BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
should parents be responsible for their children actions

It seems my opponent has forfeited Round 2. In the spirit of debate I will continue to present my argument in the hopes of providing my audience with an adequate amount of evidence to support my position. I. Parental Accountability LawsWhen a social justice opinion gains the support of the collective, for the most part, it is made into law. This is exactly what happened when our society determined that parent's do, in fact, carry some level of responsibility whenever their child commits an illegal act. Parental Accountability Lawsare laws that some states use to hold parents legally responsible for crimes committed by their children. These laws are based on a number of theories, including: Parents have a legal duty to prevent their children from committing crimes Parental accountability is an effective way to decrease juvenile crime rates. A parent may be held liable for many types of criminal violations committed by their child. Specifically, newer violations have arisen in connection with youth and minors. Parents might be held liable for these newer crimes as well, which may include: Internet access, hacking, and other computer crimes: These types of crimes are common among young people who frequently use technology. In particular, violations such as sexting and child pornography distributed over cell phones can result in heavy legal consequences. This is a new area of law, but parents might still be held liable depending on the circumstances. Delinquent youth laws: Many states impose criminal liability on parents who allow their children to engage in delinquent behavior. Penalties may increase with repeat offenses and can even result in charges for negligent parenting Firearm access: Some jurisdictions hold parents responsible if their child accesses a firearm owned or controlled by the parent. There can be civil and criminal consequences for parents who are found guilty of violating Parental Accountability Laws. These consequences include: Fines Payment of court fees Increased participation in juvenile proceedings Restitution to victims Payment of costs associated with the detention, treatment and supervision of their child Participation in community service with their child Jail time Source: http://www.legalmatch.com...So what is the point of sharing this? The reason I am sharing this, is to reflect the serious nature of the responsibilities parents must take when deciding to bring a child into this world. As I stated in my original argument, one cannot simply expect to be responsible over all aspects of a child's life, only to shun that responsibility whenever it takes a turn for the worst. As a parent, making sure your child is heading down the right path is one of, if not, the most important duty of parenthood.
should parents be responsible for their children actions

No, parents shouldn't be responsible for their childrens crimes. parenents jobs is to raise their kids, teach them right for wrong, and provide for them. you can try to teach your child to be the best person, but you are not the only person that influence that child. they have influences from school, society, and media. sometimes kids get curious and wont to experiment that may lead to them ge4tting in trouble or commiting a crime so how is that the parents fault. you can teach your child but who says they will go by what you say when they have other negative influence
Resolved: Teachers should address students as "Mister/Sir" and "Miss/Misses."

To satrt out, it would most defiantly create confusion. If there was a whole room full of "Johns" and someone came in and said john what kind of response do you think you'd get. When addressing a student as sir/miss everyone boy or girl would be obligated to answer if not any student in the immediate vincity as the intended student. Secondas you mentioned before, the military, is a very serious and formal atmosphere, bring up the valid yet completely contrradicting to your arguement, example wan't the best idea. Yes they do this in the military (very serious atmosphere for ADULTS) in addition out of a whole group of privates, an officer says private, which one responds? Maybe they would say private.... to create less confusion. And usually when you talk about addressing a higher ranking individual, there is usually only one, per select group of soliders therefore making the private's job of responded the single "sir" easier
Resolved: Teachers should address students as "Mister/Sir" and "Miss/Misses."

I would first like to point out that there were no answers to my points in the last speech. I gave you three impacts of good things that could come, while the con gives you one why it will not. My arguments outweigh his because their would be much more good than bad with this. Answers- 1) "It would defiantly create an atmosphere we do not want. " Again, the con gives you no reason behind this. This takes away my ability to argue because I don't know why he says this. An empty argument should not mean anything in this debate. My Arguments still hold true, which were not answered by the con which are: 1st- students would actually feel MORE comfortable and be more open to share ideas. 2nd- It would create more order. 3rd- This would make schools more formal. 4th- There would be more respect for teachers as well as students. 2) "there would be so much confusion as to who the sir or miss was. By saying sir, all boys would respond and if the teacher tried to point out which kid he wanted to select, it might take an amount of time much more the what would be acceptable. " Really? I mean, c'mon. First of all, when there's one person you'll now who their talking about. When there's more than one, you still say their name. Second, students call teachers mr and ms all the time. There isn't much confusion. Same thing in the military. Third, This would actually help this cause. There are often times people with the same first name, and we waste the time of asking, "John who? " Using last names would be eaiser, you would always know who your talking about. Fourth, even if this did happen, the confusion ends right there. How long would it take? 3 seconds? I can manage that. My offense- 1) As I have said from the beginning, this would mean more respect for students and teachers. Students deserve the same respect. 2) Teachers now can often insult their students and get away with it. Providing a clear name would create clear bounds for what is acceptable and what is not. 3) Students would feel more respected and important. They in turn would be more open and less tense.
Resolved: Teachers should address students as "Mister/Sir" and "Miss/Misses."

<> This would not put any pressure on kids. As I have stated, it would boost self confidence and make the student feel better. What teachers are doing now is frankly insulting, and putting this plan into action would create a sustainable atmosphere for kids to be open with their teachers. < > There are just some places you have to be formal, and school is one of them. It would not be in anyone's intrest to act laid back at a formal place. For instance, I heard a teacher yell and rant at a student because the student called him 'dude'. You are always going to have to speak with a formal rhetoric at sometimes in your life, and what better way than school. <> First of all, I didn't understand the first part of that sentence. Second, using this plan would make MORE order. Students would be more relaxed, less stressed, and would feel more open to share ideas. As for respect, as I have said, students should have the same respect that teachers do. Students are humans, students will be adults, adults were once students. Pardon me for believing that all people are equal. <> First of all, there is no reason behind this argument. All my formatable opponent says is 'it would not be good'. As far as I'm concered, an empty argument should not be evaluated until there is a warrant. But to answer the argument, it would be good which I will be covering in my overview. Right now. So, all in all, I affirm the resolution "Resolved: Teachers should address students as "Mister/Sir" and "Miss/Misses." I believe this for these reasons: All people are created equal, there is no 'superior' in society. While it may be a sign of respect, Children and schoalars should be treated with respect also. The status quo allows teachers to call students anything, while if a student calls a teacher 'dude' jokingly, the teacher has the right to discipline. Providing a clear name would be valuable to both parties. This plan would boost confidence among the students. They can also feel more important and professional.
Resolved: Teachers should address students as "Mister/Sir" and "Miss/Misses."

This would create atmosphere we do not want. As if school doesn't put enough pressure and raise the intenisy on kids. To make the school enviroment more serious, formal, and tense is not something we want. Try to leave the school atmosphere relaxing and laid-back as possible. I think teahcers should have to be called by using those remarks but i think it is only so to keep and ceertain order and give teachers a lil respect. As far as teachers using the remarks for kids may seem unfair but it will certainly not be good for the educational enviroment.
Resolved: Teachers should address students as "Mister/Sir" and "Miss/Misses."

Addressing a person as Mister would be beneficial. Calling someone a proper name is much more professional than if a teacher addresses a student by their first name, even though they are not on a first name basis. Calling someone a name with respect would make that person feel better and more important. From personal experience, I don't like it when teachers call me by just my last name. This sounds like its coming from some bully or a guy I don't like. Calling students by first name has become customary, but it is unfair that we MUST call them by their last name and they can choose whatever they want. Yes, I understand we should respect our elders. But, should not the students be treated with the same respect? After all, children are the future. They could very well take those teachers jobs one day.
Faith is real

Sitting in a chair and it supporting your weight isn't faith, that's a little special something called gravity. I didn't have "faith" in my comment being posted I just knew it was going to happen. Matter a fact I didn't even think of it, I just clicked post. NOPE. Not "hoping" in anything just "waiting". I was waiting for my comment/debate to be posted. There's a difference. All of this is just common sense. You mis-spell a word, you right-click, it'll hopefully fix it. It's just something a modern day person on the internet knows how to do. We are 99% sure it's going to happen. We don't need faith in things like sitting in a chair, or fixing a type. We just know it's going to happen. But like I said in the comment seciton, there is really no right or wrong answer due to this debate. It just really has something to do with how storngly we put out OPINIONS out. But there really is no right or wrong. I'm not right, you're not right, I'm not wrong, you're not wrong. But we'll let to have the voters decide on that. ~Nice debating with ya, and have a nice day!
Faith is real

Pro is "Faith is real". Con is supposed to argue that faith is not real. The first supporting argument for "faith is real" was ignored by Con. Typing my debate round in belief that I will be able to post my remarks for the round after i am finished typing is an act of faith. Faith is real. Con is acting by faith the same as me here. To say there is no faith while typing in faith believing the comments will be posted after the post button is pushed is self-contracictory. Here is another example of the reality of faith proven in action. When you sit in a chair, do you examine the chair to prove it can support your weight before you sit down, or do you sit down believing the chair will hold you without examining it? Sitting in a chair, believing it will support you, is an act of faith. Faith is real. We all act by faith. Atheists are allowed to spell the word "allowed" as "aloud" in faith that the reader will get the intented meaning by understanding the context. Also, they are allowed to type so they can convey words in righting rather than aloud by voice. When a person uses the wrong word and believes the reader will understand the meaning correctly, it's an act of faith. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. It's real. We prove that faith is real by our actions. Atheists prove their faith in no punishment from God by doing things God would not approve of and not saying sorry to God. Then their death sentence is finalized, and their faith fails. Many people act in faith following lies....misguided faith. Islam is a good example of people who act in faith following lies.......strong faith even to the point of murder/suicide............ I'm rambling a bit, but faith is real.......and it is as sure as Hell or Heaven.........I never use the word Hell lightly.
Faith is real

Thank you Con for responding, but to say "sure as hell" is an expression of faith, though certainly a misguided faith. If the things you assert are as sure as hell, then you and all you are referring to are doomed to hell, correct? Or do you not believe Hell is a place of fire where rebels agaisnt God are punished? The debate here is supposed to be about the reality of faith, not a diatribe of Con's bitterness about the condition of the world. By faith, Con types words to post for an argument. Con shows faith by typing, believing the words typed will be posted in this debate after the proper buttons are pushed. Faith is acting in belief. Con has acted in faith while insisiting there is no faith. I'm sorry Con is so pessimistic. I know how that can be cured......and death won't cure it.
Faith is real

Well there sure as hell isn't any "faith" for humanity.I feel that things are in fact getting worse. Just look at the terrible things that are going on right now around us. Wars, starvation, no justice, bullying, fighting, shaming, rapes, harsh punishments, just terrible terrible things. There is no hope, there is no faith for this world, for this society. We just have to sit here and watch the world collapse.
absolutes=existence

Let's start with defining these two key points. Absolutes: a value or principle that is regarded as universally valid or that may be viewed without relation to other things. Existence: the fact or state of living or having objective reality. Now as you can see, the two definitions are not the same nor are they synonyms. Things can easily exist without being absolutes. Although this is a very controversial topic and a confusing topic at that, I do not rebut the fact you are an absolute or that you exist. You should have further explained your debate, but I'll try to do my best. Absolutes are independent and perfect. Does this this mean everything in existence is independent and perfect? No. Humans are probably the most imperfect and dependent in existence.
absolutes=existence

As I have said before, that makes no since. Metaphysical matters and existential dilemmas can't be debated, but yet you are trying to do that. I applaud you for trying but there is really no solid evidence or reasoning on why absolutes are the same thing as existence, which I still believe are not, because yet again you try to be so ambiguous about what equals everything and you try to disprove everything with absolutes but it simply does not make since. Nothing you said was even remotely clear and you also changed up the debate in the 2nd round. In conclusion, I had a fun time debating, but nothing you said made sense.
absolutes=existence

existence is absolute, if love cant exist, hate cant exist, if black cant exist, white cant exist, if true cant exist, false cant exist, how could you possibly do a true math equation if there is no false answer, does that mean all the math equations are true? no it means it an error, both must exist, they are dependant on each other if good cant exist, bad cant exist, why is something bad? because you have to contrast of good, so with only white there is no white and no black
absolutes=existence

i might have a better definition for absolute, and that is, no other option existence is the balancing point between something and nothing, something exist, and nothing exist everything that exist has at least 3 sides for it to exist, and 3 sides equal triangle, but there is a top middle and bottom so its a pyramid, and everything that exist has an opposite for it to exist, like past future and now. now is the balancing point between future and past example: future=false=0 now=true=1 past=truth=0 only now is true, truth can only be in the past, and the future is unknown. i am here now, so i must have gotten here somehow, and the future is again, unknown 0=nothing=information 1=something=matter you can never show me 0 bananas in reality, you can show me 1, yet i bet you can understand what 0 bananas are, or at least what they are not(information is the opposite of matter, nothing and something, 0 and 1) if we cut open a head, and take out the brain, we cant poor the information, thoughts, mind out on the floor, so they are not things, they are nothing, so nothing exist, and like everything, take emotion, in order for love to exist, hate must exist, good and bad, white and black, true and false, matter and information (a bigger example of how to use the pyramids: belief=false=future=creation=supernatural=positive know=true=now=transformation=natural=balance knowledge=truth=past=destruction=mechanical=negative and so on, you can try to flip them, say future is true, but by definition future is head of now, and past is before now, so now is the balancing point) and these are the pyramids, they represent existence, and everything else is like this, it must fit in the pyramids, but there are many different pyramids
agnostic is the only true position on non sensical claims

Given that we can't know the number of fingers you're holding up behind you're back, how can we know that you have a "normal" hand, or a hand to begin with? And, since we're on this train, how can we know that you have a back? The point that I'm trying to make is that all claims are nonsensical and truly objective reasoning can never be obtained, only confident subjectivity.
It is possible to divide by zero

Ladies and Gentlemen, boys and girls, Trolls and Pedobears, I present to you, how to divide by zero, oh and don't worry the world is not going to end, I discovered it a couple of months ago. Enjoy. Do you agree that a simple division problem can be cut into this: 12/4 = 3 = 4 + 4 + 4 = 12 = 4 * 3 = 12. Now let us take this same principle with dividing by zero. J = any number you want because you are special. J/0 = 0 = 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0. .. = 0*(infinity) = 0. The reason it is 0 (times) infinity is because if you allow 0 to keep adding up by its self then it will never reach J so therefore it will be an infinite number. Anything times 0 is 0. Which proves anything divided by zero is zero.
Resolved: 'Crack Baby Basketball' should become a real thing

"What if one of the babies were to get into the ball full of crack?"They cant, theyre crack babies, they can barely hold their own heads up let alone break into a very tough ball full of cocaine. "Crack or cocaine can cause several damaging medical effects. Heart..... Brain...... Lungs...... Gastrointestinal tract.... Kidneys"No no, the crack babies dont actually get to have the crack inside the ball.....Do you even know how crack baby basketball is played?WHY WOULD YOU ACCEPT A DEBATE ABOUT CRACK BABY BASKETBALL IF YOU DONT EVEN KNOW HOW THE GAME IS PLAYED?????God I cant believe I have to spell it out....... This is how the game works:1 - you put two or more crack addicted babies into a crib/arena2 - you put the crack filled ball in the middle of the crib/arena3 - you watch them duke it out4 - the winner is the one who has sole possession of the ball after 10 minutes or is the one that hasnt died due to being a crack addicted baby5 - Then the funds raised from advertising and televising the match are split between the owners and the crack babiesThats literally all there is to it!The crack babies dont actually get the crack in the ball. Since con's entire arguments against crack baby basketball were just plagiarized text from a webmd article over something that couldnt happen, con currently has no standing arguments against 'Crack Baby Basketball' becoming a real thing.
Resolved: 'Crack Baby Basketball' should become a real thing

Crack baby basketball should not become a real thing. What if one of the babies were to get into the ball full of crack? Crack or cocaine can cause several damaging medical effects. Heart: Cocaine is bad for the heart. Cocaine increases heart rate and blood pressure while constricting the arteries supplying blood to the heart. The result can be a heart attack, even in young people without heart disease. Cocaine can also trigger a deadly abnormal heart rhythm called arrhythmia. Brain: Cocaine can constrict blood vessels in the brain, causing strokes. This can happen even in young people without other risk factors for strokes. Cocaine causes seizures and can lead to bizarre or violent behavior. Lungs and respiratory system: Snorting cocaine damages the nose and sinuses. Regular use can cause nasal perforation. Smoking crack cocaine irritates the lungs and, in some people, causes permanent lung damage. Gastrointestinal tract: Cocaine constricts blood vessels supplying the gut. The resulting oxygen starvation can cause ulcers, or even perforation of the stomach or intestines. Kidneys: Cocaine can cause sudden, overwhelming kidney failure through a process called rhabdomyolysis. In people with high blood pressure, regular cocaine use can accelerate the long-term kidney damage caused by high blood pressure. http://www.webmd.com...
Resolved: 'Crack Baby Basketball' should become a real thing

I believe and will argue that crack baby basketball, as detailed in the South Park episode titled 'Crack Baby Athletic Association' ( . http://en.wikipedia.org... ), should become an actual televised sport in the United States. For those of you plebeians who dont know what crack baby basketball is. .. .. The game works by putting numerous babies born with a cocaine addiction into a crib/arena, placing a ball filled with crack cocaine in the middle of the arena, and then watching the babies fight for it. Its quite hilarious and entertaining to watch Anyways, I am arguing that this sport should become a real thing, con will argue that it shouldnt become a real thing.
men have become tools of their tools

As my competitor said above that is we who have control over the technology. I completely agree with him but I also refuse at the same time because in today's world, people can't resist the urge for technology. As soon as some new technology is launched people can be seen standing in the queues before the shops selling those products. Today, the mankind is not limited by its imagination as earlier. Today, here we are standing is just because of the men who gave us this platform. Okay, leave it about the rest of the technology. The platform where we are debating is also technology. It is true that technology has connected us but in distant future that day is not at all far where we will be taking commands from these machines. When we can start take caring of environment thinking we will die, think about global warming, conserve our fossil fuels before they are replenished that why not technology? Scientists, Philosophers, tell us to conserve certain things but never thought to stop advancing in technology. It is good but to certain extent, Now they have developed such devices that can even change the weather of a place. This is not at all good. Who are we to challenge nature's fury. It could be devastating but we are not all thinking about this and are developing such technologies which could be proved fatal to mankind.......