BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Zimbabwe should return to Rhodesia's form of government

Now that I have more free time to debate, I decided to make this debate. Zimbabwe should return to Rhodesia's form of government again, but without the oppression of african people. Why? When it was Rhodesia, it used to be one of the most (if not the most) prosperous country in Africa and a democratic nation, it used to have one of the largest life expectancies in Africa and a fast growing economy[1] After Mugabe came to power, Zimbabwe GDP per capita started to fall like a heavy rock, and the Life expectancy went from 61 to 43[2] In conclusion: Zimbabwe should bring back Rhodesia's form of government, but without the oppression of Black people. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.earth-policy.org... I will let Con state his case in Round 1. May the Debate, begin.
State mandated administration of childhood vaccinations is justified.

Good LuckFirst off, I would like to remind my opponent of the topic- State Mandated administration of childhood vaccinations is justified. We are argueing on the fact whether or not childhood vaccinations should be mandated or not. Not whether vaccines are good or bad. We want the parent to have a choice instead of it being mandated. This could go against religion, and beliefs. If parents want to believe that the vaccine causees autism, let them, as they must have a choice. Your first argument is the autism claim is false. My response is that since I have evidence that vaccines cause autism while you have no evidence proving me wrong. Thus that stands. Your second argument is that people will be blinded by measles because they didn't get the vaccine. Again, look at the topic and again I will state that the parents will have choices. Second, If almost everyone in the US takes the vaccine, and if one person doesn't because of beliefs/religion, then he/she will not get the disease since every one around he/she will be sterile.
We ought to reconstruct the 7 Wonders of the Ancient World

Wow, the last argument. OK, here we go. I think I can last through it. Through this debate, I've gotten pretty bored, but I'll humor you, just so we can get this thing over with. Your round 5 argument is the most deeply flawed one I've seen yet, because first you talk about a project to rebuild the Colossus of Rhodes and provide a source which supports your argument, then, in the last paragraph, you apparently go nuts and talk about what a horrible mistake the reconstruction of the Colossus would be. I mean, you've got to pick a side here. Do you want it rebuilt, or don't you? This last round, here, is where I can conclude that you don't know what the heck you're talking about, you don't understand anything about the 7 wonders of the world, and you don't know fleas about international economics or history at all for that matter. You contradict yourself, you continually repeat the same points over and over, and I, for one, am tired of this travesty. I think that they should not be rebuilt, they're gone, and there are much more interesting things to build, and they would be far too expensive, and require massive amounts of labor, and it would be impossible to build an exact replica because lots of knowledge about them has been lost through the ages. There we go. I rest my case.
We ought to reconstruct the 7 Wonders of the Ancient World

Now a team of young European architects has concocted an immodest proposal to resurrect a supersized 21st-century version of the original statue, considered one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World. The team behind the Colossus of Rhodes Project developed the idea in the aftermath of Greece"s ongoing economic crisis as a way "to make Rhodes a new point of reference for the whole world, to follow a new path and find a solution to the issues that caused such a big sorrow to thousands of people, forced to flee abroad," they write in a mission statement. They aren"t seeking to copy the original, they say, but to create jobs to help prop up the faltering Greek economy and national spirit with a 500-foot-tall sustainable structure covered in solar panels and built to withstand earthquakes. If constructed, it would also serve as a cultural center, library, exhibition hall, and a lighthouse. They argue that the project, which they estimate would cost up to $283 million, a sum they believe could be raised by private investments or international crowdfunding, would create jobs and revenue once built by attracting visitors that would lengthen Rhodes" tourist season. So is the answer to Greece"s image problem and economic woes a gleaming monstrosity that looks like something from a Game of Thrones set, with all the chest-thumping subtlety of a Trump tower or a Stalin monument? Issues of taste aside, once a great wonder of the world has been lost, it seems like a fool"s errand to think that it can"or should"ever truly be resurrected.
We ought to reconstruct the 7 Wonders of the Ancient World

Yes. The Middle East is war torn, so we cannot build anything there for now. However, we can get some land, about as big as a national park, and build the 7 Wonders (excluding the Pyramids, Colossus or Statue of Zeus) there. The 4 Wonders are the Hanging Garden, Lighthouse, Temple of Diana, and the Mausoleum. We will work on building those 4 wonders in the United States. Our ideal destination is currently Joplin, Missouri or Atlanta, Georgia. People sure can read history books or watch documentaries, but the best way to learn about history is to visit the actual relics or ruins. Reconstructing the 7 Wonders is the best way to achieve knowledge of ancient history. The Colossus of Rhodes can be rebuilt over Greece and Turkey in Istanbul. However, I here acknowledge that this is a risky and costly project. However, it will surely put many unemployed people to work.
We ought to reconstruct the 7 Wonders of the Ancient World

Well, you see, we should restore the Pyramids. We can build the new Hanging Gardens somewhere in the United States, build the Colossus at Rhodes in Greece. After all, this will put many Greek people to work. Greece is already in a high unemployment rate, of 21%, which is over 1 in 5 able-bodied adults. Also, the Statue of Zeus, there's the Lincoln Memorial, so I guess that's okay for now. Also, we've got the Mausoleum at Halicarnassus, the temple of Ephesus, and the Lighthouse of Alexandria. Those all should be built in the United States. I see that the Middle East is dilapidated, so we shouldn't try to build anything there for another millenium, I believe. Either way, rebuilding/restoring the 7 Wonders will put many unemployed people to work. Furthermore, it will help people be more aware about the past of humanity. Currently, the United States is the best place to build the 6 of 7 Wonders (excluding the Pyramids.) Good luck!
We ought to reconstruct the 7 Wonders of the Ancient World

I'm glad you appreciate history, sir, and understand its significance in the modern world. However, you must understand that it would simply be impractical to reconstruct the seven wonders of the ancient world. They are long gone, they have been gone for countless millennia. Some were even built before the birth of Christ. Sure, they're beautiful, but they would be very expensive and require massive labor. Keep in mind, sir, that the 7 wonders of the world were not "a magnificent, greatly adored structure." Rather, they were SEVEN magnificent, greatly adored structures, each in a completely different region of the world, each with different aesthetic values and different types of technology. True, the pyramids of Giza are the only wonder still standing, but they're nice to behold, even if all the rest are gone. You have to let things happen. I mean, sure, we can build scale replicas, but trying to reconstruct the actual 7 wonders of the world would be an almost impossible feat. First off, I think the most challenging wonder to reconstruct would bee the hanging gardens of Babylon. The Middle East is a war torn area, so it's doubtful that they would allow us to put up a structure there, and the hanging gardens, while in their prime, used irrigation technology that we can't fathom. It's a lost artifact from another time. Then, of course, there's the Colossus of Rhodes, which stands a whopping distance, and is made from some kind of metal or something. It stood on between two cliffs. I don't think he'll ever come back. I mean, for gosh sakes, we have the statue of liberty. What else do we need? You act as if these wonders are still there, but they were turned into rubble a long time ago, and the countries around them have changed. I think that it's doubtful we'll ever see them again, and if we do, it will be for no reason.
We ought to reconstruct the 7 Wonders of the Ancient World

The 7 Wonders used to be a magnificient, greatly adored structure. However, they were all destroyed, except the Pyramids of Giza, either by barbarians or natural disasters, with the Mausoleum falling in 1404. Thus, to rediscover the glorious ancient world and its civilizations, we ought to do the best we can to restore the pyramids to its original condition, and reconstruct the 7 Wonders the best we can.
Physical Punishment.

I understand what you mean. But times have changed and so have laws. Laws that forbid any physical correctional measures used by teachers on their pupils. We live in a society where children are first. I do not agree with that but that is the way times are right now. Now if people don't like a certain law then they can call your local congressman and try to persuade that congressman to work to change that law. Also like I stated before. If teachers take correctional measures against their pupils then many child abuse and child rights organizations will be screaming for that teachers head on a platter. It will be a permanent solution to a temporary problem.
Physical Punishment.

As I understood you are agree with the Physical Punishment at 50% , you said that parents should use this kind of education with their childrens, but in other hand you are not agree with my idea that school could also use the physical punishment to educate the childrens. If you are agree with me at the point that the parents can use this kind of methods that means that you can see some positive point in physical punishment, and if you can see the good side of the physicall punishment at home , why can you not see it in the school? Its true that is not exactly the same , but when I said physicall punishment in school I mean like it was 30 years ago , there was physicall punishment but there was also some limits that the teacher have to respect.
Physical Punishment.

I am clearly for physical punishment as a method of education. Some parents today are not enough strict and they do not put enough restrictions to their children.In some cases this children take the wrong way, some parents try to look like a friend more than a father , but a children have enough friends, they need parents that , among other things , impose rules and make sure that their child respect them. In other hand, we have to make sure that we all know the differences between physical punishment and child abuse, I do not mean that this kind of punishment is appropriate like a daily thing, but I think that it could give good results in some situations. (I also think all I said could be used for the school too).
Race based groups hindering the groups they represent

She will be riding across the mountain when they comes, she will be riding across the mountain, she will be riding across the mountain, she will be riding across the mountain when they come. 99 bottles of beer on the wall, 99 bottles of beer take one down, pass it around, .... well the other bottles where given away in charity, so 1 bottle of beer on the wall, one bottle of beer on the wall, take it down, DONT pass it around, and we got no bottles on the wall anymore.
Race based groups hindering the groups they represent

A warm welcome to DDO, Con! I am glad to debate this topic with you. My goal in accepting is not necessarily to argue in favor of the side that I personally agree with, but rather to challenge myself to grow and take my objectivity and debate skill to the next level through a willingness to organize a viable argument on behalf of either position, regardless of my own personal opinions. You see, I presently do not know for sure which side it is that you want me to argue in favor of, so would you please clarify what exactly it is that you are "Con" against, and explicitly what resolution I am to set out proving in this debate? My gratitude, kind sir. Please begin with your opening argument.
Race based groups hindering the groups they represent

When I say race based groups hinder the groups they represent, I do not mean directly. What I mean is that groups like the NCAAP or BET, which members are selected based on race, are not getting rid of the racial discrimination that they say to work to get rid of. In this short debate, I wish for some one would will not bring in feelings in to this but logic and sense. Good luck and may the better debater come out on top.
Importance of teaching evolution in schools

It seems that your arguments boils down is the reason why evolution is important to learn is to know how organisms change and adapt to their environment. This can be covered in natural selection and mutations. Although evolution is heavily reliant on natural selection and mutations, the same is not true vice versa. Both are observable and can be tested whereas microbes to man evolution is not observable. The big question that I would like pro to answer is "What technological breakthroughs requires the theory of evolution to be possible?" How can you make advances in science on something that can't be observed?
Importance of teaching evolution in schools

The reason why evolution is not important enough that all schools are required to teach it is because evolution theory isn't something that can't be applied. Other sciences that are taught in schools such as chemistry and physics are being used everyday to advance technology to benefit mankind. In the field of biology, evolution is unnecessary for vaccines, medicines, and other innovations that come with the various fields of biology. Knowing how organisms arise do not contribute to these breakthroughs. Dr. Phillip Skell writes, "It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers and other practitioners of biological science." Source: http://www.forbes.com... My question for Pro is what scientific advance requires the belief in microbes to microbiologist evolution?
Cloning should stay banned

"The idea is not necessarily against the bible" Of course the bible has nothing to say about cloning beause it was writen thousands of years ago. but as all great documents in history it was writen to be intpreted. The bible states that humans do not have the powere to create life only God. "Regardless of whether the bible is or is not against the concept, it is no reason to make United States policy based on it. This is and should be a secular nation." The second part of of this statement is false. this country was founded on christian principles and the bible. Most of the major colleges in the US (Oxford, Yale, and Harvard) were based on these principles to. It was like that untill the seperation of church and state. The only reason this country has fallen into this moral slop is because we have become lazy in our values. This lack of ideals has made us un-american. "I would also like to clarify that human cloning does not necessarily mean making more humans, but instead helping humans and ameliorating the society as a whole." How can we get those organs to be transplants unless we clone humans/ the definition of cloning is to create an identical reproduction of a single cell. If we are to do these transplants then we would be growing them not cloning.
Cloning should stay banned

Greetings to my opponent, chi. To begin, I assume that the resolution refers to United States policy, as it was left unclear. "Cloning [should] be banned because the idea goes against the bible." Well, there are two ways in which I can counter this point made by my opponent. First, the idea does not necessarily go against the bible itself. In my opponent's argument, it is seemingly an implicit meaning of why the bible might be against cloning. However, I ask for my opponent to supply, if there are any, explicit reasons as to why the bible is against cloning. Does it say anything about the process of cloning itself? Second, even if the bible was against cloning is not a valid reason to ban it. Regardless of whether the bible is or is not against the concept, it is no reason to make United States policy based on it. This is and should be a secular nation. It would be illogical to include biblical reasoning for United States policy. There are two reasons for this. Firstly, such historic documents can be interpreted on a variety of accounts, which makes things somewhat hazy and unclear. Secondly, simply because something might have been stated hundreds of years ago (and would be difficult to prove it was meant at all) does not mean it is right or true. And our government ought to do what is right for its society/country. To infer that which is right to include biblical interpretations in American law would thus be a logical fallacy (argumentum ad verecudiam). This logical fallacy refers to the appeal or argument to authority. Simply because an important figure states something to be true does not make it so. Thus, cloning could still be just. It is also a logical fallacy to assume that the bible is effective in politics at the current time. For example, merely because some have followed it for many centuries does not make its ideas at the current infallible. This fallacy (argumentum ad antiquitatem) is the appeal to tradition or antiquity. That which is right ought to be deduced and derived at the current time. "Although there are numerous medical advances that would happen if we could clone. They would be human so any testing we would do on them would be the same as testing on you or me." Cloning does not exclusively refer to humans. However, even so, advances in human cloning can be tested on less cephalized animals. The thing is, many animals are similar in anatomy and physiology to humans. I would also like to clarify that human cloning does not necessarily mean making more humans, but instead helping humans and ameliorating the society as a whole. That is, the field of cloning may be of use to organ transplants and such as well. "The art of cloning hasn't been fixed yet." There have been, importantly, many advances in the fields of cloning research. However, because some aspects might not be at an optimal level yet does not mean it should be banned. Instead, perhaps it should be more encouraged, to better the processes of cloning. Thus, cloning should generally be legal in the United States, on the premise of logic itself. I await the remaining round, Oboeman.
Cloning should stay banned

Cloning shoould be banned because the idea goes against the bible. In Genesis chapter 1 God created Earth and the stars, animals, and man. God created life not us, so God is the only one that should create humans not us make copies of ourselves. Although there are numerous medical advances that would happen if we could clone. They would be human so any testing we would do on them would be the same as testing on you or me. The art of cloning hasn't been fixed yet. 1 or 2 out of 100 of the clones actually life. See http://www.ornl.gov... for the facts on that.
Is Madea Guilty of Killing her Children

But keep in mind, everybody is different. Everyone handles everything different. Just because Medea handled Jason's selfishness by killing her kids doesn't mean you and I are going to do the same. Every body is different and we all act differently. Jason is a horrible person for doing this Medea. He caused her pain, suffering, and disloyalty. She is mentally unstable and needs help, which is why she should be labeled as insane. Its easy to go about by saying she's guilty but she is insane and needs the necessary help that will help her get better so this issue doesn't happen again. She chose a path that not many people would take after the events that occurred in her life. Indeed, it is a rough one for Medea. Don't simply say that she is guilty of infanticide and put her away for an eternity to think about what she has done. Go and say she is insane so she can receive help that is necessary for her and will benefit for her. She is human and no human is ever perfect. Everybody has done something they may not be proud of. Even if it was a small incident that wasn't meant to occur, doesn't make us nonhuman, it just makes us learn from our mistakes. Infanticide is a major thing to occur, but this was the result of a woman who dealt with being in a relationship with a man who hurt her mentally because he was selfish and disloyal by attempting to marry another woman within the kingdom, with the woman he is currently in a relationship with still in his life. Her actions don't make her perfect, it makes insane and needs the very best help she can get so this type of accident doesn't occur again.
Is Madea Guilty of Killing her Children

So just becuase Jason did her wrong thats an excuse to go and kill her kids. Thats like saying to someone well you did me wrong and hurt me, so to get back at you I am going to kill your children. Hello?? Madea is a crazed person who was blined by the reality of the situation. She is completly out of touch in what is really going on in rwailty and I feel bad for her. Jason could have been the worst person in the whole world but I think that any resonable person would agree that you do not take the life of any person, especially a person who is to small and defenseless to help themselves. It's a terrible situation. I belive though when it all comes down to it Medea is a sick person who wanted to get back at the one she loved and used her kids as part of her sick game. Ultimatly it is a bad situation and she should be found guilty and charged with these crimes.
Is Madea Guilty of Killing her Children

Its a lot more than just being mean. Some peoples emotions cause them to reach certain limits and then snap and whatever as a result may not be the best outcome. It should matter that Jason is a cruel, selfish person who didn't care about Medea. If he didn't do what he did to her, the children would still be alive and Medea wouldn't be in the situation she is in. We could very easily say that if someone kills another person, they admit to the killing, and then they are instantly guilty for killing that person. That's simple. But for Medea, this is a cry for help. She killed her children because Jason was doing her wrong, he was being a selfish and didn't her needs before his. If your in a relationship and you have kids with that person, there is a matter of loyalty you must have. If you hurt someone and it mentally scars them, you know you did something completely wrong. It is Jason's fault for causing Medea to kill her kids. She is crying for help and she will get the help she needs if we simply say she can be labeled as insane. What justice are we doing if we just instantly say "Medea is guilty, the end"? We're not solving anything. Medea needs help. Anyone who commits something horrible and is forward with admitting, at least deserves the insanity plea and will receive the help that is needed for her.