BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
should teenagers be required to inform there parents they are on birth control

Teenagers shouldn't be on birth control. They shouldn't be having sex period they are too young teens now a days are worried about parties, drugs, love, boys, girls,sex, etc. They are focused on everything then what they should be . Family is everything. Family is key. You need to cherish every bit of family you have. No female should be having sex unless they are ready to raise a child. You need to be financially stable physically stable and mentally stable. You need to be ready to raise a child In my opinion you teens shouldn't be having sex you may think you are in love with someone and you want to be with them forever and ever but reality can smack you in the face. You are a teen don't be worried about sex or the other stuff I know that you are going threw that stage right on but you have family friends you are usually around 15,16,or 17 and you are in high school go for it get your diploma and go graduate wait till at least college.
Profanity not as bad as people think

My opponent just says here that profanity should be discouraged, but not a reason why it should be. Profanity is just a way to express your opinion on something fast and casually. It certainly doesn't cause any problems to the kids like learning problems, health problems or anything like that. What does it do so that there are grounds for it to be discouraged. Freedom of speech it is. And i realize that freedom of speech is a statement that can be debated for hours and from many viewpoints, but it means that i can say what i want, in whatever way i want. I won't call you a S.o.a.B., but i might as well say it if i accidentally hit my leg against the bed. If you as a person is offended by me using a word that is meant to do no harm and is in your own language's dictionary, you must be a sensitive little guy. It's not nice when you hear it from kids, i know. But, isn't it their right to express their opinion, even if we don't like it? That depends on the parents of course, but if you think about it, profanity always existed, from the very ancient times, and it will always be. And yes, i understand. You sometimes will be offended by profanity, and you should be offended by some things in life. It's completely normal. But you have absolutely no right to tell me to stop it because YOU don't like it. You could come up to me one day and told me that you were offended by my red shirt. That doesn't mean i should take it off because YOU are offended, but you should just walk away. It's that simple and its something that people don't understand.
Profanity not as bad as people think

Well, in order for children to be exposed to profanity in a way that causes them to use it at school, their parents would have to use it or have to allow them to view things that contain cursing. Parents shouldn't do that, or at least should make it clear that it's not okay. Some adults are unclear about the limits they set. There are some parents that would prefer their children not to be exposed to that, and so that's another reason.
Profanity not as bad as people think

Profanity is a bad thing. Children don't need to hear words that express ideas that are not appropriate. For example, if someone says to an 8-year-old, "Your daddy is a son of a b****," that child will be inclined to think that their father has done something terrible, and they won't trust them. It's the same thing with mothers. A child does not simply blow those things off. In another case, curse words are sinful. Even if you aren't Christian, your cussing is offensive. Finally, it's just plain rude. I'm sure you don't like to be called obscenities. It makes no one feel good to get called words like that, and adjectives come in many, many forms. There are other words that are suitable replacements, and words that can sometimes make you sound more sophisticated.
Soccer is superior to rugby

I would like to firstly rebute some of the opponent's arguments:1. Scientific Proof has suggested the contraryScientific proof has suggested that rugby is harmful; per 1,000 hours, football has 35 injuries. As compared to rugby, where many factors, like the absence of active substitution and the contact element, has given rugby 76 injuries per 1,000 hours. Rugby is one of the world's most dangerous sport, along with American Football; both sports have identical elements in terms of contact. Rugby has 1.4 serious injuries per game, and the psychological affects of rugby include more violence in daily day-to-day life, and the encouragement of shouting. Rugby, and American Football, has harsh affects on your brain; it can lead to dementia. The brain, so "well" protect inside the helmet, has to take a huge impact; this leads to the brain damage. 45 out of 46 Ex-NFL players suffer from brain damage. This is because of the contact element, which is both present in rugby and American Football.2. More Suspense, but less watchers?The opponent has brought up the point that rugby has more suspense; firstly, the level of suspense is subjective. It cannot be measured, unless we are to make several "well made and educated assumptions", like this one: a show, a sport, that has more suspense would generally have more viewers. If this assumption is not taken, then the measure of suspense would be subjective; therefore, it would be rendered an "opinion". The 2010 World Cup, the first to be held in Africa, attracted 700 million viewers (me being among them). FIFA World Cup has a culmulative viewing, world wide, of 26 billion viewers! Wow, I mean, boy. Compare this with rugby, with 3.6 billion viewers, and we have a clear winner. Therefore, an unsubjective measure of suspense, viewers, has proven quite the contrary to.Citations:http://en.wikipedia.org...http://sports.yahoo.com...
Soccer is superior to rugby

Before I go on with my arguments, I would like to define several terms:SUPERIOR-better thanNow onto my arguments:1. Soccer has more health benefits than rugby A study done by Dr. Sean Kayes states that in one soccer game, a player could run 8-12km. This is a really far fetched statement, but according to the study that was done, in a soccer game, as much calories were lost during the soccer match as running a track of such magnitude. What does this say? This says that playing soccer demands the increase in pumping blood into the cardiovascular system; this demand decreases the chance of you having heart problems, because the heart isn't working as hard when you are resting. Apart from this, soccer increases the ability of eye to foot coordination; this is because the better a soccer player is at coordinating his eyes, the direction of his kick, and his decision ability, the better soccer player he would be. Several soccer coordination will increase your coordination and your motor skills. (. http://www.besthealthmag.ca...)2. The Bloody Nature of Rugby is harmfulThere has been 71 recorded deaths of rugby players. Feao Latu, a rugby player, was critically injured and was rushed to the hospital. He was pronounced dead only 15 minutes after his admission. Some doctors have stated that the contact element of rugby makes the sport itself unsafe for children; there were 6 children under the age 18 who have been paralyzed. Clearly, rugby is an unsafe sport, because it involves contact in such a way that children may get injured. This contact is dangerous for the health of children, and renders soccer superior. (. http://www.telegraph.co.uk...)It is because of these contentions, I believe, that rugby is a inferior sport to soccer.
Resolved: The death penalty should be banned in the United States.

For my opponent's first contention, she states that the death penalty deters crime. However, a recent study published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology reported that 88% of the country's top criminologists surveyed do not believe the death penalty acts as a deterrent to homicide. Eighty-seven percent of them think that the abolition of the death penalty would not have a significant effect on murder rates and 77% believe that "debates about the death penalty distract Congress and state legislatures from focusing on real solutions to crime problems." And also, if the death penalty really did deter crime like what my opponent is saying, than how come the rate of murders and homicides haven't gone down? Also there have been many studies on deterrence over the years. Although some have claimed a deterrent effect, experts have raised questions about the methodologies used in these studies. Measuring why people do not commit crimes is very difficult and the studies have been, at best, inconclusive. For my opponent's second contention, shes that the public supports the death penalty. However, just because 69% of the public favor the death penalty does not make it right. Also, my opponent's poll is flawed. According to ABC News, most people, 63 percent, support the death penalty when no other option is presented. But that's down from a high of 80 percent seven years ago, and it's weakly held: Support for executions drops to 46 percent when life without parole is offered as an alternative. So although people might say that criminals ought to suffer the penalty if that was the only form of punishment available, less than 50% of the population of the United States favor the death penalty if another punishment alternative is presented. Therefore we can see that in general, the public does not support the death penalty. Lastly, for my opponent's third contention, she brings up a point about how the death penalty provides closure for victims. However this is untrue. The fact that the person who killed a family's beloved one does not bring the person who was killed back. The death penalty will only harbor hate and is used as revenge. The death penalty does not bring honor to the death of the beloved ones that are murdered and objectifies human being's lives. For example, if a woman were to steal another woman's pen, she should return it. However, it doesn't make sense for a person to give up their life if they made the mistake of killing someone. The death penalty is barbaric and it is a reason why most European countries, China, and other nations with high-standard societies have banned the death penalty. It is for these reasons that I can see an affirmative vote in today's debate.
Resolved: The death penalty should be banned in the United States.

Contention 1- The death penalty deters crime According to a study done by the University of North Carolina, for every 1 execution, 18 murders were deterred. If murderers are sentenced to death, potential murderers will be less likely to kill, out of fear for losing their own life. This was proven in Harris County, Texas, where the murder rate dropped by 73% after the death penalty was reinstated. Furthermore, according to Accuracy in Media, Texas Oklahoma, Louisiana together account for nearly half of the nation's executions, and also have the steepest decline in homicide rates. Along with that, the death penalty prevents murderers from killing again. There are plenty of examples where murderers in jail or on parole have killed again, and the death penalty eliminates that risk. Because the majority of criminals fear death, the threat of the death penalty prevents them from killing. Contention 2- The public supports the death penalty. Because the United States is a democracy, a change in policy should only happen if the majority of US citizens support it. However, The Gallup polling center has found that 69% of US citizens support it. The US government has an obligation to uphold justice for the public, and because the death penalty is what the public wants, it shouldn't be banned. Contention 3- The death penalty provides closure for victims. For the families of murder victims, the fact that the person who killed their loved ones is gone provides them with a sense of peace. They know that the criminal will never hurt anyone again, and although it's no where near to eliminating their grief, it's still a huge step forward. Were the death penalty to be abolished, then the victims would be tortured knowing that while their loved one is dead, the criminal that killed them is still alive somewhere. Furthermore, the victims should not have to support the murderer in prison. The families of the victim have to pay taxes that ultimately go to funding prisons and the criminals in those prisons. It's not right for the people hurt by the murderer to have to pay for keeping the criminal alive. Therefore, I can see no other option but a negative ballot.
Comedy central shouldn't have censored Mohammed's appearance in southpark's season 14's episode 201

Your welcome. I understand and completely agree that it was censored to protect its creators, but I have issue with the amount of censoring that took place in the episode and not the reasons for the censorship. In south park season 5 episode 4(Original Air Date: Jul 4, 2001) "the super best friends" there is a depiction of Muhammad which had been aired without any censorship. Since 2009 this episode cannot be streamed online. I am not bothered that they censored muhammed's image cause it is offensive to Muslims but by the amount of censorship involved in the episode. Kyle,Jesus & Santa's speeches were completely censored despite the fact Kyle's speech had no reference to muhammed.Even mohammed's name was censored, which was about 23 times.So much censoring takes the fun out of the show. It is true Comedy Central is a business and has right of refusal; but this is not going to win them anything but the disdain of their viewers and if they didn't want to air the show like it was, they should have refused the entire thing. Like kyle says"either everything is ok, or none of it is". http://www.youtube.com... http://www.southparkstudios.com... http://www.southparkstudios.com...
Comedy central shouldn't have censored Mohammed's appearance in southpark's season 14's episode 201

Thanks, PRO, for beginning this debate. In South Park's 201st episode [1], Prophet Muhammad's name and other parts were censored. There has been much controversy, but I believe that Comedy Central made the right decision. Jon Stewart has stated that South Park creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker's lives were in danger, and censoring the episode was a way of protecting their lives [2]. The website RevolutionMuslim.com had written an article threatening violence towards the two creators for showing the Prophet Muhammad in a bear suit during episode 200. The author of the article, Abu Talhah Al-Amrikee, had stated that "We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid and they will probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh for airing this show. This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them." [3] The article contained a reference to Theo Van Gogh [4], who was shot and stabbed to death for simply making a film about Muslim women. In conclusion, it is obvious that the censorship of certain parts in episode 201 was necessary to protect the safety of the South Park creators. Vote CON [1] http://bit.ly... [2] http://www.chicagotribune.com... [3] http://www.nbcnewyork.com... [4] http://bit.ly...
Comedy central shouldn't have censored Mohammed's appearance in southpark's season 14's episode 201

I don't believe my opponent understands where I'm coming from. The resolution states, "Comedy central shouldn't have censored Mohammed's appearance in southpark's season 14's episode 201." My opponent doesn't specifically address the resolution, but he instead brings up irrelevant arguments. The fact is, in episode 201 [1] the subplot with the censorship of Muhammad's image was intentional, as I have shown in the second round. Again, the Muhammad subplot of episode 201 specifically played on the fact that the character Muhammad was "protected" and could not be made fun of. When Tom Cruise successfully takes Muhammad's power, his image is also covered up with a black rectangle that says, "Censored." This is identical to how the image of Muhammad is censored. Taking away the censorship of Muhammad's image in episode 201 would take away from the humor of the episode. My opponent has not shown how the censorship of Muhammad's image was not the intentions of the creators and I have proven that the censorship of his image was necessary for the humor of the episode, this negating the resolution and proving that Comedy Central should have indeed censored Muhammad's image in South Park season 14 episode 201. For these reasons, I urge a CON vote. [1] http://bit.ly...
Comedy central shouldn't have censored Mohammed's appearance in southpark's season 14's episode 201

I am disappointed by the fact that you did not bother reading my post or follow the links I provided in round 2. If you had, you would have realized a few things. 1. Kyle's speech had nothing to do with Muhammad and it was censored by Comedy Central. It wasn't decided by Trey and Matt. In fact they clearly state it wasn't a joke on their part. 2. It removes the fun from the show when even Muhammad's name was censored which by the way was done by Comedy Central not Trey and Matt. 3. In episode 1004 Cartoon wars 2 Trey and Matt intended Muhammed not to be Censored. It was done by comedy central. And lets not forget this episode aired on 12th April 2006 just 1 year 10 days after the problems faced due to the cartoon in Syria. . http://volokh.com... (link from the news section of April 2006 on South Park's official site) Tom Cruise threatened not to promote Mission Impossible 3 (produced by Paramount Pictures) if Scientology was made fun of in South park. Viacom which owns Paramount and Comedy Central got the episode pulled. . http://www.foxnews.com... This shows, 1. This is not the first time Comedy Central has Cowered to fear and it really does not help the freedom of speech. 2. They aren't against belittling of religion,as they showed Buddha doing coke & Jesus watching porn. Parker and Stone had addressed the potential impact of the depiction of Muhammad in an interview with the Boing Boing website last week, with Parker saying: "We'd be so hypocritical against our own message, our own thoughts, if we said, 'OK, well let's not make fun of them because they won't hurt us. '" www. youtube. com/watch? v=HcbJTo7sYFw These guys have fought the problems faced in todays society. They wanted Muhammed shown so it should have. Why give specialty to one religion? Cowering to threats is as good as helping terrorists. The guys clearly had the guts so maybe C. Central should have shown a little more spine.
Comedy central shouldn't have censored Mohammed's appearance in southpark's season 14's episode 201

The reason for not only the censorship of Prophet Muhammad's name but the censorship of others was not only for the safety of the creators, but it was part of the intended humor of the episode. The creators based their show off of the fact that after a Danish newspaper published some cartoons depicting Muhammad in 2005, many others were scared of showing any image of Muhammad [1]. Shortly after this incident, protesters set fire to a Danish Embassy in Syria [2]. Because of this, Muhammad wasn't used in any more cartoons due to fear. The episodes 200 and 201 were based around the fact that Prophet Muhammad couldn't be made fun of, and because of this the main goal of the celebrities South Park made fun of and the Gingers was to capture Muhammad, hook him up to a machine, and then extract his "power" to not be made fun of. This is shown when after Tom Cruise successfully takes away Muhammad's powers, his image is also censored. I have shown that Muhammad's appearence being censored was not only for the safety of the creators, but also because it was part of the humor of the episode, thus negating the resolution. Vote CON [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.spiegel.de...
Homosexuality is not a decision, it is natural

I think homosexuality is completely natural. I originally thought that the title was 'Homosexuality is a choice, not natural' and clicked on it. I'm not sure what I should do now, because there's absolutely no way to argue that it isn't natural. Can we just finish the rounds and let it be a tie? I honestly don't want to lose points over something I agree with you on. I'm very sorry I messed up your debate like this. Truly!
Homosexuality is not a decision, it is natural

TopicThe topic of this debate will be: "Homosexuality is not a decision, it is natural". The pro will be arguing that homosexuality is not a decision, and that it is natural. The con will be arguging that homosexuality is not natural, and optionally argue that it is a decision(However this leads on if it is not natural).DefinitionsDecision: "the act or process of deciding; determination, as of aquestion or doubt, by making a judgement" [1]Natural: "existing in or formed by nature ( opposed to artificial): anatural bridge." [2] In this debate, we will be referring to natural as something that is formed by nature. Making a decision does not constitute being formed by nature. Debate StructureRound 1: This round will be used for acceptance of the debate and/or for any definitions either side would like to make prior to their arguments.Round 2: In this round, both sides will state their arguments. Neither side will respond to each others arguments directly.Round 3 and 4: In this round, both sides will respond to/rebutt their opponents arguments. No additional arguments may be made during this round, only response to pre-existing arguments.Round 5: In this round, both the pro and con will conclude their arguments. No additional arguments may be made.Debate RulesBurden of Proof: The burden of proof is on both the pro and the con. Pro must prove that homosexuality is natural and is not a decision, whereas Con must prove that homosexuality is unnatural, and optionally that it is a decision(However this follows if it is unnatural).Respect: Both the pro and con must be respectful to each other, and must refrain from any insulting, discriminating or harmful remarks that are not directly relevant to the debate.Evidence: Provision of evidence will be required for any kind of statistical/scientific finding. All evidence mentioned or used during the debate must be cited or else the opposition will not be required to respond to the particular argument in which the evidence is used.Listing of Arguments: It is required that when making an argument, that it be labeled and optionally numbered. If an argument made by either the pro or con is not able to be clearly referenced, misinterpretation will be the fault of the person who made the argument. In other words, number/name your arguments so clarity can be ensured.References (1) http://dictionary.reference.com...(2) http://dictionary.reference.com...