BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
All new parents should attend a parenting class before having a child.

We can both agree that life as a new parent is tough, however, forcing future mothers and fathers into taking parenting classes is absolutely ridiculous because it takes away people's right make their own decisions. Also, it is impossible for new parents to prove they have had some previous counseling or experience if they have not have a child before. Most new parents have supportive families that will help them through the process and taking parenting classes would be a waste of time and effort. It is true that many teen parents do not have friends or family to turn to, but they can reach out and receive help on their own without government interference. In today's day and age, with tools such as public libraries and the Internet, it is unnecessary for parents to waste time on classes. It is simply not true that the absence of these classes has led to more situations of abuse. If a parent is abusing their child, nothing in a parenting class would have stopped them from committing these crimes because parenting classes simply teach parents the basics of being a parent, not how to raise a child. Also, the idea of providing parenting classes for all to-be parents is unrealistic. Though opening these classes would create jobs, most people are not experienced enough to teach a parenting class and the government would be unable to give a decent salary to all teachers. If these classes cost money, the problem with paying these instructors would be solved, but forcing people to pay for classes they may not need to take violates people's freedoms and would drive families already at the poverty line into even more extreme poverty.
Revenge TV SHOW

Thank you for continuing on with this debate but there are clearly some flaws in m opponents last argument. 1. Your first point had nothing to do with why this season was better , you just stated what you felt was cool. 2. Yes the two may have done a fine job so far, but what about the men ? you cant just forget about them and what they do. 4. You stated in this point that REVENGE in general teaches a life lesson , you did not state which season, therefore you believe as well as I that any season could be just as good if not better than this season. In conclusion my opponent gave all of around 6 reasons throughout the entire debate of why she believes this season is the best. While throughout my arguments I have given countless examples of how this season could be very well the same as any other season. P.S. Id loved to be friends with my opponent after I take the victory of this debate.
Revenge TV SHOW

While thank-you! I simply did not want to list all my favourite things about the show because I dont want to bore you, but since you insisted.. I might as well 1. Emily Throne aka Amanda Clark is getting revenge on the rich (The Graysons) even though she herself is quiet wealthy but she's using her wealth to take down the wealthy plus getting into a relationship with Daniel Grayson all in plan for her revenge is simply genius! She even states "We're dealing in a particular time right now in American history where I think the average American is going to want to see a takedown of the rich." 2. Power to the Females--- Emily Throne and Victoria Grayson are definitely empowering the televisions show! They are strong and never flinch... always going after one another until the best woman wins the round. Plus they present themselves as confident and have a great strength towards them that every woman wishes to have 3. The show is has an easy plot, but one never knows whats coming next 4. Revenge has a life-lesson towards it as it teaches us to take control of our fate and change it. 5. Last but not least the romance is simply beautiful between Emily and Jack and what used to be Emily and Aidan, or is there still a connection between Emily and Daniel I could go on and on about the reasons why I say that Revenge is the best TV show, but I think I've stated a lot of points above I would really suggest that my opponent takes time to make his final post because clearly I've won this debate! :) Hopefully we can be friends after this! :) xx
Revenge TV SHOW

Okay lets not get ahead of ourselves Badman! Yes, you have good points and ideas but in Season 2 again he does state that he wants to be in the police force so instead of choosing many other jobs that bring justices he mentions he wants to be involved with the police force. Im sure you would bring/write a lot of written evidence, but let me reassure you that I won't be the one loosing but you instead. Like they say in all games.... Let the best man win! xx
Revenge TV SHOW

Good point, but season 1was rather slow in terms of bringing the main conflict whereas Season 4 takes a whole new toll as we are aware that David Clark is alive and that he was never dead. Furthermore, what does Nolan's hair have to do with the entire show? Clearly you are judging on the littlest aspects that in no way matter and define the show! Furthermore, clearly my opponent has troubling hearing and remember as in Season 2 after Jack's half brother Declan dies he doesn't want to continue his father's legacy of the bar store but instead do some justice in the world. Clearly my opponent needs to look over his notes before claiming certain claims and stating things with no written evidence! P.S. Your opponent is a girl! :) xx
Revenge TV SHOW

Apologies for jumping to conclusions, but did the other seasons not have intensity and all the characteristics you believe make this season stand out ? I believe that the first season would be the best , I mean that is what got people started when it comes to viewing the show. In the premier episode for season 4 a number of things were just off , first of all Nolan's hair was just not good , I also dislike the fact that Grayson Manner is still called the same when NO grayson's live there, or the fact that Jack now wants to be a cop when he has NEVER mentioned such . I also believe that my opponent should not make assumptions as he assumed that I've never watched revenge.
Men and women are equal

Just because men and women have different body chemistry does not mean that they are not equal. However, this argument rests on the strings of vagueness. This debate will only make sense if you define the term "equal". Loose definitions of equal: 1. Exactly alike, physically 2. Having same rights and privileges 3. Being the same species 4. Being members of the Body of Christ Choose your definition, and I'll see you in the next debate.
Men and women are equal

Men and women are not equal. Due to evolution (or "god" if you are one of the cray crays), men and women have evolved into different roles. Men are better at being the hunter/provider type, and women are better at being the nurturing/mother type. Of course, these are generalizations, but since we are talking about men and women and general, we will be speaking in generalizations. Because of these differences, men and women have different strengths and weaknesses as well (in general). Men can build muscle easier than women can, for example. http://www.livestrong.com...... The list of course goes on and on, but in order for a statement to be false, only ONE example needs to be given. Men and women are not equal because men can build muscle easier. /Debate
Women should not hold a ministerial role over men in church

Let it be known that Pro did not attempt to refute my original contentions that: A) Mary brought God into the world B) Mary Magdalene is essentially a forgotten Apostle. "1 Timothy 2:12-13 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. " From this verse my opponent believes he has rock solid evidence that God has provided that women not teach men in church. The problem with this, and what I have been saying all along, is that it all depends on how you interpret the verses in the bible. To me, this verse states many things: 1) Women cannot teach men anything. Period. 2) Women are subordinate to men. 3) Women should not talk. and finally, it proposes the untrue ideas that 4) human males were formed before females. 5) That because males were formed before females, they are naturally dominant. This is a prime example of tradition and sexism. Pro has stated that I may not bring forth any new verses or arguments for the reason that he can no longer refute them. I feel as if Pro is trying to draw debaters into something which is essentially preordained as truth in his mind. We could go back and forth all day with quotes, the bible is full of contradictions, but there is nothing I can do to refute this statement because meanings can be twisted. It is obvious not everything should be taken as fact from the bible because of this, and I hope that is apparent to the voters as well.
Women should not hold a ministerial role over men in church

I dunno I'm actually having fun debating this stuff. Oh, I'm sorry if my religion actually wants you to be a good person AND act like a good person. Catholicism isn't entirely works based anyway, I was taught convicts could repent on death row if they truly did seek forgiveness. This debate is flawed because I don't anyone who cares about the Bible and religion is going to give you an objectively based take on its interpretation. Anyway, I didn't give the exact number for the verses, but rather demonstrated two very important things that cannot be overlooked. You did not state in your rules that verse quoting would be required.
Women should not hold a ministerial role over men in church

"High and mighty" was not meant to be disrespectful. It's just a fact. The word is still something you can't throw out just because you want to. There was no need to say the word, you could have phrased it differently. I don't get this "extent of my bias" thing. I just want to debate whether the Bible overall teaches that women should teach men. And yes, I know very well that Catholics believe in the Bible. The thing is, Catholics tend to interpret it differently. (For example they believe in salvation by works rather than by faith, which is clearly not taught in the Bible. But that's a different debate). ------------------------- My opponent still has not shown verses in the Bible that prove his point. I'm waiting for them, and until I get them we can squabble over insignificant things, but you should vote Pro because he isn't fulfilling the rule that he actually has to make an argument. We still have not debated... I'm waiting until Con does.
Women should not hold a ministerial role over men in church

Catholics believe in the bible, my friend. If you read my argument, I put forth a few example of how man has interpreted the bible to suit his societal norms. I also brought up an area where women clearly do teach men by bringing the Good News. My opponent has not refuted any of these points, and the vote belongs to me. "By Christian I mean CHRISTIAN, not CATHOLIC. It's obvious that catholics believe women are high and mighty. I want to debate about the Bible, not what Catholics believe." --- Catholicism is the progenitor of all modern Christian sects. I think I made it clear in my previous argument that Catholics have a certain bias to what men and women can do in the church. I do not appreciate your blatant disrespect of my religion with your "high and mighty" statement. "Secondly, my opponent said a certain word which I shall not repeat. I would ask that he keeps foul language/words out of this." --- The only word that is at all controversial at all would probably be "penis". I don't believe I used it in an offensive context. Men have penises, it is a fact of life. "Lastly, Con tries to set his own standards for the round. Since when can he do that? By accepting the debate he accepts my terms, not his own." --- I need to know the extent of your bias before I begin to debate you and before this turns into an entirely different debate. ----------------------------- Given the rules stated in round one by Pro, I have not deterred from any of them. I also ask that he be more explicit next time about what he wants to debate. My arguments base from the bible still stand, and I ask my opponent to forfeit himself if he wishes to end this debate now.
Women should not hold a ministerial role over men in church

Oh well, I managed to get another annoying debate started. Just my luck. By Christian I mean CHRISTIAN, not CATHOLIC. It's obvious that catholics believe women are high and mighty. I want to debate about the Bible, not what Catholics believe. Secondly, my opponent said a certain word which I shall not repeat. I would ask that he keeps foul language/words out of this. Lastly, Con tries to set his own standards for the round. Since when can he do that? By accepting the debate he accepts my terms, not his own. My opponent is not trying to argue whether the Bible teaches this or not. He's trying to argue whether it's beneficial and saying that it's sexist to not allow women to teach. I clearly stated I want this to be about the Bible, not about what catholics believe and "priests". Con has completely tried to change the meaning of what I wanted to debate on. Please vote him down for this. To Con directly: Please just forfeit and forget this debate because clearly you aren't going to be debating what I set this to be. Thank you.
Women should not hold a ministerial role over men in church

My argument is that women should not teach men in church. eg. Pastor. Rules: 1. This debate is based on the Bible. (The Christian Bible, not the Pali Canon which some other person did last time) 2. Forfeit means losing all 7 points. Even if you come back after the forfeit. 3. Dropped arguments are conceded. 4. If you must extend your argument for any given round, you can start a "new debate", write the rest of the arguments, and cancel the debate immediately. (If you're unsure how to do this you can PM me) 5. (Optional) It's preferable if you're a Christian as well so that we have a real Bible clash, not just someone's view of the Bible. 6. No semantics. Sorry if all these rules seem stingy, but I've had many a ridiculous round with semantics, forfeits, dropped arguments, etc. Let's keep this round professional but fun. I await an opponent.
That w e should have one black family in every neighborhood.

" and there are still discrimination going on " I agree their is still discrimination going on to the black race. This is why we should have 1 in every neighborhood. That way they can meet with other races and reduce discrimination,stereotypes,and racism. There will always be all 3 please note I did not say stop all 3. No matter what there will be people who will discriminate based on race,believes in stereotypes,and be racist. I must ask my opponent is this a rebuttal or your main argument. For round 2 please explain if you used round 1 for arguments or rebuttal because I am confused on what you typed.
should donald trump become our president

If the Mexicans come in illegally, which a lot of them have, then yes we have to send them back. If they want to live in the United States, they have to come in legally. They are coming in illegally by going through underground tunnels, hopping over the fence and some even swim through the Rio Grande to get across. They have to come in legally, which is what Trump has been saying this whole time. He is not talking about all Mexicans, not the ones that come in legally and benefit society and don't abuse the system, but the ones that come in illegally, that commit violence and other harm in the United States. The border security is a mess and the border fence is practically inefficient. The wall proposed by Trump will improve the immigration process and will benefit everyone. Trump can seriously turn this divided nation around. He will make America great again. I enjoyed this debate.
should donald trump become our president

I apologize for mistaking you for the wrong gender. First of all, Donald Trump is not racist. Hispanics are not a race at all. They are simply a nationality. Second, when talking about Hispanics, he is only discussing about illegal aliens from Mexico that abuse the system and commit violence and commit illegal activity, not all Mexicans. Trump, unlike Obama, would follow the Constitution by its limitations, which includes getting rid of illegals, with due process. Trump's Wall idea is a good solution to the problem considering the border fence currently used is ineffective.
should donald trump become our president

Donald can do very few things to improve this country but the only thing holding him back is himself frankly. He says many things that are terribly racist, and I nor many would like to see him become our leader. America is a free country and telling anyone to leave is stating that America is no longer the land of the free. People risk their lives to come here because they believe that it is safe. Safe from the retched gangs and dastardly violence and crime in their own countries. Sending them away is like giving them a death penalty for being alive, and that's not fair. Therefore I state that he is an unfit candidate. Also I'm a girl, not a guy.
The Galactic Empire is Superior to the Galactic Republic

Let"s take a look at the various arguments one last time. First, I will respond to Pro"s arguments. 1. Superior government. The ability to remove poor leaders gives the Republic a clear advantage. The Republic was slow at settling major disputes, but I am not convinced the Empire would have been faster. Pro points to the hierarchy of the Empire, but this does not mean a faster response. Either the moffs had complete power over their regions, which brings us back to the corrupting nature of power and suggests that the moffs would have been as corrupt as the Emperor. Or the moffs would report everything to the Emperor, which brings us back to the problem that the Empire was too large for any single man to govern. A third option is that the moffs shared power, which meant that they would likely squabble just as much as the Senate before them and prove no more effective than the Senate. 2. Superior Technology Pro greatly underestimates the technological advances of the late 1700"s. They might not have looked as cool as the changes we see in Star Wars, but the practical outworking of those changes was significant in warfare. His suggestion that creating the Death Star would be like the thirteen colonies creating nuclear weapons is false. At the end of Revenge of the Sith we see that construction on the Death Star has already begun. This means the technology for the Death Star already existed. This was no great advance on the part of the Empire. 3. Superior Economy and Employment This argument fully collapsed when Pro agreed that "a free market is a wiser strategy." This destroys the idea that the Empire was doing a good thing by employing millions of people in building projects and a large army. While building projects have their place, Pro has basically admitted that the Empire should have allowed the free market to create jobs the way that the Republic did. Now I will defend my arguments a final time. 1. High Participation & 2. Checks and Balances Pro"s only rebuttal on these two points was to say that the Senate must have been corrupt because the members liked Palpatine and allowed him to outstay his term. While this suggests that they were fooled by Palpatine, it does not necessarily mean that they were corrupt. More than that, it fails to address the underlying advantages of the Republic: there are limits on individual power, ways to remove bad leaders, and the opportunity for anyone to have their voice heard and even run for Senate. 3. Moral Superiority All seven films function as traditional melodramas in which good and evil are defined basically the same way that they are in our world. There is no suggest that morality is any different in Star Wars. There is no getting around the fact that the Empire was objectively evil and that the Republic was morally superior. I appreciate Pro"s imaginative take on these movies, but the fact remains that while the Republic was far from perfect it was certainly superior to the Empire.
The Galactic Empire is Superior to the Galactic Republic

FIRST POINT- Superior Government The Galactic Republic, a representative republic that allows each of its allies to supply a senator as a representative in the Galactic Senate, controls most of the galaxy. Within the Galactic Republic is a massive corporation known as the Trade Federation, which basically has a monopoly on all trade and commerce. Because of this monopoly, the Republic chooses to implement a heavy taxation on all trade routes. The Trade Federation, in protest, easily blockades Naboo, and rather than punishing the Trade Federation for their crime, the Republic sends two Jedi to negotiate. The Jedi are forced out and the planet is invaded. The Senate, a bureaucratic mess, fails to deal with the situation effectively and ultimately must elect a new leader over the crisis. This never would have occurred under the Galactic Empire considering it covers trade and commerce for itself rather than relying on untrustworthy, greedy corporations like the Trade Federation. On top of that, the Empire does not require a Senate to operate and progresses effectively without one. The Senate under the Republic was a bureaucratic mess that rarely made any progress - the progress that was made throughout the time of the Republic was orchestrated by Palpatine. The Empire, however, places the Emperor on top (who makes the decisions) and the moffs, who control their individual regions and answer to the grand moff - everyone answers to the Emperor. In fact, the Senators agree with the shift from representative republic to empire as seen in Revenge of the Sith. SECOND POINT- Superior Technology The Death Star literally revolutionized space warfare by providing the Empire with a method to threaten uncooperative planets and individuals. Furthermore, much of the Empire's technology is improved versions of previous Republic technology; the AT-AT is superior to the AT-TE, the AT-ST is superior to the AT-RT, the Super Star Destroyer is superior to the Republic command ship, and the Death Star was unparalleled by anything the Republic had. THIRD POINT- Superior Economy and Employment The Galactic Empire takes on large construction projects, like both Death Stars, which employ thousands, if not millions, of people. They even allow people from all over the galaxy to enlist in the Imperial Army, whereas the Republic basically outsources most of its defense occupations (with the exception of Senate guards) to the Clone Army.