BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world

well let me make the grounds of the debate clear---i will speak and try to prove the point the hand that rocks the cradle is the one that rules the world.the other one has to objetc to it and try to prove it wrong......... What an important job a mother has! The mothers of the next generation are the ones who are molding the future. Motherhood is just about the greatest calling in the world. Of course, taking care of a baby may not always seem very important, but don't ever minimize it. Who knows what an impact that child may have on the lives of many others one day? Motherhood takes the strength of Samson, the wisdom of Solomon, the patience of Job, the faith of Abraham, the insight of Daniel, and the courage and administrative ability of David. It also takes the love of God, that's for sure! What a job! The thing that makes a mother so wonderful is her self-sacrificial spirit that is willing to sacrifice her time and strength and even her own health, if necessary, for the sake of that child. Any woman can have a baby, but it takes a real mother to learn how to "train up a child in the way he should go" . mothers r the ones who go hungry to feed their child....wake all nite to ensur their child sleeps well....it is they who do so much for the child that a child always remains indebted to them and always folow her advice over all others.in this way it is these mothers who rule the world in true sense!!!111
The real value of pie is not 3.14

This is obviously a joke debate, but I shall take on the challenge anyway. My opponent said that " everyone says that [the value of] pie is rounded to 3.14" No, the value of pi (not pie) is rounded to 3.14. (hint : vote for me on spelling and grammar) My opponent stated that pie does not have a value of 3.14 but has not specified the currency. There is a huge amount of currencies in the world. Official number is 180. . http://en.wikipedia.org... This does not even count the sub currencies of the world (examples of sub currency are US cents or UK pence or Indian paisa or Kuwati fils). The value of a pie must be 3.14 in AT LEAST one currency or sub currency. Also, different pie sizes have different rates. Therefore if a pie of the right size is made, it will cost 3.14 for a specified currency or even sub currency (different sizes for different currencies or sub currencies).
The real value of pie is not 3.14

I believe winning debates mean that you are a rational, logical person that presents arguments in a concise and coherent manner. My win ratio is disastrous at 41%. Therefore, comparatively, I would argue that I am illogical, incompetent, incoherent and not rational. Onto my argument: everyone says that pie is rounded to 3.14 but this is not true. The value of pie depends on it's price. Price is determined by supply and demand which fluctuate for a variety of different reasons. Mainly, the number of pies being produced and sold in a competitive market will determine the equilibrium price of pie. Monopoles produce to the point where marginal benefit = marginal cost. In a perfectly competitive market however, suppliers produce to a point where price = marginal cost. Only in a monopoly could the price be set at 3.14 because they would dominate the market and be able to charge whatever they wanted. Pie producers are not a monopoly though and fall into the category of a competitive market. Therefore, pie is NOT 3.14.
Housing

in which state are we talking about please bring some evidence to the table for this debate because im not really knowing what this debate is about because in my recent research i have found nothing about this is the 18 is added to the lease then the parents who have to star the lease all over again and none of this seem logical because if a teen is added to a contract he would also have to go through the bank and be approved i would think and if the kid is in college making close to nothing he couldnt be put on the lease agreement i would think and arnt you suppose to be supporting this not going in my favor?
Housing

This is less a debate as it is more a question. In many states after the first year of renting a property, the tenant or tenants are on a month-to-month lease. However, prior to that time, potential renters who are 18 years of age or older are required to have their name on the lease. Minors as you know are not allowed to enter into contracts. In some instances, when family members who have been living in the house turn 18; the family is required to sign a new lease which will include all adults living in the unit. Our concern is adding an 18 year or older child who is basically relying on their parents for financial support to the lease is simply wrong. We profess just as with health care, children should be allowed to stay off the lease until they reach the age of 26. Just like parents can keep their children on their health care until they turn 26 years of age. We have witness families suffer fiscal issues, fall behind on their rent and every adult 18 years and over has the failure to pay rent on their credit, even if the children (18-26) are technically just living with mom and dad. I would suspect this concern does not apply to the purchase of a home, given the many factors you just stated. However, forcing families to add college enrolled children to their lease in our opinion has the potential to damage the credit of many low to moderate income families who rent at a higher than most other families. Please stay connected. Our next debate will discuss housing and discrimination, should Realtors who knowingly discriminate and or found to have done so be prevented from every working as a Realtor?
Housing

first off I'm kinda confused with this debate but it seem to be an interesting topic and my mother is a Realtor so I have some information about this topic...but first of all after a contract is written for a house for buying the written agreement for buy the house you add the owners name and you cannot change the names unless all property owner have deceased. also their the bank loans that have the same two names if the children added to the contract be liable to pay the mortgage? when property exchanges there has to be some form of money or thing of value for the contract so if the new names were added would they have to buy a percentage of the property? also in a renters agreement their is a down payment just in case of property damage or for little fixes, but you cannot add to the renters agreement after the names have been signed so if there was such a rule change would the new mane have to put a down payment on the house? or pay for a house inspection because they are now in a legal contract? these are all just question for the first round debate but if this is maybe going to happen there is many thing that would be very confusing for the land owners and renters and some difficult problems. thank you and you can answer all these questions and hopefully some more so I may debate this topic further thanks
Atheism

Please forgive the amount of my argument I was pushed for time. The concept of Atheism is to trust in what can be proven and to try and find an answer for what cannot be proven. Therefore I do not have an answer for your question of how the world started. What I can try and show you is why we choose not to believe in religion. We do not because to us the concept of a God is unbelievable and frightening, because the idea that someone has the power to shape your life repels us. We choose to believe that our actions are our own and our life belongs to ourselves. As for how the world began we take the most believable concept in our opinion. The most reasonable concept is one that has scientific proof behind it. A God is not as reasonable because their are so many gods if God created the world then are there really 1 billion muslims that are mislead and deceived. So far the only proof in God is the Bible which has been proven to have some false concepts such as, Noah's Arch. If God were to appear before me and show me his will then I would change my life to better fit his ideals. Until then i will remain in my belief in a concept that has some more concrete evidence.
Atheism

Thank you for setting up your arguments in an organized way that will allow me to touch on the main points you spoke of. I did not know that the Bible so accurately described science when such concepts were not even fathomed. I respect that the Bible was scientifically correct on many points. Please remember that I did not state that it was a completely false historical reference, what I did state was that some stories were false. I have to apologize on your point that I stated Islam as a polytheistic religion. That was mere clerical error on my part. I am not ignorant of Islam I know of Muhammad the prophet and Allah his God. I strive to understand all religions so that I may understand my choice of Atheism. What I am urging you to at least consider the possibility that The Bible was written by a highly intelligent group of scholars and learned men. That these men were living in a time when a peaceful and forgiving God inspires them. Note that the Bible does not include the theory of evolution which at the time is the most believed. Instead the Bible tells us that God created man, although one can argue that god created life and evolved into man. This was one point the Bible is not correct on and it happens to be a major one. Also Note that many Christians state that evolution is a fraud and the work of Satan. What I am asking of you in your next posting is to be more specific of your third note of my mistakes: with evidence( sorry if I'm sounding a bit to insistent). I also ask that if you, I may or may not be correct, can believe in evolution as God's will, then how can others interpret God differently if you have the same God? This has truly been an insightful debate. I did not know so much about Christianity before. I am also beginning to understand religion more although your chance of converting me is zill. Besides my Damnation is only a breath away.
Atheism

Here are some scientific facts that the bible proves. THE BIBLE (2,000–3,000 years ago) The earth is a sphere (Isaiah 40:22). Innumerable stars (Jeremiah 33:22). Free float of earth in space (Job 26:7). Each star is different (1 Corinthians 15:41). Light moves (Job 38:19,20). Air has weight (Job 28:25). Winds blow in cyclones (Ecclesiastes 1:6). Ocean contains springs (Job 38:16). SCIENCE THEN The earth was a flat disk. Only 1,100 stars. Earth sat on a large animal. All stars were the same. Light was fixed in place. Air was weightless. Winds blew straight. Ocean fed only by rivers and rain. SCIENCE NOW The earth is a sphere. Innumerable stars. Free float of earth in space. Each star is different. Light moves. Air has weight. Winds blow in cyclones. Ocean contains springs. Thank you for stating what you believe exactly. I understand now. "A God is not as reasonable because their are so many gods if God created the world then are there really 1 billion muslims that are mislead and deceived. So far the only proof in God is the Bible which has been proven to have some false concepts such as, Noah's Arch. If God were to appear before me and show me his will then I would change my life to better fit his ideals. Until then i will remain in my belief in a concept that has some more concrete evidence." There are many things wrong with this argument. 1) Very few people still believe in many gods. 2) Muslims DO NOT believe in many gods- They believe in one God, Allah. 3) God gives signs everyday. When you ask to be forgiven to God from your sins and you truly mean it, he will send his holy spirit to live within you. Then you will know that everything is true. I have already showed you many scientific facts that are in the bible that God knew. This proves there is a God because he wrote all these facts before people even knew about them in the bible. Thank you for starting this debate.
Best Evidence Supporting or Discrediting the BoP as a Necessary Requirement in DDO Debates

Providing the burden of proof (BoP from here on) is necessary in debates in which someone is trying to explain something that is true. Many, MANY debates on this website go along the lines of "does a god exist?", in which case, a claim that has not been proven is asserted. In order for someone to rationally believe something, the BoP lfalls on the person making the claim. Using the scientific method of observation, hypothesis, testing, recording data, and concluding is how all of us, even if you believe in a deity you have at least used the scientific method in some form of your daily life, to accept something as true or to solve a problem. BoP should always fall under the person making a positive claim such as 'god exists' or 'ghosts exist' or 'there is an afterlife' or 'there are souls'. No one who has made these claims have met BoP. And a personal experience is not reason to believe anything. BoP is important to meet when you make a positive claim. Otherwise, a debate is pointless.
Best Evidence Supporting or Discrediting the BoP as a Necessary Requirement in DDO Debates

Simple.Each debater must provide their best evidence that "Burden of Proof" is or isn't a necessary requirement in DDO debates. Pro must present evidence it is a necessary requirement.Con must present evidence it isn't a necessary requirement.Voters the only two criteria to which this debate should be judged is Most Convincing Argument & Reliable Sources. NO NULL VOTES. If you don't agree with either debater, do not vote.Pro must present his/her case in Round 1. Your argument is your acceptance. Writing your acceptance only in Round is an automatic forfeiture. You must pass Round 2.
Should we go to war with North Korea

I'm against a preemptive strike or war on North Korea. Why because if the US strike first, it would look very bad on the US part in the international community. Russia and China would not accept this outcome. The US will be risking a war not with just the North Korea, but with China, with relations with China is stress already. Not to mention South Korea and Japan would lose millions of lives, in a US, North Korea war. The other reason I'm against this is China and Russia, and even Pakistan have nukes. Which one of these countries have used them, none? "They openly threatened the US, South Korea, Japan, and Australia" The US should not engage in a war because of empty threats. North Korea Will not attack anyone. Period. SO NO GOING to war.
Should we go to war with North Korea

I think we should go to war with North Korea, there leader is a spoiled child who wants to "tame the United States", here are my points that support war with them. 1. North Korea has a nuclear warhead capable of hitting Guam, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. 2. They are KILLING there own people right now, many are starving while others are working to death. 3. They openly threatened the US, South Korea, Japan, and Australia. 4. We are still technically at war with them. 5. Korea has offered to sell ICBM's to IRAN. 6. They are a threat to the world because of there allies and there leadership.
Torture can be morally permissible

Torture has mounted intolerable bloodshed for many. As torture is to be supported, people tend to abuse this. I have seen Pro's argument, and to sum it, he has simply two points: 1) Utilitarianism 2) Torture can "save many" when one is sacrificed - 5 man is saved when 1 person is willing to die for them I will rebut Pro and proceed to my arguments. Rebuttal: Torture has NO place in this world. 1) Utilitarianism Though Pro seemed to be correct, which calls me to concede this point, still, I just want to say that not all people are "utilitarianist". Some people opposed torture as they themselves are victims of it, or their loved ones. 2) There are more ways to punish people, in fact, Death Penalty would be better than Torture. Though both deadly, Death Penalty will have to kill the person immediately, while Torture has to make him/her punish badly before death. As for my Arguments: There are BETTER WAYS than Torture 1) Many punishments Why torture, if there are legal and moral ways to punish someone? Imprison or death penalty are just few. In light of death penalty, as mentioned, death penalty seem to be better than torture. 2) People tend to abuse Torture If torture is not the problem, then, its the people who use this. When torture is extremely allowed, methods of torture is getting worse. Back to Pro.
Torture can be morally permissible

For an action to be morally permissible, I argue it must produce results which are morally desirable to the alternative of the action not taking place. It is foolish to look only at the act itself when determining if an act is morally permissible, because this would limit the depth and extent our morality, and would be useless after the action had taken place. Torture is a taboo because too often, people are intellectually lazy and do not consider the entire issue. To examine whether something is moral, one must deconstruct the issue. People who are against torture are inconsistent with their reasoning; adopting utilitarianism when it suits them and dropping it like it's hot when it leads to the conclusion that torture can be morally justified and permissible. Utilitarianism is defined as". .. a theory in normative ethics holding that the proper course of action is the one that maximizes utility, specifically defined as maximizing happiness and reducing suffering. "People who are against torture in all cases use utilitarianism in their reasoning because they support the notion that it is moral to limit the amount suffering (torture), in the world. Being opposed to torture wouldn't mean, for instance, that these people would be apathetic toward the issue after one person was already being tortured. Being against torture means you are against the amount of torture, not just if it exists at all. Now that I have shown being against torture means accepting utilitarianism as a moral principle, I will move on to how this ties to the resolution. If utilitarianism is accepted as a valid moral normative system, then it only follows that if the good caused by an act of torture exceeds the 'bad' caused by said torture, the act is morally permissible. Let me provide a concrete example:Take a scenario in which someone knows the whereabouts of five innocent people who are about to be tortured. The person in question refuses to give away any information, and the only way to get the information and prevent these five people from being tortured is through torture. The torture used on this individual is no more painful than the torture that will be used on the other five. By torturing one person, five others would not. If we have already concluded that the number of people being tortured matters (Torture is not moral on random people if only one person is already being tortured) , it only follows that this would be a morally permissible act, assuming torture without cause is something that is immoral. While torture can and has been abused in the history of humankind, that is not to say it does not have any place in society. There are no valid arguments to suggest that torture can never be morally permissible, other than the argument, 'Torture is bad. .. .mmkay. " It is intellectually lazy to argue that torture is never morally permissible. I pass the debate to Con.
Torture can be morally permissible

Challenge accepted. As Con, I will show tons of proofs that torture is morally impermissible, which would mean, it should not be allowed or there is no reason to accept it. I will also show that torture has no room for morality's point of view. I respect all round rules, but I highly suggest not to make rebuttals on Round 4. I would suggest to call it a "Conclusion round", which would mean, no rebuttal and no arguments. Rebuttals will call for another rebuttals... Still, all respect for the maker of this debate. Looking forward for a challenging debate. Have fun. God bless
Torture can be morally permissible

In this debate, I will be arguing that torture can be morally permissible. To win this debate, I must provide a scenario in which tortue is morally permissible, while con must prove there are no scenarios in which tortue is morally permissible. RulesThis opening round is for definitions and acceptance only. I will give the Pro case at the start of the second round. Standard debate conventions apply. I list them here for the benefit of new debaters and readers. I believe there is nothing tricky or eccentric. Both sides agree to the following rules, and that violating the rules is a conduct violation, with anything contrary to the rules to be ignored by readers judging the debate:DR 1. All arguments must be made in the debate. Evidence may be cited or linked from the debate, but only in support of arguments made in the debate. Arguments made in Comments are to be ignored. DR 2. Source links or references must be included within the 8000 characters per round limit of the debate. No links or sources are permitted in comments. DR 3 Any term not specifically defined before use is to be taken with the ordinary dictionary definition of the term that best fits the context of the debate. DR 4. No new arguments shall be made in Round 4. Pro may rebut previous arguments using new evidence solely for that purpose, but no new arguments are allowed. Con may not present any new evidence in R4. DR 5. DDO site rules always apply. Neither side may add or modify rules for the debate once the challenge is accepted.
Torture can be morally permissible

Rebuttals 1. "The first question lies: Why torture? Common answer is to PUNISH someone. As I argue, there are ways to punish in such a way no harsh acts will be implemented. Why torture if substitute can come? There are better ways than to hang a person or to put him/her in a electric chamber."Despite being irrelevant to proving the resolution, I argue that torture is and has been commonly used for advanced interrogation purposes to gather vital information. I do not have to prove that torture is an effective means of doing so, nor prove that torture as a means of punishment is moral (I think it's not). The resolution is "Torture can be morally permissible." I must prove that torture CAN be morally permissible -- in at least one scenario. 2. "Torture will give us nothing but brutality, not even justice. Torture is TOO MUCH to the point that, it is an ABUSE." Once again, you assume torture must be intended for punitive reasons. How can you claim torture cannot nor is capable of producing any good? I have given examples of torture preventing torture. 3. "Torture will scare people which may even lead to rebellion just to abolish it." Torture should scare people who have a reason to be tortured just as much as prison should scare people who have a reason to go to prison. Also, you have not proved that this statement is even valid. I am not scared of torture just as I am not afraid of going to prison for a crime I did not commit. It happens (false convictions), sure, but is that to say that we should abolish prisons?4. "Punishment is enough, but torture is too much and an abuse." One again, not a valid point against torture never being morally permissible5. "It would be better if two lives are spared or if the punishment is sentenced to lower case, and the parent takes the punish for his child."Oh my, this is quite a straw man/red herring you have there. I'm not advocating FOR the torture in this case (why would I?). The scenario was to provide and example of someone volunteering to be tortured (if for some reason that was necessary) to save their child. In conclusion, my opponent has not negated any of my points. His arguments seem to be referring to a different debate i.e., "should we use torture as a means of punishment." Unfortunately, this is not that debate. I recommend that he reread the terms and the resolution of the debate before he posts his fourth round. My opponent has to show that torture can never be morally permissible, while I have to show the opposite; that it can.