BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Flat/Spherical earth MEME WAR

https://i0.wp.com...https://planetruthblog.files.wordpress.com...https://planetruthblog.files.wordpress.com...https://planetruthblog.files.wordpress.com...https://planetruthblog.files.wordpress.com...https://planetruthblog.files.wordpress.com...https://planetruthblog.files.wordpress.com...https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com...
companies that use child labor should be punished.

I am left confused by Pro. In round 4, she was telling us that ". .. we can stop child laboring, and give them money and food instead. " Now she is telling us in round 5 that ". .. this is the last thing that they can do, and we can help only few people that are poor. " I don't understand. Which is it? Are those different "we's"? If so, I would advise her to be more specific in the future. While I agree that relying on distressed governments to look after their own people is problematic, my point throughout this debate is that it is even worse to rely on American companies to look after people in other countries. It isn't their responsibility. Trying to force it to be their responsibility damages commerce for both rich and poor, because American companies would find it too risky to do business in poor areas that could later be found to have used child labor, leaving the American companies exposed to punishment. That means poor areas would be more likely to stay poor, isolated, and separate from the global economy, thus exacerbating child labor, not eliminating it. Throughout this debate, my opponent and I have agreed on many points, among them that foreign aid should be provided to people who need support in order to build basic institutions for education and public health, and that child labor is undesirable. The point we still strongly disagree on is that American corporations should be punished by the government for using products that were produced through child labor. Note that consumers could still boycott if they want to punish especially abusive or callous companies; the topic of our debate is if the [American] government should punish [American] companies. My opponent asserts that it should, but through this debate provided absolutely no rationale whatsoever for thinking this should be true. Round 5 was especially confusing, because we were talking about foreign aid one minute, and then the last sentence comes out of nowhere with "Companies that use these families and children's things should be punished. " Why? Even voters who tend to agree with her have to admit that there were no warrants provided by Pro in this debate. Thank you all for your interest, and however it turns out, congratulations on completing your first debate, Pro. I hope you'll keep practicing.
companies that use child labor should be punished.

Con said that Government will suport the poor, but that is not realistic. If the country is poor enough to send their child to laboring, the Government is poor, and doesn't have money to support them. If they did, why they are sending their child to labors? This is the last thing that they can do, and we can help only few people that are poor. Companies that use these families and children's things should be punished.
companies that use child labor should be punished.

My assumptions were that we are talking about the US government and US corporations using labor abroad, since there are already child labor laws regarding the use of child labor here in the states. None of this was disputed, so I think it is fair that I understood her meaning correctly. My opponent has failed to counter the points that I made in round 3 in any meaningful way. To review, my position is essentially that penalizing corporations for having inputs that used child labor somewhere in the supply chain places an expensive and cumbersome burden on them that doesn't actually solve the problem. In fact it makes it worse by discouraging corporations from even wanting to do business at all with less fortunate countries because the inputs might be contaminated by child labor, which they will be punished for. As uncomfortable as this may make some, such as my opponent, even in cases where we know for sure that child labor was involved, it is still better for everyone that there should be commerce rather than no commerce. I agree that education is a better use of a child's time than labor, but that isn't what we're debating. We are debating whether or not corporations should be punished for buying products and materials that were in part produced by child labor. I argue that it is the responsibility of corporations to obtain inputs at the best value, refine or manufacture them further, and then distribute them to end consumers at a profit maximizing price. By contrast, the responsibility of providing for the well being and education of children falls primarily to parents and governments. As my opponent argues, sure, for the sake of argument let's say that it is the US government's moral duty to give aid to other governments and peoples who are in need. But what does that have to do with punishing corporations? Nothing. In fact, corporations, through their taxes and the employment they provide, are largely the entities that fund the US government and make those aid efforts possible. Child labor is both a symptom of and a perpetuating cause of poverty. I am not a fan of it, by any means. But I am pragmatic enough to know that if child labor is to be ended, it won't be by bans and regulations punishing companies. It will be by aid efforts, such as the kind my opponent mentions, and by economic development and progress in poor areas, which already is pulling more and more people in the world out of poverty each year [3]. In other words, it will be by giving poor people better options than sending their kids to work, not by removing the only (albeit undesirable) option they currently have.3) . http://www.worldbank.org...
companies that use child labor should be punished.

Many poor people needs money. However, when their child grows up and have more money instead work in factory getting few money, the child's family can live not like poor people. We have to help them with food and money to grow up and study, but it is better than letting them work in factory with little money since they are child. These factories are usually in bad conditions, and it is very dangerous to child. We can stop child laboring, and give them money and food instead. Then, we will make the law for them to ban child labor completely.
companies that use child labor should be punished.

Many children are being labored by companies. They have to work for their families while they should play with other friends. Companies treat them very bad. Some are sick, but companies just fire them with no money to get them cured. They should study instead of working to get the proper job in the future, but only their family is poor, they are being labored. I think this is bad for these children, and for companies too.
Abortion

The point of viability, or the point at which a fetus can survive outside the mother, is 24 weeks. However, a fetus in the last week (40th week) has no legal rights as abortion is legal through all 9 months of pregnancy. Most states restrict it at the point of viability, but 9 states have no cut-off. Leroy Carhart, Curtis Boyd, and Warren Hern are just a few providers that perform abortions up until the due date. There is no difference in a person and a human being. And again, scientifically speaking, a fetus from the point of conception or the point at which it begins to exist, IS a human being. Our humanity is not conditional on our size, level of development, environment, or degree of dependency. Therefore, abortion is the same as killing any other human being.
Abortion

The point I was trying to illustrate was that a fetus that cannot live a normal life if extracted should be considered in the same way as an internal organ that cannot live on its own. To be explicitly clear, a fetus in the last week of the pregnancy has the same rights as a newborn because it could easily live a normal life if taken out this instant (recall this qualification whenever I use the word "fetus"). A five-centimetre-long fetus would quickly die if extracted from a woman in the same way that her kidney or liver would, and thus isn't a person, per se. And, in any case, it has no cognitive capacity to grasp the concept of life, and wouldn't be able to sense or feel anything and certainly not to grasp it to an extent of a complete child.
Abortion

A liver does not have the same potential as a human fetus. It's an organ. It cannot grow or develop into another stage and will never have the ability to sustain its own individual life. A newborn is also dependent on another to survive and would die if left on its own, yet it's illegal and considered immoral by most people to directly kill it or leave it to die. Our humanity, the very characteristic that dictates our value and right to life, is not defined by our degree of dependence for survival.
Abortion

A fetus inside a woman does not deserve the same rights as an autonomous being living on its own. Try to think of it like this: if you wanted to donate a part of your liver (a non self-sustaining structure that you can donate a part of and still be fine) and signed legal paperwork affirming your decision, then would anyone consider taking up picket signs and protesting? The liver, after all, has the same basic potential as a fetus, to provide human life. The early fetus would die just as quickly outside of its mother as the liver, and has the same basic potential as the liver, so why should it have more rights than the liver?
Votes on debates are confirmation bias

Take this debate where my opponent (this opponent) forfiets when the resolution is confirmed to be irrational rhetoric.http://www.debate.org...It is still unvoted on becuase people don't want to vote against something they like spewing forth.Or this debate:http://www.debate.org...Where my opponent in the comment section admits to taking the time to troll about other people. He does not address any of the points I put forward. The votes align with him even tho my arguments were enough to give him something to thinkabout and he in the comment section thought he would lose.
Votes on debates are confirmation bias

I see the links my opponent has provided. I would actually like to point out some other debates that show voters who have disagreed with the person that they gave the most points to. Who can say for sure if people had biased votes? I admit I have had the temptation to give the points to a person in a debate that I agreed with even when they're argument wasn't better. I didn't vote like that, only tempted to. But no one can say for sure, and even fewer people will admit that the voters are confirmation bias. I also want to encourage all readers to not go to another debate with this debate in mind because it will affect the statistics my opponent is trying to prove. I believe it is very possible that people do not choose who they agree with before and after so that people do not believe they are biased. I believe people would think they were biased if they showed who they agreed with before the debate. My opponent's argument is along the same lines as my last sentence, however, I believe that the reverse is just as possible and actually more likely. We are not inside the heads of our voters, and until we are, it is unfair to act like we know what is going on.
Votes on debates are confirmation bias

It seems as though my opponent has made a generalization. I would also like to point out that there is actually a vote. A vote that is in favor of my opponent completely, giving him 7 points. It is expected for my opponent to get votes in his favor in that debate because his opponent forfeited and commented that he encourages all possible points to go to the opponent. Of course, it is possible that the voter saw that debate after this one started. It's also likely that the person voted on the debate in favor of my opponent saw this debate and went on over to that debate and voted with a goal to prove my opponent wrong. In the second debate, I see people giving points to my opponent, and it is not obvious to the average person that they are voting in a bias fashion
should inteligent be thought as a science

1."May you give me an example of were the bible should not be considered scientifically accurate?" Again, let me ask you: what does this have to do with intelligent design being a science? If you need an answer, try all of Noah's Ark, but still, please connect to the overall topic. 2. "In Darwin's book On the Origin of Species there are some 800 subjective clauses, with uncertainty repeatedly admitted instead of proof. Words such as "could," "perhaps" and "possibly" fill the entire book." You seem to have many attacks that are completely pointless on the book Origin of Species. Again, one last time, what the hell does that have to do with intelligent design being taught? Even if Richard Dawkins was a complete moron, does that mean evolution is not true? Just because someone who agrees with it may have errors? 3. You have a misunderstanding of the scientific method. The idea behind the method is that human knowledge is, indeed, limited. Because of this, all theories must be tested over and over again. There is no definitive truth, merely an acknowledgement of the truth as we can best determine. That truth is evolution, so while no one is certain that it is true, it is being perfected and made more true every day, unlike intelligent design. 4. "you should take a look at ow they teach it in the textbooks nowadays." Can you elaborate? 5. "Why can't it be the students choice what they have to learn in science?" Because the whole idea is that a student learns what is true from the teacher, not the other way around. Would you like them to also decide if they learn about a round earth? 6. "The chance that a 200-component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion!" Again, evidence? 7. "We see no gradual change in the fossil record." "To conclude I would like to point out that evolution IS NOT PROVEN NOR IS IT A FACT." http://talkorigins.org... Spend an hour there or so, it really dives into the core proofs of evolution that you didn't feel like addressing. So to conclude, personal attacks don't mean anything, there is clear evidence for evolution if you just look, teachers should be saying what is and isn't true, the bible is irrelevant to the conversation, and you STILL have yet to give me any evidence for intelligent design. The ball is in your court.
should inteligent be thought as a science

First I would like to apologize for my lack of structure or organization in my argument, perhaps I should take more time explaining and writing. "Why would the bible having a things that are true lead to the idea that another thing it says must automatically be true, and must be taught?" I would like to ask you the same question about evolution. Why must it be taught as a fact and why cant the student have a choice in what they get to learn? "1. Just because one thing in the Bible is true does not mean that everything should be considered scientifically accurate." May you give me a example of were the bible should not be considered scientifically accurate? I believe that all the examples I gave you are not contradicted anywhere in the bible and would like for you to give a basis for what what you said. "2. Just because something doesn't have a religious agenda doesn't mean it's a science." I was not saying that everything without a religious agenda means it a science or else we could be teaching our children about unicorns. I was simply saying that intelligent design does not need to be taught with a religious agenda but with a scientific agenda. "3. Evolution is a theory that does not define the origin of life and therefore mentioning it is off-topic." "Probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some primordial form, into which life was first breathed" as Charles Darwin said in The Origin Of Species. Wait did I hear a probably? now that doesn't sound very scientific. When there is no real evidence, evolutionary scientists simply make assumptions. So where did the primordial form come from? Would you not agree with me that evolution is unproven because of that statement. "4. I'd like to ask, with being as polite as possible, for you to connect your reasoning a bit better and have a bit more sentence structure. I'm sure you have good points, but none of them seem to be coming across" I apologize for my previous inability to connect my reasoning with my ideas. To conclude I would like to point out that evolution IS NOT PROVEN NOR IS IT A FACT. Just because schools teach it as one doesn't mean it is one. you should take a look at ow they teach it in the textbooks nowadays. No where in intelligent design does it mention biblical times, so there is no need to teach our public school kids about religion. Why can't it be the students choice what they have to learn in science? The chance that a 200-component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion! We see no gradual change in the fossil record. In Darwin's book On the Origin of Species there are some 800 subjective clauses, with uncertainty repeatedly admitted instead of proof. Words such as "could," "perhaps" and "possibly" fill the entire book. Why is it regarded as more proven than intelligent design when the evidence I just gave you proves its not a proved theory any more than intelligent design is.
should inteligent be thought as a science

I understand that not everyone speaks English as a first language, so I'll try to work with it, but I will say that it is difficult to understand your writing. From your post, "The Earth is a sphere" to "How did they know all this before technology advancements" has no context to the argument. Why would the bible having a things that are true lead to the idea that another thing it says must automatically be true, and must be taught? Despite the fact that all of these passages are contradicted in the Bible(which I won't get into), what does any of this have to do with teaching intelligent design? Please connect your reasoning. Next, you quote a website that claims that both methods can be taught without religion. Again, you fail to explain why intelligent design should be taught in a science class when it is not a scientific theory. "Where did the mutating molecule come from that created everything?" I don't mean to be insulting, but this shows a clear lack of understanding of even the principle foundations of evolution. You are referring to abiogenesis, which is separate from evolution entirely, and the origin of original life is not connected to how multiple species exist. You reference Mr. Dawkins, and I'd like you to rephrase your point with him, because I honestly have no clue what the hell you are saying in that paragraph. Finally, you claim evolution is a faith because it takes faith to believe it. Again, why do we need faith to believe in a theory with evidence? Your last line is "Intelligent design doesn't need to have a religious agenda any ways so I don\t understand why its not a science." I would argue that many things without religious agendas are not sciences, such as astrology. So, just to conclude: 1. Just because one thing in the Bible is true does not mean that everything should be considered scientifically accurate. 2. Just because something doesn't have a religious agenda doesn't mean it's a science. 3. Evolution is a theory that does not define the origin of life and therefore mentioning it is off-topic. 4. I'd like to ask, with being as polite as possible, for you to connect your reasoning a bit better and have a bit more sentence structure. I'm sure you have good points, but none of them seem to be coming across.
should inteligent be thought as a science

I wasn't saying evolution was a religion, I just wanted to bring up that idea. Ok so here is my evidence of Intelligent design: The Earth is a sphere (Isaiah 40:23) in the time of Isaiah people believed the world was flat and somehow he knew that it wasn't. Incalculable number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22) again it was written in a time when people thought there was only 1100 stars. how did he know? Creation made of invisible elements (Hebrews 11:3) people didn't understand this verse when it was written but now we understand that there are atoms everywhere. Each star is different (1 Corinthians 15:41) when this was written people believed all stars were the same. Light moves (Job 38:19,20) they used to think light was in a fixed place when Job was alive. Air has weight (Job 28:25) they thought air was weightless in the time of Job. Winds blow in cyclones (Ecclesiastes 1:6) back then they thought it blew straight. so how did they know all this before they had the technology to make these discoveries? maybe God told them? That's the only way I can think of. Blood is the source of life and health (Leviticus 17:11). Yup it is. they believed sick people must be bled. Ocean floor contains deep valleys and mountains (2 Samuel 22:16; Jonah 2:6) how did they know this? Back then people believed it was f;at. Ocean contains springs (Job 38:16) They thought it was fed by rivers and lakes only back then. How did they know this back then? All the examples I just gave you was a the bible, now,then list of what science beliefs. How did they know all this before technology advancements? "This scientific evidence for both models can be taught in public schools without any mention of religious doctrine, whether the Bible or the Humanist Manifesto. There are text materials and teacher handbooks that have been prepared for a fair presentation of both models, creation and evolution. There are also seminars and audiovisuals for training teachers to offer both models of origins." (http://www.icr.org...) I would like you to ask me some questions so I can answer them the best I can if your up to that. Where did the mutating molecule come from that created everything? If you cant answer that than I will never have any reason to consider evolution as possibly true. Intelligent design has plenty of evidence and has been tested properly. Richard Dawkins says there is evidence that could be proof of intelligent design, but just not from a god.( aliens?) that takes more faith to believe in that a designer. evolution is not proven yet because we still don't know where that molecule came from. From the backs of crystals? Where did the crystals come from than? To conclude I would like to say that evolution is a faith because it takes faith to belief it, just like anything. Intelligent design doesn't need to have a religious agenda any ways so I don\t understand why its not a science.