BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: People should marry for love and not financial security

Sorry for the delay I had a lot of assignment and course work doing. Before we understand this debate there are some key words in the moot which we should adequately define and they are:“Marry” “Love” and “Financial Security” Marry: to take as an intimate life partner by a formal exchange ofpromises in the manner of a traditional marriageceremony. http://dictionary.reference.com...... Love: sexual passion or desire. http://dictionary.reference.com...... There is no definite definition for financial security so I will define security in terms of finance. Security: freedom from financial cares or from want. http://dictionary.reference.com...... Now the Resolution can be restated as such: People should take an intimate life partner by formal exchange of promises in the manner of a tradition marriage ceremony for sexual passion or desire and not freedom from financial cares or from want. Now before two people consider the act of marriage, there are some things that are to be taken into consideration. Where are they going to live, how are they going to provide the family, cover their expenses or in essence maintain themselves or financial stability. When we glance at the purpose for marriage it is mainly for procreation and raising children. Now we can deduce that no matter what people marry for, in some cases those purposes can be fulfilled. The fact is when persons marry for freedom from want that is better than just marrying for sexual passion or desire. In this world that we live in, we cannot do without food, clothing and shelter, as well as some other minor things but we can live without satisfying our sexual passion or desire as proof of this that is the very reason why we have nuns and eunuchs. If people marry only for sexual passion or desire what happens if the man is impotent? What happens if the man is too small? What happens when the desire for that particular person is diverted to somebody else? What happens if the desire or passion toward the partner is no more? But because both partners are satisfied in terms of want or finance it can keep the marriage going however this is not to say that love will not be an aspect of the marriage why did I say that? Careful observation of the resolution is that we are arguing the reason why they should marry in the first place as the word “for” denotes. With that said this leads me to specific type of marriage. Arranged marriages Many people are against this type of marriage, however it commonly done in India [1]. Studies have should that these marriages then to last longer than the so called “Love” marriages [2]. This type of marriage is based on societal status etc. hence people should marry FOR freedom of want and not sexual desire or passion. 1. http://berchmans.tripod.com...... 2.http://www.yourtango.com......
It Happened To Me .'. It Can Happen To You

Before the Twenty-First Century the mental health system was used to suppress this secret by committing unauthorized people who were caught knowing this secret to the mental hospital gulags. Benjamin Franklin started the mental health system to silence unauthorized people who knew too much, this secret included, about his lodges. In the 1950's there were twenty-five million people locked up in the mental hospital gulags. The population of the United States of America was then a hundred million people. That was one quarter of the American population. Most of these people today, who are still alive, due to bad mental health records, are homeless. Attempts have been made to eliminate our Constitution, by attempting a constitutional convention, and recently attempts have been made to put America under an Islamic government, starting by putting Islamic Sharia law into our legal system. This time, concentration camps have been built to imprison anyone caught knowing this secret, where people who knew too much would be exterminated, after being exploited for such torments as medical experimentation, etc. We will be safe when this knowledge is open public knowledge.
It Happened To Me .'. It Can Happen To You

We are all safe as long as we have our Constitution; but, it is advisable to spread these secrets as much as you can, in case we lose our Constitution. Before Dr. Stanislav Grof came here as bate for the Soviets the Constitution was ignored and those who stumbled upon such secrets were declared to be "schizophrenics" and were imprisoned without fair trials. But, since "foreign interests" kept an eye out for such injustices, the mental hospital gulags were closed up and, as far as I know, we have had our Constitutional rights.
It Happened To Me .'. It Can Happen To You

-ProofMy oppoment Has No sokid proof to Confirm I his argument.My Opponent also Did not say how accurate, So I assune it's Accurate word by word.-AgeI cannot live in the 1950s or Join the army as I do not have the age. Thus, It cannot happen to me Word By Word.Vote con! http://todaysmilitary.com...
chores and child abuse

"Ok for those of you in the comments, I didn't post everything about my childhood in the argument. You guys have taken this a whole new direction. " Ironic, Considering you took a debate that you yourself created in a whole different direction. No matter. Closing statements! Excessive chores should not be considered child abuse as they instill discipline, Teach children to be accountable and allow them to be a productive part of the household without having to get a job. It may feel like a burden, But they exist to help a child, Not harm them.
chores and child abuse

It doesn't because we're debating whether or not chores should be considered child abuse. I answered the original prompt and you responded by saying "I'm not against chores but I am against bad parenting and I want to defend everyone out there in a situation like mine. " If your argument was about bad parenting then why did you not specify that in the title? By specifying chores, You are implying that giving children excessive chores (you only mentioned chores, But I'll assume you meant excessive chores) is child abuse. You've completely misunderstood your own prompt.
chores and child abuse

"It says "Chores and Child Abuse"" Yes, Meaning that we are arguing whether or not chores should be considered child abuse. "because they are all apart of the same issue and I'm trying to prove that chores can be used as a form of child abuse which is bad parenting" But we're not debating whether bad parenting is child abuse or not. Bad parenting has nothing to do with this. If you wanted to argue about bad parenting you should have made the title related to bad parenting, Not chores. "if you had any common sense" Rude. . . "you would know that they are going to be debated as one topic or combined" But the problem is that we aren't just debating child abuse. We're debating whether or not chores (or extra chores, Really) should be considered child abuse. You're not debating the topic at hand. Again, If you wanted to strictly debate bad parenting, You should have titled the debate as such. By making the title "chores and child abuse" you're saying that you want to argue whether or not giving your child chores should be considered child abuse. "I mean seriously how do you see "child abuse" in the heading and not connect it with bad parenting. " When you put "chore" before it, It implies that you want to argue whether or not chores should be considered child abuse. You need to be more specific in your titles to avoid confusion like this. What you're currently trying to argue has nothing to do with the prompt. The debate is about whether or not chores should be considered child abuse. Not whether bad parenting is child abuse. But from reading your opening statement, I get the feeling that you simply wanted to vent about the issues you were having at home. I'm sorry that you're going through that, And I hope that you can find a way to resolve your problems, But if that was your goal, This may not be the best place to do it.
chores and child abuse

This seems like an awfully personal issue for you. I'm not going to debate your story, All I can really tell you is that you should handle that with your family. Whether that means reaching an understanding and coming to some kind of agreement or moving out and finding people that will treat you better, I don't know. You're clearly against extra chores, And I have to disagree with you. While chores seem like a burden for children, They help to instill discipline, And teach children to be accountable. Plus, They allow the child to be productive in the household. In your case, Like I said, That's an issue with your household specifically. I think it is safe to assume that most children are not working the hours that you are. They likely only go to school and participate in some extracurricular and that's it. They aren't providing any money for the family, So they should be required to at least keep up the house (once they reach a certain age, Obviously), Since their parents are providing them with mostly everything else.
America is NOT the best country.

So what if America has the most kilss? What does that even mean? How do the police just randomly shoot people? Honestly, I"m Indian and all the Asian stereotypes are actually pretty true. And how do you prove America is Racist? So what if we spend a lot on our military? It"s the best in the world. And so what if we export a lot of weapons. Guns are good. A good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with a gun. That"s honestly good. That means everybody can protect themselves from a mugger, robber, murderer, etc. Look your cars, sweeteners, tv, rape, etc. is probably because of our huge population. And most of them don"t make sense anyway like drugs, sweeteners, and tv. Actually the country with highest student debt is the UK. We"re second. So what about porn? And we have the worlds biggest economy, so it"s no surprise that we have the most debt. Look every country has problems, We just have the least, or the better of them. You honestly proved nothing in your argument. You simply pointed out problems with America, it that doesn"t mean that we aren"t the best country. Look give me a country that"s better than America.
America is NOT the best country.

America doesn't even rank 10# on the list of countries that have the most freedom. According to https://www.businessinsider.com.au...'s freedom ranks 27#, as of 2018. And America has the most killss, accidental or not, and the police randomly shoot people just because they MIGHT be a threat. America is also very racist. They are quite racist just because the color of someones skin, and beleive in MANY stereotypes of Asians. And USA spent 682 BILLION dollars on the military, and exports the most weapons, according to https://www.huffingtonpost.com.au.... And America has the most guns as much as people than any other country. They consume more calories from sweeteners on average than anyone else in the world. And in the U.S, more babies die on the day they were born than any other country. And America has the most prisoners. Highest divorce rate, highest amount of hours watching television, highest rate of illegal drug use, highest number of car thefts, highest number of rapes, highest number of murders, highest number of crimes, highest number of student loan debt, 89% of the entire number of pornography created was made by american people, Usa has the most national debt on the globe, expanding by $40,000 per second. With all these bad things, how can america be the best country??
We are hypocrites to criticize the Japanese people for there hunting of dolphins.

Before I start I would like to clarify what I meant by "we", for this debate I will define "we" as "western culture". (If you want another definition we can change it) 1. Around 13,000 dolphins are killed in japan every year (this does come from . http://savejapandolphins.org... a website set up by sea shepherd and so it should probably be taken with a pinch of salt). In the US alone 120,000,000 pigs are killed a year, this is alongside 39,000,000 cows (. http://awellfedworld.org...). Taking issue with the Japanese hunting of dolphins is essentially giving more moral weight to the lives of 13,000 dolphins than the lives of the almost 160,000,000 farm animals killed for food by the US alone (I can't find statistics for the rest of the world). 2. We wouldn't tolerate people of other cultures telling us that we shouldn't kill the millions of animals we do. Lets say a hindu decided to start a campaign, campaigning for the rights of cows; they would be dismissed as xenophobic and racist. Why are we allowed to attack other cultures when the cannot attack us?
We are hypocrites to criticize the Japanese people for there hunting of dolphins.

Dolphins are corralled into a small cove and trapped overnight by nets. At sunrise, they are stabbed by harpoons, fish hooks, and knives From the judgements of the conditions and the habitat dolphins are in compared to other animals is less moral. Since the definition of morality can differ from person to person, judging solely on the conditions, dolphins are killed in a less moral way than other animals, since it takes a longer time to die, they are being trapped in coved, where humans are using an animals natural reaction to kill.However, Japan's own slaughter guidelines for livestock require that the creature being killed must be made to lose consciousness and be killed by methods "proven to minimize, as much as possible, any agony to the animal." But those guidelines do not apply to whale and dolphin killing, which is governed by Japan's Fisheries Agency..." [1] It is immoral and also not humane. In addtion, dolphin hunting is not being properly regulated. As I said in my previous round, dolphin meat is toxic, and Japan promotes it as a health food. Mercury is dangerous, as proven in my previous round. As of this point, my argumentation still stands. Since the people are not aware of the risk, and the Japanese saying it is a health benefit, when clearly the arguments are toward the danger, dolphin meat should not be consumed because it is toxic. Lastly, my opponent said that a pig is more intelligent than a dolphin, which is true. Pigs are smart in their capabilities. However, dolphins recognize themselves, which other animals cannot. [2] Western culture is not hypoctrical. According to urbandictionary.com, hypocritical is:(1) A person who engages in the same behaviors he condemns others for. (2) A person who professes certain ideals, but fails to live up to them. (3) A person who holds other people to higher standards than he holds himself.Taking these definitions regarding dolphin, dolphin hunting is not regulated. Dolphin meat is counterfeited and in hand, contains mercury, a poison, which Japan is promoting as a health food. Their natural behaviors are used against them, and are subjected to a long and painful death. Western culture is not being hypocritical over the cruel hunting of dolphins. Vote con. (Picture below.) http://newsletter.snopes.com...2 http://www.npr.org......1 http://m.huffpost.com......
We are hypocrites to criticize the Japanese people for there hunting of dolphins.

First I don't see any difference in moral weight between killing a "wild" animal or one which has been raised in captivity and I feel my point about morality still stands."That is enitrely a personal opinion. From the judgements of the conditions and the habitat dolphins are in compared to other animals is less moral. Since the definition of morality can differ from person to person, judging solely on the conditions, dolphins are killed in a less moral way than other animals, since it takes a longer time to die, they are being trapped in coved, where humans are using an animals natural reaction to kill."I would argue that there are many animals hunted from the wild which reproduce at similar rates to dolphins for instance moose [1] which are also very important for a balanced ecosystem [2]. I don't see why a balance cannot be found between hunting and conservation."I agree completely how Moose are important to the ecosystem, varying importance depending to the ecosystem. However, Japan's own slaughter guidelines for livestock require that the creature being killed must be made to lose consciousness and be killed by methods "proven to minimize, as much as possible, any agony to the animal." But those guidelines do not apply to whale and dolphin killing, which is governed by Japan's Fisheries Agency..." [1] It is immoral and also not humane. In addtion, dolphin hunting is not being properly regulated."I can find very little on the actual quantities of dolphin meat being marketed as whale meat all I can find is that some unquantified amount of dolphin meat is marketed as whale meat. The Japanese government provides food safety education which should certainly be considered adequate [3] and so I don't see a large problem. As I have previously argued anyone should be able to put whatever they like into their bodies so long as they know the risks and I feel this combined with the Japanese food health education negates you argument about mercury levels."The reason why there is not a specific amount of counterfeit meat is because the people don't know. This is a huge problem. As I said in my previous round, dolphin meat is toxic, and Japan promotes it as a health food. Mercury is dangerous, as proven in my previous round. As of this point, my argumentation still stands. Since the people are not aware of the risk, and the Japanese saying it is a health benefit, when clearly the arguments are toward the danger, dolphin meat should not be consumed. As previously stated, I can name the countless consequences of ingesting mercury, which is not needed in the body and is a poison. This can simply not bre looked over, nor avoided. Lastly, my opponent said that a pig is more intelligent than a dolphin, which is true. Pigs are smart in their capabilities. However, dolphins recognize themselves, which other animals cannot. [2] Western culture is not hypocritical. From the way dolphins are hunted and killed, to the consequences of ingesting the meat, it is obvious the danger and the cruelty these animals go through.2 http://www.npr.org...1 http://m.huffpost.com...
Abortion should be illegal world wide

Bad news bro , lmaooo did i rattle you fact is you can right ya 500000 word bullcrap responses but you a baby Kiiler . lol I got to when I responded lol I spit Facts you spit baby killing garbage. but hey you have to live with yaself not us pro life people. were happy . Fact is Im for Life abortion should be illegalized. hey everybody , he got mad because i called him on his quote :I look like I eat chicken comment lol. you were done then buddy .
Abortion should be illegal world wide

lmaoooo This is so easy , whether you kill ,terminate , destroy fact of the matter is my friend the fetus which was living was dead. Excuse me for saying baby then ill use your term which is fetus ok , i hate to tell you the truth but the fetus is living, when people say shes pregnant they dont say shes pregnant with a fetus , they say shes pregnant with a baby? also how does any peron who agrees with abortions or helps with that horrible procedure know what a fetus,s emotions are or sentience. You have no facts to prove that point therefore you should not use that excuse. The most outrageous thing you stated which should get you disqualified for making assumptions like quote: I LOOK LIKE I EAT CHICKEN lol.Bad news brother i dont im actually a vegetarian . NO ONE CAN LOOK LIKE THEY EAT CHICKEN. Some one message him and tell him that? My debate subject not about chicken sir its about a baby ,oh my fault should i say, a fetus which is living until terminated. Wow you actually said a chicken has more intelligence than a fetus ? its an excuse and its not a Fact. But back to subject at hand which is a mother murdering her fetus aka baby. You said that quote: That is truly barbaric and that is the evil you so wrongfully defend. To be pro-life you must be pro-suffering? lmaoooo wow and you believe and back that statement . So im saying make abortions illegal so these babys live the lives that the 2 idiots who get the abortions make a grown choice to create and im barbaric and evil for that opinion ? But you agree with fetus termination ? Whos truly more barbaric and evil? and suffering is having the physical abortion and emotional stress that the parents go through after it . If they baby lives how does it suffer and from what? dont say ignorant things like diseases and neglect etc because the ability to live single handedly over rules it. THAT WAS DUM AS HELL BRO! read what you write before you make dum contradictions online . and to answer you r question im just a man wanting to see a baby live and not murdered in a evil and truly barbaric way . have you ever seen an abortion King Kong ? thats not evil and barbaric? now remember dont make statements like YOU LOOK LIKE YOU EAT CHICKEN lmaooo
Abortion should be illegal world wide

You say that abortion is killing a baby, but abortion is the termination of a fetus, not a baby. A fetus is simply a template which has yet to develop any form of emotion or sentience. I guarantee a chicken has more intelligence than a fetus, yet judging from your profile picture I bet you eat a lot of chicken. So how can you defend the existence of a template while eating the flesh of a butchered animal? I know chicken is tasty, but you can't speak about morals and "A right to live" when you're devouring flesh like a feral beast! If a woman can't look after this template properly then why should we wait until it develops sentience? It would be given the ability to feel, yet be bough into a world to feel only pain. That is truly barbaric and that is the evil you so wrongfully defend. To be pro-life you must be pro-suffering. People don't get abortions casually, they get them due to personal reasons that will alter their life. Maybe their dad raped them and couldn't pull out in time to jizz on their belly. To this I ask, who the f**k are you to tell any woman that she has to give birth?
Abortion should be illegal world wide

Abortion is rang no one should murder there unborn child. If a women has a right to the choice of the abortion ,,well the baby has a choice and should have the right to live. Its Evil to kill a baby .there should be no argument because any rebuttal means your stance is kill a child infant you created. it makes no sense religious wise, morally makes no sense at all, and it shouldn't make legal sense because murders illegal.