BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Maternity leave should be granted to High School Students.

I never said "many children are missing school what is 15 days going to hurt". (If I had, it would have at least had a comma after "what" and a question mark at the end). I may have eluded to it, but only to prove my main point. I said that these teenagers will miss school whether or not they are given maternity leave, but why not avoid truancy and give them a chance to re-enter school? They are more likely to reach the limit of absences allowed if there are no exceptions made for them. I may be incorrect, but I believe that when a child misses school, that just means slightly more money is spent on all of the students who did not miss school that day. The only way it turns out to be a loss is if a student drops out of school and does not use his or her education to benefit the economy and make it grow. Once again, this leads back to being kicked out of school for exceeding the legal limit of absences. As far as stretching the wallets goes, repeating your opinion does not prove its validity. I do not see the connection between this type of law and Social Security, welfare or health care. All of those programs are transfer payments; the government receives nothing in return, it just gives money away. With Social Security, the government gives money to the elderly and disabled . With welfare, the government gives money to those in poverty. With health care, the government gives money to those without health insurance. To whom does the government give money when a child misses school? The government only gives money to a student if he or she attends school. About the incentive to get pregnant: Are you serious? If a student is willing to go to that length to take off from school, they are more likely to just take off a few days. If someone wants to leave school for a month or two, they will probably do not care and will drop out. Additionally, I doubt most teenagers are patient enough to wait NINE MONTHS before they actually get off those few weeks they wanted and have probably already changed their mind about. You have also ignored my point of teachers assigning work for the teenage mother outside of the classroom. They do the same thing when a student goes on vacation for a week. Maybe they could add into the law that the mother must visit their guidance counselor once a week to get new work and hand in the old work. I got an A+ in economics.
Maternity leave should be granted to High School Students.

Just like any government run program this law will require money that will be redistributed from the rest of the public that most will not be able to benefit from the money that is being taken from them. The lack of government efficiency is seen through everything they have screwed up; health care, social security, welfare the list is endless. I am guessing that you have not taking economics classes or you haven't paid attention to the fact that the more you tax individuals the less revenue will be brought in. Now the fact that many children are missing school what is 15 days going to hurt is the most childish argument I have heard. That is what children do when they want to justify defiant behavior blaming it on social pressures or peer pressure. I stated in my argument that the 3 weeks was going to be the minimum who knows what the courts will eventually settle for. Anytime a child misses school the school loses money for that child for the day. The money seems to go missing another sign of the inefficiencies. Another thing that you haven't noticed is the incentive that this law would give to people to get pregnant. A month or two off would sound good to people that are not really school oriented, to you and I educated people the trade off a month off of school versus at least 18 years of child baring doesn't seem like a good trade off but children think in very interesting ways. Sincerely, Fred. Cheers! !
Maternity leave should be granted to High School Students.

My first problem with your argument itself is that you have failed to explain how maternal leave for teenage mothers will "choke our already struggling wallets." If you are referring to the fact that we will be paying property taxes for students to not attend school, then I am compelled to point out that students miss school every day. What is the difference between one student missing fifteen consecutive days of school and fifteen different students missing one day each? There clearly is none. Secondly, giving maternity leave to teenage mothers will make them more likely to continue their schooling. Please allow me to explain. First of all, most, if not all, mothers in high school are going to take off from school right after their child is born, regardless of whether or not it is "allowed." Also, There are only a certain number of days that students can be absent from high school. If they exceed the set number of absences, they will not be allowed to come to school any more. So, if the students are going to take off from school anyway, why not keep some of those absences from counting against them? Otherwise, if the student remains out of school for three weeks, these fifteen days will count against her number of allowed absences. I do not disagree that the student should be given work from school to work on (at least, I would not have disagreed, had you thought to mention this), but finding a home schooling class on Dish network (provided the mother HAS Dish network) that is at the same point in her class's curricula in school is highly unlikely. Thank you.
Toy guns are perfectly fine for children to use.

Children should use toy guns because the safety of guns can be taught with reenactments. Say you are teaching a youth about guns and how they can hurt people. Most parents would like to have their children know the safety rules of guns before they ever Incounter one. Example: take a nerf gun, you can teach children how always point the gun at the floor when not aiming and always make sure you have the right safety equipment. Safety is a big part of guns and with out safety we would live in a world of chaos. Children! Think about the children! Hopefully con will have a good defense.
Toy guns are perfectly fine for children to use.

My opponent is correct, although, if that is the case, where media and mentally ill children can influence violence, parents can simply have a talk with them. Explain the dangers of guns and state that guns can harm and damage others majorly and should be taken seriously. Toy guns can not only be fun but can be used to stay safe. Studies how that adults with firearms in their household feel more protected and safe than adults without. Imagine a world without guns for a minute (this has nothing to do with my agruement) how hard and how more safe would the world be? No snipers, no RPGs just maybe a bow and arrow and swords and stuff. Like the old days. Sadly, that is not the case. We use guns for violence and murder. Assassination and war. If we need any way to be safe in this new world of guns we need some our selves. We are not going to let our youth obtain a firearm with out the knowledge of how to properly use one. Also toy guns are not a main cause of violence these days. Most stories and claims say that violent videogames such a call of duty and halo for school shootings. A story claims to say that the game DOOM inspired two teenagers to shoot seven students a high school before shooting themselves to death. So to end this round I say, toy guns will be the main cause of violence, teach people gun safety and the proper way to defend your self in a gun filled world, earth.
Rusiian Military is superpower

I don`t actually understand my opponent`s problem - is he some kind of 'fckn' obsessed English teacher? I explained to him the origins of my spelling errors - He shouldn`t argue that my my point of view and arguments are not understandable. About resolution and his 'default winning' - voters will decide who wins the argument and if they give the winning trophy to my opponent - so be it. But so far I haven`t seen any logical arguments from my opponent, except finding faults in my resolution (yeah, I know it`s unpunctual, but my point of view is clearly visible from my given arguments) and spelling. This could be acceptable if we were debating in tournament, but for this debate I would like to see argumentative clash of opinions
Rusiian Military is superpower

//About resolution - I`m not clear how to properly describe it but main idea that I had was - Russian military is not a superpower (so I`m against this idea) because Russia is economically weak country, therefore it cannot sustain large army and deploy it globally in reasonable amounts (fighting countries like Iraq and Afghanistan).// So, basically, the new resolution is that Russia is not a superpower, and then you name yourself con. Now, the new resolution is, Russia is a super power, I am con, now, and you proceed to list arguments against your own new position, pro. I gave you two chances to properly define the resolution, and you gave me one, which was, "The Russian military is not a super power," which you proceeded to name yourself Con. And you still have the B.o.P. So, you defeat your own resolution by arguing against yourself. Brilliant. I win by default because my opponent has gone against his own side. Awesome. I don't even have to do anything. New Resolution Affirmed by my opponent arguing against himself. Awesome. I do believe I will take his argument for my own, except imagine it better written and without spelling mistakes.
Rusiian Military is superpower

My opinion is that Russian military strenght is very overrated.My argument is that a country that barely is able to pay salaries for their service members can not be considered a military superpower. Russian annual military budget from all the world military spending has been only 3.9% compared to 46.5% of USA. If country wants to be a military superpower it has to have military sealift and airlift capabilities (real, not on the paper) - russian military doesn`t have any of these if they wanted to quickly transport enough military cargo and troops to war zone to sustain winning warfighting. USA has been involved in many wars in global arena and it has proved it`s logistical capabilities countless times. Russian military is aging - it`s a Cold War relict rather than 21st century warfare capable fighting force. Despite annual arms trade shows were Russia keeps introducing new ``high tec`` weapons platforms actually 95% of those are for export and military actually receives only a fraction of it. Another point is that military forces must be involved in war fighting because it`s the only way to check whether it is capable to complete assigned tasks. Russia has been fighting dead end war in Chechnya with no visible end and results, but it is mainly like COIN war than war with aim to invade country with regular and defense capable army. US military invaded Iraq in 21 days and crushed Taliban using just SF soldiers and Air support in months.
Rusiian Military is superpower

Everything my opponent has posted in R3 is useless. If he is not a native English speaker, he should at least be coherent enough to realize the difference between Pro and Con. Suffice to say, I don't win this because I played semantics, but simply because my opponent defined the resolution wrong. If he wishes to try again, and this time properly do it, then so be it. But, on a debate website, of all things, he can't write a faulty resolution, and then, when his opponent gives him another chance, writes a resolution that he argues against. It does not matter if you aren't a native English speaker, a lot of people on this website aren't, but they at least are coherent enough to make a resolution and follow through with it. I repeat, this is a debate website, which means you looked for a place for professional debate. This is what you found, and now you expect to be able to make two faulty resolutions with penalities? Ridiculous. Pro -of the original resolution- wins.
There is absolute truth

The last round being forfeited is quite disappointing. My opponent has only truly had one speech. Nevertheless, I will show how I win. .. First off, flow through ALL of my last speech as this stands in the end of this round. Secondly, you will see that there is NO absolute truth. Look back in this round and you will see that my opponent has offered no absolute truth that has not gone argued. If absolute truth exists, then where is it. The fact that there is a website where you can debate ANYTHING shows that nothing is absolute. My opponent has not showed that anything is true AND absolute. Flow through my definition of absolute as "free from imperfection; complete; perfect". .. my opponent has not proved any of these. ANYTHING is not perfect and EVERYTHING could change (which proves everything as not "complete") Therefore, I can only see the voters as voting Con in this round.
There is absolute truth

Firstly, you don't have to prove that opinions are variant and changing. The very definition of opinion implies that it is going to change from person to person. I would first like to say that truth is not an opinion. Truth is what is true. I know you can't define a word by itself, but that's the best way. If something is true, than it cannot be changed by someone's opinion. Take the example of a murderer, which you bring up. When he goes to court whether people think that it was an accident or he murdered him doesn't matter. If in fact someone was murdered, than the truth is absolute. That person is a murderer. Even if the jury finds that person to be innocent. Someone's opinion will never change what is true. Even with your first argument, just because there are different opinions on truth doesn't mean that truth isn't absolute. To say that all the opinions are correct is absolutely absurd. There is one correct answer. They both can't be correct. If one person says that abortion is always wrong, and another says that it is right; they can't both be right. One is wrong and one is right. Different opinions do not mean that truth is not absolute. It just means there are different opinions. Your second argument is correct, but it holds no merit if you fail to prove that truth is in fact just opinion. Which you have not done so far. Your third argument is very similar to your first. You make one flaw. Fact is true. Fact has been proven true. There is a force that holds everything down to earth. We define that force as gravity. So that force is fact. If I were to say there was no such thing as gravity, that doesn't make gravity unreal. Just because someone has a differing opinion does not mean that facts do not exist. Now for my argument. I said in my first speech that the very statement there are no absolute truths disproves itself. By saying that, you are establishing an absolute truth. When I as the pro prove at the very minimum one absolute truth, then I must recieve your vote. The con says there is no absolute truth, and therefore establishes an absolute truth. therefore I must win.
There is absolute truth

Truth is an opinion... When seeing this debate, I had to accept to prove that opinions are variant and changing... Thus, There is NOT absolute truth. To prove this, I offer the following arguments... 1. Truth is an opinion. If I were to ask 10 people what they thought of the death penalty, abortion, and President Bush... I am fairly sure that they will all have a different opinion on them all. I have the truth that abortion is wrong, the death penalty is wrong, and the current president isn't one of our best. Although I have that truth conception, does not mean that other people do. The fact that we are debating the truth on if the truth is absolute should automatically be enough to show you that truth is not absolute but is in fact an opinion. 2. Opinions don't have absolute truth. This argument is fairly accepted. Simply cross-apply my previous explanation and if there is further argumentation, I would be happy to explain. 3. Facts don't have absolute truth. This argument is merely proven by the variation of perceptions. For example, someone could look at fire hydrant and say it was red, but someone else could look at it and say it was dark red. Both could be considered facts but yet are not "absolute." Another example could be someone killing someone. One could say that it was murder but another could consider it an accident so not consider it "murder." Once again, both are facts but are once again, not absolute, and when looking at the topic of debate, it very specifically uses the word "is", implying that pro has to absolutely prove, absolute truth... Something that I have actually proven as opinion thus making the topic itself not absolute truth, thus, I urge you to vote Con... Thank You
The death penalty should be accepted under curtain circumstances

This is a first, and I am grateful for it. It is rare to encounter humility in this format. It borders on chivalric. I thank my partner for presenting this challenge, and any voters who have followed our discussion to this point. I do regret that we so anticlimactically ended the contest, but the novelty of such capitulation more than makes up for it. I wish my debate partner well, and hope to see more of him in future contests.
The death penalty should be accepted under curtain circumstances

Sorry about that I got carried away with my busy schedule.1. The death penalty process makes it hard for an innocent person to be put to deathWith today's modern technology like DNA test and such it is hard to accuse an innocent person and even if the DNA test was wrong or misdirected. The process to convict someone to death is complex to the point were the state has to be 100% sure that they commited the crime. Even so, it's hard to wrongfully convict a serial killer or a mass murder.2. It's hard to rehabilitate a serious offenderIf someone were convicted of one murder. I understand that they have room for rehabilitation, but if you got someone convicted of three or four murders then it's obvious (unless the person is mentally unstable) that the mass murderer/serial murderer knew that what he was doing was wrong and there going to be a chance that they would regret nothing. So putting them in jail for the rest of their life with no parole totally defeats the whole purpose of jail in the first place. Giving them the death penalty gets rid of a problem instead of taking a chance that this criminal would convict more crimes.Note: Whether or not the death penalty deters crime or not is completely irrelevant. There are countries without the death penalty that have a high crime rate and there are countries without the death penalty that have a low crime rate. Same thing goes for countries with the death penalty.
The death penalty should be accepted under curtain circumstances

I certainly regret that my partner was unable to join this discussion over the last round. I hope that they are well, and will rejoin us soon.As I am unsure as to whether or not they will be able to return, I shall keep my remarks concise:The death penalty cannot be trusted to be inerrant; because it will always be administered by imperfect humans. Humans make mistakes. Among these mistakes cannot be the accidental killing of innocents - brought about by our allowing ourselves to become destabilized by rage. Consider this lesson, learned during my attendance at a firearms safety class. Students seeking training in firearms safety are taught to always "acquire your target." The target must be seen, and no target exists otherwise. The mere fact that we are quite certain that a deer is rustling those bushes does not mean that it is ok to fire into them; no target has been acquired. Why is this rule in place? Because there is always the chance, however remote, that Bubba is using the bathroom in those bushes - and no deer exists. We could accidentally kill someone - and that is unacceptable to firearms safety instructors. It is a good lesson, and should be applied in the case of accidents involving the death penalty. It must be a hard and fast rule that our society and culture do not accept the killing of innocents - even if we are quite certain that we aren't doing so. We are human, and we make mistakes. These mistakes are bound to occur, inevitable, and so we must not apply fallible human understanding to this irreparable and irreversible act.
The death penalty should be accepted under curtain circumstances

This debate is on whether or not society should have the death penalty. Now I believe the death penalty is accepted under curtain circumstances like serial rapist, serial killers, mass murders and if the suspect is not insane and/or is atleast 19+ years old. The first round is a introduction round. The debate should start in round 2. There are 4 rounds in total, voting period is 1 week, time to argue is 48 hours and argument max is 6,000 characters. Also another thing before we get started is if you say "life sentencing" it would be assumed that you mean imprisonment until death by old age. The reason why I state this is because in Canada life imprisonment = 25 years maximum.Definitionsserial rapist: sexually assault 2 or more peopleserial killer: Murder 3 or more people with a time interval between one of the murders. For example Ted Bundy, John Gacy, ect...mass murderer: Murder 3 or more people with no time interval between any of the murders. For example James Holmes.Rules No TrollingNo ProfanityCiting your sources is optional unless the your opponent ask for it.My opponent is able to add any definitions or rules however can't change any of the definitions/rules already listed.
Atheism is good (I'm bad with titles)

Waaazup to you as well! Don't worry about insulting me, I've been insulted by professionals! I saw the video and it brought up good points. Its always important to understand the other side of a debate. I actually like the title, it brings up excellent debate points. My only point in spelling that out was so that I answered the premise of the debate. And by all means, ask your question, you wont offend me, this is a debate and a flow of information. I am genuinely interested in your point of view, its what makes these debates fun to do
Atheism is good (I'm bad with titles)

For starters, wazaaap? (my picture said that). And the title that I gave this debate is only a title, also I wasn't in a creative mood so that's what I came up with. But I don't think it was necessary to make an entire paragraph about "Atheism is good", Chill pill. Your last question is a good one and here is my answer: scientist don't know were it came from. But once times every summer I go to see my grandma and grandpa in Michigan, I am forced to go to church with them and when ever I see a picture of God, it looks like a guy to me but whatever. I will like to say good point about the "something out of nothing" statement and I will say that the way that I put it in round one made it sound stupid. But before I go I wanna ask a question, you know what never mind. Here is the URL for a YouTube video, I know it's for atheist but it have some points. It's about Noah's Ark, and caution it has language for big boys. You don't have to watch it if you don't want to. Once again I'm sorry if I insulted anyone and if the video insults anyone.