BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Israel vs. Palestine: A Religious Perspective

I would say neither side has a right to the land, you've outlawed saying that the Palestinians deserve the land because they were there first in your opening argument yet it is completely reasonable to say that if the Palestinians were already there then they would be able to claim the land as theirs and the same goes for any occupants before them. There is always the possibility of taking land through war, but that should only be done with good reason. Both sides believe it is their right to hold the land because of their religious pasts and beliefs but neither side has a right to push their religious beliefs as an honest argument until those religions have been proved correct.
Doomday Prepping

Given a scenario that cripples the society as we know it, then it is good idea to prepare such event. Opening argument: It is a good idea in my opinion to prepare for an end of the world scenario even if it dose not come. Firstly if a person wants to spend their money for preps then they should because this can stimulate the economy. (Which helps in the short run and the long run)Secondly even if the end of the world does not happen the knowledge they learn can help them in their lIfe, such as first aid, self defense, and how to tend a gardan, only a few examples. Thirdly, it can be fun for yourself and your family.
Doomday Prepping

My opponent has forfeited this round, and so I will not be able to see the rebuttals to my arguments unless they appear in Round 4. However, my opponent has designated this round for rebuttal and cross-examination, and so I will work with the opening argument. Pro states that it can stimulate the economy if doomsday preppers spend their money on survival gear. This may be true, but simply because a business increases the inflow of cash to the economy does not mean that it is good. Doomsday preppers are prone to hoarding resources for an impossible scenario, rather than using their funds to invest in the infrastructure of their town. Is it better to boost the economy in this way, and then hoard the resources, or is it better to put that money towards the community through purchases at small businesses or donations to local law enforcement agencies? This is all assuming that doomsday preppers attain all their goods legally, which, for the most part, I assume they do. However, there is an overlap between the survivalist movement and those who purchase fully-automatic weapons. While these are not completely illegal, it is illegal to modify weapons for this purpose, and it is highly expensive to purchase a legal automatic weapon. For any doomsday preppers who fall into this category, there is a good chance that they have not boosted the economy, but instead have broken the law and funded an illegal source. I completely agree with Pro that survival skills can have major benefits that have nothing to do with end-of-the-world scenarios. However, this does not support the argument that it is good to prep for the end of the world. Working on first aid and self-defense have long been part of organizations such as Boy Scouts of America, but these skills are not taught for use in the apocalypse. By all means, practice gardening and first aid. This does not mean that you have to hoard goods or purchase extensive weaponry. For those individuals who practice these skills and have them at the ready at all times, I would say that this is not preparing for the end of the world, but rather for the safety of those in our world right now. I agree that it can be fun. However, again I will argue that the skills associated with survivalism are fine, but that the mindset of preparing for doomsday is not a benefit. I will renew my point about the culture of doomsday prepping, in that it creates a demand for evidence showing the likelihood of doomsday events, which detracts from the ability for scientists to focus on real issues. I agree that it is fun for families to go camping, have a garden at home, or practice first aid together, but this is why we have the Boy Scouts. I hope these rebuttals serve to address some contentions I have with Pro's argument. I will save any final comments for the next round, as I don't think it is fair to criticize the opening statements too harshly at this point. I'm looking forward to Pro's arguments in the last round, and any rebuttals Pro would like to offer.
3 years old is too old for a child to still use a sippy cup.

I will start off with some definitions: Child - a young person of either sex, for the purposes of this debate I will be considering a child to be anyone that has not yet reached puberty. . http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... Sippy Cup - The sippy cup is a spill-proof drinking cup designed for toddlers. It works by way of surface tension that prevents liquid from being spilled even when the cup is upended. The critical element is the sippy top being firmly in place on top of the cup, preventing spills. en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Sippy_cup ~ Rebuttals: ///At the age of 3 the most of all toddlers have all their baby teeth. Thus using a sippy cup can and will do harm to their teeth. /// I have found no evidence that suggests that this point is true. All of the criticism that I can find of sippy cups is about the kinds of drinks that are put in them and the improper way that they are cleaned [1]. These drinks are mainly sugary drinks that cause infantile cavities. This damage is not because of the cup, but the drinks and cleaners, these reasons can not be used as a negative of the cup itself. ~ ///I know this for a fact, because I have 3 years old nephew. /// This sentence and the eight that follow it are all arguments coming from personal experience that I am unable to counter. These claims are also unsubstantiated. I could sit here and say that I had toast with jam for breakfast today. You have no reason to think that I am lying, but there is also no way currently for you to confirm this claim. Therefore an unsubstantiated argument from personal experience should be disregarded. ~ ///So, there is not really a sippy cup out there that won't make a mess. /// I ask my opponent to take a look st the short video that I have provided. It is of a baby using a sippy cup that does not spill even when she throws it. ~ Arguments: My only argument is the question of why shouldn't a child use a sippy cup? You claim that they all make messes, a statement that I have dis-proven. I see no objective reason to support the claim that simply using a sippy cup is detrimental to any child. You say that it gives children a sense of responsibility, but does it really? I seriously doubt that anyone felt accomplished the first time that they used an open-topped cup. [1] . http://www.iloveindia.com... [2] Video . http://www.youtube.com...
3 years old is too old for a child to still use a sippy cup.

3 years old for a child to use a sippy cup is too old. At the age of 3 the most of all toddlers have all their baby teeth. Thus using a sippy cup can and will do harm to their teeth. Some people might say why not at the age of 2? Well, at the age of 2 the child is still learning how to use a cup properly and still make many messes. They also don't have all their teeth yet. I know this for a fact, because I have 3 years old nephew. I tried to get him to use a cup at the age of 2, but he was unable to complete that task successfully. Now, at the age if 3 he can use a regular cup, sometimes better then myself. To support that sippy cups hurt your teeth I will use an examples. I took my nephew to the dentist for his check up. The dentist said that all toddlers should be off the bottle at the age of 1 and off the sippy cup by the child's 3 birthday. He said that using a sippy cup for a pro longed time will harm your teeth, and can teeth problems later on down the road. Now to the messes the child can make with these cups. Yes, there are sippy cups out there that claim to be "Spill Proof". Well, every cup that I have bought my nephew he has found a way to make it break or spill. So, there is not really a sippy cup out there that won't make a mess. You might say that using a regular cup will also make a mess. Well, yes that is true, but people as adults still make a mess with a regular cup. You will have a less mess if you teach the child to use the regular cup properly. This will also cut down on spending your money for the over priced sippy cups. When you could use the cups that you use. Also, by letting the child use a regular cup this will give them a sense of responsibility, thus will lead onto more good things to come in their childhood.
A firearm is the most effective personal defense weapon.

Thx, can finally revert back to internet slang lol Gun: a weapon incorporating a metal tube from which bullets, shells, or other missiles are propelled by explosive force, typically making a characteristic loud, sharp noise. Idk what definition u actually used, but once again, thx for this Debate =) It's my third time Debating on this website, but my first actual proper challenge I am extremely grateful for this new experience of loss, I've barely experienced a proper challenge, (the last 2 debates ended with me winning 0-10 and another guy forfeiting)... Once again, thank you and sorry for not providing you with a proper Debate
A firearm is the most effective personal defense weapon.

Thank you for acknowledging the truth of the matter concerning firearms and their effectiveness as personal defense weapons. It is very mature of you to do so. On the matter of clothing protecting a target from the penetrating barbs of a taser. .. The link in your last post has this excerpt: "Thick leather jackets, layers of clothing over 2 inches thick and rubberized raincoats are the only exceptions, although they don't guarantee safety against a high-voltage stun gun. " I noticed in my second post that I said "think clothing" when I meant "thick clothing" - my error. Also, on the matter of tasers being considered firearms. .. Here is the definition of "firearm" from dictionary. com: noun 1. a small arms weapon, as a rifle or pistol, from which a projectile is fired by gunpowder. Tasers do not use gunpowder. The barbs are propelled by compressed nitrogen. (also from your link) P. S. I don't hate you.
A firearm is the most effective personal defense weapon.

Freak, told you to go easy. T.T I concede defeat; I acknowledge that Pro is clearly more superior than me. I thank him for this Debate; I have gained insight into matters like these. Useless saying this now but: Clothing can't prevent the current of electricity, or else the Taser would be utter useless. Link: http://www.ehow.com... P.S. Don't hate me for this, but...a Taser is a firearm...
A firearm is the most effective personal defense weapon.

"[a taser] is not lethal but lethal enough" ??? Your statement deserves at least three question marks. Tasers very rarely kill people, as you pointed out multiple times, making them classically NON-lethal. Civilian grade tasers typically have a maximum range of 15 feet, and even then successful outcomes are not guaranteed. Think clothing can prevent skin contact with the barbs, thus not completing the current of electricity. Barriers in front of the target, even weak barriers such as thin plastic or flimsy mesh screens, can completely shield targets from the taser barbs. Reloading barbs is fairly simple, but you can only deploy a maximum of 3 at a time before needing to manually reload. The spare cartridges are bulky and people don't usually carry many reloads. Besides, if you haven't incompacitated the target standing within 15 feet with a maximum of 3 shots, you will not have time to reload because while you are reloading YOU have now become the target and your assailant will be on top of you in 1 second. Bullets have an effective range several times that of Tasers, allowing for reloading at a more comfortable distance (although it stands to reason that any emergency is not a comfortable one). Reloading magazines usually contain 9+ cartridges. They have powerful penetration, traveling through various barriers such as glass, car doors, or even walls to reach their target. Also, a firearm is at the top of the weapon food-chain. If your assailant has one, you are at a distinct disadvantage unless you have a firearm as well. You don't bring a taser to a gun fight. Tasers do not deter assailants upon visual display, nor do batons, or mace. Police officers encounter this problem often. They encounter this problem less with firearms, for good reason. Certainly, lethal force is not a power that many people feel comfortable wielding. However, that is not the subject of the debate. The topic is about firearms being effective for defense, more so than other weapons. Barring someone's own personal bias and taking on objectivity is required to weigh the contrasting the abilities of one weapon with another. One can have an aversion to flying, but going by plane is still the most effective way to travel from the U.S. to Europe.
A firearm is the most effective personal defense weapon.

I shall set forward my argument then. Pardon me if I've any misuse of words, or bad Grammar or spelling. While I slightly agree with the latter, I do not agree with the former. "It is compact, lightweight, lethal..." As Pro mentioned, a handgun is an extremely lethal weapon; it can kill or severely damage a person when shot. If someone jumps the gun (literally) and shoots an innocent assailant out of fear, it will be a terrible tragedy. A murderer could also shoot someone, and claim it was pure self-defence. Moreover, an educated wielder of the handgun would know that the gun has the potential of killing a person. I daresay he would be afraid to open fire; in fear of killing his assailant(s). Should he open fire in the spur of the moment, it may harm the wielder not physically, but instead mentally. The harm done might also be severe. The trauma after killing another is severe. It might have an untold effect on the wielder himself. One example is America; look at the crime rates of America; numerous people living in America have handguns in their pockets. The outcome of this is clear. And the mere visual display of it isn't "more than enough" to end most emergency situations, especially when most of people wouldn't dare draw their handguns. Maybe a few courageous ones might, but not majority of the public. It might be the "best defense", but it can also be the "worst offence". While I cannot argue that a handgun isn't compact or lightweight, there are better weapons that can help fend off assailant(s). I feel that a Taser would be better. Firstly, it does not kill, but it stuns, which is sufficient enough for defence. The wielder will not experience any trauma from killing or being harmed. The person shot by it will experience excruciating pain, and I don't think anyone wishes to be tasered by a Taser. I doubt there will be any crimes. If there is; I don't think anyone would be killed. Secondly, it has almost the same properties as a handgun - compact, lightweight, and the mere visual display is more than enough to end most emergency situations.* Finally, a Taser weighs almost as much as a handgun, the size, weight. I suspect the recoil is almost the same too. *Anyone might mistake the Taser for the Handgun. The Link, too, shows many cases of Police Officers mistaking Tasers for Handguns, and accidentally shooting and killing people by accident. Link: http://edition.cnn.com... Summary: 1) Handguns are not the best defence for the average adult against one or multiple aggressors.* 2) It is compact, lightweight, lethal, and the mere visual display is more than enough to end most emergency situations. 3) However, the Handgun is TOO lethal. *The Taser is better than the Handgun. It is compact, lightweight, not that lethal (but lethal enough), and the mere visual display is more than enough to end most emergency situations. I didn't double check, so cut me some slack if I make a few errors. =) Vote Con, and Pro, go easy. 3rd time debating.
Bilingual Education should be mandatory in all public schools

My apologizes for missing the last round. However here is the proof of the health benefits.http://gu.com... To address you experience in high school is yours alone. Not most or all. I had not mentioned anything about any Spanish speaking person/American in this country not being able to speak English well or at all. What I said was that the rapid globalization brings the rise to grow our knowledge. There in no one language or need to be a nation which was founded on freedom and liberty to require its people/in habitats to learn an additional language, however times have changed since the signing of our Constitution. My point was that it is beneficial for the growth of the individual and the country. As for the time to learn another language as you state most American do not go to polls, would you not agree that education and the knowledge of other cultures would induce Americans to go to the polls after learning the value? The in tolerance and lack of will to change our society to be more accepting needs to change. Yes there may be other issues that may need more attention but this debate is about making bilingual education mandatory.
Bilingual Education should be mandatory in all public schools

I disagree intensely with your statement that rapid globalization will require us to learn Spanish. I belive that(at the very least)America will retain its identity for a hundred more years. By that I mean that America will function much like it always has and people who speak only spanish will not become widespread enough to merit every last American child becoming bilingual. Already people on the mexican border are clamoring for stricter immigration laws and are fighting to reassert English as the dominant language. I would like to see a direct citing or link to your health benefits argument also before i concede that point. Now to advance my own arguments. 1. Implemeting such a program in kindergarten would waste even more time because again, very few americans would use this knowledge.According to this site http://usgovinfo.about.com... hlaf of the americans who speak spainish as their primary language also speak english very well so communication would not be a problem. 2. Pro did not attempt(as well as I can see) to refute this argument. 3.I would like to add that our country is falling behind in polls of academic prowess compared to other countries such as Japan and China. The time spent on a foreign language would be better spent on more practical studies.
Bilingual Education should be mandatory in all public schools

Well I can see some of your points, you are forgetting this would be implemented starting in kindergarten. With the rapid globalization of the world, with in time it will be mandatory to speak at least (Spanish) in this country. Today the study of a foreign language does only take place for a year or two in most schools, thus why it services no purpose. For the growth of a students cognitive development,for the health benefits in the future, as well for business communication and just communication in general there is no choice in the matter. It is vastly important to start such a program now.
Bilingual Education should be mandatory in all public schools

I believe that bilingual education would benefit few students. 1.Few Americans will ever use a second language. Worse, most students in high school wind up wasting the two years or so of foreign language classes they already take because they forget it. I know that most of my friends that have graduated after taking spanish have forgotten all but a few words.And the few words they do know they never use in useful ways. 2. Some students have extreme difficulty keeping up with the current coursework. Adding more could distract them from their more practical education and possibly cause them to fall behind in absolutely necessary classes like math and science. This could deprive some of a diploma and rob them of their chances to succeed. Finally as a student taking Spanish myself, I can say that it is difficult to pick up a second language. A couple of my classmates have failed it and must retake it just to graduate as a year of foreign language is already required where I go to school. It should be noted that these kids are not slackers or stupid, but just cant seem to memorize the large amount of knowledge. So in summary, it could actually be harmful to some students education to have to have a full foreign language education, beneficial to very few individuals, and thus just be an unnecessary addition and waste of time.
Bilingual Education should be mandatory in all public schools

Yes- Bilingual Education meaning instruction through both English and Spanish for example. As well as a federal law to enforce. According to the Daily Mail, people who speak more then one language are better at multi tasking and have less a chances of getting Alzheimer's Disease. As mentioned previously, it is a great advantages in the business world for negating deals in foreign countries, for example. For a child growing up learning the language and living everyday in school will have a greater impact in sustaining it, which will enhance their cognitive development during the learning process.
Bilingual Education should be mandatory in all public schools

Bilingual Education should be mandatory in all school throughout the country. It is no secret that this country is a melting pot. I do believe that educating the youth of this country in two languages will only benefit them in the end by making them more successful with attaining better careers. I have read that currently in the state of New Jersey that the state is moving towards doing this program in school to test it out. Many American say that your in America you should speak English. Which I would definitely agree with. However the diversity of this country would require change to move forward for a better future. Why would it be wrong to prepare the youth of this country with additional skills to ensure a brighter future?
The Bible Does Not Endorse or Condone Pedophilia

Welcome to the debate. Let me remind you, only Christianity and the Bible are up for debate here. No other religions are to be argued. 1st Corinthians 6:9-11 says, very plainly, that "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts...nor PEDOPHILES... shall enter the kingdom of God". Modern Literal Translation Bible "Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites... shall enter the kingdom of God"-NSRVCE Bible "Have ye not known that the unrighteous the reign of God shall not inherit? be not led astray; neither whoremongers, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor sodomites..." YLT Bible Sodomites, it would be worth noting, means, literally "those who have catamites". Catamites are male prepubescents used as sexual slaves, and both of these are condemned in the King James Bible! So, at the very least, pedophilia is condemned in males. But what of females? Fornication is sex outside of marriage. So, since children cannot marry in most civilized countries that are secular, pedophilia is condemned! I have provided three biblical translations forbidding pedophilia. And variants of the same verse can be found in the source below https://www.biblegateway.com... My opponent has thrice so far in the comments, which was explicitly banned in R1, insulted both Christians, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. He has committed three counts of ad hominim. He has already violated at least 4 rules of the debate! And with that, I pass the buck to Con.