BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Judicial Corporal Punishment (e.g. caning) should be made illegal.

Corporal punishment is unjustifiable and amounts to child- abuse because it is unjustifiable and amounts to child abuse as it degrades the child and lowers their self esteem. It is illegal for a reason and increase the rate of crime and violence. Also it could have psychological effects on the children and also is wrong and inappropriate, while also harming children with genuine behavioural disorders or other disabilities .It brings fear and hardens the victims and for children actions speak louder then words.
Judicial Corporal Punishment (e.g. caning) should be made illegal.

Thank you very much for your arguments. It appears as though you have mistaken the topic of discussion. This is JUDICIAL corporal punishment. It refers to caning being meted out as part of the criminal justice system, not to children. 1. It is not nice to hit people is not a convincing argument. It is also not nice to jail people, but we do it because such people are deemed by the justice system to deserve it. 2. Anything from speeding tickets to the death penalty can be abused. What is your point? 3. Your argument is weak here, even for corporal punishment for children. No one accidentally hits a child and says it was corporal punishment. They say sorry. 4. "What if they are innocent?" The task of finding that out is separate from the punishment, please don't confuse the two. Corporal punishment is not as irreversible as capital punishment. 5. "Playing God" (to judge and punish criminal misconduct) literally is the function of our criminal justice system.
Judicial Corporal Punishment (e.g. caning) should be made illegal.

It's not nice to hit people Corporal punishment, which is way of inflicting tremendous pain or harm on someone for some violation of conduct, should never be made legal. If made legal it could be used at random and the power abused or used for vengeance. It also sends a message to kids that it is okay to hit each other and that's not a good message to send out to children. Also people would use it as an excuse they could hurt someone and say "It was corporal punishment" this would get out of hand and cause more crimes. What if they are innocent? Why does someone else get to play god?
Judicial Corporal Punishment (e.g. caning) should be made illegal.

Judicial Corporal Punishment (JCP) should be legalised for the following reasons. 1. JCP acts as deterrent against crime. Countries such as Singapore that have adopted JCP have some of the lowest crime rates worldwide. 2. JCP works. As seen above, it also discourages offenders from becoming repeat offenders. 3. It serves as retribution for the victims. Victims can be sure that the punishment issued to offenders will discourage them from re-offending, and will convey to them the severity of the pain they caused. For these reasons I believe that JCP should be kept in force.
Uniforms in public schools

Honestly, school uniforms suck. Many people think that they are wonderful, but really, they're not. Here's why: 1. Itchy and uncomfortable 2. Expensive 3. Some children may be allergic to the material used to make the uniform 4. (This is a big one...) YOU CANNOT EXPRESS YOUR EMOTIONS OR PERSONALITY!!!! 5. You wouldn't be able to tell any one apart from behind! ("Clara!" Sheila yelled. *girl Sheila thinks is Clara slowly turns around* (Not Clara but the Wicked Witch of the West) -(o_o)- "Sorry...") 6. Sure, in schools stuff should be neat and orderly, but not SO orderly that you can't tell anyone apart... I mean, come on. My school has been around a little longer than 1987, we have never had uniforms, and hopefully never will. (No latex, no polyester)
Video Games are an art form.

You have some interesting points, thank you for posting. First, I would like to refute the arguments that you gave. A:Video games have goals All forms of art have goals, the only difference is that it is up to the player whether or not these goals are reached. In the Odyssey, the goal was to get Odysseus home. In Titanic, the goal was for Jack and Rose to survive the sinking. In all other art forms, it is up to the creator whether or not these goals are obtained, but the goals are still there. B:Deliberation What about cinema and photography? The first movie was not accidentally shot, then shown in movie theaters. The first photograph was taken deliberately. Yet both of these are considered art forms in today's society. Photography can be taken randomly, but the odds that it is admired among many people is highly unlikely. C:Creators of art Cinema and Drama both take many participants to make a masterpiece. Video games can be created by one man, but more than likely, it will suck. The same is true with Cinema and Drama. I think that the interaction of the gamers make it even closer to an art form. The creator must choose how the player interacts with the game, and this could make or break a game from becoming a masterpiece. It's just like an artist choosing the perspective angle of his drawing. Most forms of art also leave somethings up to the audience to determine. An example of this would be Ernest Hemingway's The Old Man and The Sea. It is up to the reader to determine if his final trip was a success or a failure. It depends on who you are on how the story ends. I also believe the goals you mentioned are also important to the art form. These goals determine how difficult the game is, and therefore determines that type of player that will enjoy the game the most. All forms of art have the same aspects. It depends on how funny a movie is to determine the type of people who will enjoy it. It depends on the detail of the painting to determine it's audience. It depends on the wording of a novel to determine if a kid is going to read it. These goals also could pertain to the story, making them all the more essential. I am also a lover of video games, and I realize their potential. If you have ever played Bioshock, it would be apparent that video games have the potential to have just as great artistic values as any other art form. People claim that most video games do not share these artistic values, but then I would like to point out that all art forms have it's crap. Cinema: Epic Movie, Twilight, and Santa Claus Conquers the Martians. Literature: Twilight. Music: rap. No art genre is perfect, and video games are no exception. But they are the newest of art forms, so we need to give it some time to evolve.
Video Games are an art form.

I believe that the creation of video games should be considered a form of art. Cinema is an art form, literature is an art form, and photography is an art form. A good video game usually has all of components of the art forms above, like beautiful visuals, enticing story lines, and originality. The only difference between video games and other art forms is that the admiring audience is actually interacting with the masterpiece. So, people argue that the "masterpiece" is different to all people trying to admire it. I argue back that there are paintings that show different concepts to different people. So why are video games not considered art?
Capital punishment for teens

Well, I extend all my arguments. I reiterate that I took out all of my opponent's case; her first point doesn't follow through logically and her second point lacks evidence. Had she provided evidence for it, I would have provided counter-evidence. However, since the burden of proof does not lie on the skeptic, there is no need for me to. I also remind you that I offered my own contention which, due to the round drop, has gone unattacked. I urge a CON vote.
Capital punishment for teens

Thank you for starting the debate. My opponent's entire case is based off of a central idea that since teens have the capacity to commit the crime, they should have the courage to accept the consequences. This seems like a good premise at first, but think about it. Does not a four year-old also have the capacity to commit this crime? What if they do decide to commit this crime? Then, by my opponent's logic, we should be using capital punishment on four year-olds. There has to be more criteria for using capital punishment than what my opponent has set forth. And that's my opponent's entire case. Other than a deterrence point. Even with that deterrence point, my opponent has not actually offered the evidence that the death penalty works as a deterrent. Since the burden of proof does not lie on the skeptic, I shall ask her to present evidence for that point before it can flow through the round. Now, to offer a contention on the CON. By doing this, by allowing capital punishment to be used on teens, we are destroying a big part of what separates adolescents from adults. If we are saying they are old enough to be responsible for this action, then shouldn't the voting age be lowered as well? Drinking age? Military service age? Age of consent? By the resolution, the only qualification here is to be a teen, so this could be as young as thirteen. Do we want thirteen year-olds voting? Do we want thirteen year-olds in the military? Affirming this resolution sets a precedence for destroying the barriers between adolescence and adulthood. So, in summary: -My opponent has not offered enough criteria as to what makes it OK to use capital punishment. With her logic, their isn't enough discrimination to keep four year-olds off of the electric chair. -She has offered no evidence that capital punishment works as an effective deterrent. -This begins to destroy the barriers between adolescence and adulthood.
Democracy Is A Good Political System

Your points are fair enough, But i don't think they prove democracy sucks that much. Democracies are beneficial because: 1. If there's a bad leader who bashes human rights, And the minority group approves of this (example: a U. S. President institutes Jim Crow, And some Southeners like this), The majority opinion can throw him out of office. Minority will get no say, But in a republic they will. 2. One person gets one vote. Fair enough. You are arguing on the basis that Democracies always will oppress the minorities. While a tyrannical majority is defeinitely possible, It isn't at all inherent of a democracy. Therefore I don't think it's right to insult democracy because of something it's not even responsible for. Blame the @ss hole majority, But not the system of government. A dictatorship can theoretically be good. If you have Jesus or Ghandi or some very nice dictator, Than yeah, Everything can be great. Therefore, Democracies can be great too, It just depends on they type of people within.
Democracy Is A Good Political System

Yes, The majority could be correct. But it depends how much bigger the majority is. Yeah, The majority of the people will be happy, But that doesn't change the fact that democracy is a very oppressive form of government, To anyone who isn't part/supports the minority. This is literally totalitarianism, Except only for the minority. Just because there are worse systems of government, Doesn't make democracy a better system. For instance, Robbing a bank. Sure, There are things that are worse (murder, Bombing, Rape, Etc. ), But that doesn't make/justify robbing a bank better.
Democracy Is A Good Political System

While tyranny of the majority can be a problem with democracies, Generally the majority opinion is the correct or more ethical opinion. I'm not saying the minority is always wrong, But generally more people will agree with what is good than what is bad. However, Even if they trample on the minority's rights (which again rarely happens), At least he majority of people will be happy. While republics are honestly the better way to, I don't think democracies suck. They are definitely on the good side of the scale as far as governments go. The bad side would be evil dictatorships and monarchies. But democracies, While imperfect, Are still a lot better than the shjt people have to put up under dictators.
Democracy Is A Good Political System

Well, Here's the thing. Democracies suck. Most end up as a dictatorship. The thing with democracy is that 100% of power is vested in the majority. This means that there isn't anything they can't do. They can even do whatever (kill, Burn, Torture, Etc. ) they want to the minority. That's the problem. The tyranny of the majority. It's literally a king, Except the king is many people. However, America isn't a democracy. We are a REPUBLIC. In a republic, There are checks and balances. Everyone, Including the majority, Is held accountable for their actions. They can't just do whatever they want. There are guidelines and rules even the majority can't even break. There are documents like the constitution and bill of rights to make sure that the majority doesn't get too out of control. To make it simpler, Democracy = Majority can do whatever they want Republic = Majority can do what they want, But not to the extreme the majorities in democracies can.
Democracy Is A Good Political System

According to Borgen magazine, There are 123 democracies out of the total 192 countries in the world [1]. That's a healthy 64%. There's a reason that this many countries have chosen to be democratic. Generally, Because it works. People usually like to be free and be in control of their own lives, And so a democracy is the perfect government for this purpose; it still governs their lives and provides order, And yet they -the people- get to decide what the government and order is based on popular opinion. Occasionally democracies will be corrupted, But this isn't true democracy, And so you can not attack these cases. And yes, You can make an argument that true communism hasn't yet happened, But I don't think it's a coincidence that every communist nation goes to shjt unless they start adopting capitalist practices (thanks to democracy). 1. Http://www. Borgenmagazine. Com/many-democratic-nations/
The Bible is the word of God and is a scientific document

Well, in a world where bare assertions were equal to argumentative logic, my opponent would be making a wonderful case. Unfortunately we actually live in a world where logical statements must be matched with reasoning and evidence. My opponents deeply circular reasoning makes me wander if he's even the least bit serious. He states that the Bible is the word of God because God said so. Well obviously we now have to establish both the validity and existence of God. Unfortunately my opponent points to the Bible as a source. In other words the Bible's trustworthiness proves God and God proves the Bibles trustworthiness. Now there is a simple method of logic to refute my esteemed opponents argument. It's called baby logic. Baby logic is the most obvious forms of logic that no-one would disagree with. The law that circular reasoning is invalid is one of these self-evident facts. A cannot prove b while b is what proves a. Do I need go further?
Polls are not the final word nor prove anything

"....However, as all American elections show, different areas of the country have different political views, and ( while polls can be given to a bias sample group,...." The fact, which you acknowledged in your rebuttal, that polls can be taken by the pollster only in a particular area known by the pollster to be bias in favor of a certain political position only validy is to confirm the position the pollster wishes to confirm. Without a poll taken in another area and then comparing the two polls to reflect the overall views on a political question isn't a valid poll.
Polls are not the final word nor prove anything

I do belive that a poll proves something, but may not be the final word, however, I am con as I dissagree with one of the statements. I belive a poll can contain valid statistics, and as for the Trump/Clinton poll, that may have been valid at the time, and proves what the sample group thought would win. However, as all American elections show, different areas of the country have different political views, and while polls can be given to a bias sample group, stating that polls prove nothing is not very rational.
Polls are not the final word nor prove anything

"Polls are not the final word nor prove anything...' except that some political hacks want to do the opposition without getting their hands dirty while doing it. If we want to judge the reliability of polls, for instance, heres a good example, Showing results for polls before the 2016 election predicted hillary clinton the winner. /search?q=Election 2016&p1=%5BFUI+els%3D%22Candidates%22+ansmode%3D%22collapsed%22%5D&npa=1&FORM=ELHEAD Explore the election President National poll results Averages for Sun Sep 11 2016 Hillary Clinton (D)43%(+4.00) Donald Trump (R)39% Gary Johnson (L)8% Poor old Donald Trump didn't have a chance of becoming elected president and this poll proved it. " There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." (attributed to Disraeli )'Then there are pole cats. Then Mark twain once said ,"Figures often beguile me, particularly when I have the arranging of them myself..." I think Donald Trump has proven the polls are wrong this time but he will have time to think about it from the oval office.
Pixar movies have gone down in quality

While I love Pixar films and once believed that they dominated the animated movie industry, I believe that after Toy Story 3 they have decreased in quality. While the company still produces quality films, I no longer feel that they have the same emotion and originality of their previous pictures, especially compared to other companies like Disney and Dreamworks. According to Rotten Tomatoes, the three most recent Pixar films (Monsters University, Brave, Cars 2) have gone down in quality from the rest of the company's critically acclaimed resume (with the exception of Cars). It is my belief that the quality of the films have gone downhill, and will continue to do so over years to come.
Pixar movies have gone down in quality

My first debate too, miraculous. I wish you the same! As I mentioned above, Pixar films have gone down in quality as my opinion and as evidence from other sources such as Rotten Tomatoes. Perhaps this is because the industry has gotten bigger and there are better films out (that statement is based on popular opinion) or perhaps it is Pixar beginning to give up and lose its creativity. For example, take the trailer for Pixar's newest film "Inside Out". (Here's a link if you haven't seen it. ) The majority of the film is comprised of clips from their previous works. This gives me the impression that they are running out of ideas and are trying to remind viewers why they fell in love with their work in the first place. Also, do you remember the film "Monster's Inc"? There is a scene in it where the character Sulley is lying in the snow and the viewers can see his fur moving with the wind. This was an amazing feat in animation at the time, which shows that Pixar knew how to break records and make film-making history. They were, after all, the first company to create a feature-length CGI film. However, their current films do not seem to be "changing the industry" so to speak in the same way that some of these older films did. Once more, I think this is going to be a trend for Pixar. They will no longer be the dominating animation studio, but just another company that makes films that used to be great. This is something that has happened to actors, writers, and directors as well. It is only a matter of time before Pixar joins this group of once-greats.
Crime and Mental Health are related

Mental health is an extremely vast term for the psychological disorders 1 in 4 people have. The disorders range from depression to schizophrenia but the stigma behind crime being induced by these mental health problems is not true. Research consistently shows there is no evidence that people who have mental issues are more violent, In fact studies have shown that those with mental health problems are more often the victims of violence, Not perpetrators. People who commit crimes who have a background of mental disorders should be held accountable for their actions, Having these problems are no excuse and don"t link back to the crimes committed.
Crime and Mental Health are related

It is not fair to assume all criminals have a mental health issue but there is often a strong connection, Between the two. Research was conducted by The Criminology Research Council, Which showed that 13. 5 % of male and 20% of all female prisoners, Have spent time in a rehab hospitals for mental illness. Less one percent of adults are admitted into a mental hospital yearly, In the general population. Rates of mental health illness in particular depression is 3 to 5 times higher in offenders.
Crime and Mental Health are related

As I already stated in my first paragraph it is not fair to assume all criminals have a mental health issue. However, There is a obvious connection. An example of this is seen in America. At least 60 percent of women prisoners and 40 percent of men prisoners suffer from a mental health illness. Other research conducted in Australia showed that mental health illness is 3 to 5 percent higher in offenders than the general population. I am not saying that people with mental health problems are more violent or dangerous. Research shows that there is a higher percentage of prisoners in jails with previous mental health problems.
The Two party system in the United States does not adequately represent the people.

Sorry for the delay I went out to eat. Anyways Before I get into answering your points I think what artC said is relevant to what we are discussing the two party system forces the media to focus on the two parties and doesn't allow for the other parties views to go main stream. With that in mind apply that to your arguments about the American public being happy means that they feel represented, people conform to the party which most closely represents their beliefs, most of the time not ever single one of their beliefs are mirrored by the party. With more parties people can find a better fit and truly a majority rule can occur because now more people evaluate based on who agrees with me more. 1) ಠ_ಠ 2) "no real impediments" This is one point we will disagree on, the existence of the two dominant incumbent parties are what impede new parties from gaining greater support, two party systems encourage the dominant parties to revert to mudslinging when dealing with the parties and the greater parties often take the issues that minority parties champion and champion those issues themselves. The reason they remain dominant is because the other parties do not have the means to gain attention, the greater parties muscle them out and take their issues, and like above media attention. on the third post that was me talking about what I wished I guess not an actual proposition of action, not really pertinent to the debate. Finally on the last point that was meant to answer your people are satisfied with current parties. But what you say is interesting, first the self correcting argument. Although the names throughout history have changes the two sides relatively have not, the power struggle has occurred between conservatives and liberals, the self corrections is essentially the same party with the same party bosses leaving the scene for a little bit getting a new face and changing their name. They still represent those which pay them and those which intend to keep them in office and don't serve the majority of the people who vote for them. Look at the republicans, home of the conservatives yet Both Bush's have acted nothing less than liberal in everything. They do not represent their constituents and neither do the democrats. Having two dominant parties is bad this is what the debate is about and this is what is true.