BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Physical abuse as a punishment for children

I agree to be Pro for this argument. I will now present my case. In the argument involving child abuse, I believe it is a neccessary evil that must be done. Granted, that children will do what they wish to do even despite our best effort as parents, but discipline is a must. In order to discipline some children, it is abosolutely required to spank them. It was done in the old days, and it should still be something to considered in these days. The reason being that the spanking serves as a teaching agent. This is to say that when one gets spanked they know they have erred in a way that is not acceptable. I am not condoning excessive child abuse, nor am I saying that it is a wise thing to send your child to the hospital over spilled milk, or back talk. A simple spank on the bottom is enough, this is because "time out" is viewed as an easy escape. I speak not form an ignorant mind, but one that has had experience in being beaten as a child. I myself was a trouble maker when I was young, so I do speak from the heart. Furthermore, it does not have any ill effects on me as a person, it was simply a required thing in my life. Therefore, with that being said, a mild spanking should not violate the child or his/her reasons, it is used to simply discipline the child and teach them right from wrong. Again, when a child is sent to "time out" it is sort of like recess, the only difference is that the child is sitting alone in a corner. Yes one might think that they have nothing to do, but has it ever occured to the parent that the child is thinking to themselves that, "if i do this, then i'll only have time out, which is fine, because I can plan to do something else after time out and see what I can get away with", this is a clear example of what can go wrong with the time out method. This is why some sort of discipline is indeed required, but I must reiterate, that I am not saying take an electric cord and choke your child out, that is simply child abuse, a spank on the hand or the bottom is a very effective way.
Physical abuse as a punishment for children

I am against hitting or abusing children for punishment for bad behavior. The reason why hitting or abusing children is bad because, "Spanking a child may produce long-term ill effects."(http://www.cnn.com...) Spanking and hitting a child is a form of corporal punishment. One of the long term problems is that spanking children leads to anti-social behavior. Also hitting a child leads to the lack of trust for people.Not only does child abuse effect them pyschologically but also physically. Alot of hitting and abuse for punishment leads to severe physical injury which can defect a child for the rest of their lives. In addition, by hitting or spanking your child you're telling the child that hitting and spanking is an accpetable way to express anger on others. Moreover, the child will start to have feelings of worthlessness, and not loved because their parents hit them. Also a child is so young and they are defenseless to an adult, especially their parents. In addition, hitting a child leads to them having communication problems with people in general. Furthermore, hitting a child doesn't only affect the child but it affects their children in the future and it also effects you as a parent. "Spanking often leads to remorse, guilt, and doubts about the quality of your own parenting skills."(http://life.familyeducation.com...) Furthermore, usually when parents hit their children the hitting and punishment gets worse and stronger as the child grows which could lead to death and other serious medical conditions!!!! This is why abusing children as a punishment is wrong!
Jesus loves to cum on children

Cuming on children is wrong because it infringes on the child(ren) "Jesus came to share his cum with us" No. He will come to share salvation with us. It says that in the Revelation. "Little children love to eat Jesus's cum" No they don't. "Jesus loved to molest children" The bible preaches against this. "They hated the attention he gave to the children So one day, They decided to kill the Jesus" They killed him for not worshiping the Roman Gods. The Romans believed in freedom of religion as long as you worshiped the Roman Gods too. Since Christians defied this, They killed their leader, Jesus Christ. "I will send my army of rapists, I will send my sword, I will send the horde And children of the Earth will be molested forever" The bible never said this and if it did, Show me the bible verse in the comments.
Jesus loves to cum on children

Jesus loves to cum on children Let us pray together Because Jesus came for us all Jesus came to save us Jesus came to share his cum with us Little children love to eat Jesus's cum And Jesus loves to give his cum to children Jesus loves to cum on children Praise Jesus, Amen Once upon a time in the ancient Rome A person named Jesus was born Ever since he was little Jesus loved to molest children They say Jesus was born with a boner They say Jesus's dick was always hard But men of Rome wouldn't let it be They hated Jesus and they hated his love They hated the attention he gave to the children So one day, They decided to kill the Jesus They gathered around, They surrounded him But Jesus's dick was still hard Suddenly, A flash of light appeared in the Sky And thus spoke the Lord You shall not kill the Jesus I will take Jesus with me in the Sky I will send my army of rapists, I will send my sword, I will send the horde And children of the Earth will be molested forever
The "Fairness" Doctrine should not pass through Congress.

Many thanks to my opponent for continuing this debate. He made the point that the Fairness Doctrine "pertains to talk radio, not news" although, in fact, it applies to all broadcasting: news and current affairs programmes on both radio and television; and was formerly administered by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The FCC ensured licensed broadcasters discharged their responsibility to represent both mainstream political points of view in an unbiased and balanced fashion and when challenged, this tenant of their authority was upheld in the Supreme Court. "A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a...frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount." (U.S. Supreme Court, Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969.) However, in the 1980's the Reagan administration appointed Republican lapdog Mark S. Fowler as the chair of the FCC and charged him with the task of drowning out opposition opinions. To achieve this, Fowler duly stopped enforcing the Fairness Doctrine until it was officially repealed in 1987, knowing that broadcasters were, in the main, more sympathetic to right wing views than to left. Fowler justified this cynical attack on broadcasting standards by stating: "The perception of broadcasters as community trustees should be replaced by a view of broadcasters as marketplace participants." (Washington Post, 2/6/83): This echoes the view of my opponent who suggests it is the job of the broadcasters to interpret the news in a way that suits their political paymasters. My opponent then suggests that conservative radio stations are the only place that a conservative audience can get the news (that is to say the news they want to hear, as opposed to the truth). He justifies this by claiming that the media has an overall liberal bias. If this were true, then he should logically support the reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine as it would oblige all broadcasters to give right-wing commentators a fair crack of the whip. My opponent ends by encouraging us to think for ourselves. I would suggest that, in order to form your own opinion, you must first listen to both sides of an argument, and the Fairness Doctrine would ensure you would have the opportunity to do this. Thank you.
The "Fairness" Doctrine should not pass through Congress.

The Fairness Doctrine (as I would like to point out) pertains to TALK RADIO!!! Not news. Talk radio has the privilege to say whatever it wants- they tell the news and their side of the story. NOT- an unbiased account of what happened during the day. NO- It is the news reporters' and stations' job to make an unbiased report. NOT talk radio. We live in the US- FREEDOM OF SPEECH!!!! The only reason the liberals (Democrats for those of you who are oysters) want this through is because CONSERVATIVE talk radio is the only place where conservatives can get news. The Dems are pissed off because their lib. radio station didn't take off so they want to effectively CRUSH the opposition. Annoy a liberal- Think for yourself.
The "Fairness" Doctrine should not pass through Congress.

So balanced, unbiased reporting is going to lead to a socialist state is it? "Here is the United Socialist States of America Broadcasting Corporation evening news. New York - people were dancing in the streets this morning when the US Federal Government announced plans to severely restrict bonuses paid to greedy, incompetent, investment bankers, so that from now on the parasitic spivs on Wall Street will never be rewarded for failure. Miami - and a filthy-rich tycoon was killed earlier today when his $250,000 Ferrari careered into big tree. Good, the evil capitalist pig. I hope he suffered. And they should make his family pay for the damage to the tree as well. And finally, Los Angeles, and crowds of tourists stopped to point and laugh as crummy ham actor turned Republican governor Arnold Schwarzenegger was pelted with rotten eggs by disgruntled city employees as he left his office - he was so dazed that he fell down the steps and landed in a stinking puddle of muddy water. Ha-ha-ha! As one visitor from Sweden put it: ‘Now that's what I call entertainment!' Now over to Boris for the weather…" No, I don't think that is very likely, do you?
The "Fairness" Doctrine should not pass through Congress.

I would like to reply to my opponent's comments as follows: "Newspapers are NOT overwhelmingly pro-Republican! How could you say that?" The reason I said it was because it is true, and I gave a source to back up my statement. The media is big business and big businessmen, such as media tycoon Rupert Murdoch, are not noted for their left wing politics. "In this case, they (people with lower than average intelligence) should be able to figure it out and if they listen to WABC or WOR, and then watch CNN, that they are 2 different opinions." They should, but they can't and don't. That's the point. You and I and most of the debaters on this site would question the validity of a conservative talk show host's claim that Barak Obama is a Muslim extremist that intends to divert spending from homeland security to publicly-funded pagan sex workshops for unemployed gays, but some people will accept it as fact and vote Republican to stop it. "If you want to listen to a Liberal talk show, then go ahead, make one. But I, like many Republicans out there, want to listen to WABC and the countless other stations out there that have a Conservative bias- it's entertaining and WE want to listen to it and not some brainwashing Liberal crap. FREE SPEECH!!!" Free speech is exactly what the Fairness Doctrine would ensure. You will still be able to listen to your hate-filled Republican-biased commentators but their opinions will be balanced by their liberal counterparts who would tell the listeners about the facts as well. The people who oppose the Fairness Doctrine and the people who don't want the truth to come out. They are people like Robert Mugabe and Ehud Olmert who ban international journalists from entering their countries and reporting the facts because that news would expose them to be the crooks that they are. Thank you.
The "Fairness" Doctrine should not pass through Congress.

Newspapers are NOT overwhelmingly pro-Republican! How could you say that???? "because someone is a foreigner it doesn't follow that they are a thief and they will reply that it does because they read it in the Daily Mail." We are not talking about Xenophobia here. What does this have to do with anything??? "the type of person that doesn't understand the difference between a newsreader and a conservative talk show host." In this case, they should be able to figure it out and if they listen to WABC or WOR, and then watch CNN, that they are 2 different opinions. "All too often they allow political commentators to shape their opinion and the ones that shout loudest are the conservative talk show hosts. However, the ones that shout the loudest are not always correct, which is why the Fairness Doctrine should be reintroduced." If you want to listen to a Liberal talk show, then go ahead, make one. But I, like many Republicans out there, want to listen to WABC and the countless other stations out there that have a Conservative bias- it's entertaining and WE want to listen to it and not some brainwashing Liberal crap. FREE SPEECH!!! Thank you.
The "Fairness" Doctrine should not pass through Congress.

With many thanks to my opponent for continuing this fascinating debate, I should like to respond to his points as follows: He wrote: "CONSERVATIVE radio stations ARE the only place that the conservative audience can get the news" I'm not sure this statement is wholly accurate. Even if all radio news broadcasts were shamelessly pro-liberal, I would hardly consider Fox News to be a cog in the socialist propaganda machine and American newspapers are overwhelmingly pro-Republican. http://www.howardsmead.com... My opponent continued: "…talk show hosts ARE allowed to spin this because that is what they do…. conservative TALK SHOW HOSTS don't have to pay attention to the other point of view because they are ENTERTAINERS." I can see the rationale behind this. After all, you get political commentary in newspapers. They say "you shouldn't believe everything you read in the newspapers" and that's generally understood, yet some people do. You may say to them that just because someone is a foreigner it doesn't follow that they are a thief and they will reply that it does because they read it in the Daily Mail. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people out there who have trouble disseminating the news – the type of person that cannot distinguish between a documentary and a soap opera – the type of person that doesn't understand the difference between a newsreader and a conservative talk show host. This might not be such an issue if they weren't allowed to vote but they are. I agree with my opponent that in an ideal world, people would get their news from impartial sources such as CNN and then contrast that with the right wing propaganda that Fox News spews out before forming an opinion, but people are not generally that interested. All too often they allow political commentators to shape their opinion and the ones that shout loudest are the conservative talk show hosts. However, the ones that shout the loudest are not always correct, which is why the Fairness Doctrine should be reintroduced. Thank you.
The Vietnam War Was Something We Should Have Not Engaged In.

So reasons for engagement in the Vietnam War was for: • Ideology• and EvilNow to take a brief look at this previous arguments: "I will not argue about modern notions of communism, though I believe communism is flawed concept. Nobody will deny that at the time communist governments were responsible for horrible crimes. Stalin killed at least 3 million people, Pol Pot murdered at least 3 million people, the list is endless(1)."This has nothing to do with "Vietnam War was not worthy for engagement"."Even if you think that we should not have intervened to defend our ideology, nations have an obligation to stop genocide in other countries. We cannot just sit back at let governments murder their people. Communism is evil, and we have a moral obligation to stop it. It is evident that if communism took over Vietnam then genocide would have occurred, as it did. There is nothing wrong with trying to stop that."Military intervention is not always an appropriate method for attempting to resolve those types of problems in other countries. Now this excerpt: " My father is a Vietnam veteran. He has suffered severe heart problems for most of his adult life due to Agent Orange exposure in Vietnam. I wish that he had found a way out of his “service,” and, if the polls are trustworthy indicators of public opinion, most Americans now wish we had never gone to war in Vietnam or Iraq." https://www.salon.com...;• Agent Orange did nothing to expell guerilla Viet Cong• Through pointless bombing, they did nothing but rebuild• Thousands of U.S Fighter Aircraft were losthttps://en.wikipedia.org...;http://www.hawaii.edu...;" Poor generalship, mediocre officers, and lack of discipline ensured that the U.S. war effort in Vietnam would become and remain a mess. Stupid, pointless attacks against heavily defended hills inflicted huge casualties on U.S. troops and eroded morale." https://www.commondreams.org...;" The nightmare Vietnam War in which over 58,000 American soldiers died for nothing has been largely forgotten. So we can now repeat the same fatal errors again without shame, remorse or understanding."
The Vietnam War Was Something We Should Have Not Engaged In.

I had another debate on DebatingIsland, but I did not see much things. (I may cancel or put this debate up again if no one accepts) This debate is about the U.S Involvement in the war. The Vietnam War was not worth engaging in. 58,000 killed, all the bombings, and we still failed in the objective to prevent communism from taking over the country. As (con) being against the idea that it wasn't worth engaging in, he must argue why it was worth engaging in. The debate will also be shown as proof for whether the war was worth engaging in (fourth time I say this) or not. Now to continue with the contender!
-(!!!SPOILERS!!!)- Jon Snow in the future... -(!!!SPOILERS!!!)-

Unfortunately I am not a reader of the books, although I am aware that the series, for the most part, has caught up to them, even including possible ideas that were going to be added in future books. (the idea that stannis will burn his daughter in the future). I do recall that episode where Lord Beric Dondarion was revived, however, when I saw Melisandre's reaction to his resurrection, she seemed stunned and in shock that it could happen. I think she will possibly be apart of his return, if he does; although I doubt it will just be a simple resurrection, that would be a stab at the show, no pun intended. I am thinking it will be similar to lady stoneheart or the mountains return. Although I would LOVE the idea for him to come back as cold hands, as we have not seen cold hands in the series and it does not look like he will return. I remember sam telling olly that jon always comes back, I think he is coming back, I am not sure as what though. If you also remember that old nights king guy that apparently resurrected all of those dead people, he wasn't a 'bad' guy, he was deluded because of his wife. Personally I believe it could be one of many, the more obvious one is a part resurrection from Melisandra though, my personal favourite would be Jon taking the place of cold hands.
-(!!!SPOILERS!!!)- Jon Snow in the future... -(!!!SPOILERS!!!)-

Hi there friend. I myself am an avid fan of "Game of Thrones", as well as a reader of the book series. Before we begin, I would like to aware readers to the fact that I will be using spoilers which encompass the entire series thus far, up to the latest aired episode "Mother's Mercy". The case of Jon Snow, and his deliberately ambiguous future, certainly is fascinating, and I have a few thoughts on the matter. Before we continue, please tell me friend, what are your thoughts on the matter? What do you think will happen to Jon? Given the wording of your introductory argument, I will assume that this debate is in regards to the television series, unless stated otherwise. Therefore, I believe that Jon, as a character is not, in fact, dead. As the show has shown before, there are numerous ways around death, and the demise of a character is not completely set in stone, especially this far into the series. An example of the flexibility of death can be seen in episode three of the third season, "Kissed by Fire". After losing in his fight to Sandor Clegane, (AKA: The Hound), Lord Beric Dondarion is revived by the Red Priest Thoros of Myr. If one is to watch the fight in it's entirety, they will see that the injuries sustained by Dondarion are far greater than those that Jon suffered, resulting in immediate death. However, Thoros is able to resurrect him almost immediately, and he is able to retain all of his memories before his "death" (this is proven when he addresses Arya and notes that Sandor is the winner of the trial by combat). After Stannis's defeat at Winterfell in the finale of the fifth season "Mother's Mercy", the Red Priestess Melisandre flees to Castle Black. A single scene (albeit quite brief) even shows Jon witnessing her return. I believe that director David Nutter would not have included this scene without intending for it to have a greater purpose somewhere further down the line. Melisandre has shown herself an avid believer of R'hllor, The Lord of Light, and has also displayed a great range of supernatural skills which stem from her holy beliefs (the birthing the shadow in S02E04 "Garden of Bones" being an example). Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that Melisandre may heal, or "resurect" Jon, especially considering her past fascination with him, and the fact that he potentially possesses kings blood, if the R+L=J theories are to be believed. Personally, I think Jon is to valuable to Melisandre for her to simply let him die, and therefore believe that she may serve a purpose in saving his character sometime in season six. Those are my personal ideas on the future of the story. What are yours friend? I look forward to discussing such an interesting and enthralling story with you.
-(!!!SPOILERS!!!)- Jon Snow in the future... -(!!!SPOILERS!!!)-

I have a few predictions... basically the only logical ones. I want to discuss what could happen and why. Since Jon Snow was stabbed repeatedly at the end of S5... Is he 1. Dead. 2. Alive. 3. About to be resurrected. 4. About to take the role of Lady Stoneheart. 5. About to take the role of Cold Hands. 6. About to warg into his dire wolf. 7. About to turn into something not completely human, but has no affiliation with the previous numbers. I would like to discuss this seriously... No trolling No swearing No judging No whining Please lets discuss :)
-(!!!SPOILERS!!!)- Jon Snow in the future... -(!!!SPOILERS!!!)-

In response to your thoughts, I am in agreement with them for the most part. If the R+L=J theory is to be believed, it would prove Ned's disloyalty to his wife false, as Jon would not be his child. However, as far as slips in morality goes, Ned did betray his own morals in the episode "Baelor" (season one, episode 9) by announcing Joffery as King Roberts son, and therefore the heir to the throne. So if one is arguing a skewed moral basis for the Starks, then it is certainly reasonable to assume that Jon may betray his morals in spite of all that has happened to him. In regards to the escalating situation at the wall, I find it hard that the showrunners would have included Jon so much and made him such a pivotal point to the goings-on North of The Wall to just simply kill him off. There has been too much character development and too much foreshadowing to just let him go, especially after the events at Hardhome, and the fact that Sam is travelling to Oldtown.