BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Smoking in public has to be banned

For the argument about the topic of asthma, you mentioned that 3,285 deaths are caused by asthma per year. Most asthma attacks can be brought under control. And not all of these deaths are caused by second-hand smoke. Asthma attacks can be triggered by certain things which includes stress, pollens, perfumes, food additives, and much more. Tobacco smoke is only one thing that triggers it. Pollens can be found year round, but sadly we cannot ban those from traveling into public places. We also cannot stop pollutants that trigger asthma attacks. You mentioned while countering my second argument about "The highest attainable standard of health as a fundamental right of every human being, "as said by the World Health Organization Constitution. Yes, everyone does have the right to live a full and healthy life. Smoking in public places may damage a human's health, but second-hand smoke will not damage you as much as things we breathe in, absorb and smell all the time. People smoke outside in public all the time and is their choice as a human being, they want to have their "highest attainable standard" of health. They also have that right as well. There are usually warning signs to places that allow smoking indoors, so it is the fault of the person coming into the place and inhaling that smoke if they do not read the warning sign. Your rhetorical question more than likely puts that effect and emphasis on why not kill yourself if you smoke. The logic that I was following was the logic that you were sending to me. The electronic cigarettes, rechargeable or not, can be made even better, which includes the electronic cigarette explosions. As soon as electronic cigarettes get more attention, the better and safer they will be. For my conclusion, smoking is a problem that does require attention but can be easily solved by supply and demand. The consumers of the cigarettes have the control on how the rules will be pulled and what will be made in the cigarette industry. America cannot put an ultimate ban on cigarettes in public places because that is what runs America. More than 20% of America smokes cigarettes, and since the taxes on cigarettes are high, cigarette taxes bring in the most revenue. America will always be great, but even greater if we share the innovation and technology of electronic cigarettes and safer cigarettes for the public. If we can do this, this particular argument wouldn't even exist. Sources: http://www.everydayhealth.com... http://dailycaller.com...
Islam is inhumane!

Muslims in all the world claim that Islam is a peaceful religion, that it is a religion of equality and happiness. They also claim that Islam respects every human Muslim or not. They also claim that Islam honored and respected women. "Islam is a religion of peace" is a bold statement that even Islamic sharia laws contradict it. Islam has a cruel and primitive punishment for apostasy (leaving Islam) which is death. The true punishment for stealing in Islam is cutting off the hand of the perpetrator. If a married women and/or man had sex outside of marriage he/she is stoned to death. All these laws are indicators that Islam is in fact wicked and immoral. Muslims also claim that the woman in Islam is well honored and respected. This claim is false since the laws and rules of Islam show the opposite. A woman in Islam is not allowed to go outside her house without a male chaperon. In Islam, a woman's testimony in the court of Islamic law worth half of that of a male. A man is allowed in Islam to marry 4 women if he wanted where a woman only marries one man and she cannot even divorce him if he didn't agree, where a man can divorce a woman whenever he wanted. The woman in Islam is considered a tool for childbearing and sexual pleasure. She was ordered to cover herself so she would not provoke men, so basically God telling women to cover themselves has nothing to do with them. Now we all see that Islamic countries nowadays are all weak and underdeveloped but ask yourselves what would happen if Islam managed to become strong as it were 1400 years ago? we will see Jihadists entering Europe offering either Islam, money, or death. Back in the Caliphates era, Muslim armies used to give three options to any country they invade; either they convert to Islam, pay for safety, or die. Being an ex-Muslim for 20 years I can say that Muslims all around the world wish for that era to come back.
Islam is inhumane!

Pro's arguments are highly bigoted and wrong because he caricatures 1.4 billion Muslims for the actions of a few, or for the actions and conditions in third-world countries. Islam is not inhumane; if it were ipso facto inhumane, there would be no good Muslims, yet there are plenty. Most of them are good, peaceful people who happen to believe in Islam. It's highly ignorant and bigoted to rip people for believing differently than you, especially with no evidence to use such a broad brush.
intelligence is most often unrecognized in our schools

As my opponent has forfeited I will just state some general arguments because Pro hasn't stated a very clear viewpoint. The Intelligence school finds is what is used in the real world. Many make arguments for people like Bill Gates, however he was an extremely special case, AND he was recognized as intelligent, he just didn't pay attention to normal schooling. I look forward to my opponent providing facts instead of something they were daydreaming about.
intelligence is most often unrecognized in our schools

I have often dwelt upon the unfairness and biases that accompany the traditional school system. I am currently enrolled in my first year of high school, and it is shocking and appalling the utter lack of recognition of alternative ways of defining intelligence. In this debate I hope to be able to create a better understanding of why we need to be do better in finding intelagence in those who have been labeled unintelligent.
It is alright for parents to allow children below the age of ten to play video games.

Pro, meaning no offense, but your argument has nothing to do with this debate, that I can see, and if it does, it is not clear. True, some of the arguments I've posted haven't anything to do with the debate, but I posted them to allow you to catch up after forfeiting. I can't really say that it has been a pleasure debating you, though I'd like to, except that we haven't actually had a debate. The only relevant argument you've made this entire debate is "I accept," and I can't really say that that was a pleasure. So I dolefully bid you adieu, and invite you to a rematch, though not now, because, due to an increase in business of my schedule, I shall be unable to do much on this site, as it is not a priority. Good afternoon!
It is alright for parents to allow children below the age of ten to play video games.

To be fair to my opponent, I will make no argument this round, and only pose a slight expansion on my initial one.The reason that children younger than ten should not be allowed by their parents to play video games is already listed. It should be unnecessary for parents to restrict such things for children over ten, because ideally, by that point in development, a child should properly raised should be endowed with the discernment and self discipline to choose long term benefit over instant gratification on their own merit.I am his highness' dog at Kew,Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you?
It is alright for parents to allow children below the age of ten to play video games.

Since I prefer to operate as a rebuttal debater, I will make a brief opening case.Developing MindsStudies indicate that the brain does not finish developing until around age 25 [1]. This means that for the first twenty-five years of life, the brain can form new neural nets. After that point, all information must be processed with existing neural nets. I would posit that during this time, individuals should be made to study as many subjects as possible, so as to build as many neural nets as possible, for the positive mental evolution of the species. Video games, while potentially informative, are a distraction from this education, and influence the way one sees the world. Children, if presented the choice between the opportunity to play Angry Birds or study trigonometry, are likely to choose Angry Birds, though it does not practice any pragmatic skill. This is an unfortunate testimony to the human tendency to best pick the thing that will not do them any good. Humans are likely to choose instant gratification over long term benefit. It is therefore the responsibility of parents to ensure that their children do what is best for them, even if it does not feel that way. With teen parenting (or lack thereof) on the rise (a testament itself to the human preference for instant gratification), more and more children are wasting their childhoods on more and more elaborate renditions of solitaire, largely because their parents are still young enough that they make the same choice to waste their time. It is not surprising, therefore, that such things as elementary language skills are becoming rarer, and that once commonplace skills and abilities are now shunned or considered exceptional (such as reading). In some first world countries, literacy is on a deplorable downward spiral, with some cities, like Detroit, Michigan, in which 47% of the population is functionally illiterate. This is partly due to the economy, but also due to cultural mindset. Part of the species is devolving back into primitive and helpless animals, shepherded by the exceptional minority. Hypothetically speaking, a few hundred thousand years of this development and there could be divergent paths of evolution in the species. That little tangent aside, it is important that, as the general culture of the species progress, we tailor our evolution to a positive direction, to build the best future we may. In order to do this, we must strive to reach our full intellectual potential, a process that starts in our children. In order for our children to grow up as a generation that can carry on and lift our accelerating standards of progress, they need the best education possible. Video games are a sore distraction to this objective, as they are the instant gratification that the children want, but not the long term training for success that they need, and that we all need them to receive.Over to the Pro.Sources[1] http://www.hhs.gov...
That Australians should be banned from staying and defending their property during natural disaster.

Ladies and gentleman, do you know the average response time for emergency services? Research from the Australian Bureau of Statistics shows that the average response time in Metro areas of Australia is between that of 20-30 minutes. Some places in Australia such as Canberra do not have medical staff located at base at all times. Furthermore, there are times during which the rescue equipment are offline. They need maintenance, too. These conditions will delay the response time, which means the people suffering from the natural disasters will be put on with more risks. Is that what you want to see? My second point for tonight is that if all people in the natural disasters leave their property, then there would simply be too many people in evacuation centres. This often means that there will be people suffering from starving or dehydration. Moreover, they will not have a personal area as too many people are crowded in the centres. Of course that staying in their properties does not necessarily mean that people will be silly about it like stand right below the fan and wait to be it in an earthquake or stay in a room that can be easily caught on fire during a fire. If people are well-educated and the house designs are improved, then their houses can be a little evacuation centre for those who are living in them. You can hide under a table during earthquake and stay in a room with least possible flammable items during fire. Your life is not risked and you can stay and defend your properties. Isn"t that a good thing?
That Australians should be banned from staying and defending their property during natural disaster.

Welcome, ladies and gentleman. The topic for this debate is that Australians should be banned from staying and defending their property during natural disaster. As the speaker for the negative side, I will soon provide you with some satisfactory and convincing points to state that there will be more benefit if Australians stayed in their property during a natural disaster. My points for today’s speech are that the average response time for emergency services are far too long and unsafe for citizens. And my second point is that there is often be too many people in the evacuation centres.
Kids Should Wear Uniforms

Thank you, rachelanne, for instigating this debate. Since my opponent has instigated with an argument, I feel it fair for me to do so as well.Counter-arguments"Kids should wear uniforms because they can't be bullied about what the are wearing.""Finally they won't get picked on if they can only afford one outfit because no one would ever know."In the real world (i.e. outside of school), people have the ability to wear whatever they desire. If students are coddled in schools, wherein students are not used to scrutiny and opposing opinion, how will they possibly be able to cope with real world criticism? In the program Hyper Parents and Coddled Children, a documentary on the effects of parents keeping their children as safe as possible, found that "University psychologists report today's students experience higher levels of anxiety than any generation before them" [1]. The correlation between anxiety and coddling seems logical if you consider that coddled children do not usually have to deal with rejection or set-backs, hence when they enter university they are assaulted with anxiety attacks.Similar problems were found within Psychology Today's piece that summarised some important recent discoveries. Points of notice include student's increasing inability to self-regulate, due to parents/ the school far too often regulating the student's lives [2]. This corroborates with the anxiety attacks found within Hyper Parents and Coddled Children. The other major point to be found with Psychology Today's piece is that:"Trying to instill high self-esteem in kids without ever challenging them is likely to leave these future adults in a 'set' mindset, less able to develop themselves and most importantly, less willing to change negative circumstances that come their way" [2].Students should be challenged with opposing views of what is desirable to wear to school. Students should be subject to criticism from their peers. This way, they will be better equipped to deal with negative comments and opposing views, and less likely to suffer from anxiety and inability to develop as a human."They also won't have to scream and cry in the morning because you can't find something to wear."I am fairly certain it is obvious enough that students will likely have at least one set of regular clothes to wear for each school day. Even if this is not true, my opponent has the burden of proof to show that it is likely students will not have enough clothes to wear for each day of school.References[1] http://www.cbc.ca...[2] http://www.faithformationlearningexchange.net...
Both baptists and Catholics are going to heaven.

I hold that Protestant Denominations are invalid and only Catholics can enter Heaven. I have evidence for this in bible verses, fulfilled biblical prophesy, and writings of the early church. I will start with why Protestantism is invalid and bring forth why Catholicism is scriptural in the following arguments. Protestantism Invalid. Point 1: Philippians 2:2 > "Fulfill ye my joy, that you may be of one mind, having the same charity, being of one accord." Note: The true Christian faith is of one mind, one accord ... not 25,000. Romans 15:6 > "That with one mind, and with one mouth, you may glorify God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." Note: The true Christian faith is of one mind, one mouth ... not 25,000. 1 Timothy 4:16 > "Take heed to thyself and to doctrine: be earnest in them. For in doing this thou shalt both save thyself and them that hear thee." Note: There is only one set of doctrine. Mark 11:22 > "And Jesus answering, saith to them: Have the faith of God." Note: The words "the faith" show that there is only one ... by definition the heresies are not of Divine faith ... which is why they cost you your soul. Protestantism Invalid. Point 2: In Acts 15 we see that Paul and Barnabas, though guided by The Holy Spirit; could not determine if circumcision was necessary; the decision was left to Pope Peter at the Council of Jerusalem. By this understanding, no Protestant Leader (and they all claim to have The Holy Spirit - and even if they did) can make any determination of what to do without putting themselves at higher authority than Paul and Barnabas. This in my logical opinion is the clear distinction of a False-Prophet.
Both baptists and Catholics are going to heaven.

I will be arguing that not only do both ends of the spectrum go to heaven, but both can work together to further Christianity. While I may be an Atheist now, I was once a devout Reformed Southern Baptist Christian and I know the ins and outs of Christianity. My disbelief in God now does not affect my knowledge or opinion of the details of Christian theology. I challenge you to this debate because of a comment in which you said "Both the instigator and the Contender are going to burn like incense for rejecting the Catholic Dogma." I challenge you to defend the idea that the Catholic church is the one true church and that the millions of Protestants are going to hell. I would ask that my Atheism not be brought into this as this is a theological debate that I am well qualified to participate in.
Both baptists and Catholics are going to heaven.

Con, I am largely impressed by your knowledge of this theological debate and I shall now congratulate you on your win. I did not know that many of those letters even existed! It appears that I am not qualified to debate this aspect as I know little of the Catholic Dogma. Any further arguments on my part would be based on ignorance and make me look like a fool. It appears that all I am able to do is regurgitate the teachings I renounced so long ago. You know things I do not and are therefore above me in any debate. I will forfeit the subsequent rounds. It seems that the biology that I love so much is where I need to stay. If I actually believed in Christianity, I probably would have researched these further letters. But since I do not, and I reject the idea that all religion is based on in the first place, it is better for me to Forfeit this debate and declare you winner. If I can, I will even vote for you to assure your victory is shown by numbers. Congratulations. Maybe another theologian could debate with you about such matters but I do not understand the details of the Catholic Dogma. Have a good day.
Both baptists and Catholics are going to heaven.

Yes, Point 1 refers to unity. You skipped Point 2 about how no one has jurisdiction to form a sect and break unity without the incredibly audacity of demeaning Paul and Barnabas' authority as beneath them. I will now re-iterate the point of jurisdiction with the earliest known non-biblical christian writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch (50-110AD), which also shows the Primacy of Rome in keeping this unity. A chapter comparison of Ignatius' letters proves without a doubt that he was in submission to Rome, the Catholic Tradition. He also frequently warns of heretics, which is what a Protestant is by taking authority away from the succession of Pope Peter. Letter to Rome: (Submissive Language) CHAPTER III.--PRAY RATHER THAT I MAY ATTAIN' TO MARTYRDOM. CHAPTER IV.--ALLOW ME TO FALL A PREY TO THE WILD BEASTS. CHAPTER V.--I DESIRE TO DIE. CHAPTER VIII.--BE YE FAVOURABLE TO ME. CHAPTER IX.--PRAY FOR THE CHURCH IN SYRIA. Letter to Trallians: (Authoritative Language) CHAPTER II.--BE SUBJECT TO THE BISHOP, ETC. CHAPTER VI.--ABSTAIN FROM THE POISON OF HERETICS. CHAPTER VIII.--BE ON YOUR GUARD AGAINST THE SNARES OF THE DEVIL CHAPTER XI.--AVOID THE DEADLY ERRORS OF THE DOCETAE. CHAPTER XII.--CONTINUE IN UNITY AND LOVE. Letter to Magnesians: (Authoritative Language) CHAPTER III.--HONOUR YOUR YOUTHFUL BISHOP CHAPTER VI.--PRESERVE HARMONY. CHAPTER VII.--DO NOTHING WITHOUT THE BISHOP AND PRESBYTERS. CHAPTER X.--BEWARE OF JUDAIZING. CHAPTER XI.--I WRITE THESE THINGS TO WARN YOU. CHAPTER XIII.--BE ESTABLISHED IN FAITH AND UNITY. Letter to Ephesians: (Authoritative Language) CHAPTER III.--EXHORTATIONS TO UNITY. CHAPTER VI.--HAVE RESPECT TO THE BISHOP AS TO CHRIST HIMSELF. CHAPTER VII.--BEWARE OF FALSE TEACHERS. CHAPTER X.--EXHORTATIONS TO PRAYER, HUMILITY, ETC. CHAPTER XI.--AN EXHORTATION TO FEAR GOD, ETC. CHAPTER XIII.--EXHORTATION TO MEET TOGETHER FREQUENTLY FOR THE WORSHIP OF GOD. CHAPTER XIV.--EXHORTATIONS TO FAITH AND LOVE. CHAPTER XV.--EXHORTATION TO CONFESS CHRIST BY SILENCE AS WELL AS SPEECH. CHAPTER XVI.--THE FATE OF FALSE TEACHERS. CHAPTER XVII.--BEWARE OF FALSE DOCTRINES. Letter to Philadelphians (Authoritative Language) CHAPTER II.--MAINTAIN UNION WITH THE BISHOP. CHAPTER III.--AVOID SCHISMATICS. CHAPTER IV.--HAVE BUT ONE EUCHARIST, ETC. CHAPTER VI.--DO NOT ACCEPT JUDAISM. CHAPTER VII.--I HAVE EXHORTED YOU TO UNITY. Letter to Smyrnaeans (Authoritative Language) CHAPTER IV.--BEWARE OF THESE HERETICS. CHAPTER V.--THEIR DANGEROUS ERRORS, CHAPTER VI--UNBELIEVERS IN THE BLOOD OF CHRIST SHALL BE CONDEMNED. CHAPTER VII.--LET US STAND ALOOF FROM SUCH HERETICS. CHAPTER VIII.--LET NOTHING BE DONE WITHOUT THE BISHOP. CHAPTER IX.--HONOUR THE BISHOP. Letter to Polycarp (Authoritative Language) CHAPTER I.-- COMMENDATION AND EXHORTATION. CHAPTER V.--THE DUTIES OF HUSBANDS AND WIVES. CHAPTER VI.--THE DUTIES OF THE CHRISTIAN FLOCK.
Humanism should be added as a religion in the profile section of debate.org

Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to make two points:1) My opponent plagiarized:He did not present an argument. He simply presented a link to another website to explain his point. Even though he provided a source, he did not actually make an argument to win. Simply copy and pasting someone else's information, arguments, or ideas to present as your own arguent is always plagiarism.This is generally a full loss. My opponent makes no argument and loses conduct at least for plaguarizing.2) Humanism is not a religion:This is an exerpt from the article that my opponent posted: "Look to science instead of religion as the best way to discover and understand the world."That is the full sentence. The best way to say it is, "[Humanists] look to science instead of religion as the best way to discover and understand the world."My syllogism goes as follows:P1: The religion option in the profile section of DDO is for people to identify their religion or general belief or disbelief inGod.P2: Humanism is not a religion nor expresses a belief or disbelief in God.C: Humanism should not be added as a religion in the profile section of DDO.
Impromtu Debate

I choose topic #2, and will argue against the proposition that tax evasion is as morally repugnant as stealing from a charity box. The three options that I give my opponent are: 1) Courts should be allowed to posthumously try those accused of war crimes, with humiliation of the corpse being a potential punishment. 2) The Pope, and everyone elected to the papacy after him, should be assassinated. 3) People who buy non-essential goods, rather than donating the money to charity, are morally responsible for the deaths of starving Africans.