BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Early Marriage is harmful for people

Okay, here is statistics which you need so much: http://dalrock.wordpress.com... Factors of early marriage: Love This is by far the most logical reason for teenagers getting married. However, when you are young and inexperienced, you might not know what love really is. You have to realize that having a crush on someone can fool you into thinking that you are in love. Typical examples that it's a crush and not love would be: wanting to get married to that someone because he/she is popular; because he's a sports hero; because she's the hottest girl in school. These are not legitimate reasons to marry a person because these qualities change. One day high school will be over and he might not be the most popular guy that you know anymore or she might not be the hottest girl that you know. You need to understand that the love that is required for marriage is unconditional love. Pregnancy Oh no, there is a baby on the way. We have to get married. This is one of the leading reasons for teenagers getting married. If your girlfriend is pregnant it's not to say that you should get married. Back in the 50s and 60s it might have been seen as the right thing to do but today you have other options. You can have an abortion. You can give the baby up for adoption like in the movie Juno. You can raise the child as a single parent. These are options you should take time to research and get counseling on. Marriage is not a solution to an unplanned pregnancy. -Despite declines in rates of teen pregnancy in the U.S., about 820,000 teens become pregnant each year. That means that 34 percent of teenagers have at least one pregnancy before they turn 20. -79 percent of teenagers who become pregnant are unmarried. -Utah's teen pregnancy rate is high, as well as Southern teen pregnancy but these are areas where women still get married prior to the age of 20 with some regularity (although this is changing). -80 percent of teenage pregnancies are unintended. -Nearly four in ten teenage girls whose first intercourse experience happened at 13 or 14 report that the sex was unwanted or involuntary. -The main rise in the teen pregnancy rate is among girls younger than 15* -Close to 25 percent of teen mothers have a second child within two years of the first birth.* Insecurity and a Sense of Belonging this is another significant reason for teenagers getting married so early in their lives. The solution here is that you need to work on yourself. You need to think about your insecurities and weaknesses and try to find a solution for each. Read; speak to your teacher; see a psychologist or social worker. They will help you with your insecurities. We all want to belong and feel secure. There are many ways to get these qualities. You can join a club or society or do volunteer work. As you get out there , you'll make friends and start feeling confident. You'll find that you don't need to rely on your boyfriend or girlfriend for your emotional wellbeing. Marriage is not the solution for wanting to get rid of your insecurity.
Early Marriage is harmful for people

I see a lack of evidence and sites, so assuming these are all true facts, which some are not, here I go. -Psychological and emotional stress like forced sexual relations, denial of freedom and personal development as household chores now become a priority.-Denial of personal development and education.-Where does the denial of personal development and education come into play? Many married couples continue to develop through their marriage; this can be by learning to trust their spouse more, learning to work together as a family unit, etc. But how does early marriage hinder a participants education?-Maturity levels become an issue as the little girl is now expected to play the role of a mother.-Early marriages do not only happen because the girl is pregnant. There are many more factors that you are failing to bring up in this debate.-Girl children undergo severe health problems like pregnancy and childbirth.-Refer to my last argument-Girl brides are also involved in early childhood care.-Refer to my last argument-Threat to contracting sexually transmitted diseases increases when girl children are exposed to such an environment.-Anyone can get an STD if they have sexual contact with another human being. Married couples, and early married couples, are not the only people having sex. -As girl children are still vulnerable and submissive, they can be subject to the atrocities of domestic violence and abandonment.-This is a stereotype. This is a fallacy. Anyone can be subject to domestic violence.-Mental and emotional stress in girl brides is high because they are not old enough to cope with maternal, marital or in law issues.-Why are women the only people that cannot deal with the stress of marriage? If you are basing your argument of of the women giving birth, do you not realize that men often leave a teen mother because they are too stressed and afraid to raise the baby?In Conclusion:My opponent has only brought up childbirth as the reason for early marriage. He has yet to bring up any statistics or evidence, and he has multiple faults in his arguments. Your go!
Early Marriage is harmful for people

Early marriage can cause severe problems like the following: -Psychological and emotional stress like forced sexual relations, denial of freedom and personal development as household chores now become a priority. -Denial of personal development and education. -Maturity levels become an issue as the little girl is now expected to play the role of a mother. -Girl children undergo severe health problems like pregnancy and childbirth. -Girl brides are also involved in early childhood care. -Threat to contracting sexually transmitted diseases increases when girl children are exposed to such an environment. -As girl children are still vulnerable and submissive, they can be subject to the atrocities of domestic violence and abandonment. -Mental and emotional stress in girl brides is high because they are not old enough to cope with maternal, marital or in law issues.
Is "The Brotherhood" is good for DDO

Ok. I will end this debate with this. .. .Your group consists of only 2 fagg0ts who are probably inbred. Which explains how dumb they are. Shut up you hill billy fvcks, don't you have some siblings to be fvcking right now? You cvnts are actually white TRASH lol. Please contribute to society you brain-less fagg0ts. Here are some more insults- I hope you two (masterful, what50) reach the greatest points in your lives then get diagnosed with terminal cancer. - The only sense of superiority you get is out of flaming strangers in debates. You two probably get molested by your own parents! I mean who knows? ?? Thank you for reading my response. Though this round i was able to debunk everything you said while simultaneously proving your organization to be nothing but a girl scout club filled with fagg0ts. FAGG0TY FUKSPlease consider these reasons when voting (to audience). Thanks to all supporters.
Is "The Brotherhood" is good for DDO

Hello this is my response and rebuttal for the "civilized" debate, I'm the current leader of NHK (Niggerhood Knights) and the co-founder of ANSA (Anti-Nazi & Skinhead-Association)Before we begin, i'd like to clarify a few used terms and quotes used by members of your organization."The brotherhood is an elite, secretive group dedicated to making controversial debate topics"Elite: a select group that is superior in terms of ability or qualities to the rest of a group or society.Your group is one that has been around for very little and was recently made by Masterful with it's co-founder What50. "Elite"? I think not."We are not a racist group"Racist: a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another. (Google Reference)You have previously used derogatory terms that would prove otherwise, also have made a whole debate regarding the features between Black people and chimps. Racist. "Black people are more animalistic than white people.""One such theory is because black people are a form of man sized vermin, they're pests. This suggests they have something in common with rats and other nasty, diseased vermin. This is also a case for ethnic purging, but that's for another debate."Theory? Please provide links backing up your ridiculous theories/assumptions."Black people may be considered pests, violent and indeed ugly, however, we still share 99.9% of our DNA with black people, therefore we should attempt to conserve their species, it's our duty.Black people are suffering from habitat loss and are no longer able to run freely through the Jungles of Africa, we need conservation, we need to preserve this species."Violent and indeed ugly" Racist. "Conserve their species" Completely and utterly racist, well according to definitions. they are also human beings and as you said share 99.9% of white people's DNA.Please donate to my Zoo/sanctuary where i'm doing my best to conserve blacks. I apologize that our rebuttal is largely comprised of Quotes, terms and definitions, however you would agree that this plays a large part in winning, would you not agree?Below are a few "requirements" for joining your so called established "Elite" group * Obey the DDO terms and services.* Respect all Brotherhood members. (Only 2 members?) Perhaps only 1 user, using a sub account however "that's for another debate."* No use of profanities or swear words.* No personal attacks against other members or a member's opinions.* No use of racial, sexual or religious slurs.* No threats or implications thereof. They use the terms and services as per requirement for joining "The Brotherhood" however you don't follow them yourselves. This is ultimately considered contradictory in my perspective. You don't follow the terms of services and as such don't comply with your own rules.Thank You and please by all means continue with this "civilized" debate [SOURCES](http://www.debate.org...)(http://www.debate.org...)(http://www.debate.org...)(http://www.debate.org...)
Is "The Brotherhood" is good for DDO

Thank you Con for joining my debate. I hope we can have a civilized discussion on "The Brotherhood". Case Number 1: The DDO community never had real full fledged group. As we can see The Brotherhood changes that, we posted our manifesto, and established our group. We're the only DDO group currently that has a manifesto, and members. Case Number 2: The Brotherhood isn't breaking the terms and services. As we know as long as The Brotherhood is not breaking the rules of DDO we're not making DDO a bad community. Case Number 3: The Brotherhood is a group in which we support, and encourage our fellow members. If we're so bad for DDO why are we encouraging our fellow members on their debates, and forums? Case Number 4: We value freedom of speech. As part of our manifesto, we respect everyone's opinion, and that they're entitled to freedom of speech no matter how controversial the speech may be. Link to our manifesto: http://www.debate.org... I await my opponent.
The historical Jesus Christ was a doomsday cult leader

ResolutionThe historical Jesus Christ was a doomsday cult leader. In other words, he taught that a destructive global calamity is imminently within his own generation.ClarificationThis resolution is NOT an attempt to faithfully interpret the New Testament, though the writings of the New Testament may be used for evidence. The debate is about the probable historical Jesus, not necessarily the Jesus of religious or Biblical faith.Definitions "Jesus Christ" is a historical human being of the same rough profile of the central character of Jesus in the Christian gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. A “generation” is a group of people of roughly the same age and living at the same time, and it is used to signify a length of time bounded by the births and deaths of the group of people, as opposed to a longer length of time covering centuries. A “doomsday cult” is a small group of people who are strongly devoted to the perceived will of a human leader and believes that the world will soon face a destructive global calamity. The term is primarily intended to be descriptive, not pejorative. A “doomsday cult leader” is a leader of a doomsday cult, and such a model of Jesus is otherwise known among critical New Testament scholars as, “apocalyptic prophet.” “Destructive global calamity” is a set of events that entail death and destruction all over the world and strongly affecting everyone living, through many such events as wars, political upheavals and natural disasters. Opposing ContenderA contender may be anyone who does not believe that the historical Jesus was a doomsday cult leader, including but not limited to someone who believes or suspects that Jesus was merely a myth, that Jesus was the son of God or messiah, or that Jesus was a mere human but commendable moral teacher, rabbi, social activist or philosopher.Personal noteThis is my first debate on Debate.org, but I consider myself an experienced veteran of debate elsewhere on the Internet. I hope it will be an uplifting and educational experience for all participants and observers, not merely a religious battle of words.
Nolan's Batman Trilogy as a vindication of conservatism

The thesis undertaken by Pro will be to show that Nolan's Batman trilogy is best interpreted as a defense/justification of modern conservatism. Con's burden will be to deconstruct/refute Pro's case with the added option of defending an opposing interpretation.Christopher Nolan is a film-director who wrote/directed the latest 'Batman' film installment, a trilogy consisting of "Batman Begins", "The Dark Knight", and "The Dark Knight Rises". ===Rules===1. Drops will count as concessions.2. Semantic or abusive arguments will not be counted.3. New arguments brought in the last round will not be counted.4. R1 is for acceptance. Argumentation begins in R2.5. BoP is shared between Pro and Con.
Nolan's Batman Trilogy as a vindication of conservatism

This was neither trolled nor uncontested. Your entire case falls apart when the very core values of the Batman trilogy: Following one's own personal emotionally driven sense of justice regardless of what the government think Going against what the police would approve of in a republican society (unless the government in Batman was Democrats but still it's a republic because no monarchy) Hurting villains and beating them up Having religious opposition to use of guns and preferring to beat people up Sorry I shouldn't bring up point 4 as it's a new point in last round of debate but it just occurred to me that putting personal ethical values above that of the government's standard is against everything conservatism stands for (besides my point 1 which I have emphasised the entire debate is relevant to this).Thus, I urge you to vote con. Thanks.
Nolan's Batman Trilogy as a vindication of conservatism

First, I'd like to simply extend my main argument from R2 seeing as Con has decided not to challenge it.On to Con's own rival interpretation, I'd like to also extend my pre-emptive counter which Con also decided not to challenge. But allow me if I may to shortly summarize my previous argument against this interpretation.No one would deny that throughout the series, Batman works mostly outside of the law. From this alone though we cannot justifiably jump to a justified interpretation of the series. For instance, in the film "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer", Henry is a homicidal psychopath who is incapable of love. Now just extrapolating from the content alone, we wouldn't be able to justifiably say that the message of the movie is that serial killing is justified or anything like that. That's simply equivocating content with message. Furthermore, the series clearly portrays Batman's extra-legal activities as something not be idealized, but stemming from the fact that Bruce Wayne is a man with demons he's not willing to face. And in the end when he does face those, we see him finally able to give up his compulsion and live happily. Back to Con.
Nolan's Batman Trilogy as a vindication of conservatism

I will tell you this now. I'm no fan of batman. I'm very faithful is security over privacy and issues like that and I shall now explain why, although not completely opposed to it, the Batman Trilogy (especially the First and Third) display philosophies and moral codes of conduct far beyond the realms of Law and Order.Batman follows his own whims, he uses carbon emitting batmobile with huge energy wasted for electricity in his all-lit underground research lab. He beats sh*t out of enemies on his own whims and even is chased by conservative police for this reason.It is pure liberty and unconservatism to beat down a man of authority (as he did in "The Dark Knight" as well as tying a man by his legs and dangling him (as he also did in the same movie). This is terrible awful unforgivable in conservative society.Truth is truth that is all.
Is the earth flat

If the Earth is flat why wouldn't Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune be round. Why would Earth be the only planet that came out flat? You mention gravity, yes it holds us, humans, to earth not because the earth is flat, but because the gravity is within the atmosphere that surrounds earth. If the earth was flat, how would we know which way is down? Why didn't Ferdinand Magellan fall off the edge of the world on his journey around the globe? N.A.S.A has a live stream on YouTube showing earth rotating and the curvature of the earth, what's your explanation on that?
Is the earth flat

Hey, my fellow humans. I am here to prove that the earth is flat. First of all, Africa is flat so why not the earth. Also the sun is a light bulb, were living a lie. Secondly, If the earth was round how could we not fall down to space. There's something called gravity, get it right scientists! Finally, if the earth is flat why can't we dig under and pop out in china?? This proves my theory of the earth is flat you dumbos. @IsWeGucci Nah saying, Scotty P
The Exodus as Described in the Torah Did Not Historically Occur

It is an acceptance round as I have now begun to specifically discuss the exodus. Also it's religious COSMOLOGY that INCLUDES the occurring of the exodus that's why it simplifies into then specifically talking about the exodus. As you said whether it's the fundamentalist Christian version or the Islamic version. I am eager to refute that it did not happen that's why I did not want to be shunned away through "comments". Remember I'm coming from the angle of Islamic cosmology being real not mainstream science and their band of wacky archeologists. Allah exists. How successful has Islam been throughout history. Prayers are answered all the time time not to mention the bounty of oil the Arabs were blessed with after being a struggling peoples saved from bedouin lifestyles. It's a blessing that inclines toward seeking from Allah being what helps and has a point to it. The Qur'an is all to do with invoking for blessings. It works. So Islam has a respectable look upon it. It's valued. Whether it's claims are to do with being cursed or being gifted...it works. The world is not as mainstream scientists say. Sidelined scientists argue for physics such as idealism. The respectable claims of Islam say the world is flat. It also says that the exodus happened. What are you going to support, mainstream sciences archeologists or respectable Islam's teachings.
The Exodus as Described in the Torah Did Not Historically Occur

By which collection of information do you go by when refuting the exodus, not theological but scientific. A round Earth in itself is not the only way the world is seen by the majority of people specifically those who follow religions. Why should these "facts" you have used be right. Let me explain, historians base their findings on the preset belief system of a limited history of a "round" planet within "space", while the religious would argue that accepted mainstream science isn't even fact. They would base their argument on not just theological doctrine but their religious experiences while they emphasise that worldly history isn't even true. For example, their history includes the "rise and fall of an angel called lucifer from a place called Heaven" not the dinosaurs and humans out of Africa. This is their belief system where the exodus wouldn't have even happened on a round earth it would have happened on a flat one with gardens above the sky. Under the argument for religion I would say first that the world is flat and the exodus happened on this kind of world. How can I prove that the world is different to what mainstream science justifies...how would you say solipsism or some other sort of cosmology isn't what's real. The exodus happened, but it didn't happen with the world your believing in existing, a world which followers of religion believe in being real. I will endovour to prove an Islamic cosmology after receiving your response.
The Exodus as Described in the Torah Did Not Historically Occur

A historical Exodus, as defined, contains the following elements:1) The existence of Moses as a historical character2) The Enslavement of the Hebrews as a historical period in history3) The historical occurrence of the ten plagues and the crossing of the Red Sea4) The actual emigration from Egypt by the Israeli people was historicalFor this debate, Con must argue that these 4 elements are historical and factual. Pro must argue that these elements are not historical or factual. To keep things flowing, we will deal with specific issues in specific rounds. Round one is acceptanceRound two is only argument pertaining to issues 1 and 2 in the section above. Round three is only arguments pertaining to 3 and 4Round four is exclusively rebuttals, no new argumentsRound five is concluding statements A few ground rules:i) Use Yahweh or Elohim as they are used in the original text for source clarification. ii) No personal attacks. Period. This includes discussion of one's salvation or eternal destination. Personal religious affiliation is a non-issue. Referring to each other as "Conservative" or "Liberal" as a descriptor is acceptable, but not as an insult. iii) All interactions should be in accord with the teachings of James 3Discuss accepting this debate in the comments. Not discussing acceptance and accepting anyways is an automatic forfeit.
Alcohol should be prohibited again

Wow, you copy and pasted that article on here. Economics of Prohibition Most of these could have been foreseen, but the field of economics was relatively new. Keynes's book of "The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money" wasn't published until 1936. Though these effects could have been alleviated only if the government spends more, but at that time it was unheard of for the government to interfere with the economy at that level. No state any more relies that much on an excise tax. [1] They have so many other sources such as sales tax, income tax, property tax, so the same economic effects would not happen again. "Cat and Mouse" This just says there was too many loopholes. If prohibition was re-instated then obviously there would be bigger restrictions. Plus I don't think any proscribes medical alcohol anymore. The Greatest Consequence Yes many law enforcement were corrupt, but they didn't have the surveillance possibility as we have today. As far as the criminals go right now they are overflowing with violent criminals who were under the influence of alcohol. Consumption did drop though as stated in previous arguments. Prohibition did succeed even if it wasn't major. My opponent says "Good reasons for prohibiting alcohol. I agree with all of your reasoning", so he validated a lot of my arguments. He also failed to respond to my arguments in round 3, and his round 4 argument was entirely copy and pasted from an article. He has as also proven his sources unreliable by having multiple unfound links. Sources [1] http://upload.wikimedia.org...