BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
why do some parents don't let there children go out with there friends

You may argue that its the right thing that parents are not allowing children to go out because of there good but why does it happen all the time for example parents are expecting too much form there children even if its hard they forced caldera to fallow them. Has teen you have some feeling,ambitions you want to do something by your own you don't want too always be depend toward your parents. Why parents usually interfere SO MUCH ? if you argue that they are very protective they why do they even let us go to school? In Pakistan,India there many children who are not gating freedom and, if they even have a chance to study the chance is not enough to stand in the society because there parents don't lets them study more. 1. Parents things that there are right but not always. 2. In my collage I know many students parents don't let even talk with friends on the phone. 3. Maybe you in the western side thats you may have more freedom but have you ever thing of the eastern side please reply
why do some parents don't let there children go out with there friends

"Hi you may say that parents have more experience but why are they so protective, they so protective that they will let there children have freedom." You are not being very clear. Gives some specific examples where children have a specific right that is being taken away unjustly by their parents. "Freedom is important and education as well nowadays students are always lacking behind in there studies because they cant have freedom to go out for there school trip why because there parents don't let them go out." Can you give some statistics or supporting evidence that shows at least some correlation between missing school trips and a decrease in school studies? I have had plenty of experience with school trips, I could have done without. Going on school trips is not a freedom that all children inherently have. You speak of freedom as if it means that children should be able to do whatever they wish – this is simply not true. "They don't let time even complete high school they usually tell him to work or get married in a very young age like 15 or even 10 is this fair." Kids are being forced into marriage at the age of TEN!? In South Dakota of all places? That is an entirely different issue all together. South Dakota law requires applicants who are 16 or 17 to have parental consent, and people under the age of 16 CANNOT marry (1). Are you changing your resolution from friends to work? Contentions: 1. Freedom does not mean a child can do whatever they please. 2. A parent, under law, is the responsible guardian over their children. This gives them the right to bar children from hanging out with certain people. 3. My opponent is not offering evidence. Merely stating something does not make it so. Sources: http://www.coolnurse.com...
why do some parents don't let there children go out with there friends

Hi you may say that parents have more experience but why are they so protective, they so protective that they will let there children have freedom. Freedom is important and education as well nowadays students are always lacking behind in there studies because they cant have freedom to go out for there school trip why because there parents don't let them go out. They don't let time even complete high school they usually tell him to work or get married in a very young age like 15 or even 10 is this fair. please reply
why do some parents don't let there children go out with there friends

If the resolution is essentially, "parents should not bar their children from going out with their friends," then I have a few contentions that I will address after refuting my opponents claims. "teens...they are in a suitable age to take care of them self." Yes, but we are talking about CHILDREN here (which are regarded as being a person from birth to puberty)(1). Children certainly need some assistance in taking care of themselves. Contentions: 1. Parents have more experience in life and often times know what is best for their children. 2. Friends are not always good influences. A parent may rightly want to bar their children from playing with the friendly petastache prowler - even if the child refers to him has "friend." 3. Michael Jackson was a great friend - need I say more? Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Let's have a rap battle

You'z a weak @ss guppy swimming in my ocean If you're such a "big fish" you just got a demotion Cause you're in my part of the sea And I'm the king of this b!tch Everybody stand back Let me wreck this dip sh!t You c0ck slapped my face? Man, I didn't feel it So god damn small didn't even see that sh!t But I bet your pretty @sshole be prime bait for my boys Leave you fcked up on the ground Unable to make a noise But see I'm 15 Got my whole life in front of me 'Nough time to fck your b!tch And drive off in my Ferrari Cause Imma finish high school Get a good job You might get lucky and be a soccer mom You are literally the posters they hang in school "Don't be like this guy, he's just a b!tch @ss fool" So here's my order waiter End the pain now Just drink the bottle of bleach And take your final bow.
Let's have a rap battle

You rhyme without rhythm, precision or styleTook enough time? You were given a while...It’s been like, 3 days. This is all that you got?Well get on your knees. You can suck my “two dots.”You’re losing again and I’m choosing to win.I’ll c0ck-slap your face ’til I’m bruising your skin.& Call me autistic? Your rhymes are simplistic.15-year-old dyke, you must like getting fisted.I think with my d!ck...Yep! I think that it’s thick.You think like your head just got hit with a brick.I bet you’re a fat-a$$. You might be a whale.That’s why you will never get f*cked by a male.I’m clearly the victor. Don’t even respond!Don’t f*ck with the big fish; get out of the pond.
Let's have a rap battle

Alright squonk, you want a battle? Bring it on I'm gonna give you a lesson on brain over brawn Cause you seem to think with your dick instead of the thing between your ears It's surprising we're separated by 8 years I mean I'd expect your disses by an autistic 8 year old Going on about how I "just got told" Maybe I'll slap you from Seattle to your redneck town Let you fck your sister before I come around Don't be taking bout you infinite d!ck Boy, your balls haven't even dropped yet Just two dots and a stick It ain't even your fault That your sister's your mom Preaching bout how we need to ban Islam But leave the debating to the people who can count to three I don't even need to fck ya mother You're doing it for me.
Let's have a rap battle

I came here to wreck a hoMy rhymes are impeccableYou think you can diss me?but I'm un-disrespectableThis ain't even a battleI slap you back to Seattle.& if you looking for beef,I cut you up like some cattleWe debated, you lostYou got rolled up & tossedLeft your a$$ in the dustChoking on my exhaust..."EdgeOfTheInfinite" you'ze an infinite b!tchI got infinite rhymes; you suck infinite d!ckNow I know that you a dyke, and I'm OK with that sh!t...But if I took out my penis, you'd go in for a lick
Let's have a rap battle

I'm coming back from a challenging debate so let's have a rap battle. Rules We can use information from each others profiles If you have no information on your profile(big issues, sports teams, books, interests etc.) do not accept this battle. You can go as harsh and raw as possible, but try not to get this debate removed.7 If you want to debate give us a taste of what you can do. A few line rap, insult, whatever. Alright squonk round two, let's go. You can start.
Let's have a rap battle

You don’t have a Ferrari. Let’s get real here.I read all of your verses;there’s no appeal here.How do you plan to f*ck my b!tchwhen I don’t even have one?To f*ck a b!tch, you need a d!ckand as a b!tch you have none.You probably have a swollen vadge that’s riddled with disease.The only virgin in the worldwith all the STDs.You say “I’m suicidal!"…You attention-seeking goof.Well if you’re suicidal,Please jump off a f***ing roof!I seriously mean it.I’m not saying it to diss you.If you killed yourself, you know,you have no friends who’d miss you.You plan to finish high school,but you’ll probably fail math.You should pop some crazy pillsand take a f***ing bath.Go cut yourself and mayberead a book on “How to Rhyme”Next time, try to thinkbefore you write another line.‘Cuz everything you sayis coming off as kinda corny.That sh!t you said about my @ssholemade me kinda horny.
There is evidence for God's Existence

Con: "My opponent has used anecdotal accounts from the bible and twisting them in a convoluted and incoherent way with Islam. He then goes on to mention biblical prophecy relating to vague inflammatory assertions relating to Islam, for example, "4)The instigator of 9/11 according to the 9/11 Report, and the grand central station of Wahhabism, the ideology of ISIS, who uses beheading as its method of executing Christians." There is no need to twist anything. The Bible tells us literally who is not God's, even giving us their own father's name. It literally tells us there will be a group who bows to a graven image, literally beheads Christians, literally worships a god set up at the exact spot, "The Temple Mount", who is literally introduced and given authority by a "prophet" who specifically renounces Christ, etc etc. The Bible literally tells us the regions Christ fights in the end, and all are literally Islamic today, and by probability alone an astronomical guess if a guess. Much of the region was literally a part of other empires at the time of the prophecy and Islam literally did not exist yet. The Bible literally says there will be a literal city attributed to this group where the world gets a product from where people from all over the world gather. This literal city is antichrist yet considered an abomination to the antichrist group in the Bible. Here is a Muslim cleric describing Mecca as a great abomination to Islam. http://youtu.be... The gospel literally went global. It literally now has a rebellion against it and is mocked vigorously by the New Militant Atheism. And Damascus literally was reduced to rubble conveniently at the same time. Damascus is rubble. Drone footage. http://youtu.be... In the apocalyptic book of Isaiah- (Isaiah 17:1) "A prophecy against Damascus: "See, Damascus will no longer be as it was but will become a heap of ruins." -- I pushed supper symmetry and the fermi paradox as bait towards Con to show the rebellion against God is in full force, proving that the rebellion is present just as the gospel is climbing down from it's peak as mentioned above.
There is evidence for God's Existence

My opponent has used anecdotal accounts from the bible and twisting them in a convoluted and incoherent way with Islam. He then goes on to mention biblical prophecy relating to vague inflammatory assertions relating to Islam, for example, "4)The instigator of 9/11 according to the 9/11 Report, and the grand central station of Wahhabism, the ideology of ISIS, who uses beheading as its method of executing Christians." This is no evidence whatsoever, either directly or indirectly supporting the subject of there being evidence for God's existence. We then get to the reference to James Gates and the string theory. As well as failing to link this in support of his argument the string theory is unproven due to the lack of experimental evidence, in that no supersymmetric particles have been found. Fermi's Paradox relates to the probability of life on other planets and the extreme possibility that alien life should have visited earth. It is an extreme proposition as in all probability it is unlikely that aliens could or would want to travel to Earth, similarly, inhabitants of Earth have so far nowhere near the capacity to visit another planet that may have life, probably at least one million light years away. Even if we were to agree with the paradox's conclusion it would only confirm that the only life in the universe is on Earth. This point would not confirm the existence of God. I conclude that my opponent has failed to provide any evidence whatsoever to prove the existence of God.
There is evidence for God's Existence

My opponent has made an argument with the statement, "Denying that Jesus is the "Son of God" is antichrist by Biblical definition" is a non argument in that it has no relevance to the topic of this debate. Also, none of the quotes provided offer any evidence as to the existence of God. For example, the first quote ("Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist, denying the Father and the Son.") vaguely implies that anyone claiming the non-existence of God is against such existence. The implication may be true however it offers no evidence in support of my opponent's argument.
The United States judicial system is seriously flawed because of our current Judicial Review.

I affirm the above resolution. United States judicial system - http://en.wikipedia.org... Seriously - extremely (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Flawed - an imperfection or weakness and especially one that detracts from the whole or hinders effectiveness (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Okay, I think that our judicial system is seriously flawed, but for this debate, I am only going to cover one. 1. The Supreme Court According to "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution", the Founding Fathers had intended for the judicial branch to be the weakest branch of the federal government. Until, of course, Marshall devised the idea of judicial review. http://en.wikipedia.org... This now makes the judicial branch the most powerful branch, as it has the power to interpret the Constitution, using any wording flaws they choose. Additionally, the president has the power to appoint a Justice to the Supreme Court for life, with approval from Senate. Because the Supreme Court usually only reviews highly controversial subjects, the only thing that really matters is whoever was president at the time a Justice died or retired, as long as he also had control of the Senate. This potential abuse of power is a serious flaw. Thank you for wanting to debate, JBlake.
That Religious Expression Should Be Banned in Public Places

Hello and thanks for some good points, this looks like it will be a good debate.I don't think I'm allowed to refute Pro, only make arguments, so that's what I'll do.However, I have a question for Pro. How are these three examples really related to religious expression of individuals (the redhead example relates but the others do not)? These seem to be more examples of the downsides of having organized religions on a national level. I respectfully ask you to clarify how this is related to religious expression on a more personal level.My arguments for religious expression are quite simple. I support two philosophies which in turn support the freedom of religious expression:1. Freedom of SpeechThe freedom of speech is quite important, as I think you would agree. After all, in all your examples, if you were to speak out against the movements (Islam, Christianity during the crusades, Japanese government), you would be killed. Freedom of speech is important so that healthy debate and discussion can take place so that change in society, ideologies, etc. can happen. Everyone should have the right to express their opinion.2. Freedom of ReligionFreedom of religion is another important value, as the ability to choose your belief is something everyone should have. Limiting people's ideologies is pretty oppressive and does not lead to happy members of a society. People should have the right to decide things for themselves.I believe that these two things are extremely important values in society and I believe that public places are important battlefields for ideologies and opinions. I don't see why public places should be censored to the forum of clashing ideas.
There is no such thing as rape culture in Western civilization.

There are a few main arguments commonly used to prove the idea of "rape culture". These arguments are 1) the college campus rape statistic and 2) the culture of victim-blaming. These arguments are also utterly ridiculous. 1. The college campus rape statistic A commonly cited statistic is that 1 in 4 or 1 in 5 women will be raped at some point on a college campus. That study has myriads of problems. In fact, two of the researchers themselves [1] pointed out some of these flaws. First, sample size. This study only looked at two universities. Second, this study took into account other forms of sexual assault, like unwanted kissing or groping. Furthermore, this study was based on attempted sexual assault, not completed sexual assault. Fourth, the study was a self-selected web-based survey with a response rate of 42%. This means out of the 42% of people who chose to answer from 2 universities, 1 in 7 reported an attempted rape. The problems with this study are immense. 1-http://time.com... 2. A culture of victim blaming First, let me say that victim blaming, for the most part, is awful, it's never your fault if you are a victim of sexual assault. However, to say that people shouldn't take steps to protect themselves is equally bad. While I agree that provocative clothing is only an excuse for rape to Islamofascists, and thus isn't valid in the West, there are a few steps you can take to ensure your own safety. You can decide to not go down a dark alley in Compton alone at night. The "don't teach people not to get raped, teach rapists not to rape" mentality is wholly stupid (the alternative most people on the Con would use to a "culture of victim blaming"). This mentality contains a few wrong assumptions: 1) That rapists don't know it's wrong to rape (with the exception of the aforementioned Islamofascists, this is ridiculous), 2) That when told this, rapists will decide not to rape, 3) This leads to a presumption of guilt on the part of all men, as they are told by this mentality that they are potential rapists who will do it if they're not told, and 4) That people don't need to take responsibility for their own safety. Do you hear anyone saying "don't teach people to lock their doors, teach robbers not to rob"? No, because that is ridiculous. Therefore, we can see that there is no rape culture in Western Civilization.
The death penalty should not remain legal in the United States.

Clearly, my opponent has done a terrific job in both refuting my case and strengthening her own. I had no idea what social contract theory was, and thank my opponent for the opportunity to learn more about it. Whatever I would have argued in this round, I know my opponent could have easily rebuked. Christmas is around the corner, so why give my opponent something that she'll have to waste more time doing? Thanks for the debate, alto2osu. I never thought I'd be understanding or favorable of the death penalty, but your case is quite persuasive. Thank you. Goodbye.
The death penalty should not remain legal in the United States.

My only concern about definitions at this time is regarding the necessity in defining the term "murder," as it does not appear in the resolution itself. Furthermore, the definition seems to be a possible set-up for an argument on the affirmative, which wouldn't be quite kosher. However, I will wait to see my opponent's case before crying "abuse." :) So, I humbly accept this challenge, and await my opponent's case.
The death penalty should not remain legal in the United States.

I affirm the resolution, "The death penalty should not remain legal in the United States. " I would like to use this round as an introduction and to define key terms: death penalty- a sentence of punishment by execution; capital punishment. [1] murder- the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. [2] legal- permitted by law. [3] *"Death penalty" may be replaced with "capital punishment" throughout the argumentation because they have the same meaning. * This round has solely been utilized to clarify what the debate is covering and to decipher critical definitions associated with the resolution. In this first round, my opponent has the opportunity to bring up any concerns or stipulations about any of my wording and use of definitions. If my opponent is satisfied with the way I have presented the opening, I would prefer if he/she refrains from posting argumentation in round one (As Instigator, I feel the need to post beginning contentions) and simply type the response, "I accept SAC's definitions and am prepared to debate. " [1] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [3] . http://dictionary.reference.com...
Catholicism is disagreeable and offensive.

First off, Catholics are Cristians to. God is our symbol, and just like the Christians we have preists, and ministers who are "symbols" of our faith. If you want to know why it's disrespectful to me if you say "my "oh-so "awesome" Jehovah", it's because you are insulting Christ. The base of all CHRISTians including you. To me 'respecting God' is important, and that includes not insulting him. You see this is part of my faith and the Ten Commandments. Once again 40 years does not mean 40 years. It means many years. Either way 40 years in a desert is better than a lifetime of slavery. God sent Mosses to free them. He is a savior. It may not originally come from Catholism but they are rules a Catholic should follow, it's called ethics. Priests, Popes, Bishops, whatever they are still human, therefore not perfect. Mormons, Catholics none are perfect. There are many times where people from all religions have disobeyed the word of the Lord, even if they didn't get the publicity. Though yes some preists made a mistake most of them are good honest people. I don't find an entire religion offensive because humans did what humans do, they make mistakes. The only one perfect is God. Christ the Almighty. Maker of Heaven and Earth. Finally this is why I think Catholism is not disagreeable or offensive: 1. The Catholic faith is based off Jesus' example to love everyone, even your enemy. 2. The majority of the people are good and honest, this is thanks to our ethics based off the Ten Commandments. 3. Their ability to repent after making the mistakes every human makes. 4. The strength of our faith. That doesn't break no matter what God puts us through. As Mother Theresa said, " I know God will not give me anything I can't handle. I just wish He didn't trust me so much." She's saying she knows God will get her through everything, even if it's not easy. Please do voye only on the debate not the opinion. Thankyou.