BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It's not worth having children

True, true... but there is one thing that redeems reproduction... In order for us humans to evolve, we are required by the laws of nature to knock each other up and get preggerz so we can continue the human race's existence. Unless, like, we gave birth to robots that ruin the woman's "anatomy" forever during birth. And so what if they cause grief? I'm sure there's plenty of masochistic parents out there. Why else would they have children in the first place other than to continue our existence? They enjoy the grief. So, in the end, it's a beautiful cycle in the grand scheme of things. We get to experience the pleasure of knocking each other up, the pleasure of getting yelled at for 18 years, and the pleasure of watching it all happen to them. On to my opponent!
It's not worth having children

The debate is "It's not worth having children"So, let's take a look at the issue. If you have children at a young age, before you get a chance to go to college and begin a career, you will end up being on welfare your entire life in order to pay for the children. That's not worth it. It costs $241,080 to raise a child and that cost will only go up. . http://money.cnn.com...Now, even if you did go to college and have a career, having just one child will set you back a quarter of a million dollars! With that same money, you can have a house paid off, or invest it for retirement. Paying that kind of money will get you nothing back in return. When the child turns 18 and moves out, you'll have nothing to show for it. When you get old, the child you took care of and raised, will just throw you in an old folks home and forget about you. All they will care about is what they will inherit from you after you die. All the hard work and money you put into a child is a waste. Another problem with having a child is that it puts you as risk. All it takes is one mistake for you to be charged with endangering the welfare of a child. Just one second of looking away or not paying attention and the child could get hurt or killed, which makes you the one responsible for what happened. Not only that, you are responsible for anything you child does! If the child breaks a window, YOU pay for it! If a child steals your car and crashes it, YOU pay for the damage. You can't even discipline a child anymore. That's child abuse! If a child wants to get their way, all they need to do is dial 911 and claim you are a pedophile. Boom. .. YOU go to jail and the kid gets what they want. So, to sum up. .. having a kid will cost you at least a quarter of a million, plus all your time for 18 years, plus put you at risk for jail time and/or the cost of the damages caused by the child. Then when it comes time when you need help from the child, they will just throw you away like a piece of trash. Having a child is soooooooooooooo not worth it!
The Major media is never impartial when communicating news, no matter it's corporative ownership.

As actual major US-World major media is owned by big corporative groups (GE, Murdoch Group, Ardila Lule Inc.), it"s impossible to affirm that there is objetivism and imparciality in the major media, as it"s owners have a clear statu quo that makes impossible, for example, to differenciate the major difference between CNN and Fox News, as they will always have core simmilarities as cosporate media.
Video Games with Strong Language shouldn't exist.

quoting you "I don't think adults should be playing the game either, because they'd get used to the foul language, and they'd be talking to people in that way, which most people would not like." Do you got any sources for that? Just because adults play games with foul language they don't turn into " foul-mouthed thugs"(your words). I for example love GTA and I don't use foul language except in rare cases and the same for everyone else I know. Just because you just killed 20 cops in a game doesn't mean you walk around in reality mass murdering, its the same with words. You don't start to swear just because you hear someone in a game or on tv do it. If people were that easy to manipulate its strange that not everyone are foul speaking murderers when we have had decades of movies and music using foul language.
Video Games with Strong Language shouldn't exist.

"Video Games with Strong Language shouldn't exist. " Basically I guess this means that pro wants that all games with strong language should be forbidden. I don't think violent games with foul language should be banned just because children might be affected. Well, the same can be said about modern music and movies and even books have foul language. One thing is for sure and that is that games are not for kids only. You mentioned GTA and said its an awful game and yes it is extremely violent and have lots of foul language but its not for kids, GTA is for adults, its designed by adults for adults. The problem is that video games are seen only for kids like toys by media when its not. Its not the state that should "think of the children" in this matter but the childrens own parents. Also to forbid foul language in games is a kind of censor and against many countries laws. Also 1000 chars are a bit to few for a good debate. Good luck.
Video Games with Strong Language shouldn't exist.

I think that video games involving strong language shouldn't exist, because people can easily get used to that language and may start using it, which may cause fallouts with other people, and other issues like this, and this could ruin their life, and this has already happened to many people. I've got a good point here, and it makes sense, does it not? I am here to say something back to people who are against the above points. Parents let their kids play these games, and there are high amounts of them, especially in the UK and the US. I just don't understand why parents let them have these games. Games like Grand Theft Auto are definitely like the games I am describing. That game is absolutely awful. Foul language, drugs and more. That game is awful, and I know many kids who have this game, and it's very likely that they'll be growing and developing into foul-mouthed thugs, by playing them games a lot and getting used to that terrible language. Nobody should be playing these games.
Resolved: Pakistan is not a legitimate sovereign state

Resolved: Pakistan is not a sovereign state.Definitions1) Pakistan is indeed the nation of Pakistan in South Asia2) legitimate: conforming to justified standards, rules or laws3) sovereign state: a nation or state that holds authority or jurisdiction over a territorial regionRules1) No semantics or trollng2) Drops are concessions3) No new evidence or arguments in the last round4) Forfeit(s) will result in a loss*Rd. 1 is for acceptance. Rd. 2 will start argumentation.
It is unfair to cancel a debate if you had already agreed to debate it

I stand Con that it is NOT unfair to cancel a debate if you had already agreed to debate it. I urge you to vote this way for the following reasons. 1. Verbal agreement is not as certain as contracted agreement. Let's look at this through the most fair system there is. If someone was to say that they would do something and didn't, it would not be permissible in court unless it was contracted. Within this debate, thats what makes it NOT unfair, it was never contracted and when there was an actual contract, I denied it, that's fair. 2. Verbal agreements come with misconceptions. The main reason I didn't agree to the final debate is because it was abusive. I thought that if I was going to debate it, that it would be a possibility that the dolphins could win 5 games, not that they WOULD. That is a HUGE difference in the world of debate. It's kind of like the abortion bill, people say they don't want it, but as soon as they draft a bill opposing ALL abortions, people start changing their minds and the last time I checked, it was fair to change your mind. Also you have to look what actually started this debate. My opponent had the misconception that I actually did want to debate it. First of all, I don't like sports debates (as I have not had one before; check my records if you must) Secondly, I never did agree to it. This is proven when I actually asked my friend (after he finished making the debate) if he challenged me or just put it up to anyone to accept. In other words, the contract was the only chance for me to actually turn it down. That is what is fair, giving a chance for a debate to be turned down. 3. It is unfair to allow one to contract it while the other person may not. The final and most important argument that I have. What you have to see is that my opponent was allowed to contract the debate any way he wanted to, yet I was stuck with whatever he sent me. Since the verbal agreement was general and basic and the contract demanded me to defend an abusive side, it was completely fair for me to turn down the debate offered to me after I agreed to do it. Me having to accept an abusive debate is what is unfair, not me expressing my right to change my mind... so please vote Con. Thank You
It is unfair to cancel a debate if you had already agreed to debate it

hello luke, since you declined my dolphins debate.....i am quite frustrated. and so because of that it is unfair that you declined the debate. just for the sake of education and fun lets "do it to it" as your profile quote says. But no, you declined so now i must urge to debate this topic. leave one post to justify your actions. But in my opinion you must vote pro, it is unfair to quit a debate you promised you were going to debate. it is unfair to me, to debate, and to the world. That is why i must urge you to vote pro on this topic, because it was unfair. If you forfeit this one as well, i'll consider it that you were afraid to debate me both times.......but hopefully it isn't that.
crime is linked to mental health 3

The previous argument stated that people suffering from mental health issues make irrational decisions, but that is untrue according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), people with severe mental illnesses are more than 10 times more likely to be victims of violent crimes than people in the general population. A statement that seems more logically correct than the assumed fact that most criminals suffer from mental illness or depression. Although some of the worst crimes, the criminals are perceived by the general public as mentally unstable or unwell.
crime is linked to mental health 3

Many people would like to place the blame for people's violent instincts on unstable or unhealthy mental wellbeing. However research has shown that this is not necessarily always the case. Most people who commit violent acts, who are thought to be mentally ill, they may be but their violent acts come from a place of displaced anger or emotional issues. In a study of crimes committed by people with serious mental disorders, only 7.5% were directly related to symptoms of mental illness, according
LOGICAL POLICY, RES.- The USFG should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in the US

Okay, I've never tried policy debate before but I've been teaching myself a few things so I'm going to give it a shot. I hope this will be a good learning experience. I think I can do alright but we'll see. But we're using the 2008-2009 policy debate topic of... Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in the United States. The reason I put logical in the beginning of the "topic of debate" is so evidence is NOT required. Basically, all you have to do is use logic and if a specific point needs evidence, than so be it... but, this debate is not meant to show that one has more evidence than the other, rather, we should or shouldn't pass the specific plan. Since policy debate begins and ends with the PRO and I can't run anything with out a Pro/Affirmative case, then I won't post any arguments in this speech. I wish my opponent luck and look forward to his first speech/case. Thank You!
Smoking should be banned in all states in the USA

I have numerous reasons why we shouldn't smoke, here are the reasons : Point 1 : The negative effects of smoking on the smoker Smoking can give over 25 health problems to the smoker. Some of those health problems are heart attack, stroke, and lung cancer. Those diseases are caused by the 4,000 chemicals in a cigarette smoke that cause problems to human cells. [1] Around 6 million deaths a year are caused by tobacco. [2] Smoking also costs the smoker's beauty, because : 1. Smoking ages you. 2. Smoking depletes the collagen in your skin. 3. Smoking thins the skin. 4. Smoking can alter your body shape. [3] Smoking costs the smoker's money. He/she will have to pay : 1. The cigarette smoke itself. One packet of 25 cigarettes costs around $14 and the price keeps rising. 2. The hospital bills for later when you're sick because of smoking. 3. The dentist bill so that your teeth could be cleaned professionally. 4. The cleaning bills for your house, car, and clothes that will stink of cigarette smoke. 5. The redecorating fees. Smoking can make you redecorate more often because smoking inside your house discolors the paint and wallpapers. [4] Smoking can lower your IQ, too. [5] Lastly, smoking can create fires. Every year, almost 1,000 smokers and non-smokers are killed in home fires caused by cigarettes and other smoking materials. [6] Point 2 : The negative effects of smoking on non-smokers Passive smoking is as dangerous as smoking itself. Smoking causes approximately 600,000 deaths of passive smoker. One third of those are children. [7] Smoking can cause stillbirth, premature delivery, and low birth weight to babies if their mothers smoke during pregnancy. [8] Smoking can also influence children to smoke. [9] Point 3 : The negative effects of smoking on the environment Smoking causes air, land, and water pollution. Just to produce 300 cigarettes, one tree is wasted. Energy and water are also wasted for the production of cigarettes. [10] Conclusion Smoking should be banned in all states in the USA because it causes negative effects on the smoker, non-smokers, and the environment. 1. . http://uk.prweb.com... 2. . http://www.inforesearchlab.com... 3. . http://www.ivillage.co.uk... 4. . http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au... 5. . http://doctor.ndtv.com... 6. . http://www.usfa.fema.gov... 7. . http://www.bbc.co.uk... 8. . http://www.babycenter.com... 9. . http://www.redorbit.com... 10. . http://smoking.ygoy.com...
Smoking should be banned in all states in the USA

I accept. As Con, I will argue that smoking should not be banned in all states in the USA. Pro didn't give any definitions, and since I think doing so is important, I would like to give some definitions in regards to what we are going to debate:Smoking: "Smoking is the inhalation of the smoke of burning tobacco encased in cigarettes, pipes, and cigars." [1]Should: "Used to state that something ought to happen, be done etc. You should hold your knife in your right hand; You shouldn't have said that." [2]Banned: "A prohibition imposed by law or official decree: a ban on cigarette smoking on airplanes." [3]USA: "North American republic containing 50 states - 48 conterminous states in North America plus Alaska in northwest North America and the Hawaiian Islands in the Pacific Ocean; achieved independence in 1776." [4]Lastly, what does it exactly mean to say that smoking should be banned? When we say that we should ban smoking, then we can rightly say that this means to not prevent people from smoking. With this being said, I'm looking forward to a good debate. Over to Pro.[1] http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...[2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[3] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[4] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Is it fair for schools to restrict the kinds of foods children may bring in their snacks and lunches

"Fair" is a loaded word here, and left entirely undefined. My opponent's position, translated into less ambiguous terms, is: "Children have the right to bring any sort of lunch to school that they want; schools ought not place any restrictions on this right." There are obvious problems with this position. Common-sense would give the schools freedom to prevent children from eating arsenic-laced sandwiches. Mothers that pack their children's lunchboxes with wood chips could have no grounds for complaint should the school replace the questionable "lunches" with something edible. This is an extreme example, but it illustrates the point: The schools are trusted with the welfare of our children during the school day. Allowing them to eat unhealthy or harmful lunches is contrary to the child's welfare, and is abuse by neglect. Children will have more energy, pay better attention in class, and grow up healthier if they eat right. Permitting a child to subsist on a diet of twinkies and soda can only harm their development. Schools, who are responsible for the well-being of the children within their walls, should not allow them to make unhealthy choices that will harm their development and haunt them throughout the rest of their lives.
Potatoes are better than french fries.

What would happen if potatoes were not around? Burger King and Mcdonalds would not have their french fries; as I said before; potatoes make french fries. Also, you say that french fries help the economy? What is your source? And to be thorough, I have provided some sources to back up the fact that Burger King and Mcdonalds sell french fries. Sources: 1. http://www.bk.com... 2. http://www.mcdonalds.com...
poem battle(continued)

Hello, Hello!Thank you for inviting me to such a great poem battle!I suppose I shall start off with a Haiku.PotatoesBy noobdebatr123Potatoes, yum yum!Tastes yummy in my tummy,Just like pie from mum! Now, this one isn't so um, shall I say, too, strange, like my other poems.Check them out, though! They are very good poems indeed.Oh, and just a little note. I think my next poem will be a Limerick.
poem battle(continued)

A naughty word I said indeed, Because I am not a civilized fellow. When I pass by I say "hecc u" instead of hello. You see, swearing is the best thing ever. It allows us to say things when we are tickled by a wet feather, And if we couldn't swear then we would say, cucumber-fairy-blossom-pickle-fart-muffin-man and that would make me not very gay* And yes, lil' johnny did say that, because hes a bad boy, and his mother give him the stick of joy. Sadly I must end this poem here, as my brain is getting and is being clouded and not clear, hear! hear! I must go home, and end this gosh-darn poem, because, well, I quit, but I do look forward to your poem that must be lit! *gay is used in the definition of happy, and carefree, rather than the homosexual term.
poem battle(continued)

Hello, sorry for replying late. Lots of stuff to do. Or maybe I just forgot. Anyway, lets get on with our poem battle. Your poem, was, uh, okay, I guess. Since I couldn't think of a certain poem type to do, I'll just make a random one. Farmer Bob, by noobdebatr123 There once was a farmer named bob, He liked to eat Corn on the cob, and then one day, He turned into a green blob, and no one knows why. "Maybe he died?" The doctor replied. "Maybe he ate too much icecream." Said Little Rob Greene. But of course, Bob ate something weird. Indeed, he ate a jolly, fat, horse. The horse turned into a blob and mist, maybe the horse was much too pissed, because he got eaten by farmer bob.
poem battle(continued)

I see you replied fairly quickly.Your haiku is fine, for me it is hard to do haikus, mostly because of the limitations.Anyway, like I said before, I was doing a limerick, so here goes.Also, mine might not be the best, and I can't think of anything except for my well poem, so bear with me.Boy in the wellBy noobdebatr123There once was a boy who was walking and fell,Took a great plunge into a deep, deep, well,"Oh, no!" the boy said,"Hopefully I shan't be dead!"The boy yelled until an old farmer pulled him out of the well!Sorry, if its not perfect, I was trying to get this done quick.
Classroom Prayer Should Be Banned in US Schools

This is my summary of the entire debate. First, I will discuss my own arguments, then my opponent's, then all other fronts.My arguments were as follows:1. Prayer Distracts From LearningThis argument outlined why prayer distracts other students who are going to school for its intended purpose, that being learning. It has flowed through as it has been uncontested by my opponent.2. Prayer Incites Hate SpeechThis argument showed how religious groups like the KKK and Westboro Baptist Church use prayer in schools as an excuse to introduce bigotry and discrimination into the classroom. This also flowed through as it has also been uncontested.3. Prayer is Anti-ConstitutionalFor final clarification, this refers to prayer in schools. The Establishment Clause bans prayer in schools, meaning that any prayer within the school is directly against the United States Constitution. This also flowed through as it has also been uncontested.My opponent's arguments were as follows:1. Prayer in Schools is Impossible to LimitI refuted this point by disproving its respective examples. He never provided further examples, thus this arguments does not flow through.2. Prayer in Schools Infringes Upon RightsThis was disproven by my proof that prayer in schools is actually far more religiously discriminate.I win on convincing arguments because all my arguments have flown through while none of my opponent's have.I win on spelling & grammar because of a few slight mistakes on my opponent's side on both spelling and grammar.I win on conduct because my opponent forfeited 3 rounds (up to this point)I win on sources because while I sources for all empirical evidence, my opponent only provided the comments section.Thus, I get all 7 points on the ballot. Thank you to my opponent and to the voters. Remember that if my opponent posts anything after this summary, it should be ignored by my rules.
Classroom Prayer Should Be Banned in US Schools

So, Look, I have no bias, I'm atheist but I accept every religion, no matter how much I disagree with them. So let's get down to business I know for a fact that in Islam's Quran it says that they have to pray 5 times a day, between dawn and dusk. They have to eat lunch so they probably can't do it then, so when? The best way to learn, is to also have a good relationship with your teacher, if you get sent to the principle's office for praying, there would be an outcry. Is this really a responsible decision? After looking at some of the comments, I have realized that there are many types of prayer. Literally talking to "God" in your head counts, So are you now saying that these children are not allowed to think!!! Some people, pray to "God" in their heads before a big performance or test, just for some last second miracle, are you going to ban this as well? How can you even do that? Unless you're going to spend the USA's entire budget on physical and mental mind reading. I don't think so. I hope that from the above you can see, that what my opposition is proposing is a clear violation of rights and freedom. Going as far as even banning people from thinking. What they have proposed is completely ridiculous, and will increase religious/government tensions, will destroy trust between school and family and will reverse decades of work towards religious freedom, rights, privacy and equality. Thank You