BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Old age homes are necessary in modern world.

You said that they can have helpers in their own homes. But let me ask my opponent whether these helpers are trustworthy. Today all the people of the world has a greed for money and they would do any cruel ways to obtain those money. If they are made the helpers of old people they can steal all the money they can without the noticing of the old people. Near my house there occurred an incident that one of the helpers of an old family has stolen all the wealthy things. Also there is a problem that these old people would not provide so much caring for the old people. These things does not happen in old age homes. Thus we can say that the old age homes provide more protection than their homes. My opponent said that the children are not willing to help their parents. This help is given to these old parents by old age homes. Today most of the old age homes are run by missionaries and also by many religions. Thus it is sure that these provide more love and care to these old people that is important for them. Today most children are greedy. So they take away all the wealth of their parents. This makes the parents homeless or penniless. Now can they hire helpers. NO. . So here the old age homes seem to be important. What would these people do if there were no old age homes? They would have to beg at the sides of the roads. Would this provide more happiness than being at old age homes? Come with the answers of my questions. I believe that i have opposed all your points in this debate. Now it is my opponent's chance. I am thanking my opponent for a wonderful debate. Also please check out these sites that supports my point. . http://wiki.answers.com... . http://www.dnaindia.com... . http://www.studymode.com... . http://www.allfreeessays.com... .. .. .
Old age homes are necessary in modern world.

Old people may need a home, but that doesn't mean they need and OLD AGE home. there's people who can have assistants who come daily to help them out while still living in their own home. They don't need homes, they're just tricked into thinking they do so their kids can forget about them! As such it is obvious that old homes are just for those who have been tricked into going there. and once in you can never leave. Old age homes aren't necessary, they exist because kids don't want to hire a personal helper for their parents. I hope you can understand this and realize that old age homes are also a worse place for an old person than their own homes! and with that I end my argument. PS: I know of an 89 year old woman, she does have a slight case of dementia but she's not in an old age home and doing fine on her own.
Old age homes are necessary in modern world.

Thanks for the argument. But you have misjudged about the topic. You are saying about what happens in an old age home. But the topic is whether old age homes are important in modern world. You have also given a point that supports mine. My opponent said that the parents are being forgotten away by the children and that the children are not willing to care of their parents and hence move away from them. This point is related to the point i have given in the previous round which supports the statement that these old age homes are very important. Please read my previous argument once more. We know that when children leave their parents these parents would be alone in their homes. The staying of these old parents at home has greatly larger disadvantages. There would be only some protection for these old people since some has memory loss and some has problems in vision. So this would lead to many problems. Also they cannot fight a burglar if one enters into the homes. So we can see that there is no protection for these old people in their homes. This is also the place where the old age homes come in. These old age homes provide much and more protection to these old people than that of their homes. This is because here in these old age homes there would be probably a large number of people who can depend on each other. There may be also volunteers here who care for this old people. Today the protection is doubled since most of these old age homes are run down by many religious communities. Thus old age homes are important in modern society. As i have said earlier the love of these children towards their parents are decreasing. They wish to leave their parents as soon as possible. But i am not like that. So when they move away from parents they would leave them at home. Since there are old age homes these children leave their parents here since they provide more protection. So hope that you understood this and would come with your arguments in the next round.........
Old age homes are necessary in modern world.

Many people have seemingly logical reason for leaving their old mothers, fathers and relatives in a home. They say that they lead busy lives, their careers expect them to travel and they come back very late at night. They don"t have time to take care of an old person"s needs and he will be better off somewhere where help will be constantly available. However, they don"t realise that their old parents will be more than happy to wait for them to come back, or live alone in their absence. The argument that there is no one to take care of them is not worthy enough to place the elderly in a home. If you visit old age homes chances are that many of the residents will tell you about how they don"t like their lives there and want to go back. They will talk about their lives as youngsters and tell you about their children and their work. Ask them if their children come to visit and they will tell you stories of how busy they are and how much work they have. Ask them if they stay far away or in another city, chances are they don"t. Not only do some people put their parents in an old age home, they don"t bother to visit them regularly citing work and social pressure. They easily forget that their parents juggled careers and different kinds of pressures to bring them up and make them what they are today.
Old age homes are necessary in modern world.

I support your statement that old people should be looked after their children.But let me ask you whether it is common in the modern world. The suitable or the most appropriate answer is "NO".Today it is a true fact that children would not care enough for their parents. I am against this uncaring of the children but if the children do so what will the parents do.Today it is being a common fact that the children are going away from their homes and the parents are alone in their homes. Is these old age homes better in this situation where these old people can meet others of their same age. These old age homes can also make the people happy and forget about the bad times that is when their children leave them. Also some parents may not have children. So here too there is a great importance for old age homes. These old age homes can provide much more protection to these old people than staying at home alone. Today in the modern society the number of children who care for their parents is becoming lower and lower and so the importance of old age homes is becoming important in our modern society......... So hope that you understand about the benefits of these old age homes..............
Face to face communication

Since my opponent has forfeited the round, I'll just post my arguments. If he does not post in the next round, I would like you all to vote con. Thank you. P1) You can communicate with more people Before, when there were no phones, tablets, computers, or internet, you had to actually be near someone to talk to them. Nowadays with all these new technologies there are more ways than ever to talk to people all across the globe. While before you were limited to a certain amount of people near you that you could talk to, now you can people nice and interesting people all around the globe, just with a few clicks of a button. This allows for a larger group of people that you may or may not have a connection with. P2) It's much more convenient With programs/websites such as Facebook, you can communicate with friends and other people easily within your home. If you have family over an hour away, you can easily talk to them throughout a phone or social media, this saves a lot of time driving to and from their house. I'm sorry for the short and lesser thought out reply, I didn't want to put in a lot of effort if he was just going to forfeit + I had to go to my next class. Hopefully you continue to debate me on this topic pro, and have a nice day.
Abortion

It appears to me that you address two main points here. The first is that within in the first six weeks, "the embryo is at most risk to many environmental effects and miscarriages"(Pro) The second point is you comparing an embryo to bacteria and arguing that it is justified. I will address these two points separately. Point number 1: You say that the embryo is most at risk to outside factors. This may be true however I see no support to justify a killing. Just because something might happen does not mean you should force it to happen. What I mean by this is a mother having a miscarriage and the embryo dying should not justify that we should be able to kill the embryo because it "might happen". You also brought up in your stance that you believe, "that abortion should be legal until this time [six weeks] is because the brain has not fully taken form yet" Your source regarding pregnancy issued pregnancy to start 2 weeks before the egg and sperm combine which is the moment when life begins and the process of actually growing begins. Another way to look at this is it is impossible to get an abortion at 1-2 weeks using the definition of the first 2 weeks of pregnancy of Medline Plus, Your source for this topic. With this being said, When you analyze Medline Plus, The weeks listed should be subtracted by two to compensate for this. According to this same source, "Your baby's brain forms into 5 different areas. " This is listed under the category of weeks 6-7 and I have already argued that these weeks should really be weeks 4-5. Now, With the brain forming in weeks 4-5, Earlier than week 6, Debunks your reason for aborting before week six, Which was due to the brain not taking form. Regarding your second argument which states, "I do believe that once the cell starts dividing, It can be considered life, But that taking that life is justifiable" (Pro). It sounds here, Correct me if I am wrong, That you believe that life starts at conception. I recognize this because as soon as conception starts, The two cells that make up that pair instantly start to divide. It appears that you just believe it is justified and frankly there isn't much to argue on that premise. We all have our opinions on what is justified and what isn't and if you believe that it is justified to kill a baby less than 6 weeks old there is not much to argue on that front. Also, People kill bacteria because it literally invades you and makes you sick and depending on the type could kill you. Lastly, I personally don't believe it is fair to compare a 6-week old embryo and something that literally wants to kill you.
Abortion

I do believe the legality of abortion is a fair thing to argue. While I do believe abortion should be legal, Unlike many abortion advocates, I believe abortions should be legal only very early on. My stance is that abortion should be allowed until before the 6th week of gestation, A time period in which the embryo is at most risk to many environmental effects and miscarriages ("Fetal development"). I believe that abortion should be legal until this time is because the brain has not fully taken form yet and the fetus does not yet display complex behavior (R. Joseph). Because the brain, The source of our self-awareness, Has not yet developed, I believe it is justifiable to kill that life, Just as I believe killing bacteria is justifiable. I do believe that once the cell starts dividing, It can be considered life, But that taking that life is justifiable. https://medlineplus. Gov/ency/article/002398. Htm https://pdfs. Semanticscholar. Org/3574/39f63f652f3529bae08e64ca6c25e58552ff. Pdf
Abortion

Yes, I agree on setting the stage for the debate. I believe that the most argued case is whether or not abortion should be legal and discussing what determines a life and the morality of it would just be characteristics of that argument. Let me know if that is a fair way to establish that. Besides that, I would just like to know in more detail your view on the issue. So, Up to what month/week do you believe that it is ok to murder a baby or do you believe that it is acceptable up until birth? P. S. Try and make most of your response even if it means asking multiple questions due to the round limit.
minecraft

While my opponents argument technically isn't wrong, I would like to show the flaws it contains. Pro claims that the educational qualities of Minecraft contribute to its being a game that you should play. Minecraft most certainly is educational, however, simply being educational does not inherently make something good or acceptable. By definition, being tortured is an educational experience, but that fact alone is certainly not enough to convince the average human to accept torture. Pro goes on to provide specific areas in which you can be educated by Minecraft. These being Building and Gardening. Once again, my opponent is correct. Minecraft does teach you to build and garden, but the knowledge you gain is inapplicable to anything other than Minecraft. By learning how to build and garden in Minecraft, you enhance your skills in these areas in real life by zero percent. Minecraft teaches that there are very few building materials that are affected by gravity. If I tried to build a house in real life based on a Minecraft house, I would probably crush myself, because gravity actually does affect all building materials. If I tried to plant a rose garden in real life based on a Minecraft garden, all of the flowers would die from lack of water, because Minecraft flowers don't need to be watered. To sum up my arguments: Minecraft is only educational when applied to itself. If you try to apply Minecraft knowledge to real life, something is going to die.
The Green Bay Packer's will make it to the superbowl in the 2007 NFL Season.

1) Starbucks was not your framework, it wasn't presented until the second round, thus you shift your position which is abusive because I don't have enough rounds to sufficiently answer such an argument. 2) Your argument is empirically false, you claim the Packers will do it via home field advantage versus the Cowboys in the confrence championship which they will not have based on their loss to the Bears. Thus I am allowed to maintain that they will go to the Superbowl and win while proving you wrong because your means fail.
The Green Bay Packer's will make it to the superbowl in the 2007 NFL Season.

Cowboys locked up home field advantage with the Packers loss and Favre's been playin' like a girl lately, but that doesn't mean they can't do it. My problem with what you say is that you stop at them getting there, which implies that they will lose. The Packers are undefeated vs the Patriots in the superbowl and history doesn't lie, they'll do it again.
Gay Marraige Should Be Allowed.

Gays should be allowed to marry partners of their choice just as heterosexual couples do. It is ignorant in today's world to deny such a basic right to an individual because of something that is innate. Yes, sexuality is not a choice, it is innate. For my first point, let me state that a civil union is not a reasonable compromise for a legal marriage. Most civil unions don't have the same rights as a legal marriage has. Even if we made all civil unions exactly equal to legal marriage but called it something else, it wouldn't be enough. The concept of "separate but equal" has already failed. Segregation is not a solution when it comes to rights. History has proven this. Secondly, where is the benefit of oppressing gays from marrying? Religion isn't an answer. Religion is the excuse. Those who claim it is immoral are really just ignorant and foolish. In the case of Christianity, the bible states to do unto others what you would like done onto you. How would a heterosexual couple like it if it were them in the position of such oppression?
Flat Earth

I agree all of Nasa's current photos of earth are taken with a fish eye lens which does make the pictures appear round, but besides that even the notion of a flat earth is ridiculous. Starting with your comment on the port/horizon theory, ship's "disappearing" over the horizon is not just the ship falling out of or coming into your view, that problem could simply be solved with a telescope. The real reason the ship seems to disappear/reappear is "ships coming up over the horizon appear sail-first. That is, the highest portion of the vessel comes into view while the lower parts are still hidden by the bulge of the earth". The common naval term for this would be 'hull down'. Sources: https://creation.com... (an excellent photo example of the CN tower in Toronto, Canada being viewed from Olcott, New York)
Flat Earth

We have been lied to by NASA for years all the pictures of earth are inaccurate they use a fish-eye lens when they take pictures of earth which makes the earth round. Also just because you don't see a boat after it goes a long distance is because its obviously out of your eye site it didn't curve over the earth that's straight lies. Look it up if interested and if you can refute what i'm saying please do because even the bible proves the earth is flat.
The Undertaker is Superior to any wwe superstar from any time.

The Undertaker is not one of the reasons people still watch the WWE. People watch the WWE more so because of John Cena. Like I said previously, the Undertaker barely works ever. He might be the reason people buy Wrestlemania (now and days, he wasn't the reason they bought Wrestlemania when Hulk, The Rock, Steve Austin, and DX were around) but after that, and when people saw that his streak was becoming a thing, and WWE started to promote the streak heavily making promos about the streak not being broke around his wins of 17-0 or so, then people bought wrestlemania mostly to see if he would win or lose. It's worth noting that I liked John Cena when he was a heel, whenever he first entered the WWE in the early 2000's. I also love the good guy John Cena and think it fits him best although the rap gimmick was unique. I like many wrestlers tho from HBK, Brett Hart, John Cena, The Rock, Stone Cold Steve Austin(who in my opinion was the most entertaining WWE superstar to ever watch, especially the Steve Austin VS Vince Mcmahon era). I loved the Macho Man, Ric Flair, Ultimate Warrior, did love the Hulk during his good guy stages, and loved many different tag teams like DX, the Dudley Boys, Hardy Boys. I remember HBK jumping off a ladder ontop of Razor. I remember Owen Hart's tragic accident as I saw it happen that night, and remember reactions of superstars like Jeff Jerret who could barely stay in character, and remember the exact words said on Monday Night Raw by Jim Ross who teared up along with the King ringside. I remember the Godfather and his toe train and just so many memories. I still have to say Steve Austin was the most entertaining and provided a lot of funny memories from the Milk Truck, to attacking Vince in the hospital, to throwing the WWF title over the bridge. I remember DX's funny memories like when they took tanks to WcW and threatened to blow up and shoot the building. Anyhow, yeah I will agree, WWE isn't the same, will never be the same cause life is ever changing in general. The Undertaker while I like him was not my favorite superstar. I remember when he pulled Kevin nash/Big Daddy Disel or whoever under the ring. Regardless, Undertaker isn't the reason people watch WWE, and he was not the most entertaining when you compare him to what DX was doing or what Stone Cold Steve Austin was doing. More people watch wwe for John Cena than almost any other current superstars, and almost any superstar in history. Yes, people will still watch wrestling, even without Cena, but that's beside the point. To recap the debate. You couldn't rebuttal any of the major points I made from round 1. However, I do respect that you tried and honorably admitted defeat than most people who do not even bother to argue their side and let the machine surrender for them. I used to be one of the biggest wrestling fans, as I said, bought all the pay per views, watched every monday night pre- wwe, and just not the same. However, WWE is always going to be big, and it will hold a place in my heart.
The Undertaker is Superior to any wwe superstar from any time.

I agree with you, Angle is one of my all time favorites, at least he is entering into the Hall of fame. The Undertaker is my favorite WWE superstar of all time, but that does not mean that he isn't flawed (like my opponent said) I like Cena and The moment you talked about him, I knew you were a Cena fan, now I am not making fun of you. John Cena is also an amazing person but in my opinion, The Rock is the reason people boo at him now. Now I don't know if you still watch it, but WWE isn't the same as it used to be. do I still enjoy it? yes I do, will I always be a fan? yes. It's different though. The Undertaker in my opinion is one of the reasons people still watch wrestling though, but I guess we will have to see, I truly hope WWE steps up their game.
The Undertaker is Superior to any wwe superstar from any time.

However, I do want to continue a little and talk more about Kurt Angle and do him justice as he is also one of my favorites I didn't name if you recall when I said I liked HBK, John Cena, Steve Austin and yadda yadda. Here you can find his full gold medal match in which he won although it can be looked at as controversial, but none the less, complete deserving. I feel that Angle in his prime could almost out wrestle anyone in the backstage locker room if you were to have real live wrestling matches. By him winning a gold medal, a prize in which people from all around the world try to achieve, it's safe to Kurt is truly amazing. His in ring performance in the wwf/wwe was amazing, and at times just comical and funny. I recall the John Cena VS Kurt Angle rap battle which had to be one of Kurt's funniest moments. You can find that rap battle at this link. Sadly Kurt should have been bigger and used more correctly than what he was, but none the less, he still won a good number of titles, was one of the funniest wrestlers around and just entertaining. I will still say John Cena has probably did the most in and out of ring but that's my personal opinion, even if you dislike Cena cause of his gimmick, he still should be respected for everything he has done. Another thing about Cena is that he currently stands for what's right, the hustle, loyalty and respect thing is good for the children to look up to, something very important today given the world is going to hell, so they need this figure they can look up to, and John Cena has portrayed that good guy hero better than anyone ever has in the wwe in my opinion and I am going as far to say almost portrayed the good guy better than the Hulk himself. I would suggest watch the rap battle between Kurt and Cena, it is pretty funny, and watch Kurt's gold Olympic match which meant a lot to him, and the US. No doubt Undertaker will always be memorable, but he is by far not the greatest ever, but at the end of the day, it comes down to an opinion and who you think is the greatest. No matter the accomplishments, someone will always like a different wrestler.