BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Laws against Domestic Violence

Pro has made good arguments for why domestic violence is bad, and why wives ought not be beaten by their husbands. Women, in fact, do have rights to life and fairness. However, Pro has yet to offer any argument that addresses the redundancy of having a separate law. As such, I believe I have proven my claim that there should be no laws against domestic violence, since there are already laws against assault, rape, violence, etc., and the relationship between the victim and the aggressor should be an aggravating factor come sentence to increase the punishment. The notion that something needs to be done about domestic violence is true; I do not dispute this. Society needs to respect woman as people/citizens having rights. If this involves legislative acts, so be it. But this does not necessitate having a separate law for domestic assault when the current assault charge will suffice. Women also need to report their abuse. Again, having a separate law will not fix anything, if women still fail to report the abuse. Shelters, advocates, and protections (restraining orders) need to be offered and honored. Do men need to not beat up their women? Of course. And they should seek counseling or anger management or whatever. But, a separate law is not needed, nor the answer. In summary, there is no need for a redundant law.
Laws against Domestic Violence

Firstly, I would love to tell the Con that 'the society we prosper in is ours and if all of us become selfish , just think about us and not work for the society' would be completely absurd and mean. Domestic violence has become a critical issue and it's high time we make stronger laws and improve the implementation of the existing laws. Also , all these laws against rape , assaults etc. together with the law against domestic violence contributes to the overall security and safety of the women. We have to safeguard every vulnerable possibility that can be easily targeted. It is us , who can work for the benefit of the society and not others. And it is rightly said by Mahatma Gandhi 'Be the change you want to see'. When women involve in an relationship , she doesn't know how the man is completely and what are his views on the social issues. He can easily fake it and later the WOMEN face the harsh repercussions. Isn't it the man's fault anywhere? Women face the crime with lots of difficulties and there is just a 'miserable' life left for the women to live. Most women are still not aware about how to fight domestic violence and hence this unawareness in our society is fatal .Women don't report the crime as they feel ashamed to go up and tell the police. They don't trust our own society as if the matter leaks to the public , then she would have to face more harassment from her very own society. She just doesn't have the guts to lead up in front and fight 'Domestic Violence'. We have to set up an initiative such as organizing protests , making the women of the society aware of the serious repercussions of domestic violence and how to fight it , giving them assurity that their information would not be disclosed to the public and hence making them comfortable enough, thus encouraging them to report the crime. If we ourselves won't lead the change in the society then who will? We , together as a country have to create a more sensible and understanding environment for all of us.
Laws against Domestic Violence

Pro makes a good enough point against my Castle argument, which was weak and I only had it there because I like having lists of at least three. However, none of your points address my other two points. So, I will restate them. 1. Why should there be a special law against domestic violence? There are not laws for domestic rape, domestic murder, or domestic theft. If a husband beats his wife, he should get a harsher sentence than a drunk who punches another drunk in a bar. That is why there is no set penalty for crimes; the more heinous a crime's circumstance is the harsher the sentence is. So, a bar fighter may only get a slap on the wrist, while the abusive husband who broke his wife's jaw serves a year in prison. There is no need for a separate law. Why must there be two charges for the same crime, assault and domestic assault? 2. The crime itself must be reported. Why does a woman allow her man to beat her? Perhaps she gets something out of the relationship that is worth the abuse. Perhaps she got married knowing full well her husband-to-be was abusive. Perhaps she thinks she can change him. Perhaps she prefers his wealth or the gifts after the beatings. Or maybe she enjoys the attention from concerned strangers. Who are we to judge (in a court of law) if there is no complaining witness? If there is no witness, there is no crime. Regardless if there is a law against domestic violence, it must be reported. The law does no good if no one uses it, and since there are laws against assault, there is no need for another one. Pro says they have a life to live, and if they choose badly and don't want help, isn't that their choice? If society allows women to be beat, and women to accept their being beat, that is a problem with society and/or the individuals involved. However, there is no need for duplicate laws to address this. What needs to happen is women need to be treated/viewed with respect from society/husbands. No law will change this.
Laws against Domestic Violence

I can comprehend your views on Domestic Violence , but i have points to make that would object your views. Firstly , as you mentioned 'Home is a Castle' and the people should not be binded with laws at least in their homes. But this doesn't imply that you will torture or assert your power on women. You cannot violate the right to life , which is granted to each and every citizen of the country.Your actions should be well in your control and of course it is rightly said "Your Behaviour Is Your Responsibility". The grieve impacts that domestic violence leaves on women , cannot be overcomed. It affects the physiological , psychological and the mental state of the women. It leads to mental traumas and grieve disorders and even physical injury which would make a liability for the society. I mean what pleasure do you get by creating / doing violence? I am sure it is not a necessity without which a person can't live his life dutifully and enjoy it. Indulging in such violence is regarded as a "crime against humanity". Even if the laws against abolition of Domestic Violence are there , it's poor implementation has had serious effects on our society. It leads to more and more crimes against humanity and thereby the gender inequality comes into place. Men feel it's their right to downgrade women in their society stand up to it , without even giving a single thought for a moment to what will happen to the victim who will suffer. It is just bizarre to torture people living in our society. If you realize even , they have a life to live and if you stiill encourage domestic violence then please "GO GET A LIFE".
Laws against Domestic Violence

I am guessing that you are not a native English speaker, nor are you from the USA. Therefore, I don't know if you are referring to a specific country that doesn't have these laws and should. So, in this debate, I will try to make my arguments as Country-neutral as possible. There are plenty of good reasons why a husband should not beat up his wife. However, there are three good reasons why laws that prohibit domestic violence should not be allowed. 1. My home is my castle. What goes on there should be between me and my family and of little concern to the law. However, in the court of public opinion, let my neighbors know that I beat my wife and shun me, while trying to get the wife out of the abusive relationship. This applies whether or not there is a law, as even if there is a law against violence that applies in my home, and whether or not there is an additional law applied to violence against my wife, if it is not reported or my wife does not complain to the police, nothing is done legally. So, the fact that a law exists can fail, while my neighbors spreading rumors about me can protect the wife by others threatening/shunning me. 2. The typical scenario is a husband beating his wife. However, this typical scenario has no witnesses; it is only he-said-she-said, and very prejudicial to the one who was either hurt more, or the weaker spouse. Could it be self-defense? It's hard to say with no witnesses, and hard to believe in a one-sided fight. Furthermore, this could be an issue of buyer's remorse. Like rough sex, (legitimate) boxing/sparring practice, or even an angry spouse itching for a divorce. 3. There are laws already in place in nearly every country that prohibits violence. Why should there be an additional law, with harsher penalties, simply because the two individuals are "domestic". In America, this domestic relationship can be between a doctor and patient, teacher and student, father and son (both being adults). It is unnecessary as these people are already protected by the law. As you can see, there is no need for laws specifically prohibiting domestic violence, since laws against violence are already on the books, and they are just as useful as any new law specifically written to protect a wife, and are difficult to prove anyway.
Laws against Domestic Violence

Domestic Violence Should be abolished. It is simply a due violation on the right to life of the victim. Especially women is targeted on the grounds of dowry , inequality , disparity and lots more. Domestic violence is caused due to the power asserted by the men on the women in our society. There is an utmost need to change the mindsets of the people in our society and furthermore help out the hapless victims. It may be happening even in your society and you must be unknown of this fact. It is an alarming topic and the need of the hour is to debate upon it and find out solutions to cease this important issue which is a major loophole in our society.
There is a need for old age homes in this generation

First of all, this is nothing personal and is not about me."In this time and age, where money is the main aim for many people".This is not always true. Money is a basic necessity for all people."In the above lines, if I have not missinterpreted what you met, you intend to say that parents do not pay attention to the child, and so that is the cause of the bitterness in that child."Nowadays parents are running after money. In their attempts to make money they fail to understand the needs of children. Parents need to develop a mental connection with their children. There is no use lamenting later."which is moving away from the topic entirely"I am giving some reasons for relationship gap between parents and children."Some children force their parents to write the family property in their name, then sell that property and dump their aging parents at an old age centre. What do you have to say about that?"There are rules now by which the parents can retrieve their property if they feel that children are not looking after them. I guess that is a solution.But the topic is "There is a need for old age homes in this generation"Of course there is. What will the people having no children do? What if parents feel lonely because their children are far away for their studies or jobs?Old age homes are a necessity in today's society.In old age homes the residents can interact with people of their age which usually keeps them happy. They have daily exercises and medical tests. There are many recreational activities that will keep them occupied. So altogether old age homes are necessary in our society.
There is a need for old age homes in this generation

I'm going to pretend that I dont know you... "Nowadays children do not get much attention from their parents. Children are sent to hostel to manage themselves. So they are not much attached to parents. Being in a nuclear family, the new generation today does not get enough attention, affection, care and concern from their parents. Deprived of these, they become more selfish, stubborn, less concerned and careless. In olden days, children used to spend a lot of time with their family." I'm guessing that you are of this generation and that you have parents who love you. I mean, I do, and I'm almost one hundred percent sure that thats the case for you too. In the above lines, if I have not missinterpreted what you met, you intend to say that parents do not pay attention to the child, and so that is the cause of the bitterness in that child. However you also said "Presently, new generation can collect the information about anything from internet with the clicks of buttons. Different views related to an issue or a topic including it"s pros and cons from different people, enable better analysis of these issues from different angles. Moreover, social network systems such as Facebook, twitter and so on, provide an excellent medium for imparting and sharing information between people." which is moving away from the topic entirely. Some children force their parents to write the family property in their name, then sell that property and dump their aging parents at an old age centre. What do you have to say about that?
There is a need for old age homes in this generation

The very concept of an old age home is new to India. An old age home is usually the place, a home for those old people who have no one to look after them or those who have been thrown out of their homes by their own children. The place is of course like home where the inmates get all the facilities for a routine living like food, clothing, and shelter. Nowadays children do not get much attention from their parents. Children are sent to hostel to manage themselves. So they are not much attached to parents. Being in a nuclear family, the new generation today does not get enough attention, affection, care and concern from their parents. Deprived of these, they become more selfish, stubborn, less concerned and careless. In olden days, children used to spend a lot of time with their family. They used to depend on our parents and elders for suggestions and advises. They used to sit down with them and talk about our different views and discuss each other and settle the issues. With the introduction of nuclear family, communication gap between the inmates of a family arised. There are so many reasons for this attitude such as generation gap, influence of advanced technology, peer pressure and so on. Presently, new generation can collect the information about anything from internet with the clicks of buttons. Different views related to an issue or a topic including it"s pros and cons from different people, enable better analysis of these issues from different angles. Moreover, social network systems such as Facebook, twitter and so on, provide an excellent medium for imparting and sharing information between people. Because of the breakup of the system of the joint family and the introduction of a nuclear family the old age homes have had to come up to cater to the needs of the elderly People are working far away from their homes in these days.They have no other choice. Their life is in some other country. Their parents do not adjust to alien culture and do not wish to leave the shores of their homeland. They cannot be left to fend for themselves, why should they work when everything can be provided for them? There is a grain of truth in this, but still the elders feel lonely and yearn for their children"s company. One cannot blame the children also for they have their life to live and it would be unrealistic of parents to emotionally blackmail them to come back to live with them and look after them. It must be admitted that there are cases when children do come home to look after the children at considerable sacrifice to their profession.
911 was an inside job

1. My opponent is hoping that I will drop the argument that the American Government has already killed thousands of its own citizens as a means of angering and inciting its citizens into a state of war frenzy and revenge. First, in order to establish that 9/11 is a plausible conspiracy theory, we must first establish if this type of behaviour and action is a normal activity that governments do every so often. The evidence that I have presented so far, clearly indicates that the American Government has a long standing record of murdering its own people for the purpose of going to war. Thus, it would not be implausible to assume that the American Government would continue to murder its own people, if such a situation developed which required them to do so. I have established previously that wars were primarily about securing oil supplies to he American people. Ref - http://www.debate.org... Thus, the American Government needed to stop Saddam Hussein from excluding America from oil supplies and to take control over the Arabic region. The purpose of creating Kuwait after World War II was to secure a foot hold to the Persian Gulf. Saddam Hussien was not cooperating with the OPEC countries and needed to be expelled. The American Government couldn't do this without first establishing a legitimate excuse. Thus, the idea of 9/11 was hatched. 2. My opponent has not bothered to investigate my reference to the Consensus 9/11 website. This website clearly shows that the cell phone conversations were impossible and implausible. http://www.consensus911.org... 3. President Bush's statements both contradict and mimic some of the evidence. "Let's roll" Which was a phrase supposedly stated by the passenger Todd Beamer before they attacked the 'so called terrorists' on flight 93. Note - The same phase used by George Bush when he announced that America was going to war with Iraq. 4. "we can't breathe due to mace" This comment by Betty Ong doesn't make sense. If she is talking on a cell phone, she is breathing. "Cool, where is it?" The reaction of technician Shelly Watson - on hearing about the 'real world' hijacking. This doesn't sound like a qualified and trained military officer to me. It sounds more like a 10 year old on-line gamer who has found a new game to play. 5. How did the hijackers know how to turn off the transponders? Note -They were only trained to operate small propeller planes which don't normally have transponders. 6. Flight 93 - The distribution of plane pieces is inconsistent with the flight recorder information. According to the flight recorder the plane was forced down by the hi-jackers. The evidence contradicts this information. Pieces of the plane were found over an area of 2 kilometres which suggests that the plane was shot down while in the air. http://stj911.org... 7. The four planes crashes should have resulted in the recovery of 8 black boxes. Note - Black boxes are indestructible. No amount of fire or violence of impact would be enough to destroy a black box. Thus, the missing black boxes must have been purposely removed by the government agents. http://www.counterpunch.org... http://www.rense.com...
911 was an inside job

I don't understand how my arguments were "false and misleading." I basically just highlighted American apprehension and sluggishness when it came to mobilizing the military or protect citizens. However, I will drop that part because this debate surrounds the events of September, 11, 2001. I hope Pro does as well. If not, he can challenge me to a debate on a topic regarding WW1 or 2 history. If the air phones were completely deactivated how did all those on the ground receive phone calls, many of which were recorded, such as the one between American 11 flight attendant Betty Ong and AA operator Nydia Gonzalez (http://www.nytimes.com...). Are you to say these were acted out by government-hired actors in a studio? The page I cite has the words, and the call itself is all over youtube. Further, one of Pro's articles talks only about American Airlines disabling air phones. Not sure how much weight this holds, but the United Airlines may not have been under the same procedure. Another major cry made by "truthers" such as my opponent is that United 93 (registration N591UA) never existed, and the government just set off a bomb in a southern Pennsylvania field and tossed aluminum scraps here and there. This is also untrue, as "the small crater" was just a minute part of the crash site, which extended underground below the crater, scattered about the field and for miles around, and also into the tree line, which was noted to have been squirted with jet fuel. Engines, fuselage sections, and some belongings of passengers were found. As a testament to the force of impact, no more than a section of a backbone was initially found. The flight data recorder was also found, 25 feet below the crater. The contents of this recording, per the commission report, document the unmistakable sound of people trying to retake an aircraft overtaken by terrorists who can be heard saying, "should we put it in?" The black box also shows that the aircraft took erratic motions before plunging and striking the ground at 580 mph (Commission report). Due to the design of the black box, it would have not been possible to record these events in some recording studio and insert them into the machine. It quite frankly just doesn't work that way. To conclude this last paragraph, the plane/passengers/plane registration is gone, the debris field of the crash site is much larger than the media says it is, and everything from the flight data recorder to bits of the fuselage to human remains (all of those found were identified with those on passenger list) were found. I look forward to seeing what Pro propagandizes next.
911 was an inside job

False flag events are very common in the history books if you know how to read between the lines and research the fine print. 1.The Gulf of of Tonkin attack was a case of American aggression, not Vietnamese aggression. The American destroyer was only 30 kilometres off the coast of Vietnam looking for trouble, so when a few torpedo boats came near to investigate; the destroyer decided to get some target practice. Thus, we had the beginning of the Vietnam War. 2. Pearl harbour - The Japanese navy had radioed Pearl Harbour to advise them that they were going to attack days before hand. The radio message was not passed on. Thousands of civilian lives were lost unnecessarily as a consequence. This gave the American Government an excuse to enter the Second World War. 3. The Lusitania - This ship was loaded with passengers and ammunition at the same time. A German newspaper in New York tried to publish a warning about submarines in the area where the Lusitania was about to cruise. The article was stopped by the American government who needed lots of causalities so that America could have a reason to enter the First World War. 4. 911 - Suspicious circumstances - Marvin Bush (George's brother) was in charge of security of the World Tower buildings. - Passports of terrorists found totally intact without any burns or damage. (very convenient) - George Bush's friendly relationship with the Bin Laden Family. - Mobile phones working on planes at high altitude (impossible) - Donald Rumsfeld slip-up about a missile hitting the pentagon. https://www.youtube.com...... https://www.youtube.com...... https://www.youtube.com...... https://www.youtube.com...... https://www.youtube.com......