BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Parents should be licensed.

For any type of licensing to be effective would require some background checks, a lot of information, new government offices, and huge amounts of money.In 2010 alone there were at least 4 million births in the US [1]. Assuming the average American family has 3 children that means about 1 million of these kids are the first child. If the US checks both parents that comes out to about two million people to do background checks on every year! If you don't do background checks, that raises the question of why bother? It achieves nothing to give away free licenses to have children.What if you find someone who was severely abused as a child? Tell him or her they could never have children? That is practically eugenics! What about the poor? Will we refuse them the right to have children since they might not be able to feed them? Are we seriously going to discriminate against the poor, or victims of abuse and tell them they can't have kids? This is absurdity in the highest degree. The government does not have the right to say who can and cannot have kids. The licensing system would be ineffective. Humans are occasionally spontaneous, which raises the problem of what to do when an unlicensed couple has a child. What if the couple are both 16 years old?There is no economically realistic and ethically right way to go about doing this. Attempting it would result in discrimination against the poor, against victims of abuse, and people with unplanned pregnancies. All of this at a huge cost to the taxpayers for millions of background checks every year.
Parents should be licensed.

Parents should be licensed based on the principle of the greater good. The adoption process is precedent that the resolution is feasible.Licensing parents would reduce traumatic childhoods. Four children die daily in the US due to child abuse [1]. 30% of abused and neglected children go on to abuse their own children [1]. We can end this cycle by licensing parents.Preparation for licensing would promote parenting standards. Now parents, who would have been mediocre, will have learned the skills to guide their child through growing up. Licensing poses a question of cost. However, "every $1 spent on home visiting yields a $5.70 return" [2]. In addition, child abuse and neglect directly costs the US $124 billion a year [2].Licensing parents would create better childhoods for their children, would lead to better functioning adults, would lead to a better future.
Parents should be licensed.

Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: StandardRound 3: StandardRound 4: No New ArgumentsTime to Argue: 24 hours Argument Max: 1,000 CharactersInterpretation of the Resolution:"Parents should be licensed" means that any adult seeking guardianship of a minor (including a minor they just gave birth to) would need to be licensed by an organization, likely the state.Do not accept this debate if you are going to deviate significantly from the interpretation.Sources may be included in the comment section to save characters. Be sure to label which speech your sources are referring to if you do.
When it comes to truth, Christianity is no different from any other belief system.

My opponent did not come for the debate. I hope he will come back and challenge me again when he is ready. 1. Christianity, in large part, is not subjective, though there are some particular views within Christianity that are adiaphora. 2. All beliefs are not a matter of faith. I believe the Bible makes true claims. We can study both secular and religious history (as well as archeology) to find that the Bible does indeed make true claims. Moreover, diametrically opposing belief systems cannot possibly be no different from one another. For instance, there is a God and there is not a God - both are systems of belief and both cannot possibly be true. Therefore, if Christianity is true, it is different than other belief systems, and if it is false, it is different from whatever system is true.
Once Saved Always Saved(OSAS) and the eternal security doctrine are both false

Well, if you wanted to have this argument with a Protestant, then why didn't you say you had to be a Protestant to accept? If you had done that, I wouldn't have accepted. You only told me after I had accepted, so how was I supposed to know? You can't just make up new rules in the middle. Not everything works out the way you hope it will in life. And also I am only following what you said in your opening. And these last two rounds have in fact been wasted by you since you have not posted any rebuttals and instead have simply called me a liar simply for going off incomplete information. So extend all arguments. But I feel the need to point out one more thing, given that my opponent has already stopped countering: Jesus could not have been stating a fact that applies to everyone. After all, not everyone is universally hated, even during their own life. However, the Apostles certainly were hated by all or nearly all men at least during their own lives. So, either the passage is referring only to the people Jesus was telling it to, or Jesus was wrong, which would be impossible since he is omniscient. BOP has not been met.
Once Saved Always Saved(OSAS) and the eternal security doctrine are both false

Any honest person following this debate knows that I was seeking to debate someone who holds to the "Protestant understanding" of Once Saved, Always Saved(OSAS). The Con does not hold to the Protestant understanding of OSAS. Therefore the Con is of bad will and simply a liar. In fact, the Con admits on his own profile that he is an atheist. This debate was therefore wasted. I look forward to having this debate later with someone who is serious about the topic and who holds to the Protestant doctrine of Once Saved Always Saved.
Once Saved Always Saved(OSAS) and the eternal security doctrine are both false

You never said I had to be Protestant. You can't just make new rules in the middle. If I had known I had to be Protestant to debate I wouldn't have accepted. "My question to the Con was, 1. Is the protestant doctrines of Once Saved Always Saved(OSAS) and eternal security both objective truths? The Con answered by saying, "I believe they are. "" Technically true but dishonestly phrased. I said that ACCORDING TO THE WORDING YOU LAID OUT, yes they are. And the wording you laid out only said that someone who believes in Jesus cannot lose eternal salvation. You didn't say in the opening that I had to believe believers would go to Heaven. Had I known this was a requirement, I would not have accepted to begin with. So I am not lying but rather going on incomplete information. Also, you did not address anything I said about the passage itself, so extend all arguments regarding the passage itself.
Once Saved Always Saved(OSAS) and the eternal security doctrine are both false

the Con said, "If there is no afterlife, then there is no eternal salvation to lose. Ergo, no they cannot." The Con obviously does not believe in an after life. Therefore the Con did not accept this debate challenge in good faith, because obviously I was seeking to debate a protestant who holds to the belief of Once Saved Always Saved(OSAS) and eternal security as I laid out in my opening statement. My question to the Con was, 1. Is the protestant doctrines of Once Saved Always Saved(OSAS) and eternal security both objective truths? The Con answered by saying, "I believe they are." Notice that Con just lied. He claimed that he believes the Protestant understanding of OSAS and eternal security are "true". The problem is that this Protestant doctrine claims that through the Lord, who is Christ Jesus, a believer becomes justified by faith alone and cannot lose their justification even if they sin. Therefore that justified believer remains saved from going to hell and can look forward to one day going to Heaven. Con does not believe any of this because he has admitted that nobody receives salvation in the 1st place, because he does not believe in God and does not believe in a heaven and a hell.
Once Saved Always Saved(OSAS) and the eternal security doctrine are both false

"Logically, if those who endure till the end will be saved, then those who do not endure will not be saved." Huh? I don't follow you. If those who are left-handed can play Go Fish, that doesn't mean those who are right-handed can't play Go Fish. "If Jesus told just one man that he must endureth [sic] till the end to be saved, then obviously that would apply to all men because Jesus is making a statement of "FACT"." But if you look at the whole chapter, you will see that Jesus is NOT making a statement of fact, he is giving instructions. If I tell one man, "make me some chicken", that does not mean I want everyone on Earth to make me chicken. "This debate is not titled "Is the Bible true?" and it is not titled "Is there an afterlife?". Why did you accept the debate challenge since you don't hold to the protestant belief that the Bible is true and that there is an afterlife????" The debate is not titled "Are protestants right?" either. But you are right, I should have been more clear on that point. You said in the opening that the debate was over whether a man who once believed in Jesus could lose their eternal salvation. If there is no afterlife, then there is no eternal salvation to lose. Ergo, no they cannot. "1. Is the protestant doctrines of Once Saved Always Saved(OSAS) and eternal security both objective truths?" According to the wording you laid out? I believe they are. I cannot prove that, but like I said BOP is on you.
Once Saved Always Saved(OSAS) and the eternal security doctrine are both false

the Con said, "1. That passage only says that he that endures shall be saved. It does not say anything about those who don't endure." Logically, if those who endure till the end will be saved, then those who do not endure will not be saved. the Con said, "2. My opponent takes the passage out-of-context. The passage is part of a group of instructions given by Jesus to the Apostles, and does not necessarily apply to the world as a whole." If Jesus told just one man that he must endureth till the end to be saved, then obviously that would apply to all men because Jesus is making a statement of "FACT". For example, if I tell one man that he must travel to China to get to China, then obviously that means all men must travel to China to get to China because the FACT is that nobody outside of China can get to China unless they travel to it. Therefore I am not taking that passage out of context, but instead you are doing so since you are claiming that the information Jesus is giving to his Apostles only applies to his Apostles with regards to Matthew 10:22. Yet Jesus never claims that Matthew 10:22 only refers to his Apostles alone. So you are reading between the lines and claiming something that is not there. the Con said, "3. The passage could be referring to being saved from death, or several other things, not necessarily from Hell." All the Apostles were martyred(meaning murdered for preaching Jesus' Gospel) except Judas who died from committing suicide and John who died in old age. So therefore Jesus obviously was not telling his Apostles that they would all be saved from "physical death". Plus, its illogical to even claim Jesus was referring to one being saved from "physical death" because Jesus was speaking about the end of one's lifetime which is "physical death" and therefore that means that at "physical death" that individual would then be saved because he endured till the end. the Con said, "4. My opponent has not proven that the Bible is true or that the afterlife exists in the first place." This debate is not titled "Is the Bible true?" and it is not titled "Is there an afterlife?". Why did you accept the debate challenge since you don't hold to the protestant belief that the Bible is true and that there is an afterlife???? This proves that you are of bad will and a liar. As for those watching this debate. As you can see, I have responded to each objection given by my opponent. Now lets see if my opponent will answer the following question I pose to him or her.......... 1. Is the protestant doctrines of Once Saved Always Saved(OSAS) and eternal security both objective truths?
Once Saved Always Saved(OSAS) and the eternal security doctrine are both false

1. That passage only says that he that endures shall be saved. It does not say anything about those who don't endure. 2. My opponent takes the passage out-of-context. The passage is part of a group of instructions given by Jesus to the Apostles, and does not necessarily apply to the world as a whole. 3. The passage could be referring to being saved from death, or several other things, not necessarily from Hell. 4. My opponent has not proven that the Bible is true or that the afterlife exists in the first place.
Once Saved Always Saved(OSAS) and the eternal security doctrine are both false

Great, I'm glad you are willing to debate this very serious topic. I look forward to refuting your arguments. As I said before, These ideas of OSAS(Once Saved Always Saved) and eternal security are false and completely contrary to the teaching of the Bible. Let"s look at the proof. After that, I will respond to the Con's objections. I will use the 1611 King James Version of the Bible, which is a famous Protestant translation. Note: If even just one passage from the Bible refutes OSAS and eternal security, then OSAS and eternal security are objectively false. I will therefore present that passage from the bible.... Matthew 10:22- "And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved."
Homosexuality is a choice for an individual.

I'll give this debate a shot but honestly I think I misunderstood the title. I thought your were arguing that homosexuality is not a choice. You initial post doesn't really clarify your position in this debate.I do not believe that homosexuality is a chose nor do I believe that it is an inherent part of a person's psyche.I also believe that the arguments of religion and biology are adequate grounds to explain and even justify anti-homosexuality behavior.750 words is not enough for me to write a full rebuttal addressing all the points you made in your post or elaborating my position.
Homosexuality is a choice for an individual.

Homosexuality is defined as: "sexual and social attraction to the opposite gender (the term "homosexual" refers to a man attracted to a man and "lesbian" to a woman attracted to a woman). Structure: 1: Start with rebuttals 2: Lay out your arguments 3: Source your information Let"s begin: There have been a lot of critics in our society, with people both supporting and contending the idea of whether or not homosexuality is indeed a "choice" or "naturally" acquired. "When did you choose to be straight"! "Why would a homosexual person consciously choose to be part of minority that suffers from so much hate, disrespect and stereotypes, why would one choose to be attacked" How can so much people who experience homosexuality tell you from their own subjective experiences that homosexuality is NOT a choice, yet straight and religious people are hell bent on proving them wrong, even though they have no experience in such subject? Arguing religion is very difficult. Not everyone believes in your religion, meaning that it holds very little validity in the debate (e.g an atheist may argue his disbelief in "Christianity"; as one cannot prove his religion to be "true" they are essentially road blocked). To argue a case of biology (that men have penises and woman have vaginas, therefore its "natural" to assume men should feel sexual attraction to the opposite gender and any feelings that deviate from this view is a choice) is very difficult, as sexuality isn"t purely biological, rather it is founded on the subjective experiences and ideologies of a person (for example in the case of sexual imprinting where experiences from our childhood can form our sexual attraction). I would like to end with a quote: "homosexuality is found in 450 species. Homophobia is found in 1. Who"s unnatural now?"
Should Religion Be Abolished Completely

It will. But then it will end some good. There are good people that have stemed from religion like the Pope, Mother Theresa, Gandhi, and other figures. So I will end my statement with this. As much as I am a fan of Christianity, I will say it's not a religion and say that because in my eyes, religion is nothing more than the control over humans for their own gain. It's commercial. Sellout. Now the idea that you can take something and use it to add own to your beliefs when something like religion was originally intended to be something only you yourself was supposed to interpret with your God. I believe this. Jesus Christ died for our sins and that if we sin, we can be forgiven even if we did 1,000 times. I'd rather believe that, a peaceful and loving faith, than one of violence and hatred like Westboro Baptist Church, which has most things wrong. Thank you. :)
Should Religion Be Abolished Completely

Of course we will still ahve war with or without religion however i belive that tere will be less small scale disputes and even some larger wars ones if there was no religion to say its just the individuals beliefs about religions fault is untrue because the individuals belifs stemed from organized religion as i will once again point out the westbro baptist church who have simply taken a literal meaning of the bible however they act like something the devil would have made. You cant end war its just human nature however abolishing religion would definately end some unnecisary evil in the world
Should Religion Be Abolished Completely

Well that's it. Individual beliefs is what the problem is. Not Religion. Religion is organized beliefs in which a group must believe the same thing. Individuals with their own beliefs will always create differences. For example. Football fans of different teams = Difference = Dispute Militant Straight Edgers and Stoners = Difference = Violent Dispute Straight Edgers vs Militant Straight Edgers = Diffrence = Dispute Religious Differences = Difference = Dispute Political Parties = Dispute and Difference = Then Dispute Xbox vs Playstation = Difference = Dispute The whole idea of difference is what starts wars and fighting. I saw this movie that actually made me think. Equilibrium. In the movie, It shows the future where no emotion exists. The ruler declared that to be why everybody was in war. Jealousy, Rage, Anger, Sorrow. So if anybody showed emotion, they would be executed. They also destroy things that bring emotion. They destroyed the original Mona Lisa, movies and records, they even shot a group of dogs and puppies. They are willing to destroy signs of happiness and joy if it brings peace to them. And they take a drug that surpresses human emotion. Point is, that even started a war. People who wanted to feel and have emotion began to be in a revolution. So with religion gone, we will still have war. Differences. Like Most Christians don't like that I believe being gay is not a sin and that I can point out why it isn't.
Should Religion Be Abolished Completely

Of course it is very unlikely that one can just say no more religion and then every one stops believing in a god or gods, however I believe that a sort of natural abolishment of religion is already happening, its happening in teenagers and young adults who like me questioned their religion and decided there was no god or no need to believe in a god, the christian church s diminishing and will eventually die out. I am not saying all religion is bad but it much of the time it does lead to bad things, like the cast system in Hinduism or the westbro baptist church. The main stem of all the bad that comes from religions is difference in belief because if I believe in something and you do not we have an argument and if i a someone in a position of power i will dominate you which is exactly what happened in Americas past wars after 9 11 or even what stalin did he did out of and because of his own beliefs.
Should Religion Be Abolished Completely

I hope to enjoy it to. :) Now, I am an example of what came from religion. I don't consider myself religious due to the fact that I don't believe in church authority or denominations or control for any of that matter. I am an anarchist and a christian. A Christian Anarchist believes much that the government and church is for violence and control. So I refuse to follow the majority of Christianity, but instead, read the bible on my own and make my own beliefs that I believe God has given me. I believe that Jesus has shown me what to believe, not my peers. If I find my own beliefs on my own, you might assume I'll be Charles Manson or the KKK. The fact of the matter is, we all are. You can take Catcher In The Rye and turn into something. Same with Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter. Same for Tom Clancy novels. Same for any form of fictional or non fictional works. It's about interpretation. Joseph Stalin, an atheist and a communist, decided to abolish religion due to his communist belief that the idea of religion is that of an opium. So he destroyed the Orthodox Church and other churches. He arrested practicing christians and pastors. He even forced atheism, a philosophy or religion of it's own, to kids in schools. Schools is were the brainwashing and doctrine of your lives come in. Atheists have argued that prayer in schools is forcing religion and christmas should be changed due to it's christian name. I am going to say this. I live in Lousiana. The south. And my school said Moment of Silence instead of pray, in respect to atheists or other religious people since we had muslims and atheists in the school as well. And who cares about Christmas. Kids only see it as the day Santa comes and gives them presents if they are good. This gives kids a great imagination. And if your the santa to the kids, they will leave you cookies and milk. Ain't that just adorable. Anyways, I will leave my first argument with that.
Should Religion Be Abolished Completely

This First Post will be for attracting anybody who wishes to take me on this debate. Reply saying accept if you accept. This is my first debate. Summary: Should Religion No Longer Be Practiced? It has been demanded for so due to crusades, war, hate crimes, bigotry, cults, and violence. Should Christians, Jews, Muslims, and any sort of religion not exist for the sake of humanity? My stance: Against the idea of abolishing religious practice.
The Death Penalty Should stay legal.

Pro, I wish you a good debate. The Death Penalty has been around for quite some time. It has had very extreme opinions put upon it and is thought of by some to be "Cruel/Unusual punishment." I'm here to say that I agree with the skeptics of the Death Penalty, because it is indeed corrupt and unpractical in our legal system. The Death Penalty is only used in top class crimes, however, why is it that since 1973 (in the U.S.), 138 people and counting have been released from Death row due to conflicting evidence being found? Not only this, but the cost of the punishment is horrendous. Why should taxpayers supply a system that sometimes doesn't even perform correct justice? Lastly, the Death penalty fosters the fact that killing is the solution to some problems, an awful role model to the younger generation of our society. When you're toying with another person's life, unfortunately, reasonable doubt is not enough of a reason to be sentenced to death.