BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
100 Debate challenge 10: THBT Children should be encouraged to own and use phones

First of all, it is agreed that most "phones" these days come with internet access. Children under a certain age (the maturity of each individual child should be taken to account in determining when a proper age for phone possession is) should not have phones. I've got several reasons. 1. Danger from pedophiles In between 1 and 5 percent of Americans molest children. http://www.kgbanswers.com... Now, obviously all or even most of these are not in prison. That means they're still at large. One avenue for targeting children is the internet. The 50 year old pedophile may pose as a teenager, start dating a 14 year old girl, and after some time has passed and she is totally infatuated with him, ask for nude photos, which she would be happy to provide. He may even suggest that they meet up, and if her infatuation for him is strong enough and she is dumb enough, she will agree to this. Her likelihood of meeting up with him is higher if she is less mature and lacks good judgment, which is more likely in a younger teen. She will meet up with him and he will kidnap her, followed by many many instances of rape until he murders her. As probably around 2.5% of Americans are pedophiles, and each one is unlikely to stick with just one kid, an American girl has a fairly good chance of being duped into giving nude photos to a pedophile, who may share his photos with all his pedophile buddies. And, there is a valid possibility of her meeting up with a pedophile and getting molested. Even if she consents, it's still not a good idea to let a 50 year old have sex with a 14 year old girl. 2. Addiction to Social Networking Sites Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and DDO (especially DDO) are addictive, and if given the chance a kid will spend their entire day sitting down and using the phone. They will become socially awkward nerds and they will grow unhealthy from all that sitting. 3. Pornography A teen with internet will have access to internet pornography. He is likely to grow addicted, ruin his life on fleeting pleasure, and become a Nymphomaniac (not related to the user "Nymphomaniac"), AKA a sex addict. Girls won't want to date a pornography addict, and if you believe in a personal God you will notice that pornography is harmful to one's relationship with God. But, let's assume for a moment that you get your kid a phone without internet. This would certainly shut down many of the above arguments. Well, such a phone would still have text messaging (unless it predated the 21st century), and text message addiction would become a reality. Frankly, if a kid needs to call someone, he can ask to borrow someone's phone. He/she doesn't need his/her own phone. Back to Pro!
Abortion

I totally agree with the, "What if the person is going to become a great scientist," and all that, but what if it could become a terrible human being, like Hitler? Just saying. Also, you said, "What if your best friend was aborted?" Well, honestly, all things happen for a reason, right? If my best friend was aborted, I wouldn't be upset, because really, in that parallel universe, I would never have known who he was. And if you cry because your best friend was aborted as a child, and you never got to know him? Well, that makes that person kinda crazy. But anyway, with killing a human being murder. You know what else is murder? Hunting deer. I understand that the deer are often eaten, but that's fine. I'm talking about when you take a deer, and shoot it for no apparent reason, except for a shiny metal. And if we ban hunting, what about swatting flies and stepping on spiders? I mean, come on. It's cruel to abort a fetus, but...you know, you can also take an animal into a clinic and put it down for no apparent reason.
Abortion

What you would feel like, if someone was acting on the thought 'this thing (fetus) is in the way, let's get rid of it by abortion' talking about your best friend. Then you wouldn't be able to be with him/her today and you wouldn't have had the chance to enjoy life with him/her. Killing a new-born and killing a fetus is the same thing, because they both have life. Killing a person is against the law. What if that baby was going to be a great person that would become a great leader or scientist that could have helped the world in many ways? You only addressed the first part of my argument in round 1, what about the rest?
Abortion

"You said, "if a woman is more likely to die during abortion, then it should be legal." But, that's the woman's choice. That's her risk that she's taking." I said that it should be illegal, just a correction. See, if I had said that it should be legal, than the woman does have a choice. You are just contradicting yourself. Eternal Father,Source of all mercy and love,out of love for us you sent your Son,and willed that blood and waterflow from his side to cleanse us of sinand restore lost innocence.Hear the cry of each woman who mournsthe loss of her child to abortion.Forgive her sin, restore her to your grace,and still the terror of her heartwith a peace beyond all understanding.Through the intercessionof the Blessed Virgin Mary,Mother of all tenderness and our Mother,strengthen her faith in you.Give her the consolation to believethat her child is now living in the Lord.We ask this through Christ our Lord,who conquered sin and death,and who lives and reigns with you,in the unity of the Holy Spirit,one God, for ever and ever. Amen. This text is by Msgr. James Moroney. And here are some facts about abortion, and when somebody already has life: 1 day to 7 weeks A new individual receives 23 chromosomes from each parent. He or she is truly a unique individual human being, never to be repeated. A new person has been created, who at this stage is a tiny living organism weighing only 15 ten-millionth of a gram. Life begins. First day of new life: The first cell divides into two, the two into four, and so on. Each of these new cells divides again and again as they travel toward the womb in search of a protected place to grow. 18 days from conception, heart begins to beat, with the baby"s own blood. This is from prolifeacrossamerica.org It already says that life begins after the first day.
Abortion

Woah, woah, woah. Hold on. You said, "if a woman is more likely to die during abortion, then it should be legal." But, that's the woman's choice. That's her risk that she's taking. No one's forcing her. Also, that's not true. A woman is 1 in 100,000 likely of a chance to die during abortion. There's a 1 in 10,000 chance of dying during child birth. Hey, I may be completely wrong, but also, if fetus's have life, then how come it's only allowed to do abortion in the first 3 months of pregnancy, when the fetus can't live outside the womb, showing lack of life. And it's crazy sounding, but these days, men get castrated on purpose. So....wait...does that mean that we should ban that because of the murder of thousands of sperm cells?
Modern Feminism (3rd/4th Wave) is Unnecessary as well as Unfair to Men.

Pro: "My opponent argued on a platform of Islamophobia." Nope. I'm not Islamophobic. My family are all Muslims. I'm a truth lover. Pro: "used biased sources" Such as ABC News, Wikipedia, Wikipedia, and Wikipedia again Huffington Post...2 are sources that Pro himself used. * Pro: "He also willingly argues only Islamic countries to avoid the issue." Nepal is 81% Hindu. 9% are Buddhists. https://en.m.wikipedia.org... * Pro: "Rape was labeled untouchable and he violated this rule." Note: Pro just used rape in this debate. Pro's definition of rules was unclear and ambiguous even according to someone in the comments section. And I quote: "I am not going to exclude more than two things." "One being reproductive "rights" and the other being rape rates. Sexual harassment/groping is fair game." * Pro: "there was an Afghan queen." Who was not voted for. She was also the wife of King Amanullah Khan and under his authority which is a false dichotomy by ommiting information by Pro. She also "studied in Syria, learning Western and modern values there, which would influence her future actions and beliefs," according to Wikipedia, and showing an example of Western feminism affecting the mindset of those from other cultures. https://en.m.wikipedia.org... * Pro: "I firstly would like to say that women are now advocating for their own transport "for protection from men." And isn't being taken seriously in America because it has not been successful in other countries, and it is considered "discriminatory towards men." http://www.telegraph.co.uk... http://m.huffpost.com... * Third and Fourth wave feminism are protected by freedom of speech. It is also protected by the seperation of church and state, like it or not. http://www.spiked-online.com... https://en.m.wikipedia.org... * Pro: "Domestic abuse is more often than not caused by women against men." Pro used Youtube as their only source on this point. Nevertheless, In the debate about violence, men more often side with violence than women do. -"Whether it is in acts of violence such as rape or murder, or violence such as rioting, gang murders or war, men play a role that far exceeds that of women. Women are more likely to be the victims, rather the perpetrators, of violent crime." https://disorderedworld.com... * Pro: "To summarize the point of these videos, in domestic violence, men under report their abuse." Then how does anyone know they are under reporting something they never report? * Pro: "One day, my wife attacked me with a 2x4 while I was sleeping." Don't date or marry crazy females. * Pro: "Women can commit the same crimes as a man, and receive lighter sentences." Notice the word "can". Men also "can" receive lighter sentences than women. * Pro: "Feminism in the West is an overzealous belief that will not stop until women get their turn at oppressing men." Pro is stating an opinion and making a prediction, not stating a fact. * I finish by quoting Pro. Pro: "Well this concludes the debate. Now I am going to criticize my opponent's argument. No offence, I'd do it to my own mother to win an argument."
Modern Feminism (3rd/4th Wave) is Unnecessary as well as Unfair to Men.

Well this concludes the debate. Now I am going to criticize my opponent's argument. No offence, I'd do it to my own mother to win an argument. My opponent argued on a platform of Islamophobia as well as using totally biased sources and ignored his own sources when it benefited his cause. He also willingly argues only Islamic countries to avoid the issue. He poses no arguments about 3rd and 4th wave feminism and concedes to my arguments. At the risk of violating my own rules, my opponent also argues against the first amendment and poses "what ifs" to win an argument he conceded to. Feminism in the West is an overzealous belief that will not stop until women get their turn at oppressing men. The wage gap is mostly their own doing, and they are given leniency on the penal system and socially. Rape was labeled untouchable and he violated this rule. Conclusion of the Conclusion My opponent argued Islamophobia and irrelevances and used biased sources that admit to how good women have it in the West, as well as not refute a single bit of my argument. His argument is null and void.
Modern Feminism (3rd/4th Wave) is Unnecessary as well as Unfair to Men.

Firstly, this debate is about feminism in the West. I thought that was obvious. I apologize. Saudi Arabia The literacy rate for women is 91%. They receive education. In fact, over HALF of university grads are women. The average age of first marriage is 25. In fact, many conservative women adamantly oppose their own liberation. Translation? They don't WANT rights. In fact, there is a high percentage of women in parliament in S.A. They are in a position to improve their lives yet do not. Feminism in those countries is first or second wave, not third and fourth. Source- Same as my opponent's Afghanistan My opponent did not just cite the source, he also C/P'd the ENTIRE article. Early emperors advocated for women's rights. Also, there was an Afghan queen, whereas we have yet to have a female president. In 1921, King Amanullah made many laws abolishing forced marriage, child marriage, bride price, and put restrictions on polygamy. The only problem is that there was difficulty enforcing laws. This is an illegal conduct, and is opposed by the formal government. After the Taliban was deposed, women have been given a plethora of rights. In fact, they are better off than in S.A! So these instances are illegal, and not allowed by the government. https://en.wikipedia.org... Mali Women in Mali are legally equal to males. Actions against them are unlawful. 10.5% of the parliament of Mali are women. Once again, they are in a position to improve their lives. Yet they don't. Males and females are also offered equal health care. Poor equipment is the cause for the deaths. Marriage is only legal for women at 18, and for men at 21. https://en.wikipedia.org... Your arguments are both flawed and incorrect. Even Wikipedia knows more than your source, which is biased towards feminism. The point is, my opponent's source (http://www.feministezine.com...) is heavily biased and while is partially correct, the actions against women in these countries is illegal and the fault of those perpetrating them and not the fault of the government or lack of feminism.
Modern Feminism (3rd/4th Wave) is Unnecessary as well as Unfair to Men.

Women's rights in Saudi Arabia are limited in comparison to many of its neighbors. The World Economic Forum 2013 Global Gender Gap Report ranked Saudi Arabia 127th out of 136 countries for gender parity. All women, regardless of age, are required to have a male guardian. Saudi Arabia is a country that fully prohibits women from driving. Saudi women constitute 13% of the country's native workforce as of 2015. https://en.m.wikipedia.org... * In Afghanistan the overwhelming number of women are illiterate. More than half of all brides are under 16, and one woman dies in childbirth every half hour. Domestic violence is so common that 87 per cent of women admit to experiencing it. But more than one million widows are on the streets, often forced into prostitution. Afghanistan is the only country in which the female suicide rate is higher than that of males. In Nepal, early marriage and childbirth exhaust the country's malnourished women, and one in 24 will die in pregnancy or childbirth. Daughters who aren't married off may be sold to traffickers before they reach their teens. Widows face extreme abuse and discrimination if they're labelled bokshi, (meaning witches). A low level civil war between government and Maoist rebels has forced rural women into guerrilla groups. In Mali, one of the world's poorest countries, few women escape the torture of genital mutilation, many are forced into early marriages, and one in 10 dies in pregnancy or childbirth. http://www.feministezine.com... The point? In most of the world, women are oppressed beyond what would be deemed human in the Western world. With the rise of Liberal supported masses of immigrants from non-Liberal cultures which inhumanely treat females, who are bringing their ideals to the West and infiltrating the governments and campaign contribution construct, the feminist movement must be stronger than ever, lest women lose their place of having any value, even in the West.
Modern Feminism (3rd/4th Wave) is Unnecessary as well as Unfair to Men.

Hello. This was brought on by seeing an article... http://www.independent.co.uk... The rules are simple R1. Acceptance R2. Arguments R3. Rebuttals for R2. arguments. R4. Conclusions I am not going to exclude more than two things. One being reproductive "rights" and the other being rape rates. Sexual harassment/groping is fair game. I will be using sources from http://www.debate.org... as well as other sources. Voting is open voting, select winner. Thank you. Enjoy the debate
Catholicism

IntroductionAs the preeminent fundamentalist Catholic of the site, I feel compelled to take the position as 'Pro' in this debate, in order that my opponent (who is, by all accounts, a heretic of the most foul sort) might be debunked.As this topic is expansive, I feel no obligation to provide an affirmative case of any sort, as to do so would be an insurmountabe task. For this reason, I charge my opponent with the burden of proof.RebuttalsUnfortunately, it appears that my opponent would prefer to make unsubstantiated assertions rather than engage in any sort of meaningful argumentation.Contention 1. Catholicism is a perverse legacy of oriental witchcraft and neo-pagan quasi-Christianity all fused together through the bringing together of Baylonish pagan worship as if it is Christian, when, in fact, the Christian component is drowned and extinguished in the pagan, demonic element.Reply to Contention 1. I am hardly surprised to hear such incoherent ramblings from a psuedo-Christian heretic. However, as no evidence has been supplied to support this, there is no reason to credit it to any degree. 'That which can be asserted without evidence...'Contention 2. Truly, there is nothing here that the Lord Christ is proud of. In fact, He would admonish all of us to run as fast as we can away from such vomit and filth.Reply to Contention 2. False. As a side-note, it is of the greatest arrogance for my opponent to claim to know the mind of Jesus. ConclusionThere isn't much point in making a real response, given the severe dearth of support for my opponent's arguments so far. I pray that he make a better argument next round.
Catholicism

Catholicism is a perverse legacy of oriental witchcraft and neo-pagan quasi-Christianity all fused together through the bringing together of Baylonish pagan worship as if it is Christian, when, in fact, the Christian component is drowned and extinguished in the pagan, demonic element. Truly, there is nothing here that the Lord Christ is proud of. In fact, He would admonish all of us to run as fast as we can away from such vomit and filth. So why the adoring public lovefest with this abomination?
Catholicism

IntroductionAs my opponent does not appear to have put significant effort into organizing his round, I will attempt to utilize a different format to best respond.RebuttalsCon writes Welly welly welly welly welly welly well!I reply Well well well well well well welly!Con writes A nice young little altar boy has challenged me. He thinks that anyone who attacks catholicism is a heretic.I reply I haven't been an altar boy for over a year now, and you just happen to be a heretic. It's not necessarily related to your attack on Catholicism.Con writes What qualifications do you bring to the table, sonny boy?I reply I am a Doctorates in Sacred Theology and Canon Law from the Pontifical University of West America. I have been Patriarch of DDO for over a year (and I'll thank my opponent to address me with the correct style of 'His Beatitude' or 'Your Beatitude'). In addition, I have been recognized by the International Community for Latin and Greek as the greatest expert on ancient languages alive today. Furthermore, I have PhDs in Nuclear Botany and Reckoner Lore which I obtained from Oxbridge University. Because of my great qualifications, everyone ought to believe whatever I say.Con writes It is a creepy, vile religion cloaked in secrecy, and strange customs.I reply It would appear that my opponent considers 'plastered all over the internet' to be 'cloaked in secrecy'.Con writes I will be happy to come back here and give you more tidbits, but first, explain transubstantiation to the public, where the wine in the cup becomes, literally, the blood of Christ, and how you drink it.I reply Not much to say. Wine becomes blood. Bread becomes flesh. It's pretty simple (if incredible).'If anyone says that in the sacred and, holy sacrament of the Eucharist the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denies that wonderful and singular change of the whole substance of the bread into the body and the whole substance of the wine into the blood, the appearances only of bread and wine remaining, which change the Catholic Church most aptly calls transubstantiation, let him be anathema.' - Council of Trent [1]'I answer that, Some have held that the substance of the bread and wine remains in this sacrament after the consecration. But this opinion cannot stand: first of all, because by such an opinion the truth of this sacrament is destroyed, to which it belongs that Christ's true body exists in this sacrament; which indeed was not there before the consecration.' - St. Thomas Aquinas [2]ConclusionI have degrees, therefore you should believe me.Sources:1. http://www.ewtn.com...2. http://www.newadvent.org...
Catholicism

Welly welly welly welly welly welly well! A nice young little altar boy has challenged me. He thinks that anyone who attacks catholicism is a heretic. I will allow him to take the podium to explain transubstantiation, honestly, to the public. I have a degree in the Classics, that means I studied 5th century Attic Greek for two years, and Latin for the same, I did practical archaeology in Roman Britain in the 1980's on Nero's fort the Lunt at Baginton, Coventry, and have studied literature, modern English and comparative literature, as well as Greek and Roman history with a specialty in Roman. I have an honours B.A. from McMaster University, which was formerly a Divinity College of Toronto. What qualifications do you bring to the table, sonny boy? I used to be a Catholic until the age of 12. It is a creepy, vile religion cloaked in secrecy, and strange customs. I will be happy to come back here and give you more tidbits, but first, explain transubstantiation to the public, where the wine in the cup becomes, literally, the blood of Christ, and how you drink it. And do a good, honest job, cause I will be back for more.
Science Cannot Explain Happiness

ResolutionScience can't explain happiness.ProHas 4 sets of 10,000 characters to demonstrate that happiness CANNOT be explained by science and refute Con.ConHas only 3 sets of 10,000 characters to demonstrate that happiness CAN be explained by science and refute Pro.Burden of proof is shared.*There are no round rules, including NO ACCEPTANCE ROUND...just start debating!*Definitions can be changed in the comments section, before posting your first argument, as long as both Pro and Con agree.Otherwise...*Definitions below are agreed on by posting your first argument.Definitions (from Google definitions)science - systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. any of the branches of natural or physical science.explain - make an idea clear to someone by describing it in more detail or revealing relevant facts or ideas.happiness - the state of feeling or showing pleasure or contentment.
Racial diversity is not a strength.

This debate concerns whether or not racial diversity is a strength in the United States. This debate specifically focuses in on the United States, but feel free to pull examples from other places if you find it useful. I will be arguing that racial diversity in the United States is not a strength and, by accepting this debate, you will be arguing that racial diversity is a strength in the United States. Structure:Round 1 – AcceptanceRound 2 – Initial Argument(s)Round 3 – Rebuttal(s)Round 4 – Closing Statement(s)No one should be able to accept this debate. Please voice your desire to accept the debate in the comments section and I will approve of you. The only criteria that I take into consideration is how long a user has been on the website and how many debates they have done (I do not want an opponent who will forfeit). First come first serve.EDIT: I was thinking about it and I believe I should probably provide a defintion for "strength." I will provide it below:strength - on balance, a positive influence on society