BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Sex Education Should Be Taught In Schools

Thank you. Here's my rebuttal to my opponent's argument. First of all, my opponent only wrote one sentence and it's a bare assertion. He doesn't provide any evidence saying that kids are better taught by their parents than schools or that schools are insufficient in teachings sexual education. With no sources or logic applied to this argument, it can easily be thrown out, but I'll go even deeper into it to prove my point. Not all children have parents, that's clear."It is estimated there are between 143 million and 210 million orphans worldwide (recent UNICEF report.) The UNICEF orphan numbers DON’T include abandonment (millions of children) as well as sold and/or trafficked children. The current population of the United States is just a little over 300 million…" [1]Those children can't be taught sexual education by their parents. What about children who are abused or neglected by their parents? "...there were nearly 27,000 reports of child abuse and neglect in Pennsylvania in 2013 and about 22,500 Pennsylvania children lived in foster care in 2014." [2] This is in Pennsylvania alone. What about on a larger scale?"According to NCANDS whose latest statistics are for 2005 an estimated 3.3 million referrals of child abuse or neglect were received by public social service or CPS agencies. Of these referrals, 899,000 children were confirmed to be victims of abuse or neglect (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2007). That means about 12 out of every 1,000 children up to age 18 in the United States were found to be victims of maltreatment in 2005 (USDHHS, 2007)." [3]Would these parents be qualified/willing to teach their children about sexual education? Most parents aren't qualified to teach the way a licensed teacher hired by a school can, unless, of course, they're teachers themselves. Thirdly, let's say that every single child in the world had parents who are actually somewhat capable of teaching their child. In this fantasy land, they're actually decent parents who properly take care of their child efficiently without abuse or anything like that. But there's one thing that isn't certain: if they're putting in the time. In a school environment, you can ensure that every child is being focused on and they all get an equal amount of education and time. In a home environment, you can't exactly make sure of this. Thank you. I look forward to my opponent's defense.Citations[1]http://www.orphanhopeintl.org...[2]http://www.papartnerships.org...[3]http://www.americanhumane.org...
I ,too, wont contradict myself

http://dictionary.reference.com... Read that bit for just a second. *the rules have been [changed]* THIS IS NOT A CONTRADICTION *didn't say [my] comments counted* See my previous argument on the rules of the debate. It doesn't matter.You can't say will count. 2) The argument regarding the question I asked "This statement is a lie". for something contradict I need to say one thing then say the other. You also they get that statement heres what basically means the same thing. I always lie If you were to say 'Yes' that means you do lie, but if you always lie that means your lied about you lieing. It goes in a cycle. Con has block the cycle and made it seem i contradicted myself. My opponent poorly refuted my attacks in a paragraph backed by sourceless data and no logic to speak of. Such as Logic and the dictionary He even dropped arguments, not mentioning them at all. I've shows a source where necessary and backed my arguments with plenty of logic, making me the clear cut winner of this debate even right now. Where did I? Because you forgot to mention that paradoxes never stop the cycle
I ,too, wont contradict myself

I changed the rules I never contradicted myself. to affirm the opposite of (a proposition, statement, etc) I never said two opposites (PROVE IT) This is proof that my own opponent admits to contradicting himself, following the assumption that he is the one who believes he can 'change' rules. I'd like to make the point that he can't change rules though. You cannot change them yourself, your highness. Don't try to say "well, that's not really MY definition, therefore your wrong" okay 3) What's your screen name Im known as many things , but , here, Im CAPLlock
I ,too, wont contradict myself

So, the opponent said I have twenty questions to try and make him 'contradict himself'. Also, his most recent comment states there will be 20 questions in the whole debate. So I'll start with a mere two now. 1) Should I try you? 2) Is the following statement true: "This statement is a lie"? Those are the only questions I shall ask for now. However, I believe this debate already goes to me. Notice in the comments that the opponent stated that there would be 20 questions per round, then in the next comment, he clearly states that it will be 20 questions per debate. Him stating one thing, and then contradicting it with an opposing idea is a contradiction. Because my opponent has contradicted himself he loses.
is homework bad

Beehive hairdo, 45 on the hip Patrolwoman Saunders, don't you give her no whip Took me to the station for a breathtest then back to the bedroom for some house-arrest [CHORUS:] Women in uniform, sometimes they look so cold Women in uniform, but, Oh! They feel so warm Coming back to London on a 747 Stewardess made me feel like I'm in heaven Looking up the aisle to see what I could see She leaned over said; Give it to me White apron, brown leather shoes The nurse at the clinic left my heart all bruised Gave me a massage, sprained my right Now she takes my temperature every night [REPEAT CHORUS] Women in uniform, Women in uniform Women in uniform, Women in uniform Commando raid on the Lebanese border Sergeant Anita, she gives the order Khaki jacket and a love gun Baby, I surrender, let's have some fun [REPEAT CHORUS] [SOLO] [REPEAT CHORUS] Women in uniform, Women in uniform Women in uniform, Women in uniform Women in uniform, Khaki, white and blue Women in uniform, coming after you Women, women, Women in uniform Women, women, Women in uniform [REPEAT CHORUS (fading away)]
is homework bad

He's walking like a small child But watch his eyes burn you away Black holes in his golden stare God knows he wants to go home Children of The Damned He's walking like a dead man If he had lived he would crucified us all Now he's standing on his last step He thought oblivion well it beckons us all Children of The Damned [x3] Now it's burning his hands he's turning to laugh Smiles as the flame sears his flesh Melting his face screaming in pain Peeling the skin from his eyes Watch him die according to plan He's dust on ground what did we learn You're Children of The Damned Your back's against the wall You turn into the light You're burning in the night You're Children of The Damned Like candles watch them burn Burning in the light You'll burn again tonight Children of The Damned
Lawful concealed carry is a good thing

Sadly, the only argument you can tell is that carrying a gun is like having a power that prevents crime automatically, you didn't mentioned the danger posed by having one. The death and injury you can also get by defending yourself and your family. You also assumed that killing a criminal benefits the society because it will lessen the burden of a state to prosecute and jail someone. How about the injuries caused by using a gun? do you know that it is much expensive to treat someone than to bury a dead person? Moreover, in a democratic country where due process of law is observed, the cost of justice is nothing compared to the liberty you can get from it. Furthermore, having a gun close at hand can turn ordinary disputes and arguments fatal. Even legal gun owners can be involved in a crime. Crime of passion mostly involves gun that is legally acquired. No one really excuses someone to commit a crime even you are carrying a gun legally. To conclude, the issue here is not weather guns are beneficial or not. Anyone can exercise their rights to have one, but please do not be blinded by media or any pro gun group that it is all pros and no cons. Having one entails responsibility and precaution. To think that it will magically help your problem from the ills of society is absolutely crazy. Go get a gun, it is your right but always remember the responsibilities attached onto it.
Lawful concealed carry is a good thing

As I'm on my phone I am going to keep my conclusion short. In reference to my last argument, there are 500k to 3M instances per year where a firearm is used in self defense. That's potentially 3M violent crimes prevented per year. This has obvious individual benefits while also providing a huge benefit to society. Specifically in deterred crime and dead career criminals. At an average cost to tax payers of $30k per year per inmate, a ten year sentence for a violent criminal would cost tax payers $300,000. Multiply that by the thousands of criminals killed per year in self defense and you can plainly see that society benefits economically. So in summary; as an individual, you are more protected from criminals. As a society; crime and prison costs go down.
Lawful concealed carry is a good thing

All my are arguments are a legitimate one, accidental discharge has got nothing to do to a gun community as a whole. That is why it is very hard for anti gun advocates to prove their point because, in my opinion, all their positions are misplaced and cannot be blamed to the gun community. School or mass shootings is an individual crime and not the fault of gun owners, you don't blame alcohol for vehicular accidents, same logic applies to gun. Our debate is not about the legality or crime of an individual person carrying a gun but the consequences of owning a gun to the person and society. And no matter how you use your guns whether it is for self defense or protecting your family from rape or murder, the after effects are still there. Soldiers kill for the sake of their country, most noble thing to do, and yet they still suffer from PTSD. A person killing someone to protect their loved ones MIGHT suffer the same illness. One "bad" thing of owning a gun but I am not saying that everybody can get PTSD from shooting someone or I'd rather be a victim but you cant dismissed the fact that it CAN happen. Moreover, the expenses of commissioning research and study for gun can also be detrimental to the society. Instead of using the money for more pressing issues, such as education and medical programs, $10M dollars are wasted just to prove or disprove a point. How about the money wasted by politicians because of the never ending debates about gun. Drafting a bill for amending gun laws inst free. This is certainly bad for the society, the economy and the country as a whole.
Lawful concealed carry is a good thing

I left the title vague so as to allow my opponent the choice to argue against the benefits of individual concealed carry or as a society. From my R1 post: "You may argue against an individual carrying or that it is detrimental to society as a whole." Correct, this debate is about whether or not it is beneficial. Your arguments are all straw man arguments. Please post something more concrete next time. While you are correct in saying "gun isn't free," when it comes to concealed carry you don't need something high performance since the average defensive gun use is at less then 15 feet. So a gun for concealed carry just has to shoot reliably, that's it. That's why when it comes to the cost of a gun, compacts have by far the cheapest average price. There are a large number of them in the $150-$300 range. While I get it that that amount would be difficult for some to squeeze out of their monthly budget, those in poverty have a much greater need to own something for self defense. That argument is in fact quite racist while also being irrelevant. This is about concealed carry. In other words, I would not even be aware that the individual was armed. And as stated above, those in impoverished environments have a greater need to have a firearm. The law abiding should always have the right to defend themselves regardless of race. Yes I've heard of it. I'm in the Navy. I know some people who have it. I also know a number of people who have been in their fair share of firefights who don't. Your argument is invalid as it assumes you will get PTSD from using a gun defensively. And as you said: "you might be able to defend yourself or your family by some thugs who want to hurt you/them." Choose one: option a.) your family is torn apart by the murder/rape of one or more family members. Or b.) your family watches a criminal get his chest ventilated. Which do you really think would be more likely to cause PTSD? "These are just some of the bad things that can happen in carrying or owning a gun." On the contrary, all of your arguments were irrelevant and not "bad things" that can happen owning a gun. You could have said something about having a negligent discharge and that would have at least been a valid argument. Instead you talked about how poor people can't have guns, armed minorities make you uncomfortable, and that you'd rather be a victim. Late last year, Illinois finally began issuing concealed carry permits. Gun control advocates were metaphorically, up in arms claiming there would be blood in the streets. But what really happened to the crime rate? It's down 25% and Chicago experienced its lowest murder rate since 1958 for the first quarter of this year *1. In 2013, President Obama commissioned a $10 million dollar study on gun violence *2. That study found that firearms are used in self defense anywhere from 500,000 to more than 3 million times per year. It's impossible to have an exact number as a lot of them go unreported. Since brandishing a firearm is illegal, most people would rather just let the assailant run off and not report it. *1 http://abclocal.go.com... *2 http://www.nap.edu...
Lawful concealed carry is a good thing

Ok I'm sorry i wasn't able to respond on the previous round First of all I fully agree to the 2nd amendment, I will argue against your vague position that "concealed carry is a good thing" I hope voters will recognize what we are debating about and not the legality of concealed carry/2nd amendment First of all, gun isn't free, you need to shell out a lot of money to buy guns, bullets, not to mention training regularly for precise shooting and renting a place for such activity. Money that can be use for other much important things like house,food and clothing. Yes, everyone have the right to bear arm, yet the reality is only people with money can do so. In addition to that, racial discrimination play a big part when it comes to carrying a gun. Admit it, you don't want to see a mexican or african-american guy carrying in your street, why? because of their race. I don't want to explain the sociology of crime but we all know that poverty breeds crime and most of this race are poor, thus, many of them are connected to some crime of sorts. I'm not being a racist here but you can Google for yourself the statistics of crime committed by a certain race here in America. http://en.wikipedia.org... Lastly, ever heard of the post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and other psychiatric illnesses caused by killing someone? yes you might be able to defend yourself or your family by some thugs who want to hurt you/them. But the consequence might haunt you for the rest of your life. Soldiers experience this, police and private securities are no exemption, how much more to an individual not trained to "kill" someone. There are some ex-soldiers who go berserk and kill their loved ones because of this disease. The recent fort hood shooting is just another case of many incident like these. http://edition.cnn.com... These are just some of the bad things that can happen in carrying or owning a gun. Again, just what I have mentioned, I didn't debate against the legality of owning a gun but the "bad things" owning a gun can do to a person and society
It is never justified to torture terrorists.

"In the scenario my opponent suggests, he is creating something intrinsically and inherently impossible. In all scenarios, where a terrorist has planted a bomb and the evidence 'points towards him' - a loose claim at best - does not exist." it is not at all unreasonable to assume a terrorist would admit to knowing where the bomb is, and refuse to spill the beans. that's spite at work. con tries to vaguely deflect us to assuming there are other means to find the bomb, by citing a source, without even elaborating on it. if that's the crux of his argument... it seems pretty clear his prime argument then is deflection. if you examine the artile it's merely an academic article that illustrates that under specific circumstances a nuke can be found, as part of long drawn out counter intelligence operations spanning years etc... this doesn't help in a ticking time bomb scenario. poor judgment on con's part. also, it's just not possible to turn NYC inside out within a day. or a few days etc if we changed the timeframe. that's worse than finding a needle in a haystack. plus, the bomb might not even be in NYC proper, and the metrolopis spans to all kinds of other cities, and covers most of the geographic areas the NE part of the country there. poor judgment on con's part here. perhaps torture is not always the best solution... but this hypotehtical is a very specific situation where no other viable option exists. per means ends. people are not as means.. sure, as a general rule. but when they've put themself in the situation of the ticking time bomb, they've created the problem. while torture is gruesome, it's a dirty job, that somebody has to do. you can be sure that soldiers, executioners, police etc do not find their jobs in killing etc as clean... merely more examples of dirty jobs that somebody has to do. con wants us to assume torture is inherently wrong, and that we should simply let millions die to preserve that value. what's inherenlty wrong, though, is to let those millions die merely to abide by a unwavering rule that the ends never in no cases justify the means. this is putting ideology before human life and dignity if you let them all die etc. (we could have also made a hypothetical that said the terrorist was torturing people, and he knows where they are... and all evidence supports that. we refuse to torture a guilty man, so he can continue torturing bounds of innocent people? this defies the good senses of equity, and morality) unless con can show that torture never works, then his argument fails. (even if there are wild goose chases, that doesn't mean there always is or will be. and that torture sometiems doesn't produce accurate info, that doesn't mean it never does) by definition of the hypothetical... all other tactics have failed trying to get the info... that means torture is worth a shot, and given all the lives at stake, it's the only truly moral option.
It is never justified to torture terrorists.

hypothetical. a terrorist has a nuclear bomb in NY city. he says he knows where it is, and that it will explode in a day. all evidence supports that there is a bomb, and that he knows where it is, etc. when i say "torture" i am assuming we might try a progressive set of tactics, rough talk first, then a little violent, then things like water boarding, then full out torture, if necessary. most would argue against this as a matter of 'the ends does not justify the means'. even if we assume that that might be usually true (read, 'proportionalism' v. deontology), we cannot assume it all the time. it would be immoral to let millions die because of your mere thoughts of what's "moral".... it would be selfish, and immoral as a lack of action in doing what is necessary to save the city. i am open to other arguments about why we shouldn't torture them, but i assumed the "ends means" argument would crop its head up, so I got it right at the bat.
Evolution should be taught in public schools.

Okay then. I'll just keep talking about why Evolution makes more sense than Creationism. Creationism is based on the Bible, which says god created two humans, one male, Adam, and one female, Eve, 10,000 years ago and we are all their inbred children. But, we have discovered many civilizations that go years before "The Garden of Eden" was said to have existed. People don't like the idea of evolution because of our fear of death and that we like to think of ourselves as something special. The idea that we "came from monkeys" is disgusting to some. People who lived thousands of years ago wrote the Bible. The authors had limited knowledge of the nature of the universe and wrote the Bible based on what they believed at the time. They didn't know the Earth was round and that it orbited the Sun. They thought the world was flat. They thought there was up and there was down and God was in the sky. They didn't know that the sky was a thin layer of gas that surrounds the surface of this planet. Creationism is much like the, now obsolete, theory of spontaneous generation. This refers to the process in which life would magically emerge from sources other than seeds, eggs or parents. The theory states that if there were maggots on rotting meat, the meat must have transformed into said maggots. The writers of the bible were ill-informed. They did not have the tools and the knowledge to find the truth. Thanks to evolution we now have the tools and knowledge.
Evolution should be taught in public schools.

now onto the argument. I would also like to apologize for waiting till the last minute to post this argument, something came up. You say that children should be taught both creationism and evolution. I agree to this to an extent. I am speaking of science class's particularly. If they decide to teach creationism in public schools I hope they would create a separate class, perhaps a Creationism/Mythology class. My opinion is that evolution has a more scientific background than creationism. I am not trying to say I have all the answers and I am sorry if it came across that way, but I am a strong supporter of the separation of church and state and if they start teaching creationism in public schools than they might as-well start teaching the moon is made of unicorn skulls and rainbows. As I stated before, I believe that evolution makes a great deal of sense if you are open minded enough.
Evolution should be taught in public schools.

First of all I would like to wish good luck to my opponent A little sucking up never hurt anyone I would like to make it clear that I do not fundamentally object to the teaching of evolution in public schools, on the contrary, I would encourage it My objection is to teaching it instead of creationism My opponent even referred to evolution as a theory so is a debate even necessary? There is room for both schools of thought within society and schools, evolution does not deny a creator, nor vice versa Evolution is most probably the answer to how, not to why, a question the greatest minds of our time still cannot answer with any degree of certainty When asked if he could know anything, Professor Steven Hawking said "I would like to know why we are here; why there is something and not nothing" The fact of the matter is even the greatest advocates for evolution > creationism cannot provide an answer for this There is no grounds to say one disproves the other, it doesn't even make sense as an argument And surely a civilized society should promote free thought within their schools rather than create a dictatorship? By doing so, you are being as close-minded as you profess that all these elitist bible-bashers are A child of suitable age and maturity should be allowed to make up their own mind Evolution, Creationism, or both Teaching something as fact when the is no hardline evidence either way is, for want of a better word, dumb and as such should be taught as theory