BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate Response to rape

I agree with all the semantics.Contention 1) No way out.Victims suffer from the abuse that is inflicted upon them. Whether it's a broken nose, black eye, or having the mental stability of a frightened teenager for the rest of their lives. Repeated domestic abuse is both physically and mentally harmful in exponential ways. My opponent may state that the victims can simply get out of the situation, or call the police. I dont know why the title and the resolution is different. The reality is, it's not that simple. Really? But why? The police force is comptent to do a simple task. ...she doesn't have the means or money to leave the situation, nor can he run away because his/her abusive parents could file missing persons and the child would be sent strait back to the abusive home. Not every person as the option to get out, there for when the victim's life is being threatened or the lives of the victims family is at stake, do you expect them to stand by and watch as they are beaten and abused? I ask, what is more moral? Let the abuser keep attacking his/her family, or stop the violence with whatever means necessary?So in that example it would be just for that kid to pull out a gun and shot his parents?REMEBER the police are still there.Contention 2) But is it ethical when you could have just called the police? He may beat you, which isn't deadly. http://www.nizkor.org...I leave this here.It isn't alright when the abuser attacks but if the abused attacks the other person it IS alrght. Is that your logic?Out of space.
Religion and Politics

The foundation of this very nation was based upon religious principals. In the early colonies the religious leaders made the laws and as that colonial society developed it formed a nation of the people, by the people, and for the people. The very government we are discussing, had it not been for religion, our country would not have prospered as it has. When we vote for a candidate we expect that he/she will adhear to the ethical principals having their foundation in religion . However a great number of the people that run this country are without a doubt corrupt. They have no ethical standards the only thing on their mind is " how can I make my self richer" now religion is not necessarily needed in our government but without the religious influence at our foundation the fabric of our society would be torn apart. Based on your first argument I will assume your an atheist and that you believe that atheism should influence our government well atheism is a belief of a universe without God which is belief that makes atheism a belief system thus making it a religion. Prove to me their is no God.
should we choose between history and geogrphy as cousrses

I still don't fully understand the topic, but I will continue to debate. Sadly, my opponent has wasted a round and he has not presented any arguments or stated his stance. So, I will be assuming the stance that we should mandatorily study geography and history. In order to get my point across, I would like to present one reason each why the studies of geography and history are both important. First off is geography. Argument 1: We should study geography because it helps in the modern world when students grow up. For example, many people in today's world do not know where basic states and countries are. For example, in the video that can be found at , Harvard students were interviewed and asked what the capital of Canada was, and none of them knew. Also, in this video titled "Why we need to teach geography", () 8th and 12th graders were given geography assessments. 74% of 8th graders had a basic geography understanding, and only 24% had a proficient geography understanding, while a mere 3% had an advanced level geography understanding. And in 12th grade, the percentages were even lower. In the same video, Americans were asked simple geography questions that they could not answer. This is impactful because it shows that we need to stress teaching geography and history in schools. Next, history. Argument 2: We should study history because, once again, it helps with understanding of the world, especially with government officials. You know that little kid who lives down the street? He could grow up to be the next president, or congressman, or even mayor, but he was never taught history, so he has no idea how a government is run, let alone how to run his own. He influences higher individuals (if he isn't president) in his wrong running ways, and tears the country into shreds. If this isn't a strong enough example for you, watch the video linked here, . This video shows Americans asked why we celebrate the 4th of July, and, no surprise, they simply could not answer it. This is impactful because this argument shows how we need geography. Since I have now shown why both history and geography are vital to be taught, I believe I have won this debate. So, a message to all voters: vote for me! I wish luck to my opponent in the voting polls and hope that the roll my way. Good luck Con!
teens should beallowed to get birth control

it is because of the peer pressure in teens lives with school, media, and music that they are having sex in the first place we all no that teens(not all ) are having sex and no matter how much the parents want to stop it teens will always be disobeying their parents. Additionally, most of pregnancies occur to unwed teen mothers. This means that even though most teens do not want to become pregnant, they are still becoming so as a result of sexual activity. While actual force to have sex is rare, many teenage girls (especially those under the age of 15) feel pressured to have sex. And, of course, the more intercourse a teenager has, the more likely it is that a teen pregnancy will eventually result. It's undeniable that kids today are maturing and growing up faster. Whether this is due to media influence or something in the meat they're eating, there is a definite sexual energy that permeates America's youth. And young teens are going to do what they do best: being sneaky and getting what they want. Three of Portland, Maine's middle schools have had a total of 17 reported pregnancies, a number that doesn't necessarily reflect any abortions or miscarriages. Whether because of outside influences or of their own accord, these students are exploring sexual avenues, and they are likely unaware of what can happen. Not all kids are comfortable approaching their parents about bodily and emotional changes. If a school can provide that service for free and guide them down a healthy path to the future, then allow that program to flourish. This won't be an enabler for kids who have already made their choice - it's going to protect them. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) issued a report this week indicating a increase in teen birth rates for the first time in 14 years sixty-seven percent support giving contraceptives to students, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll. About as many — 62% — said they believe providing birth control reduces the number of teenage pregnancies. (80%) of teens who have sex get pregnant unexpectedly Even though the use of contraceptives has increased among teenagers, its use remains spotty. Teens may use birth control to help prevent teen pregnancy, but most do not use contraceptives consistently. Erratic contraceptive use, however, is better than none. A sexually active teen that does not use any birth control has a 90 percent chance of becoming pregnant within a year.
teens should beallowed to get birth control

But come you can't expect teens to have sex to have any sort of right to have birth control pills? It would give other teens more peer pressure to have sex and their great bypass would be use the birth control pills as a way not to get caught. It would stop teenagers from having to dropout but it would be wide spread. It would challenge the parents rights and the teenagers rights to giving them birth control pills. I just think that birth control pills to the wrong hands will have devastaing effects and teenagers are the people to give the least to because peer pressure is their "wise master".
teens should beallowed to get birth control

Each year in United States, 800,000 to 900,000 adolescents 19 years of age or younger become pregnant The pregnancy rate for teenagers 15 to 19 years of age fell 19 percent from 116 per 1,000 in 1991 to 94.3 in 1997, reversing an 11 percent rise from 1986 to 19914 From 1995 to 1997, the pregnancy rate for 15- to 19-year-olds decreased in 41 of the 43 reported geographic areas for which age-specific data were available During 1995 to 1997, the pregnancy rate declined by 11.3 percent among females less than 15 years of age, by 10.7 percent among females 15 to 17 years of age, and by 5.8 percent among females 18 to 19 years of age6 For each year from 1995 to 1997, the pregnancy rate for females 18 to 19 years of age was approximately 2.5 times that of females 15 to 17 years of age, and the rate for females less than 15 years of age was approximately one ninth that of females 15 to 17 years of age7 From 1995 to 1997, the national number of pregnancies among females 15 to 19 years of age declined by 3.1 percent8 In 1996, the pregnancy rate for females 15 to 19 years of age in the United States was 83.6 per 1,000 compared to even though teens shouldn't have sex doesn't mean they wont i know that teens having sex shouldn't have sex birth control for those who do to decrease the rate of teen unexpected pregnancy
teens should beallowed to get birth control

I think that teens should get birth control because then they would be even more irresponsible than before now knowing that they can do whatever they what without parents consent and know they have a backup. That is very sick and really disgraceful to show that teens can get anything they want. Soon they'll be debating over if the legal limit of alcohol should be 16. I think that birth control should be for the adults because they will know when to use it and teenagers will use it maybe even daily. Birth control is a heavy burden and never be use to a teenager, even a responsible one.
Larger Dogs (Pro) or Common House cats (Con)

It is unfortunate my opponent has not had the chance to continue this debate. I realize I did not fully address Pro's premise about dogs being more suited to catching prey and I will do so now. "...[D]ogs are designed to sprint and to catch moving things proves that they have a distinct advantage in every way over cats." Pro is inferring that since dogs are better suited to sprinting and catching prey, that this gives them an advantage. I argue that this does not matter at all, since we are talking about domesticated dogs, and domesticated cats, and since we feed them, and this food does not run away, that in this respect they are both equally suited to catching their prey. So, regardless of the point Pro was trying to make, I must declare this point irrelevant since we are talking about domesticated animals, not the wild types. Vote Con please :) For your entertainment, some cats chasing some bigger, smarter, and stronger animals. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1
Larger Dogs (Pro) or Common House cats (Con)

Thank you for accepting my challenge. 1. I was referring to the Canis lupus familiaris group of dogs and I will define larger dogs as taller then 24 in. 2. I was referring to the domesticated cat. Any breed within that category will do. Premise 1: Dogs are trainable. Premise 2: Cats are scared by any new people. Premise 3: Dogs chase cats because they are faster, stronger, and smarter. P1: If training your cat to sit, stay and heel is your goal, perhaps you should get a dog.(1) Simply put you cannot train a cat to do anything other then to use the litter box. I have several complaints against cats including: The cat sometimes pounces on the owner at five in the morning. P2: A cat is calm and friendly with his family but afraid of visitors.(2) Cats by their very nature are skittish and fearful of anyone new. P3: Dogs are smarter than cats and their advantage is increasing.(3) This fact also along with the fact that dogs are designed to sprint and to catch moving things proves that they have a distinct advantage in every way over cats. I will stop here to give my opponent a chance to lay out his argument. 1. www.perfectpaws.com/cat_training_and_cat_behavior.html 2. pets.webmd.com/cats/guide/shy-fearful-cats 3. http://www.psychologytoday.com...
Larger Dogs (Pro) or Common House cats (Con)

I accept the challenge. So, as far as "Larger Dogs" goes, I'd like you to clarify what EXACTLY you mean, since your definition of "4 legged member of the canine family of mammals" includes things like wolves, which I would not argue are inferior to cats. If you mean the Canis lupus familiaris, or domestic dog, then I still need you to define what constitutes a breed being considered "large". Is it the mass (and thus weight) of the fully grown specimen, the measurements (i.e. height, length) or some other index? And by "Common house cats" may I submit that you are referring to the Felis catus? Or else do you mean a specific subset of breeds of the Domesticated Cat? Furthermore, you should clearly stipulate what exactly the topic is, since so far all I have to go on is "Larger Dogs or Common House Cats" which is not an argument.
Larger Dogs (Pro) or Common House cats (Con)

Round 2 is rebuttals for definitions and opening arguments Round 3 is rebuttals. Round 4 is closing arguments. Definitions: 1. Dog- 4 legged member of the canine family of mammals, specifically the larger breeds including but not limited to: German Shepards, Collies, and Golden Retrievers. 2. Cat- 4 legged member of the feline family of mammals.
Ronald Reagan was the funniest president.

Top 5. Bush Jr quotes. 5."Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream." --LaCrosse, Wis., Oct. 18, 2000 4."Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?" --Florence, South Carolina, Jan. 11, 2000 3."There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on --shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again." --Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002 2."Too many good docs are getting out of the business. Too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country." --Poplar Bluff, Mo., Sept. 6, 2004 1."Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." --Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004 http://politicalhumor.about.com... Beat that.
The United States Should Legalize Marijuana.

Marijuana is just like a step toward harder drugs like heroin, cocaine etc. Stoned driving and other drangers would defiinatly increase. With it legalized would increase the chances of drug use falling into the hands of kids. Physical damages will be done to user who abuse it. There would be and increase in secondhand smoke damage to the bystanders. http://www.balancedpolitics.org...
The United States Should Legalize Marijuana.

Refutations: Short Term: Again, the short term effects of many over the counter drugs can be much worse.Long Term: "Cancer" Marijuana, smoked is much cleaner than tobacco."Immune System": The source you cited states that "It is not certain whether marijuana damages the immune system of people". "Lungs" Tobacco has the same effects, so it is unclear why tobacco is legal.Suggestions:1. Don't leave all your arguments to websites.2. Leave a conclusion at the end of your argument summarizing your points.3. Number your points.
The United States Should Legalize Marijuana.

Voters, please note that I will be posting a section on improvements, since my opponent is new to DDO. Refutations: 1. "It makes your skin sensitive to cold and heat". Compared to the side effects of many other illegal drugs this is very minor. 2. "Dehydration". Again, a very minor side effect. Contentions: 1. Marijuana has positive health effects. 2. If Alchohol and Cigarettes are legal, why not 'pot'? 3. It would bring lots of much-needed revenue to the state. 1. Marijuana has positive health effects. Marijuana, containing the chemical THC and commonly known as "pot" or "weed", has been known to reduce tumor growth. [1] 2. Alcohol and Tobacco. According to the CDC (Center For Disease Control) Alcohol is one of the leading causes of death in the US, and Tobacco follows not far behind. Marijuana is not even on the list. [2] 3. http://www.businessweek.com... Sources: 1. http://www.sciencedaily.com... 2. Cdc.gov Suggestions: 1. Make your arguments longer and more organized. Avoid run on sentences. 2. Cite sources. 3. Check your spelling before posting Voters Note: Do not vote on this debate. I want this to be a learning experience, and I want to avoid accusations of noob sniping.
There are more atheists than theists on debate.org

“According to the statistics there are technically more christians (who have signed up) but I don't think that reflects the actual reality of active debaters.” This is essentially a concession. Adding Christians (45%), Jews (2%) Muslims (2%), and Buddhists (2%), meaning 51% of the members on this site are theists, compared to 20% atheists (1) Also, this debate was never limited to active debaters, of the survey in the comments section. “I have no way to prove this I guess but it will be interesting to read the comments and see what others think. I find that about 80-90% of the comments on my debates and votes on my debates are from atheists.” This is nothing more than an, anecdotal, unsubstantiated, un-sourced, opinion statement that means nothing for proving the resolution. “I'm not complaining, I really want to educate atheists on evolution, creation, God and Jesus. I just don't think that we can accurately gauge who wins the debates by the vote counts since the votes mostly come from atheists.” This is fine, but it has no relevance to the debate. Also, you have not proven the voters are atheists, and either way, they do get to chose who wins the debate. There you have it. I have disproven pro’s resolution, and provided the only evidence and source in this debate. Vote Con! Sources: 1. http://debate.org...
There are more atheists than theists on debate.org

According to the statistics there are technically more christians (who have signed up) but I don't think that reflects the actual reality of active debaters. I have no way to prove this I guess but it will be interesting to read the comments and see what others think. I find that about 80-90% of the comments on my debates and votes on my debates are from atheists. I'm not complaining, I really want to educate atheists on evolution, creation, God and Jesus. I just don't think that we can accurately gauge who wins the debates by the vote counts since the votes mostly come from atheists.
There are more atheists than theists on debate.org

it say's here 20% atheist 2% buddhist (= atheist) 1% pagan (atheist enough) I'll take half the agnostics for this count so 6% agnostic (atheists really) I'll also take the 2% "jews" who are probably non believers" That makes 31% but you know what? these stats are garbage because they only add up to 84% Wheres the other 16%?? These stats are obviously unreliable. (Please comment on this debate with either "Theist" or "Atheist")
Ariana Grande is better than Taylor Swift.

First of all, on the website "Google Fight," shows that the society approves more of Taylor Swift than Ariana Grande.Personally, I think that Ariana Grande has a higher voice than Taylor Swift. This statement is also greatly supported by society. On the youtube channel, Bart Baker, he has a video parody of the Ariana Grande song, Problem, which includes them complaining about how Ariana Grande looks too young, or has a voice too high.
The FCC should substantially increase its investment in the National Broadcast plan

We as the american people have a moral obligation to help and defend those whom are in the dark, if we are to neglect these people the ability to gain information and pull them from this hell in which they have no means to learn and are simply discriminated against, how are we better than the Nazi's in WW2? Contention 1 - The increase in broadband is to allow minorities to set up their own radio shows and allow for more radio hosts to be heard instead of the few that are full of racist ideals and spew them into a mic. A) we do not specify an internal link to giving minorities radio, it is merely the gesture we defend. B) Certain areas of the US are so lacking in technological broadband, XT our inherency, that even though many do have radios, all they have to listen to is the racist garbage strewn at them by many racist radio hosts. C) We as a collective people must at least extend our hand in unifying ourselves as a nation. "3. Nowhere in any of your sources does it say that "radio and Tv increase racism" but in fact, they simply connect violent crimes with minorities more often. There are no studies that this in turn leads to racism" What the plan states is that many radio hosts are racist towards african americans and other minorities and these minorities have no way in which they are able to fight back XT Amajor '12. On the Virilio Flow, You're argument holds a very weak link at best. The plan states that we are to unify the US as one and not divide it by racism (Legion advantage FTW! ) What we propose to do doesn't link to Virillio in any way. And, the alternative to our plan only allows for these racist ideals to increase, widening the gap of racism. If this gap continues to widen, certain extremists may begin to lash out at each other, take for instance the KKK, an extreme racist group that became so against African Americans that they actively went out and slaughtered them by the masses, if this is the world the Con wishes for, the by all means, let him have it. I, on the other hand, would enjoy a world in which we may all see ourselves as equals and share our great nation together in peace.
The FCC should substantially increase its investment in the National Broadcast plan

Broadband is decreasing now, claimed to help the economy bla bla bla, (Vikki S. Katz, Matthew D. Matsaganis, and Sandra J. ball-Rokeach, Ph.D., University of Southern California, ETHNIC MEDIA AS PARTNERS FOR INCREASING BROADBAND ADOPTION AND SOCIAL INCLUSION, Published 2012. PDF pg. 79-102.) but it means that minoritys which depend on cheap public broadband will not be able to send their radio and TV news at all. But it also means that because most people get their news from public TV and radio which is corrupt with racist ideas (Chucks Amajor, Mark Sanders, DeRonnie Pitts, http://www.stanford.edu......, )in turn influences just about everyone which is the reason racism hangs on in America. By increasing broadband we give the local minoritys a voice, and that will help aleaviate peoples thoughts about violent minorities. The best and only way to help mend the wounds that have been made is to give these minorities a voice, (Vikki Katz, ETHNIC MEDIA AS PARTNERS FOR INCREASING BROADBAND ADOPTION AND SOCIAL INCLUSION, Published 2012. PDF pg. 79-102) While many might make the argument that the reason for the decrease in radio broadcasts is because much of news these days has shifted over to the internet, the system is strained and doesn't access everyone, what must be done is invest in radio broadcasts to solve, (Darrell M. http://dspace.cigilibrary.org......)