BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Prisons are an effective way to deal with criminals.

I am not certain Japan's crime rate is higher than it once was, and I guess it depends on one's definition of 'crime. ' Ninjas, as I understand it, were considered criminal thugs . .. these days, they have been replaced by Yakuza. I am not very knowledgeable about the culture of crime in Japan, however. . http://en.wikipedia.org... shows that in Japan, 1.0 homicides are committed for every 100,000 population whilst the United States has a murder rate nearly five times that, at 5.0 per 100,000. In terms of prisoners, the United States takes the proverbial cake with 756 persons in prison for every 100,000 population, compared with 62 for Japan (a mere 8.2% of the U. S. rate of incarceration) according to wikipedia: . http://en.wikipedia.org... I believe these numbers prove that having more prisons and prisoners does not translate into lowering crime. Beyond the statistics, I can only hypothesize reasoning in that people are not logical, rational beings, and many in the U. S. think more about gratifying short-term desires and not so much about our long-term future. I do agree with my opponent that hope or gloom over the future and economic and other personal situations affect a person's disposition to commit crime; however, I think these factors point to a more effective system to actually prevent crime than the mere threat of punishment, which I think is obvious from the numbers has not worked for the United States: deal with the factors that lead to people committing crime. I believe developing a strong social safety network such as universal health care and economic policies to favor more people having more jobs by spreading wealth over concentrating wealth in the few (which conversely leaves a lot of people destitute), as well as a campaign to reduce the fear and ignorance of mental health; I believe that fear and ignorance of mental illness is so powerful in the United States, that people are terrified to admit they may need mental health help, go without, and doing so also contributes to crime. Nations with strong social safety networks (such a universal health care) have much lower rates of crime than the United States, and I believe this makes sense: if a person is not stressed that losing their job will mean they will become homeless and cannot get themselves or their family to a doctorif they need it, then that person will not feel so desperate and will be less likey to feel they have nothing to lose by resorting to crime.
Prisons are an effective way to deal with criminals.

Once upon a time Japan could enjoy a low crime rate compared with other highly developed countries like the United States. However, many crimes are taking place these days in Japan. In particular, many younger generation tend to commit crimes, reflecting the poor economic performance, the situation of difficulty in finding a job and the loss of the dreams for their future. Under these social and economic environment prisons are an effective way to deal with criminals. Firstly, people in big cities are always worried about the increasing number of crimes which often take place on the train like sexually indecent behaviour to a woman, murder or other serious crimes threatening human lives in public places. Therefore, prisons play an important role to deter the general public from being involved in crimes. Secondly, criminals must be punished severely. Therefore, they must be sent to jail and urged to live every day according to the strict rules and regulations established by the prisons. This contributes to offering an opportunity for them to think about how important to lead a prudent life is. Finally, prisons play as a institution for social rehabilitation for criminals. They offer job training or vocational training for criminals. This helps them find a job which would be suitable for them and fend for themselves after serving their full term of sentence. In conclusion no society exists without crimes and criminals. When we look back on the history, those who opposed to the idea or political philosophy of the political leaders were sent to prison and killed as a political criminal. The human dignity and human rights were destroyed there. We must keep in mind that in a democratic society prisons are required to be places, in which criminals are urged to make a decision for beginning their new and thoughtful life for their future after having finished their prison term. Therefore, prisons are an effective way not only to deal with criminals but to create a civilized and less-crime society. I hope someone interested in this topic accepts this debate and expands the debate.
gay marriage does not lead to bestiality or pedophilia marriages

Eh it's proven that children raised by homosexual couples aren't as well off as normal children. There's a source I was too lazy to bring up oops. But really I didnt think it was true until I debated gay marriage and gay adoption with a homophobe. All in all, gay marriages aren't as harmful as the others mentioned, and other than what we know from a causing b, we can assume the resolution is false. Just like we assume it's true because there has been no evidence it doesn't lead to these marriages. Thanks.
gay marriage does not lead to bestiality or pedophilia marriages

On kind of a humorous note, I cannot express the relief I have that my opponent agrees with me and only chose to debate this topic for the sake of debating. For that I am grateful. I too, found it very interesting. Equality does not equal "child molestation" or "rape of other species". Whenever consent is not part of the equation, harm is being done. In society, we have laws that stem from the basic principle of "Do unto others as you would have the do unto you" or "Love your neighbor as yourself". While it is true that the person that is into bestiality is paying taxes, they are still breaking the law of being cruel to animals. The pedophile pays taxes too, but the physical and emotional harm that comes to the child can be proven as a result of that circumstance. My opponent has not proven that a gay marriage of 2 adult humans (which has not been proven to cause harm to society as a result of that marriage) will lead to bestiality or pedophilia. My opponent made an attempt to say that, "Homosexuals who raise children often find their child not doing as well as other children, this is harmful to the child." First of all, my opponent did not list the source from where he got the information, so we cannot assume the statement is true. Second of all, even if children are raised by homosexual parents and they are not doing as well as other children, it is not evidence that the "harm" that has come to the child is the result of the gay marriage. It could be from homophobic society teasing the child. The child could be adopted and came from an abusive house hold. The list of possibilities goes on and on. My opponent once again is trying to change the subject. NONE of this proves that gay marriage will lead to pedophilia or bestiality and with that, I rest and yield to my opponent. Thank you!
gay marriage does not lead to bestiality or pedophilia marriages

As it is obvious there is no proof gay marriage will lead to other marriages other than the correlation and look throughout history, it is obvious that this debate put a huge burden on the Con. Yet, I still find it interesting to debate. So though this round will be my realization of the previously stated fact, thus being shorter and less important, I will still continue.Basically, the reason gay marriage will lead to other marriages like in the topic is the idea of equality. You said that many want to marry because they are American and pay taxes, and to this I say that in a bestial relationship, the human is American and pays taxes. So does the adult in pedophilia. Marriage does not equal sex, but rather if sex is involved, equals fidel sex. Homosexuals who raise children often find their child not doing as well as other children, this is harmful to the child. That is my argument because, hm, I don't even know I'm surprised.
gay marriage does not lead to bestiality or pedophilia marriages

Keeping this strictly my opening arguments,Gay Marriage leading to Pedophilia.Pedophilia can be defined many different ways, but for the sake of my argument, I will be using the definition I have provided. So, that being said, ages 13-17 are still up for grabs on my side. [1] shows the requirements for marriages under the legal age of 18 (in some states, 19), showing that marriages as young as 16 are legal with parental consent. At 16, you can argue that the individuals are still not mature enough to make a decision, but I remind you that in most cases parental consent is required. Majority of any ethical parent would sit and discuss such a life-changing decision with their child, and if the child persists, the child obviously believes it is the best decision. Plus, there are thousands of pregnant girls under 18, and a good way to ensure the father's presences could actually be marriage. Gay Marriage leading to BestialityBestiality is the relationship between a human and an animal. Marriage is typically defined as a coming together of man and woman, or in some less conservative, aged cases, the coming together of two people. People is the key word, really. An animal is clearly not human, so therefore it cannot partake in a marriage. Because I say that animals cannot partake in marriage, there is no way that bestiality will ever be legal. HOWEVERI realize that it may sound like I was arguing as pro, but let me tell you the main reason for gay marriage-equality. Equality for two people that love each other. Yes, if gay marriage is legal, it will open eyes to other types of relationships to attempt to earn their equality, regardless of their stances and members. Why restrict equality from pedophiliac and bestial relationships? Once, homosexuals were looked down upon (they still are) and in some countries, they are still imprisoned and killed. If homosexuals can rise from the dark unjustice, it will encourage all other members of all other relationships to do the same. History is a chain of events. Pearl Harbor led to US involvement in war. Assassination of the Archduke led to WW1. Gay Marriage can lead to Pedophiliac and Bestial Marriages. Sources:[1] http://www.usmarriagelaws.com...;
gay marriage does not lead to bestiality or pedophilia marriages

Thank you for accepting this challenge and I for the record, I respect that you don't agree with the subject that you are arguing in favor of. Gay marriage simply put, would be two people of the same sex committing their lives together as a civil contract or union. They are TWO CONSENTING ADULTS that have decided to make a life together. My opponent must prove that this will lead to or cause pedophilia or bestiality to become legal. We must be careful with definitions or this will turn into a semantic argument. There is more than one definition of "Pedophilia". According to "Psychology Today", "Pedophilia is defined as the fantasy or act of sexual activity with prepubescent children." (http://www.psychologytoday.com...) Just because two adults decide to enter in a civil contract, it does not make the sexual abuse of children or marriage of children "right"or "legal". Children do not possess the maturity or ability to comprehend adult issues like "marriage". That is one of the things that makes children different from adults. Children do not have the same rights and privileges under the constitution as adults, primarily because they do not possess the understanding of adult issues. Furthermore, there is documented proof of the harm that comes to children from sexual abuse. According to "Parenting and Child Health's" website, "Sexual abuse has a big impact on a child's ability to trust adults to keep them safe, and to relate to others. They can feel scared, angry or helpless because they can't control what is happening to them and all alone because they can't tell anyone.They may need help to deal with the effects of the abuse. As children become adults it can affect their intimate relationships and make them feel worthless, anxious and depressed." Many turn to drugs and alcohol later in life as well. http://www.cyh.com... There are MANY reasons not to allow pedophilia, but this in no way relates at all to homosexual marriages. I challenge you to show me how it would. As for bestiality, much can be said about this subject that was said about pedophilia. Animals do not have the ability to consent. One of the differences between children and animals is that children WILL be able to get married and WILL be granted the same rights and privileges as other adults; animals never will because they are animals. Simply put, animals are not equal to human. Since marriage is a contract and both parties must agree, animals certainly cannot participate. They cannot sign a contract, do not have social security numbers, cannot communicate with an attorney if there were a divorce. Speaking of divorces, if they did get divorced, who would get the property, custody of previous children, and visitation rights of the children? The complications do not end. Two adult humans that are the same sex can raise a child. I have yet to see an animal that can raise a human child. As I have just shown, neither pedophilia nor bestiality show ANY correlation between two adult members of the same sex getting married. With that, I yield to my opponent.
gay marriage does not lead to bestiality or pedophilia marriages

Off the record, I don't agree that it will, but I find it interesting to argue things I don't necessarily agree with.Before we start, I would like to define the terms:Pedophilia- Sexual feelings directed toward children.Children- A young human being below the legal age of majority. (The age of majority, of course, being 18.)Bestiality- Sexual intercourse between a person and an animal.I look forward to the debate.
resolved that in the realm of economics freedom ought to be valued above equity

The standard I will quote Pro"s first post : " I stand firmly resolved: in the realm of economics, freedom ought to be valued above equity. Because eco. freedom best provides human right. " Based on this claim, I proved that economic freedom did not indeed best provide human rights but on the contrary : The international standard suggests that restrictions are necessary and that equity(There referenced as general interest) was a legitimate concern. Human rights Pro doesn"t seem to go anywhere with her argumentation. Human rights are defined by humans, and Conventions are the legitimate ways to define and protect them. Pro may as well argue that she believes the sky is red and that the name or definitions we give to every objet, idea or belief is a social construct and a social convention : it is. The simple truth though is that we wouldn"t be able to have any debate if we were to throw every convention out of the window and say stuff like " This is subjective and the usual convention does not represent properly the idea ". Well then, what does ? Does Pro believe she is more qualified than the members of the European Convention On Human Rights to define the human rights ? Then, where is her argumentation about her own standard ? Surely she doesn"t think that her mere disagreement is enough to discredit a convention ? Contention 2 Pro now digress and doesn"t seem to understand what deregulation is. Fannie and Freddie and her whole argumentation is completely irrelevant with the debate. She also doesn"t show her sources, since they are most probably very biased. " It all started in 1992 the government made the rule that 30% percent of loans had to be subprime. " And these are just plain lies, what the hell is Pro inventing now" Does she know the difference between subprimes and affordable housing ? " THIS WAS A DRIVE FOR EQUITY BECAUSE THEY WERE TRYING TO BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL " What the hell ? Why does Pro even make a link between equity and banks buying subprimes for their own profit ? Or Pro believes that banks are not interested by profit but by equity ? Does she relieve believe such nonsense? I can"t wait to see that argumentation.. Contention 3 Of course I am arguing with government intervention since they are motivated by equity. And of course we have to oppose economic freedom with government intervention, there is no other way to have a debate about that subject. Contention 4 This is hilarious, I am responding to Pro arguments and she now says that it is irrelevant. I see now that Pro dropped all her initial contentions except for " Equity hurts human rights " that she argues using false arguments and by inventing facts.
High school should start later than it currently does

I want to start out by pointing out the lack of sources my opponent provides. For example, he says, "Oversleeping will cause you to be less attentive", but never provides any data or research to back up his claim. I, on the other hand, have provided data and research to back up my claims and will continue to do so in this and further posts.Rebuttal to Answer to Counterpoint 1:You failed to use the accepted starting time that was agreed upon at the beginning of the debate, 7:45. 7:45 was never agreed to be the wake up time, it was agreed to be the school start time. If you really wanted to change the agreed upon start time, you should have done so in Round 1. Also, I am blaming the schools for not meeting the needs of teens who have different sleep patterns than adults. It is the schools' job to teach students, and they are unable to do this properly without respecting the sleep patterns of teens.Rebuttal to Counterpoint 1/2:What I stated was not opinion, I provided a source of research (the National Sleep Foundation) to prove what I said. If you disagree with this research, you must provide contrary research. Dismissing research as an opinion is not ok.Rebuttal to Counterpoint 3:You missed the point of my argument, or maybe you intentionally ignored it, but my point was that forcing kids to wake up at a time that interrupts their sleep patterns causes them to be more depressed. Counterpoint 1:Instead of asking me to run a poll to disprove your argument, why not run a poll to prove yours. Your hypothetical poll and your opinion on what you think the results will be doesn't count as evidence supporting your claim, considering that it is hypothetical. Your "real world" example is also garbage, considering that it is another hypothetical and doesn't involve any quantitative data, but also because it is untrue. If an employee asked his or her boss if they could get later hours, the boss would say yes or no. A "no" answer, however, would not cause the person to be fired as you suggest, they would simply remain employed with the same hours. Point 1: Teens who start school earlier have a higher crash rateStudies have shown that teens who start school earlier are more likely to get in car accidents. The research source (The American Academy of Sleep Medicine) that I will be presenting shows that crash rates are 41% higher in schools that start at 7:20 vs schools that start at 8:40.Source- http://www.aasmnet.org...Your comment about me needing to "prove [my] points better than some random information [I] find off some sleeping website" is extremely hypocritical considering you have failed to produce ANY research sources that contradict those that I have provided. Also, since you have stated that you don't like the National Sleep Foundation (for whatever reason), here is another source that confirms the same ideas: http://kidshealth.org...;
High school should start later than it currently does

"School starts at 7:45 because it is the prime of your brain function." By brain function, I was refering that waking up at this time will help your brain be prepared for the rest of the day. Oversleeping will cause you to be less attentiveAnswer to Counterpoint 1: According to the National Sleep Foundation, teens' natural sleep cycle puts them in conflict with school start times.Classes, in most public schools, begin around 8:30. One hour and fifteen minutes is enough/pleanty of time for your brain to be wide awake and ready for school. If you have 6 hours of sleep, dont blame your school, blame your sleeping habits.Counterpoint 1+2: "Biological" bad habits shift toward later times for both sleeping and waking during adolescence.What you are stating is opinion and has not been proven. Teenagers are used to staying up late because they obviously are ok with being tired in the morning when school starts.Counterpoint 3: Students who go to school at 7:45 tend to be depressed Hate to break it to you, but this is not fault on the school system's behalf. Maybe these researchers you refer me to should focus on something far more broad. Orgasm = less testosterone = depression and lack of boldness.Point 1: Arriving at later hours, would leave the even worse down side, of dismisal at later hoursRun a poll and see who wins. Best bet says you're going to find out teens would rather wake up earlier than finish school at, say, five oclock in the afternoon. Welcome to the real world. If you go to your boss and tell him you start work too early, guess what. "You're Fired." Thats life and unless you can prove your points better than some random information you find off some sleeping website, I would suggest retreating.
High school should start later than it currently does

To answer your question, yes there is no debating in round one, but I will still make a counterpoint to your point: "School starts at 7:45 because it is the prime of your brain function."Counterpoint 1: According to the National Sleep Foundation, teens' natural sleep cycle puts them in conflict with school start times."They are like zombies getting ready for school and find it hard to be alert and pay attention in class. Because they are sleep deprived, they are sleepy all day and cannot do their best."Point 1: Biological sleep patterns shift toward later times for both sleeping and waking during adolescence.It has been proven that teens function on a sleep pattern that favors a later bedtime and waketime. It's not natural for teens to fall asleep before 11PM, and since teens need 9 hours of sleep, a 7:45 school start time doesn't allow them nearly enough time to sleep.Point 2: Teen's sleep patterns would be more regular throughout the weekTeens tend to sleep in late and stay up late on the weekends. Making the school day start later would make their sleep schedule more regular, preventing their quality of sleep from being hurt.Point 3: Students who go to school at 7:45 tend to be depressedIn a recent poll by the National Sleep Foundation, 54% of students are moderately or highly depressed on a regular basis. 73% of those depressed students also reported feeling tired throughout the day and not getting enough sleep at night.Sources:http://www.sleepfoundation.org...;
High school should start later than it currently does

So, there is no actual debating for round one? School starts at 7:45 because it is the prime of your brain function. If you are tired at 7:45, you need to see a doctor or get a better bed time before 12. Public Government schools won't just change for the few who see it as necessary to start school later. If you want to wake up late and finish school around 6 in the afternoon, then ask your mom to homeschool you.
High school should start later than it currently does

Pro argues that high schools should start later than the current start time Con argues that high schools should start at the current start time The current start time that will be used is 7:45. Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Main Arguments Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: Further Rebuttals Only public schools will be discussed here. I am aware there was another debate on this topic, but the Pro was a horrible debater so I want to give this topic another chance. Thanks!