BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Corporal punishment in schools.

Here is a paragraph by paragraph response to your opening argument #1-- pertaining to the definition of corporal punishment: broadly defined corporal punishment includes torture and the death penalty. With that in mind opponents of corporal punishment of children and adolescents will define it as broadly as possible and in ways unfavorable to the use of corporal punishment. Most people understand when we talk about spanking a 16 year old girl we are not talking about torture and can distinguish the difference #2 To equate the corporal punishment of adults to that of children is simply an invalid analogy. Children are different then adults and can be treated differently. Yes it is true physical correction of adult women by their husbands is much less acceptable than it used to be but it is also true in the past adult women needed to get the husband's consent for a range of activities outside the home-- including but not limited to-- a driver's license, employment, a bank account. A minor still requires a parents consent for much of this. #3 Yes there are some risks involved in the administration of corporal punishment. But so are there risks in other disciplinary approaches some of which can be serious. Such risks can be minimized if strict rules as to the administration of corporal punishment are closely followed. These would include the strap or other implement be applied only to the child's or adolescent's buttocks, the implement not be such that when applied routinely will not cause any injuries besides some reddening of the skin and perhaps a few welts that will dissipate within a few hours There is also a risk that if used as the primary means of discipline corporal punishment will gradually become less effective and as a result the severity of it will need to increase. This is why corporal punishment should never be the preferred means of correcting children and teenagers #4 What is the definition of a serious injury? There is general acceptance when distinguishing between corporal punishment of a child and adolescent and the abuse of such that a serious injury means a fracture, an internal injury, or any injury to the head. When these happen it is usually the result of excessive force being used, an inappropriate implement being used or the child not being properly restrained when receiving correction. There are less serious injuries which opponents of corporal punishment will construe as serious but really aren't when what one is describing is an isolated incident or two.
Corporal punishment in schools.

Let me begin by saying that you have no evidence to support your claim. Your entire argument (despite how small it is) it is based entirely on an opinion. If we are spouting opinions I do not think hitting someone is necessary. I believe other punishments can be found for the child other than causing physical pain. " even if rare" If it is a punishment is with rare benefits, than you should weigh the estimated 2230 children in need of medical attention in 2005 alone, the 2 that died, and however many more that are emotionally scared by corporal punishment experiences. http://centerforparentingeducation.org...... https://en.wikipedia.org...... http://www.cnn.com...... http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...... Society for Adolescent Medicine https://en.wikipedia.org...... https://en.wikipedia.org......
Corporal punishment in schools.

cor"po"ral pun"ish"ment noun 1.physical punishment, such as caning or flogging. implemented: Verb 1.put (a decision, plan, agreement, etc.) into effect. School corporal punishment refers to causing deliberate pain or discomfort in response to undesired behaviour by students in schools. It often involves striking the student either across the buttocks or on the hands, with an implement such as a cane, wooden paddle, slipper, leather strap or wooden yardstick. Less commonly, it could also include spanking or smacking the student with the open hand, especially at the elementary school level. As of 2015, 31 states and the District of Columbia have banned corporal punishment in public schools, though in some of these there is no explicit prohibition. Corporal punishment is also unlawful in private schools in Iowa and New Jersey. In 19 U.S. states, corporal punishment is lawful in both public and private schools. Years ago, it was acceptable for a husband in the United States to beat his wife in order to get her to do what he wanted or to punish her. His asserting his authority through corporal punishment was accepted as a social norm. Should we be teaching school children that in this day in age it is appropriate for them to be hit when someone disagrees with them and their behaviour. Physical punishment can easily escalate and cross the line to abuse and serious injury, particularly when an instrument is used and public schools are required to use a paddle or ruler to implement corporal punishment. An estimated 1 to 2 percent of physically punished students in the United States are seriously injured, to the point of needing medical attention. According to the AAP and the Society for Adolescent Medicine, these injuries have included bruises, abrasions, broken bones, whiplash injury, muscle damage,brain injury, and in a few cases death. I am aware that this data is out of date but we should not ignore the fact that through the ages the number of children being smacked by their superiors is large during the 2005-2006 school year, 223,190 children had corporal punishment implemented in schools. It is because of these reasons I do not believe it moral to implement corporal punishment in schools. Sources: http://centerforparentingeducation.org... https://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.cnn.com... http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com... Society for Adolescent Medicine https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org...
Corporal punishment in schools.

round 2 speaker 1 (me): present argument/case round 2 speaker 2 (you): present argument/case NO REBUTTING IN THIS ROUND YOU MAY NOT ATTACK MY CASE IN ANY WAY YOU MAY ONLY PRESENT YOUR CASE. round 3 speaker 1: attack your case round 3 speaker 2: attack only case not my rebuttal. round 4 speaker 1: attack/defend rebuttal round 4 speaker 2: attack/defend rebuttal round 5 speaker 1 : conclusion round 5 speaker 2: conclusion I do not believe corporal punishment should be implemented in schools. Please always state sources. if you run out of space you may post them in the comments with a note on the formal statement that you are doing so.
Prove to me you are not a robot

1. I don't know, looks like gibberish to my squishy human eyeballs filled with blood. 2. I've never played Sonic the Hedgehog 4, therefor I have no way to know. 3. My favorite video game is Splinter Cell: Blacklist at the moment. That thing about penguins was a joke. Penguins are way cooler than people though. You seem like you might be serious. Do you genuinely think I'm a robot?
Prove to me you are not a robot

"My role models are: 10110110011010110" This is nothing more than numbers and a part of a programming code and are not people, nor are they fictitious characters or toys, so the cannot be role models, which is further proof that you are a robot and is a negation of the rest of your fourth argument. Also, in one of your opinion arguments, you stated that "...we should all kill ourselves and be reborn as penguins..." This reflects a hatred for mankind, and if you "hate" mankind, you must be an undercover robot. I will now ask you weird questions that will reflect whether or not you are a robot. 1. What does the following sentence translate to English as? អ្នកR03;មិនR03;បំភ័យR03;ខ្ញុំ 2. How do you become Super Sonic in Sonic the Hedgehog 4? 3. what is your favorite video game? (You cannot use the following words in your answer): 1. good 2. bad 3. that
Prove to me you are not a robot

If you are a human, then answer me these questions: 1. Who are your role models? 2. What makes you laugh? 3. Q'aagn u rieed thiz ch'west'iunnn? (I misspelled it on purpose. If you can read it, quote it and spell it properly. I will tell you if you got it right.) 4. Can you name all 44 presidents of the USA in order, backwards, in A-Z alphabetical order of name, and then in A-Z alphabetical order of political party? 5. Can you make a funny yo mama joke? If so, please post it in your argument, and please no swearing, trolling, etc.
Prove to me you are not a robot

The "Information" section of your profile is full of evidence that you are indeed a robot. Evidence of my position from your profile: AnotherHuman's Information About Me:I am a human. Activities:I disapprove of things from a distance. Beliefs:I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. May he touch us all with his noodley appendage. Books:I like books that are good, and not bad. Movies:I like movies that are good, and not bad. Music:I like music that is good, not bad. Quotes:"I dissaprove." -Myself Sports Teams:I hate sports. TV Shows:I like TV shows that are good, not bad. I await your rebuttal, Con.
The US should continue to deny homosexuals from serving openly in the military.

Currently, the United States bans homosexuals from serving in the military. Under its policy known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," (DADT), one cannot serve in the military, even if he wants to, if he is openly gay. Rather, the US suggests the person should hide from his own identity, and serve in the military as if he were heterosexual. The US should lift DADT and allow gays to serve in the military. If one feels that it is his duty to serve in the armed forces, so be it. Our administration loves to fight wars anyways, why would you place a limit on troops that volunteer to serve? This military mindset is destructive toward homosexuals. Forcing people to hide their identity as a means to an end is inherently bad, not to mention an infingement of rights. Should schools not allow teachers to teach if they are openly gay? Should hospitals put a ban on lesbian nurses? There has to be an instictive and powerful "No" in response to these questions. Why should the military be any exception? *I apologize for my seemingly gendered language, but I assure you it is not. I choose to use the pronoun "he" because it is homosexual males that are being affected by this issue.
The US should continue to deny homosexuals from serving openly in the military.

My apologies, lots of hectic things were going on. Okay, so here is my devil's advocate argument: The Don't Ask Don't Tell policy is fine. It does not need to be changed. Why should sexual orientation be a factor in whether or not someone is in the army? There is no reason to ask whether someone is gay or straight or bisexual or anything when one is signing up to be a part of the armed forces. DADT does not force people to hide their identity, it just makes sexual orientation a non factor. And it also is protective of gay soldiers. In the army, it is not easy and is possibly dangerous for homosexuals to be open with their sexual orientation. The army is a notoriously brutal and masculine place where homosexuality could be viewed as "feminine" or a "weakness" or just plain different. The argument from unit cohesion is not with validity. It is very important that any soldier would sacrifice for any other soldier and that each person can fully trust every other. Would it be a homosexual soldier's fault that a straight soldier may not trust him or sacrifice for him? Absolutely not. It is that straight soldier's fault and of course change must come. But the way to keep the most homosexuals safe is to keep DADT until homosexuality is more accepted within society. Right now we are in a place where even many Democrats do not support full gay marriage, but only civil unions. Clearly this is a difficult time for gays and the best way to keep them safe is to just not ask the question of sexuality. Otherwise, we risk literally endangering the lives of homosexual individuals for a while so that eventually homosexuals can serve openly. To me, sacrificing them for years is not a good means to the end of homosexuals being able to serve openly. Read about Allen R. Schindler, Jr. He was beaten to death in the army by his fellow soldiers because of his homosexuality. It is a tragic occurrence and is absolutely despicable that this happened. It did not happen in 1945 or anywhere that far into the past either. It happened in 1992. Recently, an Army Times poll found that only 25% of military servicemen would like gays to be able to serve openly. The territory is too hostile for DADT to be repealed and it is best that gradual acceptance in society leads to more acceptance in the military rather than forced immediate change that will no doubt lead to countless hate crimes. DADT allows for homosexuals to serve but not have to disclose their sexuality. When society is much more accepting of homosexuality in general, then the implementation of policies that state homosexuals are allowed to serve openly should occur. It is the safest way and it is the best way for this to happen. Until that time, leave DADT intact. This way, it is so much safer for homosexuals now in the military.
God exists

I believe my opponent is confused. He is supposed to be for the resolution, not against. Anyway: P1. God is supposedly omnipotent, pure, and omniscient. P2. If god was pure, he would want to destroy all evil. P3. If god was omniscient, he could find evil. P4. If god was omnipotent, god could destroy all evil. P5. Evil exists C. Therefor, god does not exist.
God exists

Why did I click the button. I didn't have to click the button. I clicked the button because I was all like "...but believeing in a god is dumb" but then I remembered after I clicked that everyone shold be able to be happy with their religion and I don't really care about this topic. Weather someone believes in a god or not won't affect me one bit. I'd rather debate about real issues that affect me, but I'm the idiot for clicking accept. What have I done? *sigh*The truth is that I can't prove that a god doesn't exist just like you can't prove that my magical invisble flying pet hippo doesn't exist. Don't use the Bible a s a base for your arguement and don't say that I just can't exept someone over me.This is my arguement for the rest of the debate. I'm not a troll.*drops microphone*
God exists

Resolution: God existsIn this debate, we will use the Christian God.Rounds:Con(1) Rules(2) Contentions(3) Contentions/rebuttals(4) Rebuttals/Closing StatementsPro(1) Contentions(2) Contentions/Rebuttals(3) Closing statements(4) Shall type only "no round as agreed upon" and nothing elseRules(1) If my opponent fails to type "No round as agreed upon" in the last round will lead to a full 7 point FF. If my opponent types any other words besides "No round as agreed upon" in the last round, he or she will FF the entire debate with a 7 point loss.(2) 10k character limits.(3) No semantics or trolling/ this will result in a ff.(4) Plagiarizing results in a FF.(5) The rules, structure, and definitions of the debate cannot be negotiated or changed once the debate has started.(6) It is accepted that the BOP in this debate is on Pro.Thanks.
flat fees, not flat taxes, are the truly conservative approach

Once again, PRO fails to acknowledge and respond to the key points that I have brought up. Once again, I will reiterate the theoretical side behind my argument to perhaps clarify what PRO fails to see. Being conservative means sticking to traditional methods and being cautious of change. Since the United States has been independent, a rate-based taxation has always been the most used form of taxation. Flat rate taxes = Traditional approach = Conservative approach Flat fees = Incredibly radical, never used on a national scale = Non-conservative approach This is my case in Layman's terms. I hope it persuades PRO and anyone who happens to stumble upon this debate that flat fee taxation is NOT the conservative approach in comparison to flat taxes (rate-based taxation). Thank you for reading.
flat fees, not flat taxes, are the truly conservative approach

Excuse my grammatical error in my last post. Anyways, without reasoning, PRO refuses to acknowledge most of what I have said and ignores the fact that I prove, by widely accepted definition, that a flat fee approach is not reasonable. I would like to ask PRO, do you believe cutting spending is the way to go? Do you think the government will really do that? Isn't the government already in too much debt to rely on a reduced taxation?
flat fees, not flat taxes, are the truly conservative approach

Hi, this is my first debate and I need to finish 3 in order to gain access to voting privileges. Anyways, this random topic looks interesting enough so let's begin.Before I state my cases, I would like to offer 3 definitions to serve as clarification and standardization (these definitions were simply taken from the Cambridge Dictionary):1) Conservative (political): holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion.2) Flat Tax: a tax rate that is the same for everyone, whether the person's income is high or low.3) Flat Fee: an amount that is charged or paid that does not change according to the amount of work done, or the number of times something is used.My argument is simple and built upon the widely accepted definition of "conservative" (stated above). PRO must take into account that being conservative means being traditional and cautioning change. Consdering the fact that what is traditional is relative to the specific region and considering PRO's disapproval of flat taxes relative to flat fees, let's solidify that PRO holds the belief that "flat fees, not flat taxes, are the truly conservative approach in the United States."The proposition, keeping in mind the definition of conservative, implies that there was a time in American history when the country was taxed in the form of a flat fee. I can't think of any major nationwide instances in which flat fee was used for taxation. When the United States declared its independence, they mostly, if not always, imposed rate-based tax. When the declaration was ratified, they just built upon the principals of rate-based tax. From that point in history until the present, rate-based taxation has been by far the most common type of taxation. It is not at all traditional, henceforth not conservative to impose a flat fee taxation over a flat rate taxation. In fact, the instigator's proposition is wholely radical, thus it goes against the basis of being conservative.I believe the last paragraph was enough to refute the proposition. However, I will briefly elaborate upon why a flat fee taxation would never work in a capitalist nation like the US. It's actually quite simple; the poorer classes would either not have enough to pay or the richer classes would be paying too little. You are then presented with two scenarios:1) If the flat fee is high enough, the rich will sustain the government to continue to run. However, the poor would be completely unable to pay their taxes. Those barely able to pay will be unable to gain access to basic necessities like food, clothing, and shelter.2) If the flat fee is low enough, the poor might be able to pay their rent and put food on the table. Also, the rich can probably thrive to a higher degree with such a standardized low tax fee. Unfortunately, the government would not receive the funding it needs to keep afloat. Simple as that.There you have it. The two reason why flat fee taxation is a ridiculous idea. Flat tax vs progressive tax is another matter completely.
flat fees, not flat taxes, are the truly conservative approach

flat fees, not flat taxes, are the truly conservative approach conservatives often push for flat taxes. a set percentage of one's income. but, why not just say that eveyone has to pay the same amount? why tax the richer more just because they make more income? and if this casues more tax to be paid overall on the poor, so be it? these are all the arguments made when it comes down to progressive taxes v flat taxes. we could just extend the arguments to flat fees v flat taxes
A Debate from beyond the Grave: James Annesley was a Villain not a Victim

An unpleasant surprise of error would occur if anyone were to expect that the ghost of Mr. Eggleston would apologize for his slander. Happily, it is vastly improbable for such an error to have been born, because nobody beyond the wit of a Frenchman should expect such an absurdity.Mr. Eggleston included among his favorite poxed words the slur that my Uncle had kidnapped me and sold me into servitude. "Pretext" he hollered! The fib must have seemed palpable still to 21st century peasantry, and now he tells only a half of a fib, that my evil Uncle "may or may not" have bound me up and sent me to the Americas.Mr. Eggleston is like a flea on an alley dog's tail. When he bests a small hatchling flea, he declares himself the king of all fleas. When he crawls on to the other side of the tail, he meets bigger and burlier fleas, and then he crawls back and thence declares himself to be the king of fleas within the territory of the underside of the tail, as though that is what he has always declared.His piteously paltry defense, that his trespassing and poaching was justified by the principle of the gentry not properly deserving of their inheritance--what a sniveling wreck of case. I suppose he would also claim that it is justified to release a gentleman's Negro bondsmen from their labors because of historical unfairness of ancestry! Is that the sort of infantile moral ideal this wretch wishes to affirm?Now that the demon of Mr. Egglestone has yowled his last, I can return the body of ApostateAbe to his rightful mind.
Black is color regardless of definition

Rebuttals"black is color regardless of definition of color"Incorrect.Evidence to back up my claim The electromagnetic spectrum is the range of wavelengths and frequencies over electromagnetic radiation. Wavelengths are distances between two crests. Depending on the wavelength, the electromagnetic radiation has a color.For instance, one with a wavelength between 492 to 577 nanometers is green. A plant's clorophyll molecules reflect that, and absorbs the rest.However, the spectrum does not consist of black. Therefore, it is simply the absence of the presences of the electromagnetic spectrum colors. Therefore, it itself is not a color.
Black is color regardless of definition

YOU HAVE CONVINCED ME I OFFICIALLY NO BELIEF IN BLACK BEING COLOR OOOOOOOHHHH UUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA