BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Stepmothers- An Evil to the Modern Society

A child looses a parent due to a few reasons, divorce, death or state intervention. After the dust settles and a new routine is entrenched, adults move on with their lives. Eventually some parents remarry and a new stepmother or farther becomes a part of a kid’s life. This creates a different dynamic; the new step parent is a whole other person with a different perspective and expectations. What is it that is/was insufficient care from your step mother? How did you lose your mother? I can only say from my experience that as a step mother I love my step children as my own. But, they have a natural mother which cannot be replaced and she loves them as well. I know their natural mother will always be first in their hearts. The best I could do is care, nurture, be there when needed and teach responsibility. I was all in, kids and all when I married their dad. Early on I received harsh resentment from the girls because my standards were different than their natural mom. In collaboration and agreement with their dad, we established how things were to be handled, done with consistency and follow through. This is was what was missing in their natural mother’s household. There were no regular meal or bed times, no age appropriate chores to teach responsibility, no time set aside for just the family. A no from mom to a request was overturned if enough whining or yelling on behalf of the kids was done; just about anything went. The girls ruled the house and were neglected when with their natural mother. As kids do when things change, they ranted to their dad that I was awful and unfair, they couldn’t do anything or go anywhere. This was due to their refusal to do basic chores like taking out the trash, unloading the dishwasher or passing a vacuum in the living room; as well as endless yelling and name calling at me showing no respect toward me. Thankfully, when their natural mother heard the same rants, she backed us up, “their house their rules.” It took a few months for the routine and rules to settle in, it was not easy. As the years passed the girls accepted me, shared their day, their boy crushes and their heart breaks; I even gave them the sex talk and offered advice when they came to dating age. As they grew older they were given more responsibly and freedoms. When they didn’t hold up their end they lost privileges. There still was the occasional “You’re not my mother or the boss of me”. My classic response, “I’m the mom in this house, you deal with it because it isn’t going to change.” They did very well in school and later married good men. Their homes have order, and routine. My girls, now women with children of their own are respected by their kids. We weren’t perfect parents but the end result was worthwhile.
Stepmothers- An Evil to the Modern Society

A child on losing his own mother who gave him birth at the only childhood stage cries for shelter in his Father's Lap. But later he finds that Father's Lap is not only sufficient for him rather Mother will make him sufficient and givr him enough care. Therefore when Father brings for him Another Mother he being happy tries to find shelter in his stepmother's lap. But he finds everything changed......................... He does not gets sufficient care from stepmother rather he is made do every kind of household work and being tortured day and night by his stepmother , when he confesses everything infront of his father he gets two things in return . One is the silence which he has never expected at least from his father and another is punishment for complaining against stepmother. Finally frustated child tries to find his own identity in a large pool of Society but he fails and gets nothing........................................................... Therefore Stepmothers are an evil to modern society
The bible condemns homosexuality:

You would have to pardon me for my last round as it had appeared for whatever reason that the site had decided to glitch out my entire argument, but my opening paragraph. I shall just post it here, since the rules had stated that Google Docs where prohibitted. My opponent continues to conplain about the rules, but had neglected to define them and the terms in the 1st round which left them to me, so you have no choice, but to take my definitions and terms especially since my opponent hasn't challenged them. Contention 1: GenesisMy opponent completely drops my adnro argument, so please extend it across the board as it helps shows the tollerance of homosexuality in the Bible. I had sited this in my Opening arguments and it remains unchallenged. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.- 1 Timothy 2In the book of Timothy, we can see that one of St. Paul's disciples had helped explain this verse. We cannot condemn homosexuality in this verse as it shows that Man came before woman and that the woman has caused the fall of man. We can see there is no condemnation here and when you combine this with Plato we can see that the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality, but actually embraces and accepts it. He [King Solomon] had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines,and his wives led him astray- 1 Kings 11:3Here we can see that King Solomon, one of the Bible's most well known kings next to David, had committed the action of pologamy. My opponent claims that this is untopical, but this shows that there is no such thing as a traditional marriage and if this is the case then there is no way that homosexuality can be condemned if there is no other alternative solution to an acceptable marriage. Contention 2: Samuel and DavidIt doesn't matter if it was a record or not. He had stated that he loved David more than men, not to mention that they pratically performed sodomy in the Bible and God did not smite them for it. For this you have to extend my argument across the board. Contention 3: Ruth My opponent has dropped this argument, so I'll have to extend this across the board. The verse that I cited was the perfect example as it was the very creation of the verse used at weddings to show the intamacy of the two couples involved, showing obvious homosexual ties from this.
The bible condemns homosexuality:

I didn't forfeit this debate, you made that up, you don't get to propose terms then when I declinew say I can't negate them, that's not how a debate works. Your terms give you an unfair adantage because you could find an instance where homosexuality is recorded but not condemned, this could be used in a debate to say that the bible doesn't condemn murder. Moses killed an Egyptian, yet he is recorded as a great prophet, does that mean that the bibvle doesn't condemn murder? Obcourse not! Because it clearly states "thou shalt not kill," just like it also states "if a man lies with another man it is an abomination," which in Hebrew is called Chazaq. Anyway, my opponents arguments were deleted so I will have him send them to me, I will post them on this google document:https://docs.google.com... And respond to his argument here:https://docs.google.com...
The bible condemns homosexuality:

No, I challenged you to the debate, so I get to chose the terms, I cannot do that now as it is round 3, but you do not get to propose terms then say I have to abide by them because you say so. I don't get to shove my terms down your throat and say if you don't accept them you still have to, that's not how a debate works. With that out of the way I will now post my opening arguments. Leviticus 18:22, 20:13 calls homosexuality "chazaq," which means a disgusting thing or an abomination; go read the Torah.Genesis:I couldn't find anywhere in Genesis 2:21-24 that says it doesn't matter what gender your "other half" is, I did however find these halves specified as male and female, something very specific, if it didn't matter what gender it was it would just say 'adam (human) and 'adam (human), not 'iysh (man)and 'ishshah(woman). I don't see what polygamy has to do with this debate, if you were "proving" that polygamy is tolerated in the Tanakh then you might be in the wrong debate, this debate is about homosexuality. Either way every single man which was recorded as righteous and who did what is right in the sight of the lord was monagamous, Noah, Moses,Elijah, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, etc. The only "great man" who was polygamous was Avram, and according to the Tanakh this was a mistake of his and a sin against G-d. Samuel and David:I don't see what you are talking about, Avram stuck his neck out for Lot and this didn't mean that he loved him, well he did but not romantically. Men CAN love other men in non-romantic ways and have genuine non-romantic love you know? If you found a verse where someone tells his dad "I love you," youwould say that incest is OK. This is clearly not true. And another thing, even if David was gay, the Tanakh only records it, it doesn't say it was OK, a lot of this is just historic records. David also killed a man and owned over 700 wives!Ruth:I again cannot see what you are refering to, nowhere do we find that Ruth loved Naomi in any romantic way, they did have some kind of love, but not romantic love, me loving my dad/brothers does not make me gay, because it is not romantic love. They were not gay in any way.
The bible condemns homosexuality:

My opponent has neglected to define any terms or create any rules for this debate, with him forfeiting that right I shall do so this round and he will be unable to go and refute or have any feud with the rules, stipulations, or definitions that I will be providing in this round. Rules2nd round, Opening arguments by each side, no rebuttals,.3rd Round Rebuttals4th Round Rebuttals5th Round Rebuttals and conclusions.No Google docs usage, all arguments must be within the debate.Sources may be placed in the comments section if necessary.No source spamming. Semantics permitted to an extent as long as they are following the topicality of the definitions provided. No Counter-plansNo K's. Deviation from these rules shall result in a forfeiture.Condemn- express complete disapproval of, typically in public; censure [1]This means that in order for me to win the debate I have to either refute all of my opponent's arguments and/or find an instance in the Bible where homosexuality is not condemned and thus the Bible cannot condemn homosexuality due to it being okay/not condemned in that instance. The Burden of Proof is thus on Pro. Bible- the collection of sacred writings of the Christian religion, comprising theOld and New Testaments. [2]Homosexuality- sexual desire or behavior directed toward a person or persons of one'sown sex. [3]Sources1. (http://tinyurl.com...) 2. (http://tinyurl.com...) 3. (http://tinyurl.com...)
internet is better than books

Hello! I'm really sorry for the late reply. Here is my argument for Round 3. I would like to state that your argument was very closed-minded, because the good points of the internet were overlooked. Ignoring the facts wont make them go away. As you stated websites can be broadly categorized into 2 types: websites that provide learning opportunities, and the ones that do not add up to our leaning. Well, YouTube cannot be classified as a website that does not add learning, because is does indeed provide us with informative videos, news, documentaries, and even movies that can add to our knowledge. Social media is also very important, as our friends and relatives might not always be next door for us to walk into their house. They might be in another country, or somewhere far away, and it can be very impractical to travel to their place, just to talk to them for a few minutes. For example, I have lived in 4 different countries so far, and I have friends in those countries. The only way i can talk to them is by email, or Skype or Facebook, and they all use the help of internet to function. The world has been a smaller place because of the internet, and I think an individual does not have the right to criticize it, when one uses it himself/ herself. You also stated that the internet is very inefficient, but i couldn't disagree more. When browsing on the internet for something, you are given access to a wide range of information, fortunately sometimes even much more than you need. The browser should be aware of the websites that he should looks through, and should also be aware of his time limitations (if he has any). And i would like to reiterate, that it is ones desire to use the internet, and most people (like you and me) have decided to use it because it is undoubtedly very helpful. Storing precious information online, would definitely not be an ideal way to keep it safe. But thankfully, some internet sites come along with proper and secure methods to keep it safe; like the use of passwords and usernames. Preserving everything physically, might not always be safe, as it can be stolen, unlike when it is stored digitally, surrounded by passwords and other security systems. Moreover, you have stated that "Much of our face to face interaction has been replaced by the internet", when it is the internet that provides us with (2 dimension) face to face interaction, with someone who is very far away. Going outside to meet someone might not always be practical and easy, and the internet has undoubtedly helped us to get over with the difficulties. It has given us the opportunity to communicate with someone who is one the other side of the world, and it has helped us in so many other ways, that it is inappropriate to criticize the internet, by using the internet. Don't worry, this is my first debate too...I don't know the proper method to debate either. Your's was a very hard argument to go against, but i hope I have managed to provide you with valid points. Looking forward to your response, :)
internet is better than books

Hello Cheese_Brain, I look forward to debating on the topic, and hope I can propose a solid argument.While we have reached an age of seemingly limitless possibilities with technology, I would agree that access to information has become easier, but yet the Internet has made it more difficult for us to learn.You argue that the increasing levels of technology with which we are surrounded have continued to make it easier to access this information, and I disagree with this for three reasons. First, the increase in availability of information has reduced our desire to actually absorb any information at all. Why learn how to convert units of measurement when you can Google it? Why memorize simple math functions when you can use the calculator on your smartphone? Why study geography when you can use Google Earth? We no longer feel the need to actually learn and retain the information we have access to, because of our technologies, which has actually decreased the amount of curiosity young people have, and also decreased their desire to access any unnecessary information. Because of this, despite easier access, our amount of access has decreased.Second, the quality of information available has severely dropped since the days of book, and even of the radio. In our day, I personally can go on any number of sites and claim to be an expert on any subject, and may be believed. With the sheer amount of content, and the anonymity of publishers, there is no way to distinguish between good and bad information, and thus the amount of quality information we can achieve has declined.Finally, referring again to the volume of information available, information overload actually makes it more difficult to gain any information. When people would come home and turn on the news, they knew they were getting what they needed to know, and would absorb that important information quite easily. Now, when you browse social media, and news aggregating sites, you are constantly bombarded with "important" news on current events all day, but really only a small percentage of what you see is important. With so much rubbish mixed in to the pile of information, our brains can't possible absorb it all, or even begin to accurately pick out what is and isn't important.Here concludes the premise of my argument, that technology and the Internet have reduced the ease with which we can access information. Best of luck to you, and I look forward to reading you response. Thanks.
internet is better than books

In today"s modern world, technology has a great influence on our life and time. Back in the early 19th century, when electronic devices had not been invented, the population could only use printed word such as books, posters, newspapers or magazines, to gather information. Later, in the mid 20th century, the use of computers, televisions and radios helped people to know about the incidents happening all around the world, more easily. Now, in the 21st century, the creation of internet and other devices to access it has helped us to attain gigabytes of information, just with the click of our mouse. The internet has made it possible for us to acquire answers for almost all of the questions that we ask, and has alleviated the access to information to almost every topic imaginable.
Logical Absolutes Did not originate from humans

I'm going to make this short and simple as Ibsee no reason to keep repeating the same stuff and the pro misconstruing what's being said. 1. There can be a mind that lacks intelligence. But intelligence derives from the mind. I never said it didn't. 2. As of now, the only intelligent mind that can understand logi are human minds. Not to say other intelligent mins don't exist, There's just 0 evidence for them. 3. LAs are perceived by the intelligent mind. They exist because we perceive them. Our mind simply explains a phenomena. LAs are conceptual...concepts depend on intelligence...we can then put these concepts in physical forn to display them. Still they depend on INTELLIGENCE. 4. Errors are dependent on the intelligent minds as well. How can an error be...if no one ever MADE the error in the first place? You HAVE to make an error for an error to exiat, then recognize it as an error. An X is only called an X because that's what our intelligent minds described it as. X's are CONCEPTS of an intelligent mind. An error is a mistake...no mind...no mistakes can exist. 5. Unless the universe is an intelligent mind...it can't create LAs. LAs are simply the byproduct. We recognize stuff like patterns, math, love etc. To say humans created LAs is like saying humans created math. We didnt, we simply recognized something and put a description for it....this immaterial CONCEPT. No INTELLIGENCE to recognize them...no LAs
Logical Absolutes Did not originate from humans

I could say the same thing you keep saying intelligence and relating it to LA, but LA is linked to minds so if you say intelligence I assume you automatically mean intelligent mind. Cons Says LAs are dependent on INTELLIGENCE....if there is no intelligence then LAs would cease to exist. I never said LAs don't exist if humans don't exist...they don't exist if INTELLIGENCE doesn't exist. This is confusing because per previous point when you connect intelligence to LA then we must connect intelligence with a mind. as there is zero evidence for that as well that intelligence can exist WITHOUT a mind. So when Con relates Intelligence to LA then its natural to conclude intelligent mind. Every...single...time. Unless again you can prove there is intelligence without a mind. I quote Con "Saying something is possible is one thing. Saying it's probable is another and if you cant show empirical evidence for your claim, then all you're left with is an unproved possibility that's improbable." don't exactly agree with that but within his own logic he refutes himself. because intelligence as far as we know always includes a mind. So that being said his amended statement becomes this " LAs are dependent on INTELLIGENT(mind)....if there is no intelligent (mind) then LAs would cease to exist. Con says So in order for LAs to be timeless...the universe would have to be timeless. Well we know that it is not the case, due to the "Cosmic Backwave/background Radiation" accepted by the scientific community that the universe had a beginning. (because in this debate we did not use a lot of sources in previous rounds, I did not use a link for this, but it can be verified easily through Google or wikipedia typing in that phrase.) Con says IN order for an error to occur, there has to be a mind to make the error. Incorrect, an error can be in existence even if a mind has not accessed the situation, or evaluated it or examined it. The error itself will still physically be there even if you do not know about it, an error is a term we use to detect logical error(loose definition) but even without the description we use to determine an error, its just a description not a reality of what actuality IS. just because we haven't put a description TO a term does not erase the reality. IF an arrangement of sticks form an X just because the letter x do not exist does not change the ACTUAL formation and that it is still there. When we later discover the letter X we can place that term back in time to what that arrangement of sticks WAS forward or Backward. There is prescriptive and descriptive. descriptive is about the norms of rules within a given moment of reality prescriptive would be the process of action in the way we could USE a description at ANY time instead of just in a particular time.
Logical Absolutes Did not originate from humans

I think you should shorten your debates to 3 rounds. Its like I keep saying the same thing over n over because you don't understand what's being said lol. 1. LA' s weren't CREATED by humans, they were DISCOVERED. LAs are dependent on INTELLIGENCE....if there is no intelligence then LAs would cease to exist. They are simply words that DESCRIBES a phenomena. They are secondary terms. They are conceptual. I never said LAs don't exist if humans don't exist...they don't exist if INTELLIGENCE doesn't exist. We are unaware of any other intelligent mind that can perceive of LAs. Not saying they don't exist but as of now, there's 0 evidence to say they do. LAs abide by the laws of the universe. All we know are the laws within the universe, whos to say the same laws apply outside of the universe if there is even an outside. So in order for LAs to be timeless...the universe would have to be timeless. Whuch evidence shows the universe had a beginning. What created the universe is unknown, it could've been a intelligence or not. We don't know. Also there cannot be an error in logic WITHOUT a mind...IN order for an error to occur, there has to be a mind to make the error. How can an error occur without a mind making the error in the first place? Which proves logic is dependent on INTELLIGENCE. Saying something is possible is ine thing. Saying it's probable is another and if you cant show empirical evidence for your claim, then all you're left with is an unproved possibility thats improbable. LastlyI dont have to prove to you anything. YOU made the vlaim...the onus is on you to prove it.