BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Beauty contests should be banned.

I feel you are only arguing that is it okay for people to become beauty pageants if they want to, if is up to them if they want to be judged on their appearance. What about the other people? It affects others, as well as the beauty pageants in my opinion. Beauty contests are harmful. It teaches children the worth of a person is almost solely based on appearance. They increase dieting, eating disorders, and lowers their self esteem causing them to feel simply inaccurate and ugly. These contests objectify women. They have so much pressure put on them and they will either grow up feeling that they are ugly and will never be good enough or believing that they are some sort of royalty and acting like snobs. Just watch "Toddlers and Tiaras" on TLC when the girls are getting ready and you'll see that it hurts to put on fake lashes and fake hair etc. Plus they could end up anorexic and getting plastic surgery and going on unnecessary diets, which by the way is unhealthy. They either break you down or make you into a mean, snobby, horrible person. Beauty pageants are degrading and harmful to women and children. They turn women into objects to be used and played with. They make the women that don't make it through feel bad about their looks and make even those the do get through feel like they still have to do something to look prettier. Beauty pageants also set false standards about how beautiful women are supposed to look. So just because a woman is thin and "health?" With certain looks makes them beautiful? Women that are thick or big can't be pretty or beautiful? Some say that beauty is only skin deep, well it isn't, a person can have a beautiful soul. A beautiful man or woman can be either kind or horrible. Someone who isn't attractive can have a beautiful soul or an ugly one. In beauty pageants beauty is only skin deep, and it puts others down. http://www.nytimes.com... https://academichelp.net...
Beauty contests should be banned.

Influencing someone's decision does not mean that it is a good reason for it to be banned. Influence is a great way for a new era to emerge from orthodozew and traditional ways. The pressure that you are talking about that women are being pressured to is not a reason for them to be banned. That sounds like a personal problem that isn't going to get solved by banning beauty contests. And beauty contests are not the main contributing factor in women feeling bad about their looks. There are celebrities and there are models too but to only pin the blame on beauty pageants would be unfair. If you have ever seen a beauty pageant, they actually do factor in talent in areas such as world view or just a special talent that you possess. Plus, a beauty pageant is supposed to be a physical contest. If you want to do a mental contest, then you should do activities, such as debate.org :). The point that I am trying to get at is that people may feel the pressure increase because of these contests but it really is just a personal problem that should not interfere with other people's liberties.
Beauty contests should be banned.

Thank-you for the acceptance con. I hope this debate will be a very interesting and a well discussed topic. I agree with what you are saying but beauty pageants do limit the choice of others due to putting pressure on women to conform to this ideal of beauty which is promoted. This is limiting the lifestyle choices of many more women than choose to take part in the pageants. Also women in beauty contests are judged on their physical appearance rather than on any other qualities they may possess (the existence of a "talent" element in many such contests is all very well, but ugly women simply aren't going to win). Judging women, but not men, primarily on their looks contributes to the subjugation of women because other qualities, such as intelligence, are not seen as part of ideal femininity and therefore not as things to which women should aspire. Ideal masculinity, while in itself potentially damaging to men, tends to be construed in much wider and less restrictive terms - it is notable that male beauty contests, judging men on their physical appearance, are much less popular than female ones. http://idebate.org...
Beauty contests should be banned.

I will be arguing for banning beauty contests because beauty contests promote an ideal look of female beauty to which only a minority of women can realistically aspire, but which adds to the pressure on all women to conform to it. This can be harmful to women by encouraging dieting, eating disorders and cosmetic surgery, or simply by making them feel inadequate and ugly by comparison to this "ideal" that is promoted. Moreover, these contests force the models and contestants to look even slimmer and perfect all the time, thus encouraging anorexia and bulimia. My opponent should accept if he/she thinks they can argue against banning beauty contests. http://www.nigeriafilms.com...
Baseball is better then soccer.

Accepted. 1. MLB Umpires are better than FIFA Refs. CB Buckner's strike zone is more consistent than what constituted a foul in the World Cup Final. "Even with bad umpires, they will call a strike if its in the middle of the strike zone. FIFA Refs seem so busy looking at dives and minor physical interactions that they miss a lot blatant fouls around them. 2. MLB Managers have more stones than FIFA coaches. MLB Managers are not afraid to be removed from a game when it comes to protecting their players, it's actually expected for a manager to stick up for his guys. FIFA coaches seem to stay out of the way no matter what happens. I understand that FIFA has rules and such, but as a coach, your guys are more important than the rule book. 3. Baseball is an equal opportunity game. I'm not speaking in the politically correct sense. "I mean that both teams have an equal amount of opportunities score. Also, in Baseball you will not play a man down simply because one guy screwed up. "Each team will field nine people. Unless for some reason, they choose not to. "The Yankees are not going to win the World Series because the other team had to play without a Left Fielder. 4. 'It's not over till it's over.' Baseball games do not end in ties (unless the Commissioner makes a bone head decision). You play until an inning past the eighth ends with one team having a higher score than the other. "There is no limited over time, nor is their a home run derby to decide the winner. "You play the game till it's finished. 5. The other team doesn't score for you. Of course, with every sport there is a way to score on the opposing teams mistakes. "Still, in baseball you have to physically do the work to get to home plate. "You do not sit idly by while an opposing player tags home by mistake. 6. MLB players are professional athletes. "FIFA players are amateur athletes This is not a knock against the physical demands of Soccer. "I'll be the first to admit that it's the most demanding physically with the exception of Aussie rules football. "It's not physical ability that separates a professional from an amateur. My point is that Professional players, when they fall down, dust themselves off and get back in the game. "A amateur will lay on the ground crying and wailing like a two-year-old at a Wal-mart toy section. On a side note, I know there are exceptions in both cases, it's just that taking a dive is not a norm in MLB. 7. Sportsmanship is a hallowed thing on the field for MLB. Don't believe me on this? MLB is more aggressive against PED's, gambling, and unfair conduct than any other sport organization I can think of. "If you still don't believe me, just look at Pete Rose and Carlos Zambrono. Both teams in the World Cup Final should be ashamed of their play. "Baseball players do not push and shove when the umpire has his back turned. "You don't see a first baseman grabbing onto a base runner. "Most of the time, you see the first baseman give the opposing a player a 'good game' after he gets a single."
Baseball is better then soccer.

Accepted. Thanks to pro for starting this debate, as a big soccer (football) fan it's my pleasure to outline exactly why it's better than baseball; and why many others around the world would agree. (1.) International Recognition Soccer is by far the most internationally followed sport in the world. It has fans from Asia, Africa, the Middle East, the Pacific, America, and most notably Europe. Over 265 million players are actively involved in the sport around the world, with a fan base exceeding billions. Soccer is a sport that has worldwide appeal, while baseball is traditionally an American game; predominantly played in America. Additionally, big stars like Messi and Ronaldo have huge amounts of fans. However, it seems that soccer has a growing popularity in the U.S. This summers 2014 World Cup saw team USA make it to the last 16. A number of Americans travelled to Brazil to watch their teams, an audience well into their millions. The highest being the Portugal vs USA game, when 24.7 million watched. It has also attracted some celebrity in support in America. These figures for the world beat the viewing number(s) for the NBA finals and the World Series. Alluding to its international popularity once again, the most followed sports team in the world is English soccer club Manchester United, with 659 million fans worldwide. Spanish club Barcelona came 2nd and 260 millions fans, and Real Madrid with 180 million fans. English club (my team) Chelsea came 4th with 140 million. (2.) Technical Superiority In terms of ruled and play football is a relatively simple game, however, the use of "tactics" by mangers/coaches, and the skills of the players is a testament to the technique required in football. Unlike baseball, much more is required of soccer players and there is a greater fluidity in the game. There is also an unpredictability to the game, which thus makes it even more exciting. It should be noted just how "strong" soccer players actually are. As children and teenagers they have to be trained extensively, and as players have to meet the strict fitness standards. A professional soccer player (unless he is substituted) has to play 90+ minutes on a pitch, constantly running around and fulfilling his position duties, this in itself proves how physically capable football players are. (1.) http://m.huffpost.com... (2.) http://www.fifamoment.com...
Baseball is better then soccer.

Baseball is better then soccer. 1. The ball has visible seams and goes faster. 2. The players use their arms as well as their legs and don't often use their heads. 3. The players don't bite each other. 4. There is a team called "the Reds." 5. Most of the good players come from one country. (hint: not the U.S.) 6. There is much more scoring and no ties. 7. The referees wear black, and the players wear long pants. 8. There are better movies about it. 9. There are more rules and you now need a degree in higher mathematics to manage a team or to watch it intelligently. 10."The World Series will never be held in Qatar. Anyone who love soccer, deal with me. I will wait.
Same Sex Schools Improve a Students Knowledge of The World

Citation for Previous Argument:"The Case against Single-sex Schooling." Washington Post. Rebuttal:My opponent has expressed what he/she thinks in his/her last argument. Unfortunately looking at the facts, they state something different all together (quote in previous argument).Argument:Schools may offer classes that teach people about social relations but that is not where children learn them. Children do not learn to socialize by taking the course sociology. You learn through by socializing with others. Children will be "working cooperatively in an academic environment with the opposite sex in the real world and therefore, essential to healthy development."Citation for this argument:"The Pros & Cons of Single Sex Classes in School."
Same Sex Schools Improve a Students Knowledge of The World

I'd like to apologize for not citing my introductory quote. Id like to begin by adding definitions for this argument Sociology: the science or study of the origin, development, organization, and functioning of human society; the science of the fundamental laws of social relations, institutions, etc. http://dictionary.reference.com... What source do you have to affirm your side and your information? In public and private schools (single sexed) there are social classes which show students (mail and female) how to be socially inclined. Such as the study of sociology. I think boys will be less inclined to show off after the affect of being around the same gender on the account of there being no usual means to show off
Same Sex Schools Improve a Students Knowledge of The World

Before I begin to argue I would like to point out that my opponent completely plagiarized his argument.Argument: You are completely ignoring what this debate is on. This debate is about how single sex schools don't improve a students knowledge of the world. Yes a "single gender approach was helping them in school", yet when immersed into the real world these students have shown that they lack many basic socializing skills. I.E: "boys who spend more time with boys become increasingly aggressive; girls who spend more time with other girls become more sex-typed in their play." These types of people may make incredible students. But when placed into real world situation's these students are unaware of how to interact with the other sex.
Gun Control

I'm not saying we should eliminate guns totally but their should be limitations on the types of guns we are able to own. We need compromise. We have seen a lot of school shootings happen, and even shootings outside of school. Nothing has been done to stop or lessen the amount of incidents we have due to guns. When incidents happened like the shoe bomber or 9/11 we made our airports safer immediately, but why still after so many incidents with guns we choose not to do anything about it?
Spanking children is immoral.

Okay, since we want to use the least possible effort. .. My arguments are valid above. They all prove that spanking has had detrimental affects on children and that spanking has not show the desired effects from the perspective of the parent or the child. I didn't want to make con's arguments for them, but since they don't want to debate the issue, I will. If something has a negative affect, it should be considered immoral. If something has a positive affect that outweighs any negative affect based on scope or probability is not immoral. Since we can only find negative affects from spanking and we lack any proof of positive affects, we must conclude that spanking is immoral. What morality can come of spanking if it does not teach the child discipline and self-control? Are not these the implied goals of spanking? Since it is ineffective as I have shown, it is basically just hitting a person in order to satisfy the anger and frustration of the parent. It would stand the test of reason that if one would spank a child to teach them right from wrong, it would not be immoral as it would prevent the child from getting into trouble later in life. This, however, I have shown is not the case and so based upon this new information, spanking is immoral. I have proved that spanking decreases intelligence, increases aggression and anti-social behavior, and that it can cause mental disorders. I have also shown that it can not be attributed with the previously believed myths of better behavior. Some information would be available to Con to disprove any of these claims if they were false. Thank you.
Spanking children is immoral.

Pro's argument goes as follows:P1: Spanking children is detrimental to their development and has no positive effects. C: Therefore, spanking children is immoral. I won't argue that Pro's premise is false. I think it's pretty well impossible to forward a legitimate counter-argument to dispute the overwhelming amount of evidence supporting the conclusion that spanking has overall detrimental affects on children. However, this doesn't mean Pro's argument is sound. The conclusion in fact doesn't follow from the premise. Pro has failed to overcome what is known as the is-ought problem in ethics[1]. The problem refers to the apparent impossibility of concluding how something ought to be from how it simply is. This debate is regarding normativity, or prescriptions on how to act. Pro's argument however focuses entirely on a descriptive account of spanking and its effects. The reason this fails to justify the conclusion is because Pro hasn't inserted or defended an evaluative premise. For instance, arguing that actions which are detrimental to a child's development are immoral would have allowed the conclusion to follow from the argument. However, we can see that Pro has presupposed it without argument. Until Pro inserts and justifies his presupposed evaluative premise, his argument remains invalid. ===Sources===[1] . http://plato.stanford.edu... (Sec.
Spanking children is immoral.

My first argument is that most children are taught not to lie, cheat, steal, disobey, or hurt people. If a child is spanked because they hit someone else, the child is getting mixed signals from the adult administering the punishment. They are being hurt for hurting someone else. This leads them to believe that as long as they are "right" or have the right intentions, it is okay to hurt someone else. They also believe that physically striking someone is an acceptable method of communicating disappointment. Spanking has been known to lead to increased aggression and domestic violence: "One important question was the direction of causality: Did aggressive, difficult children get punished or did punishment lead to aggression? Large prospective studies in the mid- to-late 1990s, controlling for children's antisocial behavior and a host of other possible confounders, showed that physical punishment predicted later antisocial behavior. "[1] My second argument is that spanking has no positive effect: "An analysis of research conducted since the 1990 adoption of the UN's Convention on the Rights of the Child suggests that no studies have found positive consequences of physical punishment, according to Joan Durrant, PhD, of the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, and Ron Ensom, MSW, of the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario in Ottawa. "[1] My next argument is that studies have linked spanking to mental disorders such as: " The risk of major depression was 41 percent higher; The risk of mania was 93 percent higher; The risk of any mood disorder was 49 percent higher; The risk of any anxiety disorder was 36 percent higher; The risk of any alcohol abuse or dependence was 59 percent higher; The risk of any drug abuse or dependence was 53 percent higher. [2] My last opening argument is that spanking has been shown in studies to lower a child's intelligence: "Straus and colleagues measured spanking and IQ level in 806 children aged two to four and 704 children aged five to nine. Four years later, children aged two to four who were spanked had IQ scores on average five points lower than children who were not spanked in the same age group. Similarly, children aged five to nine who were spanked had IQ scores 2.8 points lower than children who were not spanked in the same age group. The researchers also found that the greater the number of times a child was spanked, the slower the development of the child"s mental ability. " [3] Seeing that recent studies can not show any benefit from spanking to the child and that it has the potential to cause them to become more aggressive, less intelligent, and a wide array of social and mental disorders; spanking is detrimental to the personal growth and intellect of children and is therefore immoral. 1. www. medpagetoday. com/Pediatrics/Parenting/31030 2. www. abcnews. go. com/Health/spanking-kids-leads-adult-mental-illnesses/story? id=16695697#. UG_18k3u0iU 3. www. njpsychologist. com/blog/spankings-long-term-effect-on-intelligence/
Spanking children is immoral.

I believe that striking a child or "spanking" is detrimental to the personal growth of the child intellectually and therefore harmful to the child and immoral. I accept the burden of proof as I can and will prove that spanking is immoral. Con simply has to negate my arguments or prove themselves that spanking is moral and they should win the debate. 1st round is for acceptance. No arguments please 2nd and 3rd round are for new arguments and rebuttles. 4th round is restating previous arguments, rebuttles, and closing statements.
Spanking children is immoral.

I apologize if Pro doesn't want to justify his meta-standard and that it irritates him that I push for some sort of justification on this point. However, the fact remains that when trying to justify normative claims, ultimate grounding is necessary. We're having a debate, therefore unjustified presuppositions must be viewed as just that. And just because Pro doesn't want to debate this "crap" (his wording) doesn't mean that anyone besides him has to presuppose his argumentatively unjustified standard. Universal Goals. The burden shown by the is-ought problem is a goal which is universally acknowledge and presupposed unconditionally, a categorically prescriptive imperative as opposed to one which someone holds practically in an effort to reach a stated goal. Pro seeks to show that one exists by way of "universal responsibility" on the part of the parent(s). No argument is ever forwarded by my opponent, merely a statement of what he takes that responsibility to be. He states that the responsibility "is to take care of them until they are able to take care of themselves by law and not neglect or abuse them. " Nothing further is ever provided. Pro simply makes his claim as to supposed responsibility and goes on to apply that standard to the case of spanking. Perhaps there was a misunderstanding. The point of my normative criticism was not to argue that Pro needs to state outright his premise, though that was included. It's a necessary though not sufficient condition on Pro's part. It's not enough. Pro has to show why it is actually justified as a meta-ethical standard. Why do parents have this responsibility? Why should anyone accept this standard? Pro offers no reason, simply a description of the standard itself. Conclusion. Pro has offered literally no reason for anyone to accept his standard of moral criticism. While I agree that his position is a re-statement of what many to take as common sense morality (and while I can't help but agree with him on a personal level), in a debate, presuppositions don't count as justification. And since Pro never responded to this in a constructive way (he merely called my asking for justification "a disgusting waste" of his time), his argument falls completely flat. Sorry for my "bourgeois civility".
Spanking children is immoral.

I say Con is being lazy because instead of implying the goals of my argument for me, that everyone has by the way, they insist I state that it is bad to hurt children and try to invalidate my entire argument on that nomenclature alone. Based upon the information in my first argument and the reducing of their terms in the second, I would like to propose that for the sake of this argument, a universal responsibility (not goal) to all parents raising children is to take care of them until they are able to take care of themselves by law and not neglect or abuse them. I think my arguments previously stated show that spanking is abusive mentally and physically. Therefore, it is immoral for parents to not feed their children since it is their implied and self-assumed responsibility to do so. Neglecting or abusing children is immoral. Spanking is abuse. Spanking is immoral. Not everyone who wants to have a debate regarding is-ought and normative crap. It may be the right way to do things, but good luck getting past the first round with most people. Your bourgeois civility is a disgusting waste of time.