BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Homescooling

What's up? Thanks for replying quickly. Now I've got to say, please don't express your opinions. Honestly, especially in a debate, nobody cares about opinions. People want facts, instead of opinion. And also, you provided no sources for your claim, which kind of is bad. Basically, the majority of your arguments and claim are worthless because they're no source to back it up. And you also said this: "Sorry, but I can't support my arguments just how you did by providing the links relating to the matter. I just express my opinion on the issue, that's what I think. " You basically admitted that no source could be found for your claims, telling me that your opinion is your only source. But the thing is, opinions are not reliable sources. (So basically, I contradicted all your statements...) Next up, you did say this: "But when you want to achieve something, you must sacrifice something" This claim is your perspective, not everybody. Also, this statement "time that parents spend to educate their children, its true that it will be less of it." kind of puzzles me. Why? It's because this argument is basically contradicting your statement that homeschool is good. From this citation, the word "it" could be seen as the parents teaching their child. So your basically saying that parents educating their child is less of the time that public school teachers are spending time with their students. Anyway, I would like to point out the lack of facilities. The website, http://www.middleschool.net..., does talk about how all the equipment may not be given. For example, for physics, chemistry, and even biology, how will homeschooling children be given the right equipment? These necessary chemicals, equipment, and other types of equipment may be expensive to get. And continuing on, if it is a single parent, it would be hard to get this particular expensive equipment, already knowing these some parents may not have the money. Also, look what I've found: https://www.responsiblehomeschooling.org.... From this website, it does state how child abuse happens during homeschooling. The website claims: "While many homeschooled children have positive homeschool experiences, others do not." This could be another way of why homeschooling could actually be bad. These some more claims of why I think homeschooling is bad. Best wishes, Jason
Homescooling

Hello Jason, thanks for your answer.the arguments you provided are persuasive, I must admit. But let me try to express my opinion on them. First of all, time that parents spend to educate their children, its true that it will be less of it. But when you want to achieve something, you must sacrifice something. If speaking about single parents, it is possible for them to work online, today it's possible. So they don' t have to leave the house, and may dedicate half a day to working and the other half to their children. When there are both parents, it's even easier. One parent works, the other teaches and vice versa. Aldo, spending more time together helps to improve their relationship and raise the parents' involment in the process of education. Many parents of those children who study at public schools, spend most of their time working, don't attend parent- teacher meetings, and it is clear that it takes on heavy toll on the performance of their children. Secondly, public schools are free, they provide free books , facilities and so on. But if considering the present standing of public schools in America for example, free doesn' t mean good. As funding is not enough, books are often old and the information in them is not always adeguate. Not all the teachers are higly qualified, and there is a big lack of them. Classes are often overcrowded, and the teachers can't dedicate enough time to every pupil.Considering this, pupils often receive a sketchy education. Parents can easily see a child's weaknesses and work to improve them. Then, socialization. School is not the only place to make friends. Parents can make children take up differents activities, sich as doing sport,dancing, art and so on, isn't that a solution? Moreover, in schools many children are often faced with bullying, which may traumatize them , and may lead to loneliness and lack of self- confidence. Childen can also make friends with children they live next to, with their parents friends' children. By saying that parents learn with children, i mean that they may discover something new for themselves or revise the information they no longer remember. Sorry , but I can't support my arguments just how you did by providing the links relating to the matter. I just express my opinion on the issue, that's what I think. That's all for now, I' m looking forward to your response.
Homescooling

Homeschooling is not a completely new approach to educating children, but its gaining particular popularity nowadays. Many parents opt for homeschooling because of the weaknesses in national educational programmes. It allows them to choose their own way to teach their children, still there are some requierements they need to follow. Homeschooling gives lots of advantages. First of all, children can study when they want without a certain schedule, which exists in scools, because some of them may be most productive in the morning or before going to bed, and parents leave them free to choose the best time for learning. Secondly, they may stress particular subjects and deepen their knowledge in them. Some may say that being a homeschooler means being separated wrom the world, but there exist communities for parents and children, where they communicate with other children who are also homeschooled. It also means a lot of responsibility for parents, because to educate its child properly, they have to be fully committed to it,and spend plenty of their for it. But on the other, while teching something to children, they may learn the same way the children do. And finally, homeschooled children score good on tests, often their results are even better that that of the children, studying in schools.
Abortion Should be Illegal

A woman is more important than a fetus. You state as an argument that a fetus is "a separate human being", but the unborn baby is not scientifically or legally a person or human being and therefore an abortion cannot be considered a murder or treated as such. Furthermore, the fetus does not have self-awareness or the ability to feel pain. Putting their rights above a woman's is arrogant and degrading. In addition, the baby is most certainly a part of the woman's body, which is protected by Bodily Autonomy. This in part makes up the rules dictating that you cannot take organs from a body that has not provided consent prior to death. It is absolutely ludicrous to expressly grant that right to a dead body, yet strip it from an alive and sentient woman. Compulsory laws that dictate what a woman must do with her body do not fit with the image of a free society. We can and must trust women to make their own decisions; if not that, than what can we depend on? Thank you.
Abortion Should be Illegal

You state that you believe women should be allowed to do what they want with their own bodies. I wish to counter that the baby inside her is not "her body", but, instead, a separate human being in it's own right. If it's human, abortion is murder, and should therefore be illegal. So when can we consider a foetus to inhuman, therefore making the killing acceptable? I think it's reasonable to say that birth-time is not a legitimate answer; the vagina does not magically bestow personhood. 30 weeks? The baby has eyes, teeth, and can utilise 4 of its 5 senses. So no. 20 weeks? The baby can dream, and recognises the sound of it's mother's voice. Again, no. 10 weeks? The baby can move, breath, and urinate. No. 5-6 weeks? The baby has brainwaves, and recognisable limbs. No. Week 3? The baby has a spinal column and a developed nervous system. No. Week 2? The baby has a heartbeat. No. No. No. There is no acceptable stage. Period.
Abortion Should be Illegal

Self-reliance is not the determining factor of one's right to life. There are disabled or permanently comatose individuals who cannot survive without reliance on others. We still consider their right to life absolute, and murdering them (for convenience) is both immoral and illegal. As for your accusation that my declaration that a fetus is a human and due human rights is my opinion: I disagree. I have pointed to fetal development and asked you to rationalise the moment of personhood. This is important, because if the murder of a human being is illegal, knowing when to consider a fetus human is of paramount importance. This isn't simply an issue of morality. It's a question of whether someone is due their right to life or not. Considering that you haven't defined the moment of personhood, or even disputed that a heartbeat or own blood represents one's distinct humanity, tells me and, I hope the voters, that a fetus is as much a human as you and I, and due equal rights in that regard.
Abortion Should be Illegal

You stated that my argument "is simply your opinion." Absolutely, it is. Along with yours: the whole point of the issue is that we have different opinions on this topic-but that's the thing: we cannot invoke the law on an issue that is primarily moral. For that reason alone abortion is a right that we cannot, nor should we attempt, to take away. It is safe to say that the fetus relies on the mother for survival, correct? If this is true than we cannot consider a fetus to be "separate." The woman is not obligated to provide something life at her own risk-this would be the same as stripping organs from a deceased person that has not consented for it, which is illegal. Furthermore, prohibiting abortions does not stop them. Before abortion became legal, it's estimated that nearly a million per year sought illegal abortions, of which thousands died and tens of thousands were mutilated. We need to keep abortion legal and safe. Keep all children wanted children. Keep abortion legal.
Abortion Should be Illegal

Firstly, your assertion that the baby is part of the woman is simply your opinion; suffice to say, just saying something does not make it true. I have already made the case in round 1 for why we should view the baby as a human entity. I might go further, beyond observation, to make the following point: A fetus can have a different blood type to the mother. This alone, along with its ability to move independently without direction from the mother, should be ample enough evidence. It is often the case that the baby's different blood cells will trigger an autoimmune response from the mother's cells, as when they attack viruses and other foreign bodies. This happened to me, and can cause jaundice, which it did. This is proof that the baby itself is an entity "foreign" to the mother's body, and, hence, is a separate entity. Again, I repeat the point: if the baby is a human and considered separate and due inalienable rights to life, abortion is murder, and murder is illegal.
Up upon the wall, all of ya!

Okay......First off, there is nothing for you to witness here on this debate. I will convict you as an "unfit" witness I would like to disagree. A lot of people on this planet are good people. If you go on the biblical version of hell, all Christians will be saved. There are Christians here, so it's not hell.Okay......The UN prevents major altercations between many countries. You find no sources to back up what you're saying. The Cold War was prevented by a UN official negotiating. "Two years later, Ralph Bunche, a UN official, negotiated an armistice to the resulting conflict" (1)Again, no source.Ladies and gentleman, my opponent is just ranting about the UN. He has not proved a thing. This results in a vote for Con!1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Up upon the wall, all of ya!

As I am not a specialist And certainly not taking sides of any kind I do not make rules that exclude conversation between thinkers This is not a poetry competition It is a debate in a free minded style Bring your thoughts without commitment Or convict me as an unfit witness All I know is what I have seen here On this planet from hell, oh well It is what it is, It ain't what it ain't I am pretty sure there are no saints But something is up there, in the stars, and in the bars, that judges us. Both of us. The fact is that America pays a HUGE portion of the UN's bills. The world is no kinder now, and the education only spread further beyond what is a fair burden on the payers, who get no reward except more taxes, for the benefit of UN vampires. You know the sort, Gates, Soros, MANY OTHER power hungry, evil bastards. Do your research, I will go to work tomorrow again, as hard a job as any, and harder then the jet powered skyscraper riders. Good luck. PS: I am against massive accumulation of wealth by the aristocracy of the UN. Period. Their vision of a good world is only good for they. That is my side if I am forced to take one.
Up upon the wall, all of ya!

Since my opponent didn't set any BoP rules, the BoP is on him.Rebuttal:Since my opponent has not layed down any rules regarding first round acceptation, I will post my arguments."Get up on the wall of your UN school"Countries such as the United States of America do not run their schools through the UN. Even if you were talking about schools that are in UN nations, there are still some out of the UN. "And use the tools confiscated to your benefit"All the tools students have were either bought and/or donated by willing citizens. None were confiscated."Cold hearted children"That is a stereotypical assumption if I ever saw one. Moving on......"Smart phone disciples."Not all students and citizens have smart phones. Some have flip phones, and others don't have anything.I would like the voters to note my opponent's poor use of grammar. Arguments:The topic is, "Up upon the wall, all of ya!"However, I would like to suggest we don't have a good reason to go to the wall. Why would I want to get to the wall and be called a "cold hearted child"? You show no authority, so, if I choose, I don't have to listen to you. Thank you for reading!
Whether a person cheated on his wife/her husband should be forgiven.

I agree what you said they may find the perfect second love and also it will warm your children that they did not have before. But it is really a risk to take. If you meet a person and he is just the way you like, this does not mean you two are still perfect when you live together and be in a real family. This is common sense, dating with someone twice a week, and you guys could talk and watch movies and do lots of romantic things together, all the things like you do for the first time. It must fresh for you. But when you into a stable relationship and you or him have a kid, you two are like parents and combine two families together, which is no longer the pure love, that includes the responsibility of family.
Whether a person cheated on his wife/her husband should be forgiven.

It is true that the relationship between birth father and the child and the relationship between step father and the child is different, but what if the wife has found a better husband? Think about it. The child would know the relationship would not be the same no matter the wife forgives the husband and lives together or she doesn't forgive him and finds a new one. The relationship is broken anyway. So what if the new husband can take responsible for taking care of his wife and children more than the previous one? The children and wife can have more love from their dad and and her husband. There is a possibility of repairing the child's relationship by receiving more love for dad.
Whether a person cheated on his wife/her husband should be forgiven.

Firstly, that's true, some cases can not represent all. But, does it mean that there is a higher chance for people to not find a better one after divorced? Maybe, some people indeed find a better spouse after they divorced, but the chance of not finding a better spouse is higher. Moreover, children's stepfather and stepmother can not influence the children and love the children in the same their birth parents do. Can you say that stepmother and stepfather are the same person as their birth parents? Of course not. So they can influence the kids, but not in the same way their birth parents can do and love them. Thirdly, you said that since the parents' relationship is no longer good, so the kids will not be happy. But what if they forgive each other? Then their relationship is still as good as before, the kids are still can live happily with their parents.
Whether a person cheated on his wife/her husband should be forgiven.

First, the things happened can not represent all people, they are just some cases. There are still more people that feel happier after divorced. In addition, if people never give themselves a chance and just keep enduring, how could they have the possibility to find a better one. It's impossible! Second, although children's birth parents are very important to their childhood, children's father and mother's relationship is no longer like before which will still influence children's emotion; sometimes is even worse.
Whether a person cheated on his wife/her husband should be forgiven.

How can you be sure that he can find a better one? We've seen many examples of people who divorced, taking their kids to reconstruct a family with another person. Does that mean happy? No, it's not good both for you and your kids. Kids also have emotions, they know that their stepmother or stepfather has no kinship or blood relationship with them. Maybe for you it's a new lover, for your kids, they are just living with a stranger. They will live under the shadow of your divorce and don't have the same happy childhood that everyone else in their age can have.
Whether a person cheated on his wife/her husband should be forgiven.

Just like you said, family is the warmest place, so how could a man leave his home if he thought it's the warmest place. When the day he started to cheat on his wife, it already meant that he wanted to abandon the family. People should always look forward. If the wife forgives her husband, it will urge the husband to cheat again because he thinks his wife will forgive him again. For wife herself, she should divorce with him and find a new better one.
Whether a person cheated on his wife/her husband should be forgiven.

No one is perfect, everyone has a chance to be forgiven. You can"t deny a person"s personality by one single incident. Do you remember something from your religion class? A woman who had sins many times in her life, used her tears to wash Jesus" feet and poured perfume on them. So Jesus forgave her faults and let her go. Then, the woman never sinned again. Sometimes, you should give others a chance to be forgiven. Maybe, they are just under some burdens and pressures of life, so they lose themselves in the complicated world. They wanted a breathe and to go out for a drink, after they have tasted the outcome. They will come back home, only their home is the most warm place.
The Homesteading principle contradicts Self-ownership

I'll try to keep this short and sweet (since that gets more readers and more voters). The Homesteading principle (as defined in R1), says that non-owned property becomes privately owned when a person mixes their labor with (it becomes owned by them now). This is key to property rights and capitalism, since they must have an objective method off which something can go from being un-owned to being owned. However, another equally important feature to capitalism and property rights, is self-ownership (which I would dis-agree with anyway, but that is a different debate). Self-ownership basically says that you own yourself and no-one can own you without your consent. This, coupled with the non-aggression principle, should provide objective understanding that everyone is free and sovereign. The problem between the two of these occurs when a human is created in the womb of the mother. When a women is impregnated, a baby begins to form in her body (I assume that no source is needed for this). Since her body is "laboring" (no pun intended) in the creation of the little baby, the homesteading principle states that the embryeo/fetus is her property. In the early stages of pregnancy, the fetus is not classified as a human (as far as rights are concerned), since it is not capible of rational thought. Because it is not human (perhaps "person" would be a better word than "human," I'll let my opponent decide if that is acceptable) in a "rights" sense, it has no self-ownership. The real problem occurs later in pregnancy (or after, whether it is in the womb or crawling around on a carpet doesn't really matter), when the fetsus reaches "human" rights status; when it becomes capible of rational thought. Self-ownership claims that the baby "owns" itself, while Homesteading claims that the baby is "owned" by its biological mother. Thus, a contradiction. The non-aggression principle states that you cannot steal the property of one and give it to another (morally speaking). Since the homesteading principle shows that the body of the fetus first belonged to the mother (before the baby became a person), that should be the policy that is respected. Thus, there is no self ownership at any point later in its life unless the mother willingly gives (or trades) the ownership rights of that child to the child. To keep this short, I'll leave it at that and allow my opponent to respond. Thank you
The Homesteading principle contradicts Self-ownership

As per the rules I will not try to change any of the definitions that my opponent provided. However I would like to define the term 'contradicts'. Contradict: To be contrary to; be inconsistent with. This is the only word that I think needs to be defined before we could get this debate underway. I will choose not to begin arguments in this round seeing as my opponent is the one affirming the resolution.
The Homesteading principle contradicts Self-ownership

Additional definitions may be provided by them in their round, if they wish to define other words and such, but they cannot dispute these definitions. Human [1] - "A rational animal. " This article refers to humans as "man" though it should be clear that it is talking about "mankind" not just the "males" of the human race. This is used to distinguish human rights (and so what qualifies for those rights). We can see more arguments here for human rights [2]. Self-ownership [3] - ". .. absolute jurisdiction over one's own body. " - Rothbard (summarized, he says "his" instead of "one's"). Homestead Principle [4] - "The way that unowned property gets into private ownership is by the principle that this property justly belongs to the person who finds, occupies, and transforms it by his labor. " -Rothband. This often just shortened to the first person the works or labors an un-owned piece of property, since "occupies" does not apply to all forms of property. If I'm a logger, I don't need to "occupy" a tree, merely find it, cut it down, and I am the owner (assuming it was un-owned to begin with). Abandonment - "Abandoned personal property is that to which the owner has voluntarily relinquished all right, title, claim and possession, with the intention of terminating his ownership, but without vesting ownership in any other person, and without the intention of reclaiming any future rights therein. " [5] This is the legal definition in regards to abandonment of property. Since this debate is about owning property, that is the definition which seems most fit, as there is not a solid libertarian definition on this. I thank whoever accepts this debate. They are free to start in R1, or pass and let me start in R2. [1] . http://aynrandlexicon.com... [2] . http://mises.org... [3] . http://mises.org... [4] . http://murrayrothbard.com... [5] . http://definitions.uslegal.com...