BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Regardless of maturity, The opinion of kids ( up to about 16 ) isn't taken seriously by most adults

CON'S ARGUMENTS Unfortunately, kids haven't gone out in the world enough to know enough. Most haven't worked a day in their lives. They base their opinion on textbooks rather than actual experience. Here is a real life example. I've been building houses for 30 years. My kid came with me to work and told me that I'm doing it all wrong and he could do it better. Should I take him seriously? COUNTER TO PRO'S ARGUMENTS A. We are all human. Pro claims we are all human so even kids should be taken seriously. Well, let me say that my 3 year old is human as well. Should I take him seriously? B. We care about the future. Kids are too caught up in playing, hanging out, drinking, and generally wasting time. They haven't worked a day in their lives. Here is an example. Visit a college kid's room. It's as if a bomb has blown up. Now visit a parent with a child. The house will be nice and clean. They won't disturb their neighbors. Who do you think cares about the future?
Regardless of maturity, The opinion of kids ( up to about 16 ) isn't taken seriously by most adults

As per the request made by against, Here are a few reasons kids should be taken seriouslyWe are humans.Like an adult, We are humans and do NOT appreciate being talked down to and ignored.What kind of world is it when it is fine to discriminate against an entire age group?Would you ignore your granny? We care about the future of the world.Whether or not adults generally care is a different question entirely but as kids don't need to worry about money,we can see the truth: the ways you adults are harming the environment and can come up with ways to counter that.Who will be alive in 60 Years time? Us.
Regardless of maturity, The opinion of kids ( up to about 16 ) isn't taken seriously by most adults

Pro is mixing up two different questions. The first question is whether or not adults ACTUALLY seriously consider kids' opinions. This is a question of fact. To answer this question, one needs to take a random sample pool of adults and calculate how many of them do or do not take adults seriously. The second question is whether or not adults SHOULD seriously consider kids' opinions. With this question, we need to weigh the pros and cons of seriously listening to what kids have to say and determine the best course of action. It's clear that Pro is trying to answer both these questions but due to the time constraints of this debate, let's assume the answer to the first question is true - kids' opinions aren't taken seriously. The debate shall center on whether kids SHOULD be taken seriously. As Con, I will posit that kids shouldn't be taken seriously.
Regardless of maturity, The opinion of kids ( up to about 16 ) isn't taken seriously by most adults

Over the next 3 rounds, I will show that the opinion of children up to around 16 is ignored by most adults.My first argument is that adults do not take into account the maturity of children.Yes, Some kids are immature and the majority of kids probably are.But what about the others?Kids who want to express their opinions should be able to have their opinions taken seriously.Here are some examples of kids that are more mature than their age:- I believe the above arguments prove that the opinions of kids are sometimes valuable and in the following arguments I will show how the opinions of kids are disprespected and give examples of times when the opinions of kids would have helpedP.S. This is my first debate, Please don't murder me.P.P.S. Please do not let my age Influence your decision
how to end islam

there is no peace without Islam. without Islam, you by default have: rape, murder, tyranny, pedophilia (Islam doe snot condone sex with minors** Aisha never had a kid**), political corruptness, selfishness, ignorance, bigotry, idiocy etc... The Quran says, "be sure to know the difference between a muslim and a man who only says he is one. and Be sure to know the difference between a christian and a false follower of that religion." For those people, who do not perfectly reflect God's disciples are not Religious, but are atheists who lack FAITH, regardless of having belief or not. ie. I lack belief in Jimmy. VS I lack faith in Jimmy. The proper application of the term faith** Islam is the definition of a peaceful society. That sit he only word in the human Language for The People of Heavenly Word Communities. Utopian is the political structure, but not the social aspect. Islam is Peaceful, but in order to live peacefully, you must purge the idiots, doushbags, corrupt and arrogant. that is not, anti-peaceful. Sometimes there is a worthless shitt-head promoting the abandonment of women and social inequality who deserves to have his head bashed in. Sometimes. Atheism glorifies corrupt perspectives to womanizers, criminals, lazy doushbags etc... with complete disregard fro the 7 billion man population. And Islam is the cure fro all atheistic conflicts of society and the heart.
how to end islam

Yet the contrary to Islam is not peace. Islam is anti-corruption, selfishness, perversion, indulgence etc... anything within the boundaries of Not being Peace-Inspiring is not Islam. IN fact, anything which suggest passivism towards Conflict is not Islam. BUT, as for removing the Sword from the stone I thought that was a science-society term talking about perpetual motion. you know, thousands of years ago people talking about mechanical devices and making one that runs itself. perpetual motion, Automatons. Fawk it. I'm right. The King Rules over all.
Resolved: Ireland Does not Exist

Thank you for coming to this debate. I'm happy to see you all.Now, allow me to explain my position.Ireland started as an Internet joke when the Internet was invented in 1783. People in the UK had come up with this story about a land where all things ended up when you couldn't find them. For example, your writing utensils, your keys, your wedding ring, your wife's wedding ring, an important paper due in two hours, and your bother's dignity. However, almost immediately after the joke began, those darned imperialist Americans came up with an idea.They could conquer Ireland without doing any work. So they claimed sovereignty over Ireland, but unfortunately they lost it in the war. The original plan was to start a word wide mashed potatoes industry that would claim to be from this mysterious land.Because the UK acquired it, they sort of just pushed it under the rug, and it became the running joke as the place you'd refer to if you didn't know where something was. http://25.media.tumblr.com...; />However, this charade could not last for long when Google Earth was created to replace regular Earth. The U.K., the US, and Russia decided to make Ireland look like it existed, so that people would believe in it. The three world powers share the profits to this date.As to the people who claim to have met someone from Ireland, weren't they constantly drunk on something when you knew them? Ireland is basically just some drunk joke that people like to use to mess around with other people. And if you think you've been to Ireland, it was actually just the northern UK, where they pretend this place called Ireland exists. And everyone has weird accents there too.Even if the island known as Ireland existed (which I don't) the supposed island is divided into different counties, meaning that no power can claim to be Ireland definitively, which means Ireland doesn't exist.Thank you for reading.
Resolved: Ireland Does not Exist

Ladies and gentlemen, this debate is impossible to accept. You can comment your desire to debate if you want to challenge me truthing all over the place. I'm going to be truthing off the walls and the ceiling. Just know that before you decide to comment.Keep in mind judges that this is a troll debate. It was brought to my attention in the comments that some people may not understand this is a joke. Please do not judge solely on the actual validity of the arguments but rather on accounts of who made you laugh more or who trolled the other debater better.1st round is acceptance (try to say some cool battle phrase when accepting).2nd round is for opening and supporting arguments plus rebuttals on con's side.3rd round is for rebuttals.4th round is a sort of rebuttal summary round.Now challenge me in the comments!
Scientific Evidence Supports the Theory of Evolution

This is in response to "Wnope"s Evolution Corner" http://debate.org..., where he has made the claim that creationists wet their pants when presented with the "actual math." As such, I want to see what Wnope is really made of and sent this challenge. The last debate he had was made solely to gain voting rights. For this debate, Definitions: Scientific evidence : Data gained through the scientific method, which can be summarized as "testable, repeatable, falsifiable." The Theory of Evolution: Change in the genome allowing for the formation of a new species. For this debate, this change must be capable, ie. have the driving force, to mutate, or otherwise, bacterium to homo sapiens. Supports: Bear all or part of the weight of; hold up. (Google dictionary) Debate rules: D.R.1. No trolling D.R.2. No vulgarities D.R.3. No plagiarism D.R.4. Forfeit=autoloss Debate Format: D.F.1. R1 for acceptance only D.F.2. R5 for closing arguments only D.F.3. Con will begin, Pro may begin refuting in R2, but he may not refute in R5. This is to allow an equal number of refutations. Final notes: The BoP will be shared. 8000 character limit. 72 hours to argue. 2 weeks voting period. Voters will be required to comment on the debate content and performance. Outside preconceptions is allowed in an RFD for this debate. I do not expect Wnope to run from this.
Democratic liberals (from California) involvement in Alaskan environmentalism.

Lets see, this is a bit tough because A) Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska) is awesome, possibly the most straight forward bad-mama jamma' in the House. And you may be aware that he agrees with you on this issue. B) Environmentalists are crazy. However I am not defending California environmentalists viewpoint, I am defending California environmentalists strategy. They should push Alaskan environmentalism. From a philosophical standpoint they should, because they are acting as advocates for a smaller, politically weaker population. This is sort of like when white activists in the sixties defended African-American rights, or when Americans push the US government to stop genocide in Darfur. History is filled with examples of outsiders stepping in and helping on behalf of others (say the French during our independence). Another philosophical argument is that environmentalist contend that natural resources are shared. This is the argument of "the tragedy of the commons," in other words, if people claim private ownership of deletable resources that everyone uses, than they will exploit those resources until they are gone and no one will have them. This is similar, but slightly different, than the argument of environmental externalities, that environmental damage is a cost that no individual pays, but still has a cost associated with it. Thus we must hold those that profit from environmental destruction accountable for the cost of repairing environmental damage ( similar to the idea that if I own a laundromat that sucks up massive electricity, I need to pay the energy bill at the end of the month.) Finally, there is an economic reason to promote environmentalism in other states. As you have stated, environmentalism can cause economic regress. But environmental issues are global and economic issues are often local. So if I want to promote environmentalism without risking my job, what should I do? Make sure those initiatives get passed in a far away state. These environmentalists know exactly what they are doing, it makes sense. Furthermore, we need to allow this sort of advocacy; to trample it would destroy the very liberty they diminish in others. The cure would be far worse than the disease.
catholic church has never contradicted itself

The exact quote was ""HIV/Aids is a tragedy that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which can even increase the problem"" and can be found at http://news.bbc.co.uk... again this is a false statement and was withdrawn by the following pope who also issued an apology clearly a contradiction between the two teachings. Furthermore the church teaches people to respect and accept other people yet some of the churches most senior officials have been proven to have abused children. It may not be written in doctrine however the very people who live and die by the catholic teachings, who devote their lives to the catholic way of life abused innocent children. This abuse was carried out by the representatives of the church this is a clear contradiction with the catholic church between teachings and actions. You state that the "" the catholic church teaches that evolution is true"" but they have not always taught that they used to teach the bibles version of events ie "" Adam and eve"" and ""creationism"" The debate is "" catholic church has never contradicted itself"" your statement clearly show a contradiction between the old ways of teaching and the new ways. Clearly showing the catholic church has contradicted itself. Thank you for the great debate.
catholic church has never contradicted itself

as i said, priestly marriage is one of practice not doctrine anyway. plus priests were allowed to marry, and then the church forbad it, so that the priest would be able to dedicate himself to the people, and to the churchs political world. anyway, it's not a contradiction to say we're gonig to not allow marriage so that we can improve the insittution of the priesthood. it's just trying to improve it, like urging people to praying more often. did the fact that they weren't being urged and now they are, a contradiction? no its just different approach. approach v contradiction. i wasn't sure what your point was per the adam and eve etc stuff. the catholic church teaches that evolution is true this coincides with teh science. you might have a problem with certain fundamentalists who dont beleive in evolution, but not the catholic church. it never taught it was a false doctrine... at least you havent shown it and i havent see it. where did a pope say the use of condoms doesn't prevent the spread of AIDS? you are paraphrasing to the point of distoriting and changing what they said, as far as i can tell. a citation or exact quote would be helpful.
catholic church has never contradicted itself

You say ""popes were married for a long time, no one denies it, with sanction of the catholic church"" yet they will not allow married men or those who are not celibate to become a priest surely a contradiction ? "" I'm not sure your point about creation in seven days and Adam an eve"" well the bible the catholic holy book teaches these ""storeys"" and yet there is evidence beyond reasonable doubt that these stories are in fact a total load of lies. Most Catholics look to the church for moral guidance but cannot argue with the fact of evolution or creation, surly the fact the Catholics of the modern age no longer believe such events took place contradicts the traditional teaching of the church. For you to say "" you would think if the catholic church were not true, that it would have contradicted itself at some point in two thousand years."" . Yes like when the previous pope said that ""the use of condoms does not prevent the spread of aids"" but because that has been there teaching"s it must be true . is a absurd position to take.
catholic church has never contradicted itself

Jesus said not to use repetitive prayers that have no heart involved, he didn't ban repetitive prayers. plus the issue of praying is one of practice, not doctrine. we are comparing doctrines here oover time. the bible doesn't say forbidding marriage is wrong, just that some evil men will forbid marriage. plus this is more like practice and less like doctrine, too. popes were married for a long time, no one denies it, with sanction of the catholic church. also the catholic church allows people to eat meat and such, it's not the one teaching abstaining from foods that GOd has created. there is merely a practice not doctrine of abstaining from meat during lent to respect typical jewish customs. as far as fasting in genearl, even Jesus did that. so that can't count as a bad on catholic practice. etc anyways i'm not sure your point about creation in seven days and adam an eve etc
catholic church has never contradicted itself

How about the world was created in seven days, well 6 the 7th was for rest. We all developed not from evolution but from Adam and eve in the garden of Eden ?. Catholics pray repetitive words with Rosary Beads yet the bible says "And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words. Matthew 6:7 Bishops are celibate the bible says But the Holy Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth." 1 Timothy 4:1-3 Both examples show a clear contradiction to the bible.
catholic church has never contradicted itself

in this debate, i am not counting the issues of limbo, or "no salvation outside the catholic church". you would think if the catholic church were not true, that it would have contradicted itself at some point in two thousand years. the only things that count are statements that are authoritative, things that could be considerted "infallible". the pope, intentionally, teaches, the church, on faith and morals. that is the criteria. it includes many councils and other statements by popes.
Communism is a inherently flawed idea

Yes, that is too much to ask, the govt is a rampaging tyrannosaurus, the state is the most dngerous organization in human history. During the 20th Cenury Governments have killed over 262 million, whilst individuals have killed only 8 million. Which one is more responsible? Which one should the economy be left in charge of? Clearly this is individuals, not the state. http://reason.com...
Communism is a inherently flawed idea

A single text cannot limit a moral system. Otherwise capitalism would be unable to stop slavery and dealings in narcotics. We can learn from mistakes we are human. Ideology can evolve capitalism has grown some moral boundaries. Communism as I follow and interpret it is simply government control over every aspect of the economy. Is this to much to ask? Communism while being associated with Stalin is not by definition a dictatorship. I like democracy, it allows me to morally validate my opinions, and stagnate all change.
Communism is a inherently flawed idea

That's why collectivising farms is always followed by famine correct? A perfect example of this is the Jamestown and Plymouth colonies, where everything that people produced would be "redistributed" equally. Except 80% of all colonists starved to death because no one was working, and everyone was eating. The reason why my opponent's theory is false is because there is no infinite supply of food that we can just redistribute, it needs to be produced, someone needs to produce it, so enable for people to live, people must work. This is an inherit fact of life. Production should be maximized to minimise starvation and create a higher quality of living, and the best way to do this is to allow everyone to keep what they produce, thus they would have an incentive to produce more. As can be seen, no one is starving or going without in capitalist nations. On the other hand, in nations like North Korea or Maoist China have had a constant issue of famine and starvation.
Communism is a inherently flawed idea

Capitalism doesn't place large amounts of money and power in a single individual, many individuals are enabled to create more wealth because capitalism allows them to kept what they earn. In capitalism, if you grow the food than I am dependant on you for God, this remains a fact regardless, under communism, you would still be dependant on farms or you die. The difference is that you will not be able to live off these farms under communism as production will plummet due to collectivization.
I believe that bad has to exist.

Well this is where I have to ask if you indeed believe that bad isn't vital for our society, the defense for my position is too detailed for me to explain,therefore I resign this debate strictly for not having empirical evidence of my position. My position is based on phsycological individualism bias of reality, in other words, me and you are two completely different people in society who view the world in different ways, you believe that bad doesn't have to exist because without an example of good we wouldn't know what bad looks like, and I believe that bad must exist for our society to function the right way,and reality has no empirical evidence. Thank you for an amazing debate. :)
I believe that bad has to exist.

You have continued to clarify your position but you have not really offered evidence or a logical argument. You also still need to address my objections to your position. There has to be a balance of good and evil in order for our society to work properly You have simply asserted that this is true. Your link looks like an article on St. Augustine’s opinion. I don’t see that he is an authority on the topic since we are not arguing about religious dogma or the bible, so this is essentially an appeal to a false authority. If your link brings up a logical argument or presents evidence you can explain this in the text of your argument. Evil was put on this world to give man the ability of free will There are around 41,000 denominations of Christianity [6] and free will is a controversial topic that could take up an entire debate. For instance, Calvinists believe all of our actions are predetermined [7] which is not consistent with freewill. Modern cognitive science is having a drastic effect on our common sense understanding of freewill, “Free will does exist, but it’s a perception, not a power or a driving force” [8]. This is all kind of beside the point because I do not see that evil is necessary for freewill. I can freely choose between several good options or choose not to act. Why is evil necessary for free will? Bad people help with self-judgment and self-improvement I am passionate about self-improvement so I am curious to know why bad people are relevant to the topic. I have never heard anyone suggest that meditating on the actions of the most evil would help and this is counterintuitive. Last round I explained why I think this is a bad strategy and I will expand on that idea if you can present an argument along these lines. You posted a link to the problem of evil. This is simply an argument that an omniscient, omnipotent Omni benevolent God could not exist in our world where so much evil and pain exists. I have agreed with you that evil currently exists in our society. We disagree that evil must exist and is vitally important for our society. [6] http://en.wikipedia.org... [7] http://en.wikipedia.org... [8]http://www.nytimes.com...