BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Children have the right to their own religion

Thank you for your input. First off, my first "argument" wasn't much of an argument, it was merely a statement to get things started. Second, Con claims that there is no way to "force" a child to follow a certain religion. This is not true. While the child may not believe in the religion itself, the parents can make the child abide by the rules the religion contains. For example, if the parents are Catholic, they will punish the child for eating meat at school on a Friday during Lent. Con also claimed that physical and emotional abuse are illegal. This is true to an extent, but not wholly. Corporal punishment is still legal within the United States. While it is true that a parent cannot whip a child with a belt anymore, spanking or slapping the child is completely legal. There are even worse methods of physical punishment, and they are "legal" as long as no marks show. Also, the parents can take away the child's privileges, like watching television or using the Internet. I understand that this does not "force" the child to follow the religion, but the child should not be punished if he/she is doing nothing that today's society sees unfit. Thirdly, Con argued that children are incapable of making rational decisions on their own, like smoking or voting. This is completely true, even to the extent of teenagers. But drinking, smoking, and job accepting have something in common, they all will affect your future in great proportions. Choosing your religions has no direct effect on anything that will determine your future. You may argue that becoming a priest is a future for the child, but if said child has doubts on his religion than becoming a priest probably is not the best career choice. I was born into a Christian family, and I also wanted to become an architect. At age 13, I became atheist, and now I am a very successful architect. Your religion may have small effects upon your life, but there is also the possibility that it has no effect what so ever. I would greatly appreciate it if Con would elaborate on the "certain age to hold office" idea. Lastly, I would like to to point out the Children's Bill of Rights. It is a legal document, ratified by seven countries, including the United States. Section I, article 3 states "Children have the right to form their own views in matters of conscience and religion."(Children's Bill of Rights). I understand that no one can make you believe one thing or another, but it is the right of the children to be able to follow their religion, including rules and rituals, without the direct intervention of parents. This is why I urge voters to choose Pro.
Children have the right to their own religion

Great! I'll get right to it. Pro only offers a single piece of reasoning for his argument, and it is flawed on many levels. Pro quotes the Declaration of Independence, a document that has no bearing on our legal structure. It does represent some of the intent and ideas that the founders held when creating our nation, remember though, that while the Declaration was signed in 1776 the Constitution, the body of laws that our nation is founded on, was not ratified until 1787, more than ten years later. The constitution does state that one must be a certain age in order to hold public office. This is important as it implies that anyone younger than that age is unfit to hold a position of such high responsibility. Children, especially young children are incapable of making rational decisions on their own. That is why we have a legal age limit for nearly every form of responsibility, from getting a job, to driving, from drinking and smoking to voting. Pro's argument also falls into the category of what is a parent allowed to do with their children. We already have many laws that protect children from abuse. Telling a child that they must go to church every Sunday, say a prayer before a meal, and all the other little ceremonies that go along with the parents chosen religion is hardly abuse. Lastly, it is impossible to actually "force" someone to believe something without completely damaging their psyche through either physical or emotional abuse, both of which are already illegal.
Ban All Individuals Who Have Used Violence to Further a Political Cause, From Standing for Election

Thank you for your responses and this debate, I have had a great time debating over this topic. "If you can prove to me that there are less harms to people on your side than my side, than you can win the debate." Keep in mind, that my central goal of this debate is to simply win it. While convincing you that violence is an acceptable political tool is ideal, my first goal is to win the actual debate. "I think, however, that all your points fall when I can prove to you that there are less harms on my side of the debate when you prevent violent people from standing for an election as at least a few of these inevitably violent people will perhaps be prevented from doing so due to the threat of them being unable to enforce that political ideology due to the fact that they are unable to stand for an election. What is your response to that?" I am not going to lie, it is true that harm will come of people using violence to further a political cause. But, I wish to ask the question, what happens when a violent person cannot let their violence flow through a political idea? The truth is that because these people are inevitably violent, their own violence will flow through another medium. Would it be preferable to have someone who stalks and murders random people to satisfy the hunger for violence? No, of course it is much better to have some one let their violence flow through a cause, that way their violence serves a greater purpose than the individual. It is a choice of lesser of two evils. Also what do you mean by the "threat" to not be able to stand election? You have proved yourself that violence is a part of human nature if people have to threaten others to stay out of politics. Violence will be and always has been a tool used to further political ends. Having a person not be able to stand election if they use violence leads to retaliation of more violence. We know this because if someone is using the legal system to obtain election, then they still have at least the smallest shred of respect for it. Thank you for this debate, and I encourage everyone to re evaluate their own ideals based on what has transacted now between pro and con.
Ban All Individuals Who Have Used Violence to Further a Political Cause, From Standing for Election

Sorry for the delay in replying Schopenhauer, I have been quite busy lately! Anyway, back to the debate: I think, however, that all your points fall when I can prove to you that there are less harms on my side of the debate when you prevent violent people from standing for an election as at least a few of these inevitably violent people will perhaps be prevented from doing so due to the threat of them being unable to enforce that political ideology due to the fact that they are unable to stand for an election. What is your response to that? If you can prove to me that there are less harms to people on your side than my side, than you can win the debate. At this point, however, I fail to see it.
Ban All Individuals Who Have Used Violence to Further a Political Cause, From Standing for Election

Rebuttal: please stare how violence has ever solved anything? Surely even if politics today is a game of lies it is better than a potential LOSS OF LIFE and the associated repercussions of violence. Yes, violence is open but is it good to see people dying or being hurt because of a political cause that a certain individual or group believe in? On to my substantive: that such people should not be allowed to stand for election as they are unfit for power. So far, ALL the examples you have used have been from ancient times/ the Middle Ages and we have now become a much more civilised people. You cannot say violence is inevitable and we should let it happen because through this motion we set to PREVENT this violence so that these individuals will be put off and will be more likely to gain power through legal methods if they want a chance of standing for election. This, I feel outweighs your points because you are just telling us to accept the status quo when I am actually providing a SOLUTION FOR IT. Also, could please care to prove to me how what Gerry Adams or Abraham Lincoln's violent actions can be justified and how they should have been allowed to continue being violent? You haven't responded to that point of rebuttal. On a side note: THANK YOU! This debate is proving really interesting! :)
Ban All Individuals Who Have Used Violence to Further a Political Cause, From Standing for Election

Violence in politics is inevitable. Most people just make insults, mud slinging, power plays, and bribes to sugar coat it. Why is this so much worse than using violence? At least with violence the problem is quickly solved and does not drag on unecessarily. With violence, problems are resolved. Politics of now simply rot away a society, seeminly make politics a game of lies where those who lie inherit the throne of lies and so on. Idiots who know how to cajole people and pull strings run countries, rather than those who prove themeselves throug the fires of conflict. Violence, when used to further politial ends, is a tool like any other. Why lie and cheat when you can be open about your force and power? When Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon, he declared war on a country much like all of ours today. The republic was a disease that needed to be cleaned off by force and conflict. Of course, if the republic had not been corrupted it would be a superior government to the empire, but it was corrupt. Our governments today have not reached this point of corruption, a point of reckoning. The purity of violence is that it is open. It conceals nothing. Has the web of lies and cheaters of politics been better I might ask? Now i will illustrate key points.1. Violence is a tool like any other- the first step to accepting violence to further a political cause, (NOT INDIVIDUALS) is accepting that violence is a tool. It is a tool just like lies, gossip, mud slinging and other politicsl machinations.2. Violence is a human instinct- perhaps the most convincing arguement for violence is that is part of human nature. It is an instinct, and a healthy one that needs to be let put in small increments lest you be overwhelmed. It is unavoidable, and even if politics did not use violence, then it would be let out in another way for better or worse.3. American leaders have used violence- the founding fathers used violence to free themeselves from Britain. There was no other way to ensure and secure freedom. If they had not, then who knows what the kings domination would have led to. Freedom is often obtained through violence by political leaders, why is this bad?4. Sometimes violence is the only way- often times violence is inevitable, it cannot be helped.I don not believe violence to be fundementally wrong. Violence ismingrained in our own planet whith hurricanes, tornadoes, and earthquakes. It is lart of every species, and will be long after our own is gone. Also, violence is acceptable. It is natural, and hopefully is delivered in small increments so as not to be overwhelming.
Ban All Individuals Who Have Used Violence to Further a Political Cause, From Standing for Election

I will begin with my primary argument: that those leaders who feel that their primary way for furthering their political cause should be violence are not fit to stand for election. By allowing such leaders to promote their ideologies when they have done something fundamentally wrong in the first place gives the underlying message that it is an acceptable thing to do and this should not be the case under any circumstances. We should deny any individuals who have done this from having a chance to run for government to ban those sorts of people from becoming political leaders and subsequently allowing their ideas to be enforced within a country which we believe is fundamentally a problem and will have long term repercussions. In response to a comment: could Abraham Lincoln have achieved his goals without violent means? How about Gerry Adams? Would this have had a better impact on their country in the long term if they had not done this? I believe that if they had used legitimate means for obtaining power it would have had a better Impact on their country and reduced violence as the citizens of that country would not think that violence is a legitimate form of getting your message across. Thank you.
Ban All Individuals Who Have Used Violence to Further a Political Cause, From Standing for Election

I will not be posting an argument first, as i believe the honor belongs to pro first, rather i will be making a statement declaring my ideas. I believe that violence is a valuable tool, though not at all the best or first option for furthering a greater political belief, and i will be attempting to primarily argue that those who use violence should be allowed to stand election but as my secondary goal i will attempt to have pro at least understand my position.
The Oklahoma Sooners were the best football program of the 2000-2010 decade.

During this era, Oklahoma won Big 12 Conference championships in 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2010, a combined 7 Big 12 Conference Championships. The Sooners played in 4 BCS National Championship Games. In 2000 they won against Florida State in Florida. In 2003 they lost to LSU by 7 points in Louisiana. In 2004 they lost to Southern California who later forfeited the victory for cheating. In 2008 they lost to Florida in Florida. They are the only program to have played in 4 BCS National Championship Games. The next best played in 2. The question; does it make a difference playing at home? Ask the Sooners' very opponents. During this era, Oklahoma only lost 3 times in a decade at home. Would LSU or Florida have beaten the Sooners in Oklahoma? We will never know. And this is no strike of luck. Texas , of the Big 12, played in 2 National Championships in this era. Texas was known for having a top ten recruiting class nationally often during this stretch. Texas won 2 Big 12 Titles. Oklahoma won 7. The level of competition only accentuates what the Sooners have accomplished. I couldn't find exact stats from 2000-2010, but from 2000-2011, they've played 41 games against conference opponents that were ranked among the AP top 25, including 14 against top 10 foes. In 2007, OU knocked off No. 1-ranked Missouri in the Big 12 Championship game at San Antonio. www.soonersports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=31000&ATCLID=208368308
The Oklahoma Sooners were the best football program of the 2000-2010 decade.

In 2003 Antonio Perkins set the NCAA record for most punt returns for touchdowns in a single game, with three, as well as most punt return yards in a game with 277, against UCLA in 2003. He is tied with Wes Welker and Ted Ginn, Jr. for most punt return touchdowns in a career, in NCAA history, with eight. As a junior in 2003. Sam Bradford played college football at Oklahoma and as a redshirt sophomore, Bradford became only the second sophomore to win the Heisman Trophy. During the November 24, 2007 game against the Oklahoma State Cowboys, Bradford broke the NCAA freshman record of 29 touchdowns by passing his 30th touchdown to Joe Jon Finley during the second quarter. In week 8 of the following season against Kansas, Bradford surpassed quarterback coach Josh Heupel's school record for passing yards in a single game with 468 yards. Bradford led the Sooners to their third straight Big 12 Championship and defeated Missouri 62"21. In the process, the Sooners broke Hawaii's 2006 record for the most points in a single season with 702 points. Also, the Sooners were the first team in NCAA history who had scored 60 or more points in five straight games. https://en.m.wikipedia.org... During this era, Oklahoma won Big 12 Conference championships in 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010, combining for 7 conference titles in this stretch.
The Oklahoma Sooners were the best football program of the 2000-2010 decade.

No, Oklahoma was not the "winningest" division 1 college football program during this period. They were second behind Boise State. Boise State was not in a BCS conference. Oklahoma was the winningest "BCS" football program of the decade. Boise State played in the WAC against much inferior competition, having no automatic births, and had to hope for certain things to happen to get any BCS bowl consideration. Oklahoma played in 4 national championship games during this era in 2000, 2003, 2004, and 2008, more than any other program of that decade. Also, Oklahoma had more weeks ranked #1 in the BCS Poll than any program during this stretch. Oklahoma holds the record for most consecutive 60+ point games, scoring 60 or more points for five straight games in 2008. Oklahoma had 2 Heisman Trophy winners and 2 Heisman Trophy runner ups during this period. Jason White won it in 2003 and Sam Bradford won it in 2008. Josh Heupal was the runner up in 2000, and Adrian Peterson was the runner up in 2004. Worth noting, Jason White, finished 3rd in the Heisman voting in 2004 behind fellow Oklahoma Sooner, Adrian Peterson. During his freshman season at Oklahoma, Adrian Peterson broke several NCAA freshman rushing records, rushing for 1,925 yards and leading the nation in carries with 339. In each of the first nine games of the season, he rushed for more than 100-yards, which is a freshman record. The Oklahoma Sooners scored 716 points during the course of their 2008 season, setting an NCAA Division I record for most points scored in a single season. (Later broken by Florida State in 2013.) https://en.m.wikipedia.org... Oklahoma played in 4 national championship games during this time period. Worthy of mentioning, 3 of the 4 national championship games that Oklahoma played in were played in the home state of their opponent. Florida State vs. Oklahoma DateJanuary 3, 2001 Location:Pro Player Stadium, Miami Gardens, FL Date: January 4, 2004 Location: Louisiana Superdome in New Orleans, Louisiana. Florida vs. Oklahoma Date: January 8, 2008 Location: Dolphin Stadium, Miami Gardens, FL Reguarding to the 2005 BCS National Championship game between USC and Oklahoma, on June 10, 2010, USC was forced to vacate all games from December 2004 to the end of the 2005 season among other sanctions as the result of an NCAA investigation into the school's football and men's basketball programs. NCAA investigators released a report stating that a USC player, Reggie Bush, was ineligible beginning in December 2004. The NCAA ordered USC to vacate every win in which Bush appeared, including the 2005 Orange Bowl The 2005 Orange Bowl is the only BCS National Championship Game ever to be vacated by the winning team. Does this mean that Oklahoma actually won 2 national titles during this era? Officially, no. Unofficially, it's a matter of opinion. https://en.m.wikipedia.org...
The Oklahoma Sooners were the best football program of the 2000-2010 decade.

My arguments will be based off of 3 contentions. Contention 1 is: The Oklahoma Sooners didn't win the most national championships in 2000-2010According to the NCCA [1] during the 2000-2010 decade, the Division 1 Football National Champions were: 2010AuburnBCS2009AlabamaBCS2008FloridaBCS2007Louisiana StateBCS2006FloridaBCS2005TexasBCS2004Southern CaliforniaBCS2003Louisiana State, Southern CaliforniaBCS, AP, FWAA2002Ohio StateBCS2001Miami (Fla. )BCS2000OklahomaBCSOklahoma, won one national championship in the 2000-2010 decade. Whereas, Florida, Louisiana State, and and Southern California won two. Therefore Oklahoma wasn't the best team in College Football, if they didn't even win the most National Championships. Contention 2 is: Oklahoma didn’t have the best overall record in the 2000-2010 decade.
The Oklahoma Sooners were the best football program of the 2000-2010 decade.

Since becoming head coach, Stoops has won eight conference championships, while no other team in the Big 12 has more than three. Following the 2008 Season, ESPN ranked Oklahoma as the most prestigious college football program overall since the advent of the AP Poll in 1936. Oklahoma is one of two schools (Ohio State) to have appeared in all five BCS bowl games (2001 Orange, 2003 Rose, 2004 Sugar, 2007 Fiesta, 2009 BCS NCG) Oklahoma holds the NCAA record for the most points scored in a single season with 702 points through 12 games in the 2008 season (58.5 points per game). In the 2010 NFL Draft, Oklahoma became the only school in the history of the NFL Draft to have three players selected in the first four picks of the draft. https://en.m.wikipedia.org...
Technology will make capitalism obsolete

First, a definition of Capitalism, from Dictionary.com "an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth. " http://dictionary.reference.com... I think that this is a fairly reasonable definition of Capitalism, simply stating that property is owned and controlled by Private actors and not the Government. This will be crucial to my future arguments. Secondly, to address the final sentence of the first paragraph- It is quite unfounded to suggest simply that the advancement of 'technology' will somehow displace capitalism, for not only has your description of such technology been exceedingly vague, but you have shown a disregard for the sum of technological advance thus far in human history. Empirics show the contrary. The technological advancement of mankind has historically lead to market booms, as new technology opens new markets to competition and increases efficiency. Not once has this been adversarial to Capitalism in any more than retort. I have two responses to your universal access argument 1. In the US, there is near-universal access to potable water, the government provides all homeowners 'Tap' water, yet not only are there companies that provide bottled water, but they make a killing doing so. 2. Monitization and liquidation of assets is not required for a capitalist society. Simply private, or, individual ownership of them. What you've actually proven is that large organizations, and collective control ( Large, multinational corporations, Socialism, and perhaps the state itself ) as a way of administration will become obsolete with the rise in individual access to resources. Capitalism is unique in this regard as it can break down fully to the individual. The strengthening of the individual does not prove adversarial to capitalist society, merely does it alter it's process.