BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The results being negative or positive for the results of teen parenting

I accept. Resolved: The results being negative or positive for the results of teen parentingAs PRO, I must argue that the results of teen parenting are either negative or positive, whereas CON must argue that something else is the case. Not that he offers no particular information on the actual resolution, and thus you are obligated to accept this interpretation. CON writes, "The affects or cons of a child from single parenting are not even debatable it can end up in so many bad ways a child can lash out and become more agressive from a single teen parent. "By writing this, CON concedes that the effects of teen parenting are negative, which is conceding the debate. Now, note that the resolution *does not* require that I argue that the results of teen parenting are positive. However, as a counterview - since I only need to show that it is either positive or negative - here are several reasons why it could be positive: (1) Builds character and forces young girls and their families to accept responsibility for their decisions, which makes them more effective parents growing up (2) Helps teen girls and their parents to better prioritize their lives - in other words, the additional pressure of having to care for a child induces necessary changes in their lives(3) Because they're teens, they're young enough to know which parenting methods worked on them, and thus are likely to respond in kind, which would prevent their children from being overly obnoxious or "lashing out. "(4) Can encourage teens to begin working earlier, which leads to a higher present value of lifetime consumption and more savings (5) There are various support groups and even government benefits available to them In other words, teen parenting is in fact a net positive, though I'm not obligated to argue this, but only that it is either a positive or a negative. My opponent concedes the debate by arguing that it's a negative, though I've proven it to be a positive.
Gun Rights

(1)Some people say that but others would say well if they had to steal it then they needed it more than me. The culturals reason to have gun rights gone. People now a day are no different from cave men still it would smarten up the cultures around us. If the people in the cummunity stop killing people for looking at there girlfriend. I am against gun rights for the reason that they cause so many deaths in wars and making killing or murder easier. (2)The protective reason would be if you were out in the woods I am alright with hunting guns but not hand guns. Many people use the excuse of protection. Even the people that you think would not use that excuse does. If you want to have protection in your home than get a neighbor to look after it and many of the times after a couple of days the robber gets caught. If you are not home you can't protect your self any ways which is much of the time the case of robberies. If you have a gun in your house then it is just setting you up for distort such like murder. Hand guns have nothing good from them.
Gun Rights

At every case of a house invasion or kidnapping or mass murder, there has always been the people who express the same feeling. That feeling is this: That they wish that they had had a gun or some means of protection with wich to prevent this horrendous crime. This is one of several reasons why we should preserve the right to bear arms in america. I will address two main reasons: (1) Prevention (2) Problems To affectively refute gun rights, my opponent must be able to disprove all reasoning that I provide in this debate. Failure to refute any one point is effective acceptance of them all. thank you for the debate and may the best debater win.
Gun Rights

Think about the death rate that there is in many of the states in the united states. Now how many are from gun shots. I want you to imagine this, someone in your family had went to a neighbors house then about 12 hours later you have a police officer at your door tlling you that your family member was in a shooting. There are only two reasons why you would own a hand gun and that would be to kill someone. This debate will be based on 2 things which are: (1) Cultural (2) Protective Reasoning I will give my oppent a chance to speech his thoughts on it now.
Gun Rights

(1) You say that there are as many deaths a year by gun shot wound as by car accident injuries. If so, why don't we ban cars for this reason? Because cars provide a necessary service to our people. Guns are the same. They provide the necessary protection to our people. If they are taken from us then those death rates would sky rocket. Thus we don't ban them despite the negative consequences. (2) As I've stated before, if you take guns away it won't stop the violence. It just forces people to resort to more brutal means of murder. This applies to all situations including your school. (2) I've run across a new statistic while looking over my old cases. 98% of all gun related crimes are committed using guns that are unregistered. Thus taking away guns (government can only take registered ones) will not solve gun violence. (3) Hand guns and violence do not go hand in hand in today's world: hatred and violence stand alone regardless of the means by which it is carried out. Thus the target of our discretion ought not to be guns but hatred, as I have stated before. (4) "Protective reasoning. The only reason people should protect them selves would be if the person lives near something dangerous." What's that supposed to mean? Most innocent people murdered in cities are murdered because violence is not expected and prepared for. Thus the best way to prevent violence is to arm the innocent and teach them to protect themselves. (5) The fight to end hatred and violence is a war. Thus by your own statements we should use guns. My opponent has failed to properly support her case with statistics and professional opinion, while I have. I also provide the most reasonable solutions to the problems at hand. It is because of these reasons that I believe that you, the voters, should vote for me. Thank you all.
Gun Rights

The gun rights are mainly toward hand guns and not toward hunting guns. There are 30000 deaths from gun shots a year. That is half the amount of death from smoking and and almost the same amount of deaths by car accidents. These amounts can be found on the internet anywhere. (1) The cultural reason. The people that have been getting arrested are from ages 12 to 58. If you get rid off guns then when people get the need to go kill people then they would have to take more time to do it and they will get caught more. Then when kids at school get picked on and have problems will not be able to shoot up their school. Hand guns and violence go together and that is all you see in this world today. There are other ways to kill people but these ways are not seen as much as gun shootings on television. Protective reasoning. The only reason people should protect them selves would be if the person lives near something dangerous. War is the only time there should be guns used. In genocide situation people would need to use something powerful and also something that can be easy to use. People should not use guns to make their lives easier or to help their needs. There are guns that are used in robberies and other crimes to make it easier to intimidate the people. Gun rights should be vanished so the world can be little of a better place.
Gun Rights

I will first give my own arguments and then I shall address my opponent's. (1) According to the Encyclopedia of Sociology, using an offensive tool as a means of protection is the best preventative of the need for that weapon and reduce crime in a society. This means that a person using a hand gun to protect themselves is less likely to need to protect themselves because threats are detered. By taking away gun rights in America you cause the spike in murder and general crime over the following time period. (2) The real problem is not guns. While I admit that there is a serious violence problem in today's society, guns are not the source of that violence, and taking them away will not deter that violence in any way. Just because nobody has guns does not mean that everybody will stop hating and killing each other. A gun is only a tool. In the hands of a just person in can do great and wonderful things. In the hands of an evil person it can commit the gravest atrocity around: murder. Simply put; guns are a-moral, like money. (a-moral means that it has no predisposition to right or wrong) Would you ban money just because some people use it for evil? No, you wouldn't. Guns are to be treated on equal grounds. Instead of taking guns away let's dig this problem out at its root: Hate. The true goal is to eliminate hate in a society and to reduce gun violence in the proccess. Now for my opponent's points. (1) Her first area of reason is cultural. Her point is basically summarized like this, "I am against gun rights for the reason that they cause so many deaths in wars and making killing or murder easier." To refute this I will point out that with out guns, wars will still take place and that guns in the hands of citizens are not guns used in war. Get it right. If we drop the use of all guns what so ever then this will not cause world peace, in fact, it will only serve to provoke every enemy nation to take advantage of our weakened state. (2) Her other reason is protective. For your information, the excuse of protection is a valid concern. The second ammendment is there not to ensure a form of protection from other people but from an oppressive government and thus removing that right leaves the people of America exposed to government based oppression. We need this protection to survive. That is a fact and it cannot be refuted. If you propose to remove that protection then I demand that you propose an equal and satisfactory replacement. For your information, thousands of people die each year because a burgler kills them in the process of robbing their house. 98% of these people have no gun with which to protect themselves. That's the truth and cannot be refuted. Because of these points, my case is the only reasonable side of this issue to vote on For that reason I ask that you, the voters, make the intelligent and reasonable decision and vote for me Thanks to my opponent for posting this debate and allowing me to be her opponent. Thank you
Atheism is more a product of indoctrination than Theism

Atheism is more a product of indoctrination than theism.Definitions:in·doc·tri·na·tionthe act of indoctrinating, or teaching or inculcating a doctrine, principle, or ideology, especially one with a specific point of viewin·cul·cate1. to implant by repeated statement or admonition; teach persistently and earnestly (usually followed by upon or in ): to inculcate virtue in the young.2. to cause or influence (someone) to accept an idea or feelingatheism the position that there are no deities. theismbelief in one or more deities Rules: Only the resultion may be debated, not definitions, nor whether the resolution is valid, etc. Any claims of fallacy must be demonstrated.4 Rounds6000 words72 hours First round for acceptance onlyBOP is shared. Con must argue that theism is more a product of indoctrination.Please welcome my opponent!
Atheism is more a product of indoctrination than Theism

Well you heard my opponent, I am no longer allowed to post an argument. I believe that even then I have won, because I have not forfeited, I told my opponent I had a family emergency. Also my opponent has not fullfilled their Burden of Proof, it is clear that the Burden is decided by the resolution, and this resolution places the Burden on my opponent. He has not shown how atheism is, beyond doubt, a product of indoctrination.
Atheism is more a product of indoctrination than Theism

I am sorry that my opponent failed to make any argument. In Summary:My opponent didn't refute any of my arguments, nor did he fulfil his burden of proof. He flagrantly ignored the rules of the debate, and disrespected us all by failing to produce an argument in round 3. If he produces an argument or refutation in round 4, I ask that it be ignored as I will have no opportunity for response.
Marijuana is safer than alcohol.

I'll get right to it! According to researchers at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine, the only side effect found was a minimal malfunction in the domains of learning and forgetting. However this is a very small side effect for such long term use. This is what I am talking about. In a growingly competitive international market, a decrease in learning and memory will make America less of a superpower, which will eventually lead to economic collapse. There is no way that marijuana could cause a complete economic collapse as I pointed out pot does not make you lazy and what pot would do is help the economy out by taxing it and hemp could be used as another resource. Actually, pot is what is called an "elastic" good, meaning that people will buy much less of it if the price increases because of tax. This, combined with the ease of at-home growing, would actually limit the tax revenue the government would take in due to legalizing pot. Hemp has been grown for at least the last 12,000 years for fiber (textiles and paper) and food. It has been prohibited in the United States since the 1950s because they were making their money with highly chemical paper that was allot more expensive so to get people to buy there paper and other fibers and oils they banned hemp. The products that can be made from hemp number over 25,000. Because the debate is about whether or not marijuana is safer than alcohol, not whether it should be legalized, this argument is kind of moot. My point still stands, pot will lead to economic collapse.
Marijuana is safer than alcohol.

Sorry about forfeiting the previous round and thank you for accepting. My opponent said that people who use marijuana have long term effects that makes them lazy, this is not true as an analysis of research studies with long-term, recreational users of marijuana has failed to reveal a substantial, systematic effect on the functioning of users. According to researchers at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine, the only side effect found was a minimal malfunction in the domains of learning and forgetting. However this is a very small side effect for such long term use. To answer your question people who are lazy before they started smoking are lazy after they started smoking and if something it might help you explore as it opens your mind to new ideas. I know people who were not lazy before they started smoking, and there still not. There is no way that marijuana could cause a complete economic collapse as I pointed out pot does not make you lazy and what pot would do is help the economy out by taxing it and hemp could be used as another resource. Hemp has been grown for at least the last 12,000 years for fiber (textiles and paper) and food. It has been prohibited in the United States since the 1950s because they were making their money with highly chemical paper that was allot more expensive so to get people to buy there paper and other fibers and oils they banned hemp. The products that can be made from hemp number over 25,000. The government would save $7.7 billion a year if it didn't have to spend money policing and prosecuting marijuana activity. Then, if the feds taxed marijuana at a rate comparable to cigarettes and alcohol, another $6.2 billion would come rolling in. $14 billion could be made a year just from taxing and regulating the marijuana alone. Thank you.
Marijuana is safer than alcohol.

.. I'm not even gonna pretend my side is winnable. ) Best of luck to him in this debate! My argument is simply this: marijuana is more dangerous precisely for the reason that it causes so many fewer deaths. Because people assume marijuana is harmless, having no serious side affects or consequences for extended, indulgent use, many take it in exceedingly high amounts. While this may not result in any deaths, users will often go to their work, or school, incredibly high. Add to this the fact that many can cover up the symptoms of being high by claiming to have allergies, not having sleeped enough, or whatever else they may come up with, marijuana poses a serious risk to a decrease in work efficiency, which could ultimately spiral into a complete economic collapse. Thank you.
Marijuana is safer than alcohol.

I am arguing on behalf of the motion that marijuana is safer than alcohol, I am looking forward to a challenge. I believe that marijuana is safer than alcohol, my first fact I want to get on is the annual American death rate from drugs. Tobacco leading with 400,000 deaths Alcohol second with 100,000 deaths All legal drugs 20,000 All illegal drugs 15,000 caffeine killed 2,000 Aspirin 500 Next we have marijuana, there has never been 1 death from pot. Alcohol is one of the most toxic drugs, and using just 10 times what one would use to get the desired effect can lead to death. Marijuana is one of the least toxic drugs, requiring thousands of times the dose one would use to get the desired effect to lead to death. This "thousands of times" is actually theoretical, since there has never been a recorded case of marijuana overdose.
Students Should be Allowedto Use Their Cell phones At School

This is the argument from my former account xXCryptoXx. This argument was not plagiarized; for it is my own work being used on this account that I created. Cell Phones Are Great For the Ease of Students This is obviously going to be the biggest argument and it is quite simple. It is common knowledge that people are busy. Allowing students to have cell phones with them allows them to schedule things and make important contact with extreme ease. For example if your parents thought they needed to pick you up at 3:00 P.M, but didn’t know you had to stay after school to finish a test; that could have been a problem easily solved if the student had had the ability to contact his parents in order to tell them he would have to stay after school a while. Its also not limited to the student, if the parent is running late or cannot pick their child up from school for any reason, or even if there is a family emergency they should be able to contact their child. Cell phones allow a huge burden to be taken off parents and students, by allowing them to schedule things and contact others quickly and efficiently; something that could not be done without cell phones. In the case of an emergency, such as medical problems, a school shooting, ect. students will be able to quickly and efficiently be able to contact authorities which allows some order to the chaos around them and can save lives while increasing the chance that the perpetrator is caught. Gives Students Choice and Responsibility By allowing students to possess phones during school, this gives them the opportunity to mature and learn responsibility. With the ability to possess cell phones, punishment for using cell phones during inappropriate times will be active. This gives students the choice to either use or not use their phones during inappropriate times. If they are caught and reprimanded then it gives them a chance to grow in maturity. Allowing cell phones forces students to be responsible with their phones, and learn from mistakes they make. This allows students to mature and grow in responsibility. All The Benefits Without the Consequences If it is found that students cannot be trusted to use their cell phones appropriately then school rules can be placed in order to deter cell phone use during class. For example, students may be forced to turn off their phones and place it on their desk during class. This takes away the problem of students playing on their phones or being distracted by their phones during class, while still providing the benefits of students being able to use their phones after school or in the case of an emergency.
britney spears

(First of all I have to commend you on your commanding knowledge of Britney Spears' singles. Secondly I have to again point out that I entered this debate mainly for fun and I agree with your points but I am trying to refute them anyway. not an easy task! I guess what im trying to say is loosen up a little bit =) this is rediculous so the only justification of its continuance is in the interest of fun!) Ladies and gentlemen, In my rebuttal before the court, I put before you the following facts. At the moment it is a fact that the authorities are unsure of the stability of my client's mental state. The rigors of her career have left a devastating mark on her faculties. This is completely outside her control. No one can fully understand the rigors of the Music industry because their only empirical basis for such understanding is an unrealistic media portrayal of big houses and bank accounts. I am sure that each and every reasonable member sitting in this court will agree that they would be in a state far below that of desparation if they came to the realization that the only product they had to export which the public at large will consume, is portrayals of their own insanity. She didn't have any real talent even in the beginning, but now the public is even more sure of that than they have ever been. She is too old to rely on her girlish charm and now must inform the paparazzi of her every move so as to remain in the public eye. She maintains this attention not because of any real exportable positive attribute, but mainly banks on the shock value of her actions in realtion to her former stature as a pop icon. This is truly a pathetic state of existence worthy of sympathy. The production industry at large built and sold her former image to such high expectations, that Ms. Spears could never possibly live up to her image or her talented competition. She is the victim of the production industries inconsiderate and unrealistic placement of her in the same league as Music Godesses such as Beyonce Knowles and the reigning queen the beautiful and immeasurably talented Christina Aguilera. Placing her in this league doomed her for ultimate failure because competing with great artists like Aguiliera and Knowles is clearly far out of the scope of her meager skills as a singer. Competing in this environment made her literally go mad at the realization that american idol rejects can sing better than her, and probably have more class too. Ladies and gentlemen I feel I have rebutted the prosecutions arguements effectively. I will now allow him to make his closing argument.
There's no conclusive contemporary evidence that Jesus existed

I am here to argue that there's no -conclusive- contemporary evidence that Jesus existed. The bop will be upon con to argue otherwise. Con must adhere to the definition of contemporary con"tem"po"rar"y /kənˈtempəˌrerē/ Adjective Living or occurring at the same time. Noun A person or thing living or existing at the same time as another. Con must present solid contemporary evidence that Jesus actually existed, leaving very little doubt.
abortion, case closed

Hello and thank you for the debate, None of the examples you brought up were abortion. All three were natural occurrences. You can try to define abortion to get away from the actual issue but that isn't what abortion means. A better meaning would be: The knowledgeable act of taking the life of something. A lot of people call it abortion with babies and murder with adults but there is no difference, they are both murder. I don't really understand your sentence about someone having to be born to die. If you are trying to say that because people will die anyway that it is justified to abort some of them still doesn't make it right in any way.