assimilation to take place. My argument is that wars can still happen, there will be no clear majority in a world legislature, that the government may turn corrupt and won't be able to be stopped.
one world's one government, and not many governments, in the future.

Thank you for your time and interest. Let me begin right away by stating some of the benefits of having a single government. Firstly, it would create an authority capable of arbitrating the issues that have lead to many disastrous consequences such as world wars. There will be an agency to enforce a basic set of laws that will try to inhibit various factions, be it religious, ethnic or ideological, from fighting with each other. As for the sovereignty, it can be a democratically elected government and its legislation can be drafted by a proper representation. State level governance can continue, with a great degree of sovereignty. It may even have its own security agencies, as long as the international military remains stronger. Secondly, chauvinistic, ultra-nationalistic or racist tendencies can never take the form of a authentic military force (perhaps insurgents, but insurgency by a minority is never a threat). Thirdly, global economics can function in a better way. As I have previously stated, the state of society is such that economic diversity isn't as vast as it is today. (So, while there will be a disparity, similar to that which exists between Connecticut and Mississippi, no vast regional disparity will exist.) As a result, the global economy can function as one. This means it will be similar to that of the US. Resources can travel without international red tapes and tariffs. Even employees and entrepreneurs won't have much trouble moving in search of an optimum job. Many other benefits of free trade will be experienced. Fourthly, international laws pertaining to issues such as human rights can be handled more easily. If any faction wants to marginalize certain demographics ( like by keeping women in Burka, or persecuting homosexuals) or deny other human rights, an authority can respond through the mandate from a representative legislature. This authority will have legal rights to follow the mandates of the global citizens. I need not mention the nuclear disarmament and lack of constant threat for anybody.
Why fast food is bad

I didn't just copy my comment but continuing with this debate.. You say that most of the frozen foods that are in grocery stores are natural and cooked fresh and then just put in the fridge to be cook again after, that's true to an extent my dear because not all frozen foods they sell in grocery stores are cooked freshly before putting in the freezer. So if that kind of food is just like fast food (in a sense) why not go to the fast food place considering its a lot cheaper than grocery store prices. Pro states that while traveling on the road for ice hockey I should go to a deli or some other place that's better than a fast food but let me clarify that the only reason why a deli wouldn't work is because on the parkway or highway there are no delis on the side of busy roads. There are always gas stations and there is always fast food places next to the gas stations which makes it easy to go to while traveling. Pro states that after I showed the menu of the healthy choices some fast foods supply, there are only a limited number of healthy foods vs fattening foods served and pro states, "When a person goes to a fast food place they aren't thinking "oh healthy yogurt" they are thinking "oh okay cheeseburger or chicken fingers." - This is a contradiction because most people don't really think like that. They go to restaurants that they like to get what they want. If they want a burger they could go to burger king or a burger joint. If they liked McDonald's yogurts and fruits and went there they wouldn't be getting burgers or chicken so who are you to say that they would be getting something fattening. Also going back to illness's that can be caused from poor foods.. pro states that high blood pressure, weakening the immune system, destabilizing your blood sugar level, higher chance for cancer, diabetes and other illnesses can be cause my putting bad foods into your system BUT a person can get any of these illnesses from just not taking care of themselves or their hygiene or even lack of exercise. Fast food is not just the main fault. Pro does make good reasoning for believing why fast food can be bad but con also supports their reasoning for believe why fast food is not all bad and can be good. Therefore vote con. Great debate. Let the best win.
Why fast food is bad

Okay well first of all I just want to say that you copied and pasted like your whole other comment before and used it again. if your not going to actually debate me then forfeit. 1- Frozen foods that are sold at grocery stores are all natural foods and if weren't they would not be allowed to sell it. 2- One of the main reasons why there are toys or special little gadgets in kids meals is to attract children and their families. The food is not healthy and is not good for a person what so ever so forcing the kids to come in this way (considering they are the number one consumer) is their way of bringing kids to eat such bad foods. Child obesity has sky rocketed due to fast food places and what the child put in their mouths. 3-I still don't see an excuse why on the road its easier to eat fast food. Yes its cheaper but I'm sure you could find a cheap place to eat if you just looked and didn't just jump at the first food place you saw AND I also think you being an athlete should be a little more aware of the foods you eat because then you won't be playing to your full potential. 4- The menu alone at McDonald's or any food place for that matter are all burgers, chicken fingers, ect ect ect its all fried fried fried foods. Fried foods are the worst with all the oils and salt and different other ingredients that causes harm to the body. Cigarettes to a smoker is like mdcondlads to a fat person. Addicting and harmful. 5- People who go to fast food places DO NOT go for somehintg healthy. I can gaurentee you they go to that place for a burger or fries or even a soda which is also not good for a person. 6- Going back to the illnesses.. lets list those again -High blood pressure - Increase in cholesterol weakening immune system Destabilizing blood sugar level - Higher chance for cancer - Diabetes - Other illnesses All these listed above can occur due to fast food so why even bother putting yourself in that position. Look at these websites.. they list why fast foods are bad..no website tells you why fast foods are good http://www.livestrong.com... http://www.newscientist.com... Even look at this youtube video! THIS IS CRAZY http://www.youtube.com... Overall this was a great debate but Pro provides bettEr reasoning as to why fast foods are bad therefore vote pro. NO FAST FOODS