BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Rape should not be a ground for divorce

||Important|| Notice, my opponent has conceded the debate. "Similarly, if a woman’s husband is a rapist, but only rapes other women, she has a duty to report him to the police and, again, can obtain a divorce on the ground of “unreasonable behaviour”." My opponent has conceded by saying that "rape should not be a ground of divorce" is untrue. Now, I would have no problem with this admission if my opponent had challenged the idea that he has to defend all instances of rape. He had not done this. ||My opponents argument|| Sadly, my opponent has not helped his case this time either. My opponent focuses on the law and not the individuals. 1. My argument focused on the individuals 2. My opponent had said nothing about the individuals Therefore, my opponent has conceded my argument. Now, here comes the best part! 1. Marriage and divorce is a matter which is decided by individuals 2. The law may influence the individuals but it may not control the idndividuals Therefore, my opponents argument is irrelvant. So what if its unfair? It is still is a right of every individual to divore for any reason. You have never properly addressed this and hence you lose.
Rape should not be a ground for divorce

If a woman’s husband rapes her, she can report him to the police and duly obtain a divorce on the ground of “unreasonable behaviour”. Similarly, if a woman’s husband is a rapist, but only rapes other women, she has a duty to report him to the police and, again, can obtain a divorce on the ground of “unreasonable behaviour”. However, if the woman is raped by another man, in many backward cultures and religions around the world, the husband will declare the woman “unclean” and demand a divorce. In western countries, immigrants from these antediluvian societies achieve this by exploiting a legal technicality: the husband will be granted a divorce if he can prove that his wife had sex with another man; whether the intercourse was consensual or not is irrelevant as far as the law is concerned. Thus, a woman who will be highly vulnerable and most in need of her husband’s support as the result of being sexually assaulted, can be cast asunder: thrown out of her own home in the most cruel and heartless of fashions; and yet the law would support her pitiless husband in his ruthless abandonment of his wife. This surely has to be wrong and that’s why I reaffirm that rape should not be a ground for divorce. Thank you.
Should there be cell phones in school

I think that cell phones should be in schools, because after school if your parents aren't there then you need a way to contact them. During school hours if you don't know the meaning to a word you have your phone in your desk and the computer is in another room, then you should be able to look it up on your phone. When you are in the middle of your test you and all of the other students are there but the teacher is gone, you should be able to look it up instead of wasting your time waiting. Yes phones are really distracting, because instead you can play games and you are tricking your teacher that you are looking something up. You are in charge of your own phone and you are responsible enough to look something up on your phone and get a reward!
Homosexuality

Thank you for accepting my argument without intrinsically being a homophobe. I almost thought this impossible (I guess I really am new to DDO) I'm interested to hear what you're going to say against marriage as a whole, which is the only thing that you affirm you truly disagree with, but otherwise I suppose I'll have fun making mincemeat of homophobia. Generally, what I meant by "Homosexuality and gay marriage have no significant negative impact on society" was primarily that they don't do what so many uneducated religious zealots say they do (i. e. Spread AIDS like wildfire, indoctrinate children unwillingly into homosexuality, etc. [See Ugandan EAT DA POOPOO for a laugh or two]) I acknowledge that SOME homosexuals aren't good people, but SOME straight people are also not good people. There's really nothing bad, inhuman, or disgusting that homosexuals can do that heterosexuals can't, save some vague sex acts that require two pairs of matching genitalia. For example, a big argument is that "Anal sex is disgusting and wrong. " Guess what? Homosexuals aren't the only people that have anal sex! So as you can see, I argue only that there is nothing about homosexuals that is truly negative to society, that can't also be instigated by a heterosexual person or couple. Of course, one positive impact they have is to lessen the heavy burden of overpopulation that we live under in modern society. A lot of religions say that, "God created us to procreate" Well, now is not the time to procreate! Now would be a good time to only have one or two kids, or even no biological kids, which is what almost all homosexual couples would have. I don't yet know exactly what your position on marriage as a whole is, so I'll refute that in the next round.
Homosexuality

Introduction: Hello Sotiras, and welcome to DDO. I feel like I see quite a lot of debates from new members arguing for socially liberal ideas or for atheism, and though I agree with most of them I think it's time I started debating them anyway. You are probably not going to get a good debate from anyone who legitimately disagrees with you anyway, unless someone used a potential line of argument that I will go into in a moment. You have not actually made any arguments yet, so I am not going to take advantage of that and give myself an extra round. However, I am going to make a few observations and elaborate and what my arguments will be. Observations: You have committed yourself to defending the following three statements: 1. Homosexuality is fine 2. Gay marriage is fine 3. Neither of the above have a negative impact on society I agree with 1, and I agree that homosexuality has no negative impact on society. I will debate these points anyway for the sake of argument. I disagree with point 2 and by extension point 3 because I am opposed to all state-sanctioned marriages. You have not specified what you mean by marriage, so I am going to assume you mean it in both the sense of a religious ceremony and a civil agreement, as it is commonly used. Arguments: 1. I will be arguing that Christianity is a true religion and that homosexuality is wrong as suggested by the Bible. Certainly not all Christians believe this, but enough do that it is an argument worth presenting. 2. I will argue that homosexuality is against the natural order of things. 3. I will argue that homosexuality has a negative impact on society. 4. I will argue that no marriages should be allowed whatsoever and that therefore gay marriage must not be allowed either. Note that this is the only argument I agree with and I consider it the most viable. Conclusion: Best of luck to you, Sotiras. Feel free to build your constructive case off the arguments that I have given. Also, before anyone accuses me of preying on newbies to boost my win streak, I will note that I am still waiting for a challenge from J.Kenyon. We will debate property rights! Peace out homeslizzles, and may the shizno be with you.
Honor is more important than morals

You appear to be assuming that a person who waits before taking action would not do what's right; this is not necessarily true, the person may take action and have more of a plan because s/he is more likely to know the situation well. Also, many people would agree that not every fight is worth the sacrifices it requires (For example you wouldn't lead a protest in a school just because many people didn't like the lunch special), a person following honour as their only way of knowing what action would be taken, would make the sacrifices in each fight, which could lead them to regret their actions. Someone following morals might take the time to think what the fight means to them (I don't mean what they'll gain from the fight, but why they feel it's important). I am not saying that one should follow morals and not act. Morals just help the person take the time to think their actions though clearly and get the facts. Morality is not just accepting what you are told, but it's taking the lessons that you were taught about right and wrong to help you make decisions in your life.
Honor is more important than morals

In my mind it is too pricy to not act quickly. If the people judge you as rash, cruel, and malevolent the s be it. You have acted quickly, and the price could have been much pricier if you had not acted quickly. I believe honor to still matter more than morals, and i believe it to be more powerful of a force and to have much greater of a capacity. If you are going to wait to strike at a killer because of evidence, then you will be costing time and resources, not to mention perhaps lives. Of course it is best sometimes to let time past, but other times when you see clearly and know that a "killer" still will fight, and that justice will not be doen then with honor you will kill what you have do. It does not matter if one dies early when they live a life of meaning, why would ne want to live a long life without standing up for what you believe.
Honor is more important than morals

You are assuming that the person is waiting until people die. This may not be the case and the person may wait until the person who chooses to kill others simply gives enough evidence that they would kill someone before acting. If someone was going by honour and decided to kill the person too soon, maybe the "killer" mentioned how s/he does not like a certain group of people, than the fight could be for a misplaced cause and could cause a death, either the "killer" or the person, over a situation that didn't need to happen. Sometimes, it's best for one to see what will happen.
Honor is more important than morals

If one wishes to see how a situation turns out they are being intelligent but by the same token they are being weak. More wrong doings could be caused by the enemy if one beleives that they should wait to see how many die, or how the problem turns out. Every life comes with the impending doom of death, there is no point in waiting for a problem to subside when it causes more increasing loss and destruction. It is in the peril of our lives when we stand up and fight for what we believe i that our meaningless lives are given meaning. If everyone dies then it is pointless to live a long, meaningles life. If anything a life like this is extended torture. Even if our lives are short, if we stand up and fight and argue and debate for what we believe in then we give our lives pojnt and meaning. Honor values and recognizes this. It forges us nto those who will defend what they believe in rather than lyong around like cowards. Even if only over messages through a computer we defend our thoughts and beliefs we are giving our lives meaning through conflict. Morality however will weaken us and make us accept out lots in life, make us be humble when we should take what we want and be who we want, it makes us sheep, morality makes us weak. But if we have honor, and war with reason andnforce of arms wr live a good life.
Honor is more important than morals

Sometimes, people need to realize what fights are worthwhile. Judging by how honour was defined as doing what's right, if someone slightly believed that something was wrong, they should stand up. This is great in principle, but in practice, there are times when the person needs to follow the norms until they have more information. Morals would likely tell the person that to listen until they see the motives, what sacrifices would it take to change the policy and if the sacrifice is worth it to them.
Honor is more important than morals

Obviously, as my stance says, i believe that honor exceeds morals. Honor commands power and respect, it allows for people to be respected without the same restraints as morals. Morals are made solely for the purpose of manipulation. You may tell people not to rebel and revolt, not to throw off their shackles by saying that it is good to be a complacent sheep. While honor involves respect for those more powerful and greater than you, and respect for those below you. Honor gives people the ability to have a code without being manipulative like morality is. Morality causes people to value weakness, while honor values strength, and makes people strong without becoming weak, as in not facing an opponent face to face. Morals teaches complacency, but most of all morals teach that the weak will inherit the earth. This is a lie, because the strong dominate and take what is theirs by the right of their strength. Despite this, honor should give power to those with wisdom and allow those in power to take care of those below them in a father and son relationship applied on societal terms. The main point i am trying to get at is that honor gives a code of conduct and order without valuing weakness. Now that the introductory arguement is finished, i will focus on the failings of morality. Morality has failed to let the strong take what is theres. Morality has failed to prevent manipulation of the masses. Morality has failed to vslue strength over weakness. But moralitys most egregious "sin" is valuing complacency and stagnicity. It values corruption, laziness, and weakness. Now i will say the virtues of honor. Honor promotes stregth, while taking care of the weak. Honor gives respect to those who have great power while encouraging innovation. Honor doesn't promote weakness, but seeks to change it to strength. Vut the most valuable asset of honor is that it prevents degeneration and murder of other humans while still keeping the strong in power.
The drinking age in the United States should be 18

I'm going to try and keep these short since there's not a whole essay to write. On July 17, 1984, Unitd States Congress passed the National Minimum Drinking Age into effect, increasing the drinking age from 18 years of age to 21 years of age. This limited the purchase, sales, and consumption to anyone underneath this age. Previously, the states had set their own laws as to the drinking age which varied from eighteen years old to twenty-one at the time. The vast majority had it set at eighteen years. The United States is one of ONLY FOUR developed countries in the entire world to have this age set to over 18. It currently has the highest drinking age in the world. The other countries are South Korea being 19, parts of Canada being 19, Japan being 20, and Iceland being 19 years. The majority of the world has it set at eighteen years of age with a few exceptions at sixteen. At the age of 18 years of age, one becomes a legal adult. This person is able to vote in all national elections including Presidential, Congressional, and Gubernational. They are able to legally vote for the person that runs our country. This is far more important than consuming alcohol. They are also able to enlist in the military, righteously defend their country, be drafted, and participate in war. They could possibly be killed in battle as well. An eighteen year old person is also able to smoke and buy tobacco legally. They are able to inhale nicotine, smoke, and chemicals into their body through cigarettes or cigars. This causes far more damage than alcohol. Not to mention that they are also able to play the LOTTERY and win millions of dollars for themselves. An eighteen year old can also legally have sex without risk of statutory rape being pressed against them, they can visit a sex store, and legally watch or produce pornography. An eighteen year old is able to move out without the support of their parents, apply for welfare and food stamps, build up credit, and take out loans for cars, houses, school, or anything of the sort. So let's sum this up. An eighteen year old is an adult, can be a part of the military, die for their country, vote for the leader of their country, smoke highly addictive cigarettes and cigars, known to cause cancer, move out of their parent's hospitatility, legally buy a car or house and take out loans, have sex and watch porn with no problem, but cannot drink alcohol. While alcohol can be psychologically addictive, it is nowhere as dangerous as tobacco smoke. Alcohol is a stimulant and depressant and should be drinken responsibly. An eighteen year old can doing anything else responsibly, so why not drink? This would also lower the amount of worry and preoccupation of police officers on college campuses with students trying to smuggle it into the campus. This is why the alcohol purchase and consumption age should nationally be lowered to age 18 after thirty years of having it at twenty-one years of age. Sources: . http://drinkingage.procon.org... . http://www2.potsdam.edu...
Future of VR

Do you know VR? Maybe you know. It's very popular and appealing topic over the world. To tell you the conclusion first, I think VR is alright. First, VR is good for education. If VR became universalization, the school can use it in the class. Students can use VR in many ways. They can see the vivid ecosystem in the classroom. They can also meet ancient people and experience ancient living. Isn't it wonderful? VR, it will be an important explement in education. Second, VR is a very good treatment in the medical field. A patient who can't move can go outside and do an activity work with VR. The patient can enjoy an activity work with VR and it will improve their condition. Also, it is good for Rehabilitation treatment for ex-sports players.
Future of VR

Now, I agree with what you said about students being able to use it as education and it being used as kind of like a "fantasy world" for people who can't really walk or go outside and witness the world first hand, but I believe VR is stupid really. In the future, people will just use virtual reality for everything, and not even worry about their real lives, the whole world will just BE virtual reality, nobody will go out anybody because you can do all these cool things with future technology, and all that bullsh*t.
Dodge ball is a real sport

I will be taking the PRO position, that Dodgeball is a sport. Let’s get going! Main Argument A sport is an activity that involves physical exertion, as well as competition between teams or individuals [1][2]. Dodgeball is a game where players try to hit opponents with balls, which eliminates them from the game [3][4]. Therefore it can be written: P1: Sport = physical exertion + competition P2: Dodgeball = game (competition) + throwing balls and dodging (physical exertions) C: Therefore, Dodgeball is a sport Side Note There are also numerous organizations that exist for the purpose of regulating the sport of Dodgeball [5][6][7]. It is also regulated as a college sport by the National Collegiate Dodgeball Association [8]. Conclusion I have demonstrated that Dodgeball is indeed a sport. I look forward to CON’s next round. Sources: [1] . http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [3] . http://www.merriam-webster.com... [4] . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [5] . http://www.thendl.com... [6] . http://worlddodgeball.org... [7] . http://www2.gvsu.edu... [8] . http://ncdadodgeball.com...
Legality of Abortion.

I wrote out my rebuttal to instigator's opening argument, but I decided to first write my own opening argument. Please do not note my ignorance to instigator's opening argument as it is intended. I will post my rebuttal in round 3. Argument 1) The main argument by pro-life people is that a fertilized egg is an example of life, therefore abortion is immoral. A fertilized egg is just as alive as an unfertilized egg or even a sperm cell. If destroying a fertilized egg is immoral, does that mean not putting every drop of semen to use is immoral, or not taking advantage of every ovulation period is immoral? I bring up these questions to help you realize that abortion being equivalent to murder is a matter of opinion just as it is an opinion [held by some] that a man masturbating or a woman not having sex during ovulation is murder. Whether or not abortion is immoral is a matter of opinion until biology proves without doubt that a fertilized egg is a human life. Pro-choice people legitimately believe fertilized eggs are not examples of life and this opinion gives them the moral right to abort embryos. I realize, as everyone should, that every person is entitled to their own opinion, therefore I reluctantly and unenthusiastically support said opinion. Argument 2) The point of a law is not to stop an act, but to create a punishment for said act. When abortion is made illegal women still get them[1] except unsafely and by possibly less experienced people. "The United States legalized abortion nationwide in 1973, in part because of the clear evidence that restrictive laws were not ending abortion but were exacting a significant public health toll, notably on lower-income women who could not travel or pay for safe services. Almost immediately afterward, pregnancy-related deaths and hospitalizations due to complications of unsafe abortion effectively ended."[2] Argument 3) If one does not view a fertilized egg as an example of life, abortion, then, becomes a victimless crime and a personal choice. Laws against victimless crimes restrict our freedom, therefore should be abolished. Argument 4) Abortion indirectly lowers the crime rate. The theory is that unwanted children who are forced to be born and/or put up for adoption due to illegalized abortion are not taken care of as well either by their biological parent or foster parent. When abortion was legalized in 1973 18 years later in 1992 when these unwanted children would have been the prime age for committing crimes, the crime rate was reduced dramatically and has been on the decline ever since.[3] This is referred to as the boomerang effect and according to economists this is a common phenomenon. Honestly, I would much prefer a human embryo, whether it's alive, or human, or not, be killed then to be raised by an unloving mother and later become a criminal, offering no benefit to society as a whole. [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com...
Legality of Abortion.

Argument from morality:1)The killing of another member of homo-sapiens unless the organism can consent is wrong. 2)Abortion is the act of killing another member of homo-sapiens. The organism cannot consent.3)Abortion is wrong.4)Therefore abortion should be illegal.Defending 1>This is easy to defend, murder is evil. Murder causes harm. Murder causes more than just harm as it is the ultimate injury due to the fact it causes life to cease. It cannot be a virtuous act; The majority of people do not want to be murdered. It cannot be socially accepted because of this fact. Defending 2>Abortion as defined by the Oxford Dictionary: 'The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks:'. The organism is terminated in the process therefore it is an act of killing. It deliberately causes the death of it. The organism is a member of the homo-sapiens species because it carries the human DNA and it will grow into an adult, It is not as developed as a human being outside of the womb. However a toddler is not as developed as an adult. It does not make the toddler any less of a human being. The organism cannot consent as it cannot communicate it's wishes. Sources:http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...Defending 3>If we accept 1 and 2 then 3 is correct. Defending 4>Since we have now determined abortion is wrong, it should be criminalized to lower the number of abortions happening which would minimalise the amount of this type of immoral behaviour being committed. There would be less incentive for women to commit abortion if it was more dangerous and harder.