BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Men should have the right to give up responsibility of a child.

If a child is born sharing their genes than they have a right to be apart of that child's life. However if a father does not want the child or want to visit or take responsibility for that child they have that right as well. Women are the ones who get to decide if a pregnancy will come to term. They have the ability to decide if they want to be a mother or not. The man has no say if he becomes a father or not. If a man wants to give up his right to visitation and under the law not be recognized as the child's father and there for do not have to pay child support they have that right. It would mean giving up any access to the child for the rest of the child's life but they should be allowed to do it. Any women having a child should always take in to consideration of raising and supporting a child on their own no matter where they are relationship wise when their pregnant. One never knows where life will take you and you should be prepared for that when deciding to have kids.
The costs of college outweigh the benefits

1] yes there are scholership to get a college degree but what after that? will you get a good job?2]watch this documentary and you will understand what kind of fullfilling job you can get after college education.http://www.youtube.com...3] abraham lincoln did not have college degree yet he became president of united states. thomas paine did not have a college degree, yet he designed the american constitution.so college education has nothing to do with democracy.
The costs of college outweigh the benefits

As billionaire Warren Buffet stated, "The greatest investment is yourself." Before stating my contentions, I'd like to define some terms within the resolution. A college education is the completion of a bachelor's, master's or PHD degree. Outweigh: to exceed in value, importance, or influence, (and) benefits: something that is advantageous or good in short and long term. Contention 1: - There are many alternatives to pay for college rather than paying out of pocket. As we all know, the United States is currently in a recession, attacking the middle class drastically. Many people who are not financially capable to pay for college can obtain certain resources like scholarships, grants and/or financial aid to help pay for expenses. The people who receive these financial aids come from struggling middle class families. According to CollegeBoard.com, a total of 35% of high school students earned academic scholarships and 11% earn athletic scholarships in 2011. Also, 20% of students going to ivy league schools obtained the pell grant. As you can see, there are many alternatives to help paying for college without giving the students too much debt. Why should financial burdens prevent a qualified student from going to a college of his or her dreams? Contention 2- People that go to college have a more fulfilling job. The definition of satisfaction is an act of fulfillment and gratification. One may be content with themselves no matter what occupation they do every day. However, when one obtains a degree in a specific field, they will gain more financial wealth and security, thus gaining the capital needed to pay for student loans and other expenses. According USA.gov, in 2010 alone, 68.1 percent of high school graduates attended college. Compared to the 32 percent that didn't attend college, those who did grossed an average of 29,000 dollars more a year. With that much money made more a year, a college graduate can afford a larger mortgage, or save their money towards his or her's children's college fund. The more someone invests in themselves, the more return they're going to get out. Contention 3-When students attend college, they help maintain the democratic system America has so perfectly designed. Imagine if your state senator or representative did not attend college? Imagine what decisions these politicians would make without having taken an ethics class? As Thomas Jefferson stated "Information is the currency of democracy." If college is not worth going to as the affirmation attempts to advocate, then, my fellow americans, we are a country of poor democratic worth. Also, according to a statistic stated by CollegeBoard.com, 60% of college graduates play a role in our democratic system, either by attending city council meetings, volunteering for potential political candidates, or simply voting. As you can see, when students go to college, they participate substantially more than high school graduates.
Food industry is lies

The food industry more often than not advertises food as natural and healthy. Instead they cruelly stuff animals in small cages and feed them formula. The animals tend to die of disease and over-growth in such houses. Pigs are by far one of the worse treated animals, they are abused, they can hardly move, and disease is the norm. Next in line are dairy cows, they're forced to live in their own manure. If they have a calf it is ripped away before It can stand, this horrific process is accompanied by abuse. Laying hens are confined until they're laying slows then, dead or alive, they are thrown away into large bins and left there. While all this happens, the products are sold and are given to the public under the illusion that these products are humanely produced. Tell me that this isn't lies or cruelty.
Food industry is lies

In the food industry, GMO(genetically modified organism) is the norm. There are GMO chickens and corn, cows and pigs, but what you don't know is that these GMO operations can lead to gruesome outcomes. The chicken is overgrown to a bone crushing point, it is kept hidden in special coops, butchered, then sold as "nutritious" to kids. The industry doesn't want people to find out the cruel truth behind their products. Cows get skinned alive, pigs are shoved in cages, farmers sued for absurd reasons. You see, Monsanto has a patent on corn seeds. You can't reuse these seeds or have any traces of these seeds in your crop without legal permission. The problem is, the seeds can accidentally contaminate other crops in the area. This gives Monsanto permission to sue farmers. In the chicken business, they hire illegal immigrants to work for them and these immigrants get paid for it. The immigrants may get arrested but the company doesn't get a scratch. Why? Because the police are ignorant of the cause of this continuous immigration. So the company hires more and more. They sell this food as natural, healthy, tasty. Yet nothing about it is right. To keep feeding us lies for easy money, they put us in the dark. We are not eating what they say we're eating, because we're eating lies.
No race is smarter than any othe race

Just because something has evolved differently doesn't mean it's less evolved. It's like saying lemon flavored water is more flavored than cherry flavored water. While it might be more lemon flavored, it's not more flavored, and if you love lemons, you might say it's better flavored, but it's still not more flavored, and it's only better flavored in your opinion. If thoughts are information, then to say someone has more information than another would be to say they have more thoughts than another, when a running thought process runs non stop, and if two runners are running, simultaneously, non stop, it's impossible for one to fall behind. Unless you're saying a race has had less observation, they would not have less knowledge, for observation equals perception and perception equals information, which would equal knowledge, in one way or another, making your statement about Black people an understatement, being that Africans were one of the first races, and therefore, one of our specie's first observers, if not the first. The only way a group could have more thoughts than another group would be for one group to be older, and therefore, have had more time to think, which would result in more thoughts, but that would have to do with age, as oppose to race. What you're doing now is arguing your opinion. You need to understand the very reason you think someone is smart is the very reason someone else may think they're not. While one may think it's smart to work as much as possible, another may think it's smart to work as little as possible, if, say, they had a heart condition. You may automatically think going to college to become a doctor is smart, but really, it's only smart if one wants to become a doctor. Whether one is more advanced than another depends on one's opinion of advancement, making your argument an opinion, in which I didn't argue with, but you presented it as a fact, and that is what I have argued with. Thank you for the debate.
No race is smarter than any othe race

The statement was very clear. "No race is smarter than any other race." Since no other information was said to elaborate, e.g. education, knowledge, ability to pick up information, the statement clearly meant "in general." Any other assumption would have been putting words into my mouth. Intelligence clearly has many factors, some of which I stated above. Regardless of which of them you argue, blacks, for example, would be at or near the bottom, with asians and jews at or near the top. That's just reality. It was caused by having the races evolve from different environments, as I stated above. Moreover, saying one race is smarter than another is NOT the same as saying I'm smarter than you. If you understood statistics, you'd know that the chance of an estimation error with EXTREMELY large races is practically 0. There is plenty of evidence that blacks are not as smart. Here is just a sampling: http://educationnext.org... https://en.wikipedia.org... Now, we can argue the CAUSES as to why blacks are dumber, but that wasn't the debate. The debate was whether or not they were dumber, which I have proven they clearly are. You have yet to show evidence of even ONE area where blacks are smarter than average, and the only one I could even THINK of being possible would be "street smarts," but even that is HIGHLY debatable. Given that blacks have at MOST one area they accel in and a plethora of areas they are extremely far behind, it is only logical to assume that all races are not equally intelligent. And why would they be? They evolved from different places; they are different. It wouldn't make sense for them to be equally intelligent. /Debate
No race is smarter than any othe race

"Certain races are smarter than others." Such statements sound like half-truths, and such arguments sound like trick questions, which makes this debate sound like an invalid one. It's like you've created a game and are disqualifying your opponent for breaking rules you didn't confirm to them. You can't fault someone for not knowing what you've failed to tell them. I made assumptions where there were no elaborations. I filled in the blanks. You do understand that, by not saying what you mean, your opponent has no way of knowing what you mean, which left me to assume. The only way to know what you meant without assuming would have been to ask, and it was not an order for me, nor may it had been in my best interest, as your opponent, to spare my argument asking you to further enhance yours. Wanting me to argue without identifying the argument would be wanting me to do the impossible, for you have to identify what something is before you can oppose it, and there's no identification where there's no specification. I would like to argue that certain races are not smarter than others, in general, because you didn't specify in which way, so one could guess you meant in general. With that said, you're not eligible to estimate someone's overall intelligence, because you don't have that kind of access to anyone else's mind but your own, and even one's own mind, one has limited access to, so any estimation you want to make about the entirety of another's capability is an assumption you would not have the supremacy to make. This is why I didn't agree with what you were saying. Saying one race is smarter than another is like saying I'm smarter than you. Maybe I'm smarter than you at, let's say, Bingo, but until I specified that, it sounded like I meant in general, which wouldn't have been fair of me to say, nor was it fair of you to say, about certain races being smarter than others, without specifying in what way, making it possible that you could've meant in all ways.
No race is smarter than any othe race

Ah, but now you are arguing a strawman. When you say airplanes, it is ASSUMED that airplanes are being talked about, and not toy airplanes, because putting the word TOY in front of it clearly changes the meaning into a different word. In no way in my argument am I trying to deceive or "trap" anyone; the statement was clear. Race was defined. Intelligence obviously occurs to MANY factors, some of which obviously include IQ, ability to gain knowledge, education, etc. You can argue whichever one you like, because NO race is equal in ANY of them. Argument Debunked As for your argument, some races are smarter than others due to a concept called evolution. It's obvious to anyone who understands evolution, but creatures are shaped greatly by their environment. Humans, of course, are no exception. Here are some links that may help you understand it further: https://www.sciencedaily.com... https://prezi.com... If you would like even more sources, just do a quick google search; there are plenty because it's a rather obvious concept. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that some races are smarter than others. After all, races evoloved in different areas. African americans evolved in africa, a hotter climate, where athletism was a favored trait. Asians evolved in asia, a colder and harsher climate, where intelligence is a favored trait. To survive in Africa, one needed speed and strength to be stronger and faster than the predators. However, in colder and harsher climates, intelligence is FAR more useful; to survive in the cold takes intelligence. This explains why there are so many more black people in sports related careers. It's not because they got "lucky;" it's because they evolved in different environments and are therefore different than other races. Or are you now going to claim that all races are also equally athletic as well? /Debate
No race is smarter than any othe race

My opponent's argument was invalid, which is why I'm arguing with it. It's like someone arguing that airplanes run on batteries, without explaining that they're talking about toy airplanes. Whether airplanes run on batteries is neither true nor false until you specify what type of airplanes you're talking about. Because my opponent claimed some races are smarter any others without specifying under what conditions, the claim is just as false as it is so. Statements that are made unclear can be made false until they are made true. Without saying how or why some races are smarter than others, it's like my opponent is saying they just are, which is false. I don't agree with my opponent's statement because it was stated incorrectly. I agree with my elaboration of his statement, but I don't agree with his statement itself. "No race is smarter than any other" in itself, but if you want to take a certain race of people and educate them beyond another, then that race should be smarter, at least, by an educational standpoint. Otherwise, as Pro, I agree that no race is smarter than any other, for no race is born smart and would have to be made smart to be smarter than another, and since any race can be made just as smart as any other, no race is smarter in itself, like my opponent argued, point blank, in the opening round.
No race is smarter than any othe race

In fact, he even concedes that my original argument is correct, "I believe, in saying one race of people can be smarter than another race, what my opponent was really saying is that one group of people can be smarter than another group, WHICH IS TRUE, TO SOME EXTENT. .. " In other words, my opponent is trying to put words into my mouth and argue against that. The statement was very clear. "No race is smarter than any other race. " This statement is FALSE as pro has conceded. The argument is not about WHY races are smarter than others, simply that they are. /Debate
No race is smarter than any othe race

I believe, in saying one race of people can be smarter than another race, what my opponent was really saying is that one group of people can be smarter than another group, which is true, to some extent, but let's extend the argument, past that extent. Most nations have a leader, and most natives follow their leader and go as far as their leader takes them. Just as a student is likely to have as much knowledge as their school provides for them, a native is likely to have as much information as their nation provides for them, and some nations provide a better education system than others, meaning that the majority of some natives would, therefore, be better educated than the majority of others. Although one's nationality does not have to equal one's race, oftentimes, it does, which is where I believe my opponent is coming from. However, saying a race is smarter than another race is like saying Paul McCartney's fanbase is smarter than Justin Bieber's fanbase, point blank, without mentioning that this is due to the fact that the majority of Bieber's fans are teenage girls, who have the potential of McCartney's fans but have not had the time to fulfill it, meaning their lack of intelligence has nothing to do with Bieber but simply has to do with their lack of existence and experience. It sounds like my opponent is saying a race is smarter because of their race, rather than because of the circumstances their race tends to fall into, which is what I believe my opponent was trying to say, but, my opponent, you came across as discrediting one's race itself and one's race alone, while nothing more, because, after all, you didn't say anything more. A statement that provides such little context can be taken out of context. I only got it because I find you to be a sensible person, and so I took the time to make sense out of it, figuring some was there, and, although it was, I had to fill in the blank spaces, which is not in order for me, as your opponent, to do.
The USFG should reject Net Neutrality.

Greetings! I am quite interested in the concept of net neutrality, hence our topic: The United States Federal Government should reject Net Neutrality. I will be assuming the Pro/For side in this debate; thus, my opponent will be arguing in favor of net neutrality.The burden of proof will be net benefits.My thanks to whomever accepts this debate; you may use your first round either to accept and present your arguments, or simply to accept the debate-your choice.I hope to have a lively debate!
The American Civil War was fought over Taxes Not Slavery

"Abraham Lincoln didn't care about the slaves freedom he only cared about wining the war, he set the proclamation and freed slaves for the South economy for the states that qualified." Refer to this quote by Abraham Lincoln:"Whenever I hear any one arguing for slavery I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally." [1] This proves that he was very much against slavery."Border states that remained in the Union got to keep there slaves." *Their. Dang it, inner grammar nazi! Any way, that is not true."The fifteenth Amendment was what really freed the slaves" You mean the thirteenth Amendment[2]? The one that was suggested by Abraham Lincoln?Sources__________[1] http://rogerjnorton.com...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
The American Civil War was fought over Taxes Not Slavery

"Because in the industrial North it was cheaper to run factory then a Plantation in the South." The north had more money, so they had more factories. Southerners used plantations mainly because that's just what they were used to. Even after the war, the south gained more factories than plantations, which is proof that they would've been fine either way."Slaves Worked in the South and paid workers in the North." Dude, you know slaves never got paid, right? So how could slaves pay people in the North if they never got any money to do so?"The South Needed slaves" The south did not need slaves. They were just lazy, and they thought they did, because they didn't want to work.Finally, if the civil war was not about slavery, how come Lincoln ended slavery about 3/4 the way through?
The American Civil War was fought over Taxes Not Slavery

The American Civil War is what I believe was not fought over slavery but fought over taxes. Because in the industrial North it was cheaper to run factory then a Plantation in the South. By who worked, Slaves Worked in the South and paid workers in the North. The South Needed slaves for the fields as in the North they didn't because it they had extra money from being cheaper than the South so they paid white folks to work for money.
1st DDO Census Debate: Drug Legalization

The Resolution:The USFG Should Legalize all Drugs for Recreational Use.Summary:With the pending legalization of Marijuana in most US states, the topic of universal drug legalization has become more common. With elements such as drug health risks and drug war costs being thrown back and forth, the debate has gained momentum on DDO.Rules:- No wars (source wars or definition wars, etc...)- No kritiking.- No Conduct or S&G votes.- Proper formatting must be used (and consistent.)The winner shall receive a choice between a $25 gift card to Amazon or Walmart.Pro side is represented by FourTrouble, and advised by F-16. Con side is represented by Donald.Keller, and advised by RoyLatham.Definitions:Recreational Use: The use of a drug for providing preasure rather than to cure or treat disease or medical conditions.Drug: A medicine or other substance which has a psychological and/or physical effect when introduced into the body.Legalize: To make legal for production, distribution, and use of a product.
Formula 1 beats tennis flat

I hope this debate will be a lively one so, ideally, my opponent will be either a woman, a gay man, a timid old gentleman or an American as these are the groups of people that typically prefer tennis to F1. As you may be aware, it's the Monaco Grand Prix this weekend (1). Most people will be looking forward to watching the race yet there was programme on BBC radio yesterday entitled "What's the point in Formula One" (2). During this appalling broadcast, assorted contributors variously described the sport as "boring", "noisy" and "damaging to the environment". True, F1 may be loud (that's part of its appeal) and it may be environmentally unfriendly (although fuel-saving technologies such as the Kinetic Energy Recovery System (KERS) do filter down to road cars in time). But whatever F1 is though, it certainly is not "boring"! F1 is not "just cars going round and round" as some people who don't appreciate the sport claim. F1 is fast, it requires incredibly skillful driving and extreme physical endurance, it employs cutting-edge technology and complicated strategies. It's also glamorous and it's dangerous and it's got drama and intrigue. In short, it's got it all. That's why between 650 million and 1 billion people watch each Grand Prix race (3). No other sporting event comes close to matching F1's viewing figures, except the Olympics and the World Cup, but they are only held once every four years, not seventeen times each year as Grands Prix are. As I am not female, elderly, gay or American, I cannot for the life of me fathom why these people would prefer to watch tennis rather than the greatest sporting spectacle on earth, but perhaps my opponent can explain? Thank you. (1) http://www.bbc.co.uk... (2) http://www.formula1.com... (3) http://grandprix.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...