BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There is no such thing as "bad words".

Bad words are dubbed by people. Bad words are deemed bad by people, however, we have noticed that what is considered a bad word have changed, though this is not the point of this debate. If you notice, though, words like "hell", "da*n", "sh*t" (if you notice, some television shows have stopped censoring that word), and "a*s" (as a derogatory term) are becoming more public. BUT, this debate is not what is and what is not a bad word, it is about if bad words exist. Words are not harmful, and are only pack as much of a 'punch' as a person allows it. Also, certain words are found to be okay and undesirable words, depending on the context, and that is the basis of my argument: the words do not matter. Only the context they are used in. An example is the word "balls". "Balls" refer to a round object that are generally thrown and used in sports. The word also refers to men genitalia. Notice, the same word, but different context. Same thing with the word "pu*sy". We call our cats that name, and we call someone who is weak this name. We also use the word to refer to a women's genitalia. Again, it is the context. If someone is not looking to do harm with their words, and are instead intending them for other reasons, people tend to find the words acceptable. This shows that the words themselves mean nothing with out the proper context.
There is no such thing as "bad words".

The majority of mainstream society defines what "bad words" are. Bad words are simply terms that are against the moral terminology of modern society. They represent the "vulgar" usage of the human language, whether it be English or other languages. While moral standards may differ among the people of Earth, society has accepted that there are certain terms that can be considered as derogatory or "bad." These words are considered to be bad due to their usage in the human language and through the vernacular of the common people. Generally these words are used in situations involving frustration, malice, or pure rage. Because of society's tendency to silence violent outbursts, it considers words such as "the S word" to be bad. The label "bad word" is used to silence individuals in public areas that attempt to verbally construe their rage. Society developed the term "bad words." Saying that there is no such thing as the term is like saying that there is no such thing as misconduct. While my adversary may not believe certain words to be "bad", society has labeled certain words as "bad." It is because of this fact that there is a such thing as "bad words" in mainstream society.
You should need a license to have children

The vast majority of parents are caring and love their children. A parenthood license would most likely harm more good parents than those who actually mistreat their children. In this debate my opponent has not only failed to prove that his concept would in fact improve quality of life of children in our society, but furthermore I was able to raise multiple concerns about this concept. The most critical problem, the contradiction to the human rights, is by itself a reason to bury this idea once and for all. After even my opponent has bailed this debate, voters hopefully see that this concept might sound good, but is not very useful in the real world and therefore vote for con. I want to thank my opponent for this debate. I too believe, that there need to be more solutions to prevent child abuse and hope that those cases decrease in the future. For that I believe, his idea was good and this debate(other ideas in the comments or new debates welcome) is valuable.
You should need a license to have children

I would define "having children" both as the act of procreation alongside those parents wish to adopt or foster children, the license would apply to all those wishing to be entrusted with the care of children. Those wishing to adopt or foster children already undergo a most stringent set of evaluations before they are accepted to the role, they must prove that they are a fit and proper person to be entrusted with that responsibility (for there is no greater responsibility than parenthood) and i would wish to see that set of evaluation extended to all aspects of the care of children. Your first point is indeed an issue but one that is regularly flouted with impunity by China. As population growth throughout the world becomes an increasing issue, more countries will certainly adopt policies such as those in place in China and the UN will be forced to look again at the policy. Recent years have seen the UN Charter on Human Rights become increasingly irrelevant to political leaders and institutions, the world circumstance has allowed for "liberal interpretation" of it's application and it no longer stands as an impediment to domestic or foreign policy should powerful nations decide it is so. On your second point, they do indeed require a wide range of skills yet it is not expected that such a test would cover such topics as cooking and so forth. The idea of the test is two-fold, that the parent understands the responsibility of care and the needs of the child and that the parent is and proper person to raise a child, this second part being little different to citizenship classes that are already part of the mainstream. As you say, parenthood develops with the child and this is why a re-taking of the test at regular intervals would be necessary. On the license's enforceability, i would drawn attention to Chinese Family Planning Policy that only allows one child for certain couples. While controversial, the policy has had benefits in social and economic terms and is overwhelmingly supported by the Chinese public. Punishments in that case involve fines dependent on economic ability of the family. I would suggest that fines would be part of the licensing plan, however for those most serious of cases, where a ban on having children has been given for reasons of abuse or neglect for example, a prison term would be likely. No abortions would be enforced, rather the children would be placed into the care of the state (as would likely happen in many cases anyway) in serious cases, in less serious cases the parents would be forced to undergo parental education.
You should need a license to have children

Hello Michael,this is my first debate on this website and I am looking forward to debating with you about this topic. I assume that the United Kingdom is the proposed country for this license.First, I would like to ask you to define the term "having children". This could refer to the act of procreation, birthing or being allowed to keep a new-born child as opposed to isolating the newborn from its parents and putting it under the care of child services.Since you propose the introduction of a "parenthood license", the burden of proof is on you to show that such a license would in fact ensure a better childhood for children and therefore contribute to society.I will start with three main con-arguments: 1. A "parenthood license" would be blocked by higher laws in any democratic nation. Prohibiting parenthood is a tremendous limitation of freedom that is incompatible with laws of a modern democracy, such as the UK. But before even considering if UK-law allows such a license, the Human Rights Article 16 (http://www.un.org...) clearly guarantees every human the right to found a family. 2. It is impossible to accurately test for parenthood qualities. You proposed testing for "that the are capable or looking after and raising the child". However, these capabilities have such a broad spectrum, ranging from communicative skills to cooking skills, that it is impossible to rate "parenting skills" accurately and empirically, which would be necessary for such a license. To further complicate things, many necessary skills are only acquired during parenthood and do not have to be present at birth of the child. 3. A "parenthood license" is impossible for practical reasons. How would people who have children without a license be punished? Would there be an abortion? Would there be a fine? What I am trying to say is, that such a law would be impossible to enforce. And a law that is unenforceable is worthless. Furthermore, there would be tremendous costs involved with such a procedure. Potentially even higher costs if you plan to check on parenting skills in regular intervalls after birth.
You should need a license to have children

We are all shocked by some of the stories we read in the media about negligence and abuse of children, it is one of the great evils of society, so what is the answer to the problem - a license. It wasn't very many years ago that one needed a license to own a dog of any kind here in the United Kingdom, you still need a license to drive a car, watch TV and own some animals. You need all manner of checks and qualifications to teach, work with and look after children... yet any individuals may have children with no regards to the consequences or impact upon those children or society. I propose that a test is introduced that will be a combination of means test and aptitude test. In the first instance the family or parent would be judged as to whether they have the means to support a further child, in the second instance that the are capable or looking after and raising the child. Those convicted of child abuse or cruelty would be automatically barred from having children, just as they would be barred from working with children. If one is convicted of animal cruelty then you can be banned from owning a pet or animals for a set period of time, so why do we treat the rights of children as less than those of an animal? there are stringent rules on adoption, so why not on natural parenthood?
Near Death Experience ( real )

I guess its like what came first the chicken or the egg, one would expect the brain to have changes in brain chemistry when under a lot of stress or trauma. Just because our brains are made out of chemicals does not mean we are not conscious beings,what did you expect to find inside the brain some sort of magic . The important points are that NDE are more Real than 'Real' a hallucination so vivid and real it seems more real than normal experience wouldnt be produced by a brain that is dying or damaged in such a way. NDEs are different than 'hallucinations' caused by drugs , lack of oxygen etc. All dying brains would experience hallucinations if it were a simple chemical process Why would our brain hallucinate spiritual experiences. Some NDE had higher levels of oxygen than normal but experience an NDE. Sam Parnia http://www.naiverealismandawakening.com... 'It has been suggested that the experiences are hallucinations, the result of disturbed brain chemistry caused by medication, lack of oxygen or changes in carbon dioxide levels. But Dr Parnia said there was no difference in oxygen levels or drug treatment between the heart attack survivors who had not had NDEs and those who had. "In fact, the four patients who met the criteria for a true NDE actually had higher oxygen levels," he added. He said the recollections were not like hallucinations because they were "highly structured, narrative, easily recalled and clear". He added: "During cardiac arrest, brainstem activity is rapidly lost. It should not be possible to sustain such lucid processes or allow the formation of lasting memories. In closing We can only debate about something we both really cant explain .
Near Death Experience ( real )

This is my adversaries claims, and I will offer rebuttals.(1) All NDES are not caused by lack of oxygen.I agree, and I was not meaning to say that this is the only cause. I was showing how it could occur as your body starts to shut down at death. This is not a subjective view, when you start to die your bodies chemical levels drop which can cause hallucinations. There are a multitude of facts that could cause this to happen, and lack of oxygen is just one. As I showed with my prior sources, NDES occurs when they body is in extreme pain or harm 95 percent of the time. Anything that could invoke chemical fluctuations or produce an extreme lack of oxygen could invoke an NDE.(2) NDES occur all the time and all of the world so it must be true.This is illogical, and makes no sense to offer as credit. If we looked at this as true, anything that schizophrenic people are seeing would be deemed as reality. Just because people claim to see something does not make it true, there has to be evidence to support it. In closing My adversary has still offered no facts to support his theory. He has just offered evidence out of personal opinion with no backbone to it. Until he is able to present a case to support that the occurrences are real, I think the most logical conclusion is to assume they are caused by our bodies shutting down. Thank you
Near Death Experience ( real )

Yes i have read the neurological 'evidence' which are really just a bunch of theories of what may cause a near death experience , or explanations for a near death experience showing that the brain may be able to produce some of the affects of an NDE by physiological means but not at all are they as vivid or complete as a real NDE. because chemistry causes hallucination doesnt explain NDE otherwise why would people all experience the same hallucination. Lack of oxygen theories as well you would expect all people that have suffered lack of oxygen to their brain to experience NDE if the medical theory is correct however we dont see that. So when someone has a NDE and they have a lack of oxygen in their brain scientists say it was a hallucination caused by lack of oxygen, when someone has a NDE that wasnt caused by lack of Oxygen then the scientists will have to use another excuse or theory to explain an NDE , there are at least 20 theories on why scientists believe NDE are caused by scientific reasons but there are so many explanations because at the end of the day they dont know exactly what causes and NDE or how to explain it scientifically .
Near Death Experience ( real )

Saying something is true because there is information to support it is illogical. Anyone can claim to have evidence for something, but you did not even show the source to prove it. There are so many different things that have tests and experiments ran on them to show they are true, but there is always someone working on a counter hypothesis as well. Take evolution for example. There are hundreds of tests and variables that go into to help show that it is a fact. There is no way to say for certain because we were not there to witness, but we can draw a logical conclusion by all the evidence that is supporting it. So even if you were to make the claim that an NDE is supported by evidence, there would more than likely be a study that refutes it also showing it is false. To even approach it from this angle you would have to offer some source are argument. Stating it is true just because you believe so is not a debate. It is merely asserting your personal opinion. Since you did not offer a point to refute I will simply offer one and explain in very briefly. The scientific explanation for an NDE is that when the brains huts down your chemicals will act differently. Blood will slow down, and oxygen levels will drop as your party is starting to die off. The body will then sometimes sent a jolt trying to prevent this which interferes with your nervous system allowing you to see memories or things that are not really there. That is an extremely short version, and I do mean extremely short. I was going to offer up evidence with neurological science to support it, but I will hold that off until you present evidence to support your theory. It would be useless to write an entire paragraph siting sources, if you do not offer up points as well. So this one point will suffice for the time In closing I have shown that my adversary has literally offered no evidence to support his claim and has just offered a theory based on personal opinion. I have shown how an NDE can happen as your body starts to die. In the end it is evidence vs opinion. Thank you http://www.npr.org... http://scitechdaily.com...
In order to achieve peace in the Middle East the U.S. must stop completely supporting Israel.

I am arguing that the United States must try to decrease its biased support of Israel and try to create real peace between the Israelis and Palestinians which will end the oppression of the Palestinians and create a fair solution for both nations. Before I begin, I would like to say that I am not against an Israeli state. I think that Israel deserves its own state, regardless of the fact that it was unfair for it to be placed where other people had been living for centuries… The United States' support for Israel is helping to create an unbalance in the Middle East which is making peace impossible to achieve. Although I do not condone terrorism of any kind, I also do not condone the control that Israel is exercising over the Palestinian people. The extremists basically have no choice except to use terrorism to scare Israel. Obviously, this does not help the peace process because the United States and Israel generalize that these terrorists represent the whole Arab population. (I'm not going to get into the links or lack thereof between Islam and terrorism; that's another debate..) In 1967, the Israeli army defeated the Arab armies in six days. Its army is not only stronger, but it is backed financially by the United States, and is given resources by the United States. All of this is common knowledge. It would be impossible for it to be overthrown. If the United States continues to back Israel the way it has, peace will not be achieved because the anger of Palestinian extremists will continue to grow, causing Israel to tighten its security more and more and continue to oppress the Palestinian people. Currently, Israel is building the separation wall around the West Bank inside of where the official line was declared by the United Nations. It is colonizing inside of Palestinian land and driving Palestinian people from their homes. It is creating roadblocks inside of the Palestinian territory which is making life for the Palestinians extremely difficult. With checkpoints, Palestinians are humiliated and often not even allowed to cross to get to the most basic and essential locations. All of this is simply unfair and needs to stop. The United States is only promoting this by supporting Israel 100 %. With the Iraq war, its relations with the Arab people are getting worse and worse. This is not good for the United States. We need to support both nations, discourage terrorism and Israeli oppression, and encourage diplomatic negotiations. Thanks to whoever takes this debate, I look forward to it. Good luck!
Animal testing should be banned

Hello! Thank you for accepting the debate! It is a big honor to debate with you! Your arguments are strong. However, there are another argument that animal testing is beneficial for us. Testing on animals it is important to mention that animal organs are the most adaptable to human body for transplantation. So it does not destroy a genetic structure, as a result we have various successful surgeries. According to Batul Nafisa Baxamusa, (2010), such surgeries like coronary bypass surgery and heart transplantation came to existence because of experiments on dogs. Furthermore, such serious diseases like polio, rubella, chicken pox can be treated and controlled by carrying out testing on animals. Moreover, Batul Nafisa Baxamusa says that, on DNA level, chimpanzees' body matches up with humans' in 90%. This big number facilitates successful surgeries and transplantations because of similar inner organs of chimpanzees and pigs with human's organs. According to University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC), liver from baboon was successfully transplanted to a 35 year- old man in June 1992. This case was the first known transplantation from animal to human. In addition organs and genetic structure of such animals like rats, horses, dogs, mice, monkeys are similar to human beings, which can be also used for open heart surgeries and transplantations. As a result of animal use we have many saved lives. In spite of opinion that using animals for people's curing is wrong, we cannot deny that fact that annually millions of animals killed for food, they are used for agriculture, hunted for a pleasure of people and even euthanized. (Natalie Kustcher, n. d). So using animals for saving people's lives and treating them, by using their organs in surgeries, is not the worst deal. To conclude, there is a strong opinion that using creatures for experiments gives us more reliable results, however animal protectors like you think that it is a cruel and unethical thing. Advocates of animal testing say that, outcomes of testing on animals are the most credible. The proportion of successful cases goes beyond 70%. Moreover, such an important thing like testing drugs on beasts has saved and keeps saving millions of people. Due to experiments on animals medicine made a big step forward and found cure to some horrible, infection diseases. Besides, not only testing drugs, transplantation is also very important. Nowadays it is possible to make open heart surgeries, coronary bypass surgeries and transplant healthy organs to humans in order to save people's lives. Nevertheless you claim that using animals for humans' benefits is merciless and awful?! After examining all these given arguments it seems obvious that all debates on this issue will continue until opponents will understand all importance of animal testing in medicine and advocates will find the alternative which can replace them.
Rap Battle

My opponent states his rap's meant to be read out loudBut with so much comas it ain't possible, ain't allowedHe tried somethin' different but he failedHe's paintin' his argument with his hands nailed He got nothing left in his brainFeelin' far too much painHe still got terrible rhymes in his rapThat only electricute him back--ZAP!He's tryin' his hardest to gain back his honor But I'm afraid he's as good as a gonerGonna die a tragic death here and now You're the true guy who's gonna bow Indeed, these are the final wordsLook at my opponent--I cut him into thirdsEvery single round I slashed and beat himHis ultimate demise is so grimThis was a good debate, yes,And I hope the voters have a good day, god blessThey'd better vote for me, the true rapperFor my opponent has fell and splatter'd
Rap Battle

Thanks for the last round...this round of mine is a little...different. Lol good luck. That last round had to be a joke, am I right? Or are you really about to go down minus a fight? I just peaked, Call me Everest, I stand tall You look weak, take a rest, you don't belong in Nepal* I know you like trolling, so that's gotta be it, You failed if your goal was to be seen as legit, Yeah, I'm number one, give up, it'll be easy to quit They call you "number two" cuz you're a pile of sh*t This kid calls himself a God, with a capital G Not only did he lose-that's called blasphemy I'll give you a hint; why him I don't believe: How could he be a God if he's bowing to me? I'll take your explosive pie, and shove it in your face It'll blow your head so hard it'll end up in "9 space" It'll float for days until you finally, gradually pass away And "Sheen" will keep it as a perfect picture of "second place" You lost. I won. Give up. You're done: So get a rope, tie it to your neck, around your throat Tie it to my barn, get on all fours, and wait and hope, I come back with a carrot when you get lonely, Yeah, cuz you're gonna be MY little pony *For all those who don't know, Mt Everest is in Nepal