BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Conversion Therapy is Wrong

Thanks to pro for his considered argument. I fear my argument will be short and rebuttals long. Pro wants to make conversion therapy illegal. He rightly points out that conversion therapy consists of psychological and or spiritual therapy, Aimed at changing the sexual desire of a person. We cannot in good conscience make conversion therapy illegal because of one key point: Homosexuals are objectively disadvantaged inextricably due to their sexuality. They are disadvantaged on the basis that they do not have the option to reproduce naturally with a person to whom they are attracted. It doesn't matter if science allows them, At great expense, Now or in the future. The science could be free, The cost to the individual and the community nothing and homosexuality could be an equal alternative to heterosexuality in every other way, Yet it would remain unpreferable because homosexuals do not even have the option to procreate naturally. Homosexuals will always be disadvantaged due to this one immutable fact. All things being equal, It is preferable for a person to have the liberty; the mere option, To be able to naturally make babies with a partner to whom they are attracted. This is, Therefore, Not a question of factoids, Studies and long sources, But a question of choice and liberty. Pro would deny LGBTs their choice and liberty. I believe that a person should have the right to attempt to avoid a disadvantaged outcome for themselves. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, And Pros proposition would not help LGBT's, But deny them fundamental rights to seek equality. Conversion therapy includes scientific, Psychological therapy. To make conversion therapy illegal would be to deny any and all kinds of studied and proven psychological therapies for all future. In 50 years and with much greater understanding there could be a psychological therapy that would carry a very high success rate, And it is important that LGBT's would have the liberty and choice to seek such therapy to avoid a life of disadvantage. Pro would have to prove that all conversion therapy must necessarily be 100% unsuccesful to carry his point, And that is a very heavy burden indeed. Key contentions: All other things being equal, Homosexuality remains disadvantageous and unpreferable for the individual. To make conversion therapy illegal, Then, Would be to deny LGBTs the liberty to seek a better outcome for themselves both now and for all future, Where conversion therapy could have a very high success rate. I look forward to pro's rebuttal.
Conversion Therapy is Wrong

Hello, Everyone! It's been one or two years since I last participated on this website, But now I'm ready to retake the throne (that I never had) as the Master Debator! I'm going to make an argumentative speech advocating for making conversion therapy conducted on minors illegal very soon so I thought it would be best to practice and hopefully improve my argument through this debate. I apologize in advance for how rusty I am, And hopefully this turns out to be an interesting debate. I, Pro, Will argue that both conversion therapy is wrong both morally and medically. Con, My opponent, Will argue for conversion therapy medically and/or morally. Rules:1. Keep it civil. No ad hominems or personal arguments. 2. Please cite all sources. 3. Follow the debate format. 4. Please use proper grammar and spelling. 5. Do not use the comments to add to your argument. Debate Format:R1 - Acceptances (no opening arguments)R2 - Opening Arguments (no rebuttals)R3 - Rebuttals (no new points)R4 - Conclusion, Rebuttals (no new points)
Every war is caused by another

Now, my arguments are stated as such: 1) WWI caused WWII. Thinking historically, after the First World War, Germany was left economically, politically and socially unstable. With no money, left to print billions of dollars, making money valueless. After Germany's allies fell apart during the war, the Allies closed in on Germany. And during the Treaty of Versailles post-WWI, it was decided that Germany would be forced to pay war reparations [costs of damage caused by war]. And that Germany was going to have embargoes and limitations of where it could put its military and how much of a navy it could have. During the elections of 1931, Adolf Hitler lost to Von Hindenburg who was soon elected the new President of Germany. Hitler was appointed Chancellor of Germany in 1933 by the president himself after the Reichstag burned down, which Hitler caused and then blamed it on the Communist Party. Soon after, Hitler passed laws that gave him complete power in Germany and he had Hindenburg locked in a camp. 2) WWII caused the Cold War From 1945-1991, the famous conflict between Russia and the United States began. It was not violent, but threats of atomic bombs and of missiles were foreseen in the harsher days of propaganda and international arguments that stirred the pot of controversy and worried millions of people. Russia and the United States turned on each other because of Communism. Yes, the rise of Communism and Capitalism in Europe and Asia after World War II caused this 40-year-debate. After the Second World War, Capitalism and Communism were at their greatest peaks of scientific, political and social competition. To see which government idea could possibly be most effective. 3) WWII caused the Vietnam War During WWII, Vietnam suffered French Occupation. After the Germans invaded France, France kept the land for resources. When the Japanese also attacked, France surrendered their captured territory. And the Japanese put the citizens of Vietnam under years of occupation and hell. Then when the Allies invaded Japan and Germany, France was willing to attempt to reoccupy the Vietnamese land they had to surrender. But one man, Ho Chi Mihn would not let this happen. He then developed a resistance group called the 'Viet Minh' which was dedicated to giving the Vietnamese liberty. Minh even went of his way to present the Allied Forces with a Declaration of Independence of Vietnam closely related to the French and America documents. After many years of revolution, they finally--almost--got what they wanted. Vietnam for a while was two countries, but after the Vietnam War, they received what they wanted. This is it for now. I will say more later in the next argument and I will supply links as well in the next one.
Parents or other adults should be able to ban books from schools and libraries

(I would like to make it clear from the start that I am against the idea of banned books, And am thoroughly against censorship. However, I have decided to argue for it here in order to have an interesting debate and to allow for myself to consider the other side. ) Banning books may sound bad, But it is actually absolutely necessary. There is a lot of potentially toxic content in the world that could easily slip its way into the hands of young children. This is not an exaggeration. On the Internet, It has become easier and easier to access pornography, Violent content, And other forms of potentially offensive material. To protect against this, Public libraries and schools have put filters and locks into place to prevent children from accessing such problematic content. There is no reason that print media should be treated any differently. Even those who advocate against banning books still have times in which they advocate bans. Almost nobody would argue that copies of Playboy or guides to building explosives like The Anarchist Cookbook should be available in schools. Parents, Educators, And the general public know that certain books are not to be in the hands of children. This is the same issue at hand that has created the ratings system for films. To say that books should not be banned at adult request is ridiculous.
Parents or other adults should be able to ban books from schools and libraries

I am not sure if anyone will accept this debate, But nonetheless I'm going to state my position on this topic. For anyone who is interested in debating my arguments are here for you to read. Parents and/or other adults shouldn't be able to ban books from schools and libraries because books help you get a better idea of the world and what our place in it is. 1. I understand some parent's concern of the book containing inappropriate topics such as; sex, Drug use, Violence, Etc. Although it is just to want to control what your child is exposed to, It's not fair to restrict what books are available to other students. If you are against your child reading a certain book you can simply prevent them from reading it and let the school know while giving other students who actually want to read the book a chance to do so. "Even books or materials that many find 'objectionable' may have educational value, And the decision about what to use in the classroom should be based on professional judgments and standards, Not individual preferences. " stated the National Coalition against Censorship. [1]2. Some books may talk about/touch base on inappropriate topics yet it is crucial that students understand the risks and outcomes that could occur due to an uninformed decision. These books can help you make an informed decision so that you won't regret anything later on in life. If the book is appropriate to the child's age level they have no need to prevent them from informing themselves about the cause and effect of something. Robbie H. Harris who is someone who constantly challenged children's books that talk about mature topics (like sex and sexual health) stated that "I think these books look at the topics, The concerns, The worry, The fascination that kids have today. . . It's the world in which they're living. " [2]To sum it up, I believe that if the parent(s) of the child doesn't want their child(ren) to read the book they can stop them from doing so. But, The book should still remain in the schools and libraries so other students have access to it as it can benefit them. [1] National Coalition against Censorship, "Censorship and the First Amendment in Schools: A Resource Guide, " webjunction. Org, May 9, 2016. [2] Jessica Gross, "Unsuited to Any Age Group, " lareviewofbooks, Sep. 26, 2014.
Parents or other adults should be able to ban books from schools and libraries

If parents do not feel that their child is ready to grapple with complex adult topics, That is their parenting approach. Parents know their children better than any one-size-fits-all philosophical approach. The idea that the system knows children better than their own parents do is ridiculous, And any good parent could tell you this. I am not a small child anymore, But I can say with certainty still that my parents know me far better than any one-size-fits-all policy put forward to support some random philosophy-based policy. You keep coming back to this idea of banning books automatically leading to censorship of homosexual themes. This is not necessarily and is not always the case. We still allow people to vote despite the fact that some of them are going to make bad decisions sometimes. Why? Because we trust that the basis of the system is sound, And is most of the time going to make the right decision. In most cases, The people end up making the right decision with the power that they are given. Much in the same way, The power of banning books will generally have good ends and good results, As people generally do right by their power. Many of the books supposedly censored for being gay are really banned for being absurdly sexual, Vulgar, And filled with other descriptions that are not for small minds to comprehend. Just because a little kid should accept that being gay is okay doesn"t mean they should be reading obscene descriptions of anal sex and fellatio. Finally, We do have systems in place that seek to prevent children from seeing traumatizing content. This is why there are parental blocks in place on computers, Preventing the computers from being filled with videos of beheadings and disturbing fetish pornography. In the same way, Children are not allowed to go into movie theaters showing movies rated R without an adult guardian, And are never allowed into films rather NC-17. These systems work at keeping content out of the hands of children. Especially the issue of parental blocks on computers show that, Whatever the child"s age is, Parents can have a very positive role in filtering out what content their children are to view. Trauma is not something children should just be exposed to because "that"s how the world is". Most sensible people can agree that there are reasonable times in life to be exposed to things, And at a young age should not be the time. Personally, I do not wish to take responsibility for the traumatizing and destruction of young minds. If a little bit of book-banning is necessary to protect the youth, I support such an approach. The world"s systems may not be perfect, But banning books sometimes is necessary to protect the common good. (I want to thank you for taking me on in this debate. I do not generally side with the side I was arguing for, And I think debating it was a very interesting way of exploring both sides of thinking. I hope I have made compelling points, And I thoroughly enjoyed this debate, Even if I was supporting a position I am vehemently against in "real life". )
Parents or other adults should be able to ban books from schools and libraries

Though books can be a great way to explore complex topics and life lessons, These always end up being the job of parents to discuss. While it may be great to have a child read a book about people of other races and using that knowledge to learn essential lessons about tolerance, They could also pick up a book by a dangerous author like Adolf Hitler and begin to absorb those ideas as well. Young minds are very fragile. While sheltering children from what is bad in the world may be seen as negative by some who advocate against book bans, It is still a thing that most parents agree is necessary and good. There is more to this than just the idea that children will pick up bad ideas. Books, Like movies or any other form of media, Can traumatize a child or make them deeply scared. A child who watches the Saw movies when they"re six years old probably isn"t going to become a deranged lunatic who puts people in horrifying traps; however, This movie could still do deep damage to their psyche in terms of triggering deep emotional fears. Books that deal with scary themes and topics can have traumatizing, Fear-inducing, And lingering effects upon a child"s mind.
Parents or other adults should be able to ban books from schools and libraries

Homophobia is not a good reason to ban books, Obviously. There are clear reasons to ban books, However, That can be agreed upon by people on the right and the left. Inciting hate and violence are always problematic, And should always not be dealt with by giving them the ability to have their books out there. Bookstores are places parents monitor their children going to, As opposed to libraries and schools. If a parent is allowing their child to go to the library or school, There is an assumption that they will be safe and not exposed to negatively influencing content. Bookstores, On the other hand, Are like any other form of business where parents have to regulate their child"s involvement. There is a trust in schools and libraries that is continuously degraded as long as negative texts are allowed to be there for anyone to access. And in response to you saying if one child is mature enough to handle it, It"s worth it: I disagree strongly. If thousands could be offended, That is not worth it for one singular child who may think themselves mature enough to handle the content.
Parents or other adults should be able to ban books from schools and libraries

All arguments that you are making in terms of specifically banned content is still referencing specifically banned content. The idea that pornography should not be in schools may seem rational, But it is also a form of book ban. All of these forms of content restrictions are content restrictions nonetheless, And they are necessary. Simply requiring a library card to show age is a slippery slope. What is considered to be appropriate based on age? Who is to decide this? Even if one thirteen year old may be mature enough to handle a book with mature content, Not all of them will be. Having a simple age restriction doesn"t truly work, Considering that all children are different, And they cannot simply be divided up by age. If a book is considered to be potentially offensive, It should simply be banned from certain spaces to keep it from getting into the hands of people. As is apparent to those who go to libraries, You don"t need to check out books to read them. One could easily pick up a book that is not approved for their age group, Or even steal it if they are interested enough. This is clearly problematic for keeping sensitive content out of the hands of children. If a book is readily available, One can read it, Whether or not there is some sort of restriction on their library card. Aside from just pornography, There are many forms of literature that could be classified as dangerous. Books by fascists, Hate criminals, And others who inspire violence can put very dangerous ideas into the heads of people.
Parents or other adults should be able to ban books from schools and libraries

Hopefully, Through this debate I'll be able to understand the other perspectives a little better. Banning books may sound bad, But it is actually absolutely necessary. - You are right when you mentioned that "there is a lot of potentially toxic content in the world that could easily slip its way into the hands of young children" because nowadays kids as young as 7 know about sex (all the details) and potentially watch porn. It is understandable to put filters and censors, But some of the content can actually benefit the child and help them understand what is wrong and what is right (for example: doing drugs have a negative toll on your health, Abstinence is key when it comes to sex, Etc. ). Couldn't you just create a system where schools and libraries require your library card to show your age so that you can only get content appropriate to your age. If you're afraid someone will lie about age simply have their picture on the card which some school libraries do. The content which is deemed to be inappropriate can be isolated from the regular books so that people can only get access to it if they get explicit permission. Even those who advocate against banning books still have times in which they advocate bans. - I agree that books like Playboy shouldn't be available in schools, But the chance of such books being there is rare in the first place. But if the ban of a book results in the lack of knowledge of a subject that is greatly affective youth it could have a negative toll. It also shouldn't prevent others from being able to learn if they want to do so as I mentioned earlier. To add on to my arguments from before I'd like to speak about an author who spoke out about his banned books. John Green (who is an American author) wrote the book Looking For Alaska which has been challenged (people want to ban it) due to offensive language and sexually explicit descriptions. He defended himself by saying “In context, The novel is arguing really in a rather pointed way that emotionally intimate kissing can be a whole lot more fulfilling than emotionally empty oral sex. ” [1] As you can see here although it does contain explicit content the purpose of the book wasn't to encourage such things but to help others know that there is another option that doesn't have negative outcomes. Then the American Library Association (ALA) also defended him by stating “Challenges do not simply involve a person expressing a point of view; rather, They are an attempt to remove material from the curriculum or library, Thereby restricting the access of others. As such, They are a threat to freedom of speech and choice. ” [1]Also in some countries there are strict laws and rules to ensure that such content doesn't get into the wrong hands. I'm not sure as to which countries they are and what are the laws. I'll look into it and find something. [1] . https://www. Theguardian. Com/childrens-books-site/2016/apr/26/john-green-looking-for-alaska-banned-censorship
Get rid of religion

who was a catholic now i mean a praticing one not just a baptisted one because i was baptisted a catholic but i am anything but that see you dont get to choose your way of thinking till your older and in someplaces it would of been highly frowned upon to convert or deny your faith . and on the hate part i would be one less thing to hate someone on and somthing so serious that people kill in the name of it which different than just disagreeing with a person about politics .but once agian i also siad i would except it just being taught as fiction because my idea would cause murder i know that forsure.
Get rid of religion

i agree people are corrupt money power and religion corrupt you don't here of people blowing themselves up in the name of science do you no. it is personal yes but it isn't that long ago it was still happing 20 to 30 years ago when the state was practically ran by the church and were still feeling the effects of it today. but i agree what your saying about banning religion but that's just what i would like to see happen. but that's why i said or they could teach it as fiction because that what it is . it is all wishful thinking because people are afraid to say i don't know or are afraid of death so they try and dress it up so that when they die the will go to paradise instead of saying i don't know were everything came from but i want to find out and i don't get why people don't except there going to die nothing to be afraid of it happens to us all ..
Get rid of religion

Alright so this is personal. Those people who raped and destroyed are not the shining examples of Christians. They are flawed, like you and me. Christians strive to do good not kill and rape. And if you think getting rid of religion will stop any of that, think again. Your missing the fact that there are, have always been and will always be bad people, and banning religion will do nothing to help. That was also many years ago, so you cannot, in good faith, ban it now has justification for what people did way back when. People are corrupt, and killing religion will not solve anything
Get rid of religion

it is fiction i am not in the USA i am Irish i have seen what religion does it hold the country back it give people power that shouldn't have power and what does power do it corrupts 1 in 3 of my fathers generation were raped boys and girls daily by the church that was running the schools. 1 in 3 man there is not one crumb of evidence for god and they still believe in it but when facts and evidence are put in front of them they deny it there is no god and if there was why would you want anything to do with it if it allows that. . i would wipe it out if i could but i would be happy if they just taught it as fiction to
Resolved: God Exists.

Thanks a lot for the invitation, Lannan. I've seen you around the site a lot and I'm glad to be able to have a debate with you. I love discussing religion and the existence of God and the origins of the universe and stuff along those lines, so this should be fun! However if you keep saying "rebuttle" instead of "rebuttal," all I'll think about is what "buttle" sounds like. Anyway, I'm excited for this and I'm looking forward to a great debate, I would love to be able to have my views changed regarding the existence of God. Good luck and thanks again!