BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It Is Unjust For Unwed, Reluctant Fathers To Be Coerced To Pay Child Support

I would choose to take the position that if one brings a child into the world, it is just for one to pay for that child's existence, except where adoption or other such arrangements may be obtained. This is essentially an issue that concerns gender equality - it is true that the female involved gives birth to the child, but both her and her husband are equally responsible for it's existence. To say that fathers should not pay child support or (similarly) help to raise the child would be unethical in and of itself, as the mother has little choice in the matter. I shall assume that "child support" is something that occurs in the circumstance that the father has abandoned the child, otherwise it's meaning being that the father shall help raise the child. In this case, I wish the opposition luck (they'll need it on this seemingly uncontroversial topic) and look forward to an excellent debate!
It Is Unjust For Unwed, Reluctant Fathers To Be Coerced To Pay Child Support

Under U.S. law it is unjust to coerce an unmarried father who does not want a child (or anything to do with the child) to pay child support. I am Pro in this debate and the BOP will rest on me to prove why an unwed father who doesn't want a child should not be forced to pay child support by U.S. law. My opponent, Con, will offer rebuttal and assert that it is just for reluctant fathers to be coerced to pay child support. (Obviously we are avoiding circular reasoning such as: "It is just by law because it is law and law is just.") Rules: 1. No semantics. Respect the intention of the debate. 2. 1R is for acceptance only. 2R I will present my argument and Con will offer rebuttal and Con's own arguments. 3R: rebuttal and defense, or new arguments. 4R. rebuttal and defense only, no new arguments. 3. Forfeits are automatic losses. Definitions: (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...)(http://dictionary.reference.com...) Unwed - of someone who has not been married. Reluctant: 1. unwilling; disinclined: a reluctant candidate. 2. struggling in opposition. Coerce: 1. to compel by force, intimidation, or authority, especially without regard for individual desire or volition: They coerced him into signing the document. 2. to bring about through the use of force or other forms of compulsion; exact: to coerce obedience. Child Support: Money paid for the care of one's minor child, especially payments to a divorced spouse or a guardian under a decree of divorce. Just: 1. guided by truth, reason, justice, and fairness: 2. done or made according to principle; equitable; proper.
Out of sight =/= out of mind

But what of the person who was brought to trial? Everyone in the courtroom can both see and is most likely thinking about that person. Can you see the person? Yes. Are you thinking about the person? Yes. But now if the person who was being tried for murder didn't show up due to transportation complications, then I can guarantee that everyone who has never seen the person before will be making up an image in their own minds about what the culprit looks like, making a different gender, race, height, weight and so on for who they think the culprit is. And since the person who actually did it is not in the courtroom and not truly in the minds of the people watching the trial, then the criminal is out of sight, and they are also out of mind.
The cure for cancer has already been found.

"However, a plant-based diet cannot be considered a definitive cure; we don"t have the evidence to support such a claim, and the effects would take much too long for patients whose lives are in immediate danger. " alatetireIf somebody is beyond a certain point nothing beyond an act of God will save them. Many diseases that have cures, cannot be cured beyond a certain point. A good example is infections and Lyme disease. A cure is possible at first, but then when the disease progresses beyond a certain point, the cure in ineffective. Cancer is also an advanced disease that occurs due to the build up of mutations. Meaning not just one mutation caused the condition of cancer. Therefore, it is unreasonable to expect a short term cure, when the damage took years to accumulate. "Patients treated with appropriate antibiotics in the early stages of Lyme disease usually recover rapidly and completely. " [2]As you can see sometimes it is too late for a cure, despite cure effectiveness at treating the disease in the early stages. In late stages the disease can be cured, but sometimes it is too little too late. Think of a large bandage or medical wrapping as a cure for bleeding. If the person dies before you can finish wrapping the bandage, is the cure ineffective? Would you simply give up on stanching bleeding on everyone? No! Just because the patient decides to finally seek treatment and thus a cure when its too late, does not mean it is the cure's fault. People want a magical pill, that can cure several mutations that lead to cure in billions of cells within 24 hours. That is inherently flawed, and will never happened. Yet, the cancer industry keeps promising this magic and impossible drug. Therefore, people put their faith in the wrong place. Btw, we do have enough ancetodal and testimonial evidence. Thanks for debating. Sources2. http://www.cdc.gov...
The cure for cancer has already been found.

Hi Stupidape, I feel as if I'm insulting you by referring to you by your username. I'd like to accept the debate and explain why I am certain that a definite cure for all forms of cancer has not been found. We must remember that cancer is not just one disease, but instead a blanket term for a condition that is entirely unique to not only each individual person, but also unique to each individual cancer cell. I look forward to our discussion and only ask that you provide sources for your arguments that are on the internet, so that I will have access to them. Of course, I will do the same. Good luck!
The cure for cancer has already been found.

Structure R1 Acceptance and definitions.R2-3 debate and respond.R4 No new arguments.DefinitionsCancer "Cancer refers to any one of a large number of diseases characterized by the development of abnormal cells that divide uncontrollably and have the ability to infiltrate and destroy normal body tissue. " [0]Cure "a. A drug or course of medical treatment used to restore health: discovered a new cure for ulcers.b. Restoration of health; recovery from disease: the likelihood of cure." [1]Sources0. http://www.mayoclinic.org...1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Choose your topic!

*claps hands* Excellent job! You might become the first debater to not forfeit and win against me in a serious argument concerning school uniforms! "...This is video is an example of how students can conceal weapons in their clothing." So why can't the students conceal weapons in their uniform? Is the uniform so expertly designed so that no weapons can be concealed? And couldn't they just conceal it in their backpacks? " So maybe once every month.... students will be able to come in in their regular clothing and embrace their individuality." Exactlly! School uniform isn't required this day! You support that school uniforms shouldn't be required! Yipee! However, I haven't seen a school policy yet that "requires uniform" but lets it loose in one day per month....that would be weird."....the average cost of regular clothing each year." Okay, so I did some research. The average cost of school uniforms for parents is $249, based on http://greatergreatereducation.org.... However, this is still very expensive, and poor people are astonished by this, and cannot afford this rate of money according to this source: http://www.theguardian.com.... This is very costly, and although regular clothing each year might cost more, it is generally cheap clothing spent over a long amount of time rather than a lot of money spent in a single moment. Plus, more clothing gives a diversity to choose from, in contrast to looking the same every single school day. Also, many schools have several other uniforms such as formal uniforms for special occasions and yet another uniform for P.E. Many parents complain about the prices of all these uniforms combined together. [4]" Try picking up girls looking a chump...." lol, but that's a different story. That's like comparing apples to oranges. Besides, school uniforms usually have a color scheme that don't look right for picking up girls. Even if the uniform was formal enough for this case, uniforms of those kinds are hard to know exactly what uniform parts need to be washed, dried and ironed the night before.Oh yes, and a new point because I cannot give out new points in my conclusion: school uniforms aren't very comfortable. Some kids are sensitive to certain materials while others are opposed to buttons, zippers and restrictive clothing. Many girls, for example, do not like to wear dresses or skirts, which most girls' uniforms require. No uniform can suit all children. [4]I extend my argument concerning the fact that constitutional rights are violated. And finally, a mere 23% of schools require uniforms. [5] Why switch over? It would be awfully frustrating, annoying, and hard to do. Many educators and parents just don't see the point in switching over to uniforms, especially in American public schools where uniforms are still the exception and not the rule. [4][4] http://kidsfashion.about.com... [5] http://www.statisticbrain.com...;
Choose your topic!

Uniforms help to distinguish students from outsiders. Which is beneficial to the faculty in helping supervise and provide a safe environment for there kids to learn. Students can also conceal weapons in their personalized clothing and accessories which brings dangers and bad press to the school. Not to mention extreme forms of bullying. This is video is an example of how students can conceal weapons in their clothing. Now I'm not saying that the students should be in uniform all the time. I believe that students should be award when they are behaving and performing well. So maybe once every month a civvies day will be in order when students will be able to come in in their regular clothing and embrace their individuality. It is something to be celebrated however one is to think of the tribe before themselves. It is the Bullworth way. (I just wanted to say sorry lol ) Rebuttal 1 Now, time to rebut: " 'For the one time cost of $500, the student will be able to wear that same uniform in the span of four years of high-school.' Not true, children can have growth spurts and outgrow the uniform, and because such new uniforms need to be bought. In addition, after uniforms are bought, old clothing is practically useless, only to be worn during weekends, only 2/7 of the time. This ratio amplifies over a big time, and soon enough, the difference between how often the uniform is worn compared to the normal clothing is in the hundreds. Years make that number high up in the thousands!" I actually rebutted this statement later on. First off, I had said that $500 was an exaggerated amount and that it was still less than the average cost of regular clothing each year. Which was $729.50. If we multiplied that by 4 years you will still save $918 compared to regular clothing. Yes children do have growth spurts and outgrow uniform but in most cases that occurs toward the end of year but since everyone is different the parent would just buy the new uniform set early instead of the beginning of the succeeding new year. The same cycle will apply. Rebuttal 2: "Nobody cares about your clothes except yourself and your parents, and that is the reason why school uniforms aren't needed. Why should they be required? That only makes the school administrators' jobs tougher--they have to make sure the uniforms are worn the whole day, and students have to bring checks to school to buy the uniform. " Not true. Try picking up girls looking a chump. Appearance is important that's what a uniform teaches people.It also teaches students to dress conservatively. Uniforms can be altered to fit everyone's individuality in most cases. The alterations are slight but noticeable if you've been wearing them long enough. Uniforms do shape you up for the real world. As far as school administrators go there's not much of a problem. If they're out of uniform they'll be sent home or to the attendance office to get a uniform pass. Easy and in most cases teachers don't bother to check unless it's obvious or you're causing trouble.
Choose your topic!

I extend my arguments which you didn't rebut: "In the adult world students have to make their own choices and school uniforms exclude that "training excercise" of having to choose what clothes to wear. [1]"; "School uniforms send out a sense of anti-individuality that goes against our personal liberty and freedom of expression--a Constitutional belief. [2]"Now, time to rebut: "For the one time cost of $500, the student will be able to wear that same uniform in the span of four years of high-school." Not true, children can have growth spurts and outgrow the uniform, and because such new uniforms need to be bought. In addition, after uniforms are bought, old clothing is practically useless, only to be worn during weekends, only 2/7 of the time. This ratio amplifies over a big time, and soon enough, the difference between how often the uniform is worn compared to the normal clothing is in the hundreds. Years make that number high up in the thousands!" The way that you hold and portray yourself is much more important than the clothes that you wear." Which is exactly why school uniforms aren't needed. Nobody cares about your clothes except yourself and your parents, and that is the reason why school uniforms aren't needed. Why should they be required? That only makes the school administrators' jobs tougher--they have to make sure the uniforms are worn the whole day, and students have to bring checks to school to buy the uniform. If uniforms weren't required school administrators won't have to worry about making sure all students wear their uniform and student's don't have to annoyingly bring checks to school to buy uniforms. Your turn, pro!
Choose your topic!

Uniforms do actually save you money in the long run let's go ahead and pretend that 4 uniform sets (mandatory pants and shirt w/shoes) costs $500. In truth, it would cost much less ($280 would be more realistic) but this is suppose to be outrageous. For the one time cost of $500, the student will be able to wear that same uniform in the span of four years of high-school. "The article references a recent study showing the average 10-year old is outfitted with $729.50 in back-to-school apparel and supplies. While that number may not come as a surprise to most parents, the responses for apparel items are very telling." [1] "Most parents responded that they spent $48 on pants for their children and that $30 was a "reasonable" price for a T-shirt. Using those figures, the average American family is encountering a figure approaching, and in some cases surpassing, $300 per child for back-to-school clothing. Contrast that figure with the cost of a year's worth of school uniforms. The cost of a year's worth (Five tops and five bottoms) of school uniform or standardized dress code clothing is $150 (www.frenchtoast.com)." [1] So take $729.50 mutliply it by 4 and you have $2918. Take $500 (outrageous overstated) multiply it also by 4 (for each year) and you have $2000 (saved $918) Replace that with $280 (more realistic) multiply it by 4 and your expense is $1120 (you have saved $1,798) Now use $150 as the source recommended and you have an expense of only $600 over the course of 4 years (Here you have saved $2,318) So you say that uniforms do not save you money in the long run is false. Individuality does not only show through the clothes that you wear but also through your character as well. The way that you hold and portray yourself is much more important than the clothes that you wear. All clothes do is amplify the effective. Similarities pull people together even if it's he hate for they're uniform. It still drives the student population inward towards each other. Cliques become slightly harder to form and thus more people are included. You're correct in saying if someone isn't smart or physically incapable they will get bullied but let's face uniforms cannot save everyone. Of course the bottom 10% of the social percentile will continue to get picked on. If you're not good people then your not no good with people it's a personality to flaw that the students will have to overcome and they must work to achieve that. Sources (I don't MLA, it's a weird social convention) : [1] Buesing, Matt, "Case Closed: School Uniforms Cost less" http://www.examiner.com.... Web. 06 Sept. 2014.
Choose your topic!

I will say my opening statements (and rebut you later).In the adult world students have to make their own choices and school uniforms exclude that "training excercise" of having to choose what clothes to wear. [1]School uniforms send out a sense of anti-individuality that goes against our personal liberty and freedom of expression. A nation should not go against its beliefs. It would not really matter if this was not in the constitution in the first place, but seriously--the constitution is the basic belief of America, and breaking it is a big blunder! [2]Although school uniforms can bring a sense of unity among students, the unity is too robot-like! As shown in source [3], a parent openly states "I believe we should...advance independent, creative thinkers -- not standardized, uniformed thinkers." Frudden said. "To do anything less is to do our children and our society a disservice."As shown from source [1], parents are unsatisfied with the school uniform prices, indicating that school uniforms don't exactly save parents money. They would not complain if the school uniforms actually saved money!People usually judge other people based on the clothes they wear, I agree, but a person's clothes really have nothing to do what goes on. If someone isn't very smart or physically capable they will still get bullied regardless of the fact that they look the same as everyone else. In other words, bullies can still persist, teasing other students concerning their mental ability instead of physical. Furthermore, not everyone bases people on their clothing. Sure, nobody's like the Beauty from "Beauty and the Beast", but everyone can see some desirable traits underneath the ugly face! (No offense, Mr. Beast)Onto you, con! ALL SOURCES IN MLA CITATION[1]Brosnan, Peter, and Alexis Brindley. "What Not to Wear: A School's Dress Code Limits Clothing Styles and Colors." Current Events, a Weekly Reader Publication 28 Mar. 2011: 7. Opposing Viewpoints in Context.Web. 10 Feb.2014." [2]Fetzer, Kent J. "School Uniforms Stifle Freedom of Expression." Salt Lake Tribune [Detroit] 18 Apr. 2002: F2. Opposing Viewpoints in Context.Web. 10 Feb.2014." [3]Dolan, Maura. "CALIFORNIA; Court Rejects School's Shirts; Judges Say Requiring Students to Wear the School's Motto Is a Free-Speech Violation." Los Angeles Times [Los Angeles] 15 Feb. 2014: AA3. Elibrary. Web. 21 Feb. 2014."
Homosexuality is not natural

This was probably my most challenging debates because it made me look at homosexuality in a different way and was a really solid debate. I believe my rebuttals were stronger as naturally, my arguments. To reiterate my points: It is not only found in humans, but in animals too. Even if it was showing social dominance, it is still homosexual behavior. If it is not natural, why are there so many homosexuals? Pros youtube video seemed quite biased due to an evangelist origin. Homosexuality does not contradict natural law. Natural law is a set of rules used to guide humans in a conscience decision in order to form a better society.
Homosexuality is not natural

I must first apologize for not fully explaining the structure and that is not Con's fault. Also I do not suggest that Con's should have rebuttal my argument in his round 2, that is was his choice. Here is my conclusion: We established without rebuttal that animals are not homosexual at all it is a display of social dominance toward one another. Nor has homosexuality ever been a norm. C1 - Our physical form I would like to define "natural order" more clearly. The natural order is the moral source from which natural law seeks to derive. It encompasses the natural relations of beings to one another. Natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature and deduce binding rules of moral behavior. Morality is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and those that are bad (or wrong). Human nature refers to the distinguishing characteristics, including ways of thinking, feeling and acting, that humans tend to have naturally. Our physical form is obvious. C2 - natural law Homosexuality has and is been referred to as "Sodomy and perverse." Homosexuality is inexplicably irrational: it is contrary to what is regarded as normal or reasonable, often for reasons that seem unaccountable. Homosexuality is also self-defeating and society-defeating. Homosexuality can not reproduce anyone. My opponent also gave us a quote last round, "According to Thomas Hobbes, Natural law is: "a precept, or general rule, found out by reason, by which a man is forbidden to do what is destructive of his life, or takes away the means of preserving the same; and to omit that by which he thinks it may be best reserved."-Hobbes, Leviathan, pt. 1, ch. 14 (p. 64) Man is forbidden to do what is destructive to his life- Is not homosexuality destructive to humanity as a whole if it was global? Cant the notion that homosexuals do have higher health risks than heterosexuals so it is unnatural? Or takes away the means of preserving the same; and to omit that by which he thinks it may be best reserved- Homosexuals can not omit the disease in which they harm themselves and others by exposer. C3 - Mental illness There are three characters in every mental disorder: extent of distress, impairment in life and abnormal behavior. Homosexuality fit all three. Though ego-synotic disorder can be spread into heterosexuals as well as homosexuals- all homosexuals have ego-synotic disorder. There that is a specific disorder that homosexuals have and is is a problem. I thank my opponent for this debate! Vote Pro! Resources: http://www.conservapedia.com...http://en.wikipedia.org...(philosophy) http://plato.stanford.edu...