BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Breast Implants

Thank you for making this debate, and i'm proud to be apart of it. you said "they send out the wrong image to young individuals especially females." However many people closely follow celebrities because they have large breasts regardless of whether or not they have implants, and through growing up humans learn it's good to be themselves, and many celebrities such as Oprah say this[1]. In no way do I think that not having breat implants make people feel worse about themselves, in fact under 5% of U.S. women have breast implants so it's normal to not have implants[2]. In addition Studies have shown that breast implants can help boost self-esteem, body image, and sexual satisfaction[3], which is great and you even said "In my opinion everyone should be happy and keep their own body and only train to make it better" and I agree with the happy part, but what do you mean why keep their own body? I think people should with a right to change their body which piercing, tattoos, hair cut, hair coloring, breast implants etc. and when you modify your breasts you in no way/shape/from do you lose your body, and you can train to make it better but you can't easily change your breast, and breast implants allow you to do that. Finally breast impacts create legal and taxed jobs which aids the economy. Sources: [1] http://www.oprah.com... [2] http://www.pacificheightsplasticsurgery.com... [3] http://www.webmd.com...
Is adoption reform an important and urgent issue.

"Unborn children have the right to live"Actually they don't. The only laws protecting them are ones relevant to the mother and her agency over her body in most countries. In other words, in countries that outlaw abortions it's outlawed to abort the fetus, not a 'right' of the fetus to live that saves them. Proof is in the idea that you are born 0 years months and days old as opposed to legally being of the age of 9 months or so."adoption affords choice to the mother."Okay but how does this lead to one concluding that the concept that the adoption system and foster care system needs to be reformed and important and urgent issue?"Consent to unprotected sex is consent to pregnancy."Let's ignore when people accidentally poke a hole in the condom and cases like not taking the pill often enough or one's biology reacting with the pill in a strange way that lets them still get pregnant. Even if we focus on cases where the unprotected sex was intentionally so and even if the guy didn't even try to pull out it still leads to there being an issue of a baby that is not going to be properly cared for financially or emotionally, in other words a guaranteed unhappy being that is going to be a drain on the economy via child welfare and potentially be thrown into foster care. You argue that we need to reform adoption and the foster care system but doesn't abortion completley negate your point? Your entire case relies on us inherently thinking abortion is the worst solution out of the options and that adoption is the best but you have yet to prove this and as you are on the side of Proposition, the burden of proof is on you."I hear what prochoicers are saying and have already contacted legislators about adoption reform. Easy? Hell no. I almost conceived a baby and would have chosen adoption. Worth it? Yes."Look, as you should know I am not the father figure who abused you as a child and what happened to you is extremely traumatic and can easily still be affecting you to this day. The fact that you personally regret aborting the child and would have rather it had been born and given up for adoption is your personal issue, no matter how justifiable and severe. Your personal mistake and regret you feel due to it is not proof that adoption reform is an important and urgent issue.
Is adoption reform an important and urgent issue.

Unboprn children have the right to live, and adoption affords choice to the mother. I was wrong about the birth control, I looked it up, but people otherwise have the right to live. Consent to unprotected sex is consent to pregnancy, and birth control counts. I am not going to judge abortion patients but feel adoption is life affirming. I hear what prochoicers are saying and have already contacted legislators about adoption reform. Easy? Hell no. I almost conceived a baby and would have chosen adoption. Worth it? Yes. Tell me your problems with adoption, and I will address them. Stay tuned.
Is adoption reform an important and urgent issue.

Okay so I'm going to be coming at you (Pro) from many angles. You have a lot of holes in your case and I will be exploiting all of them. It is important that you understand that I am coming at you from many angles and that all my points will rarely connect, they are separate angles not many of the same angle.For this debate, R0= Round 0 etc etc. It's easier to type and faster to read.The semantic angle of observing the definition of 'adoption reform' in Pro's R1 requires us to observe that Pro defined adoption reform as the concept of the system needing to be reformed and not the actual reforming implementation or even planning in itself. A concept is not an important or urgent issue by default."I don't want children, but being the mother of a dead baby would have broken my heart." We get it, you're pro-life. "We need to support the right of rape and spousal abuse victims to choose adoption without her abuser's consent." Please do englighten me as to how a rapist gets to consent or deny the adoption of the rape's child."The government needs to defund Planned Parenthood which does not provide prenatal care or adoption referal services, and fund adoption agencies secular or otherwise." Why does it need to pull money from Planned Parenthood to fund the latter? Can't it just tax more or take money from elsewhere?"We need to provide tax credits to couples willing to adopt one person regardless of age." Why do we need to do that?"Let's offer adoption counseling instead of morning after pills that might cause abortions to rape victims, and finally affirm that Biblically (Job 3:3), scientifically, and otherwise, life begins at conception, and affirm the right of people to live. Let's make it easier to choose life unlike those 31 states which ascribe parental rights to rapists."What's the reason that we need to get rid of morning after pills? Why is being pro-life right and how is that relevant to the resolution?
Is adoption reform an important and urgent issue.

Adoption reform is the radical conmcept that the adoption system and foster care system needs to be reformed. Adoption reform matters to me because I had a pregnancy scare by my rapist and would have called Bethany Christian Services if I had conceived someone. I don't want children, but being the mother of a dead baby would have broken my heart. We need to support the right of rape and spousal abuse victims to choose adoption without her abuser s consent. The government needs to defund Planned Parenthood which does not provide prenatal care or adoption referal services, and fund adoption agencies secular or otherwise. We need to provide services for older children, and make it possible for legal adults to be adopted. We neeed to provide tax credits to couples willing to adopt one person regardless of age. Let's offer adoption counseling instead of morning after pills that might cause abortions to rape victims, and finally affirm that Biblically (Job 3:3), scientifically, and otherwise, life begins at conception, and affirm the right of people to live. Let'd mske it easier to choose life unlike those 31 states which ascribe parental rights to rapists.
That wearing hats and chewing gum should be legal in school

In PRO's first sentence he states: "Ok first off dont start changing my words around" however I have done no changing of words around, I have taken PRO's words and took them for exactly what they stand for. I have provided definitions that directly show this. My opponent also states: "first of all there are very little people who snap their gum", however PRO has provided no evidence that this is true. Where as on this page [1] you see that there are actually quite a few examples of people that snap their gum. My opponent also makes the point that: "hats are awesome to wear" I will not deny this. There is nothing wrong with wearing hats, however this not only does not provide and strong backing to PRO's point but does nothing to rebut the points I made of hats being able to hide people's eyes and possibly even headphones depending on the hat. School is an environment that is meant to be used for learning. It is not a location used for public expression of beliefs or ideals and that like. Whether wearing a hat is awesome or not should not effect whether or not you can wear them in school. My opponent also states: "And when i said gay i meant really stupid.". However even when you use the definition of "really stupid" you are in fact insulting a part of society. Many people that are gay would take ill towards your remark of gay meaning really stupid. Secondly my definition's from the first round still stand as there is no definition for the word gay of "really stupid" Finally my opponent made the statement that CON should: "go outside for a change instead answering debates all the time". However in all sense i go outside very often. For example: 1)I played tennis on Monday (korashk[2] can be a reference to this) 2)Last fall i was number 2 singles (second best on the team) on my school's varsity tennis team. (again korask can reference this) 3)Up until freshman year i had played baseball for 8 years. 4)I am an avid biker and will be competing in a duathlon this summer. 5)I own a Honda 520 quad which is used quite frequently Also I have really not accepted all that many debates. I have been on the sight for 4 months and have only completed 6 debates. There are far more people that have accepted more. Once again korashk can be used as a reference for this. as he has been on the sight for the same amount of time and has completed 35 debates. Next time you blatantly attack someone in one of your points be sure you can back it up. [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2]http://tinyurl.com...
That wearing hats and chewing gum should be legal in school

Ok first off dont start changing my words around ok it pisses me off. first of all there are very little people who snapp their gum and hats are awsome to wear because lets say you get a bad hair cut and you try to wear a hat but you cant how would you feel exactly. and gum is proven to relieve stress if your are taking a test. And when i said gay i meant really stupid. And why dont you go outside for a change instead answering debates all the time
That wearing hats and chewing gum should be legal in school

In schools student are meant to be in a learning environment. The wearing of hats and the chewing of gum not only disrupts this learning environment but makes learning very difficult for some people. Many people that chew gum simply dont chew it. They will snap and pop it constantly driving anyone around them crazy. This creates an environment in which if a teacher was trying to get a lesson across many student would be distracted by the snapping of gum. On the subject of wearing hats in school it is highly reasonable to ban wearing hats. Hats can not only make hiding headphones an easier job but also the bill can be used to hide someone's eyes in the case of either 1) cheating or 2) being high. Both of which are something that schools try very hard to prevent. ---------- Rebuttal ---------- My opponent states: "because it is really gay that we cant" however this directly counteracts the point that you are trying to back. Gay is by definition: happily excited [1] or the sorts, however my opponent is PRO therefore he is for wearing hats and chewing gum so the banning of hats can not be gay to him. My opponent will likely take to point that he was referring to the homosexual definition of the word. However how can banning the wearing of hats and the chewing of gum be homosexual. Homosexual is defined as: of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex. I ask how banning something can be a sexual desire towards the same sex. [1]. http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2]. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Jesus Christ is God

Firstly I'd like to apologize for the lack of clarity in my initial argument, but this debate was initially set up for me to argue with someone who challenged me on Facebook and who had already set out their beliefs. However they never showed so the debate was left open and you obviously took up the challenge. I am arguing against the notion of Christs divinity. I am accepting, for the sake of the argument, that Jesus was an historical figure, but am proposing that he was not an incarnate deity, the son of a deity, or even in communication with a deity, but rather was a mortal human being. However, even the historicity of Jesus is in question, as no remains have ever been found and very few (if any) contemporary sources outside of the Bible mention his existence. Of course, Christ's historicity is irrelevant to his divinity (although proven historicity would be a step towards proven divinity). After all, the fact that we have proof that Tutankhamun existed doesn't prove that he (or any other Pharaoh) was an incarnate deity. In order to justify accepting the historicity of Jesus but not his divinity or any kind of divine attributes associated with him I would refer to the theory put forth by the 13th Century Icelandic historian/politician Snorri Sturluson, who suggested that mythological gods started off as historical figures who developed a cult following after death that evolved into deification. Obviously, in this case, as belief in God occurred before Jesus existed, that theory would have to be extended to include the possibility that Jesus, after his death, because his teachings were so closely related to belief in God, became synonymous with God. This would be further suggested by the fact that the radical changes to the religion that would eventually become Christianity in it's various forms occurred because of Christ and these changes in many ways setting him up as the deity of a new religion (after all, Christians use Christ's name more often than Yahweh's). Merry Christmas to you too by the way.
Specific faith schools should be banned.

Thank you for your advice, but I'll debate any way I want to. Let me ask you something. Do you think that in a Christian only school, the students would be taught that God designed and created the universe? I think it's reasonable to assume that this is the case. Now, can you tell me why they should be allowed to teach that? That is not fact. That is opinion. School is for teaching facts. But school is also a very special time in a child's life when they can mix with other children. Children from different backgrounds, races and faiths. This is an opportunity that is denied to students of a faith school. One final point, if it's ok with your incredible standard of debating. Do you think it's fair that in the USA and UK, Islamic faith schools are allowed to be built, pretty much unchallenged, due to concerns of political correctness? But I wonder how far someone would get when trying to create a Christian school in a country like Iraq, Iran or Afghanistan?
Specific faith schools should be banned.

Mate you need to make arguments to support your resolution and you haven't done that. I'll start us off. Unless the religion they are learning is inherently bad then this resolution falls This is for a few reasons. Since the child is going to be indoctirnated with the faith at home, religious education at school only complements this thing. This argument is based on the assertion that any religious school is focused around either Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. Any child coming from a household that is religious enough to want to send them to a religious private school will be overwhelemed with religious influence no matter what, but i believe that religious influence is a good thing. Specific faith schools don't turn kids into slobering mindless robots If a child is going to be brain washed then that will happen before they even start going to school. But these faith schools allow children to recieve a much more nuanced approach to their religion, done by many proffesers, instead of whatever their parents want them to believe. These schools give children who come from strictly religious households a wider look at their faith. And I ask my opponent to not just write his debate in one paragraph, and to label all his arguments and rebuttals (just a hunch)
Specific faith schools should be banned.

You are indeed correct that faith schools, those in the Western world anyway, are all privately funded. But that is not my issue here. My argument is a very simple one, but one that I feel demands some questioning. .. . It's ok for schools to teach students about religion. But it is wrong to teach them religion. Meaning that an overview of different religions and how different people have different beliefs is fine. But teaching any student, even in the Middle Eastern countries, that a certain religion is "right" is completely unacceptable and should be banned.
Specific faith schools should be banned.

There's a big difference between teaching music and drama and teaching kids that the world was created in 6 days. Even you will have to admit that, I think. Music, Drama, Maths and English are subjects with real world applications, but teaching that Jesus turned some water into wine is laughable. How could that (wrong) information help in a child's later life? It's incredibly obvious to someone with any basic scientific knowledge that this is impossible. In Muslim schools, I'm fairly certain that students will be taught that whatever it says it the Quran is right and everything else is wrong. I'm simply making the point that schools should teach the same things to everyone. It's not right for certain fundamental principals to go ignored and certain falsities to be taught as facts. I'd also like to add, that you are incredibly rude. I'm trying to question a really sensitive issue here, but you seem more concerned with correcting my debating technique.
Specific faith schools should be banned.

Mate, I suggested format for you, not me. You've dropped both my arguments. If you want to post your opinion there's forums for that, in a debate you need to clearly outline what you are talking about and tell us when you are dealing with what your opponent says. If you want me to deal with your rhetorical questions then read my arguments, they talk about how faith schools help a child who has over-the-top religious parents. You've brought two actual arguments in your last speech. "But school is also a very special time in a child's life when they can mix with other children. Children from different backgrounds, races and faiths. This is an opportunity that is denied to students of a faith school." This is not true. At a faith school they still meet children with varying backgrounds and races....just because you are Antarctican doesn't mean you can't be a Christian or a Muslim. But you're right in the sense that a kid at a faith school doesn't get to meet children from other religions, that's what extracurricular activities are for. There is enough diversity in a faith school that the kid will grow up wary of many demographs, pursuing friendships with kids of other religions can happen in their spare time. " That is not fact. That is opinion. School is for teaching facts." So English, parenting, native studies, drama, art, music, and band, should be outlawed? Everything taught in school except math is an opinion and an interpretation....oh wait even math isn't just fact, Einsteins theories are being proven incorrect to this day...
John McCain should receive the Republican nomination instead of Mitt Romney.

Hello, jevan. Thank you for giving a response, and I forgive you for omitting, intentionally or not, the previous round. =) 1) Experience. "Mitt Romney has EXPERIENCE, while John McCain has EXPERIENCE and foreign policy experience. You need both, and I absolutely agree. We should not just pick someone from the state department." Mitt Romney has considerable experience from being a business leader and governor. John McCain has experience from being a senator. The difference is management, which is precisely what the president is elected to do: manage the country. Romney is correct when he says that the president does not have to be a foreign policy expert. Romney has clear and precise goals regarding his foreign policy, and since he understands true leadership, he knows how to implement them effectively. 2) Bipartisanship. Romney has a few goals that he is absolutely determined to accomplish. One is to continue the Iraq war until we win. McCain is in agreement with that, and there's little compromising on that subject. Second, the economy. Romney is fully committed to making the tax cuts permanent, as well as hopefully lowering taxes more. He understands the economy more than any other candidate. He understands it so well that compromising with the democrats would be a complete mistake. He does know where it is appropriate. He took a topic doomed for failure and he turned it into a conservative topic. That topic being healthcare. It sweeped the Massachusetts senate with no fire from either side. I've elaborated as much as I could concerning McCain-Reingold. The bill itself is against the constitution because it abolishes free-speech within 60 days of the election. A president upholds the constitution, so for McCain to support a bill like that is not good. 3) Flip-flopping. "The point is he still flip flopped. How can you trust to not flip flop on other issues." I've shown why he did not, in fact, flip-flop. And key issues are dominantly the economy and the war in Iraq, both of which McCain has been questionable on. McCain was shown wrong, even after years of experience in which he should have known better, that lower taxes do stimulate the economy. He is running for president, and now, he must concede that he was wrong. And I actually didn't state that McCain used negative tactics. I quoted a spokesman of Romney's campaign. 4) Education. Like I've said before, with great education comes great decision-making abilities. Despite that Reagan may not have had an outstanding education, Reagan was an exception because of his enormous leadership capabilities and charisma. Romney has both of those, and as a very big added bonus, a very valuable education. In closing, thank you for the debate. I have demonstrated Romney's wealth of knowledge, clear and precise goals, experience dealing with very successful businesses and political management, and his great leadership capabilities. Mitt Romney is nearly synonymous with "presidency." I have demonstrated why, if Romney were to be elected, he would be an outstanding president.