BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The plethora, Version 2

I will provide a list of topics, choose one, you're CON, I'm PRO. Then in R2 I go and post. Note, I am playing Devil's advocate in some places. 1. Most nonhuman Animal's do not deserve rights. 2. Utilitarianism is superior to Kantianism. 3. Sarah Palin is not as incompetent as she is made out to be. 4. Cannibalism of dead people should be socially acceptable, if not encouraged. 5. Agriculture was a mistake. 6. Anarchy could feasibly work. 7. Functionalism is a flawed theory of mind. 8. The Turing test is fundamentally inaccurate. 9. John McCain will win the 2008 Presidential Election. 10. In all likelihood, we live in a virtual world. 11. In Soviet Russia, car drives YOU! (This is a joke, just in case you're an idiot). 12. Moral Luck is fundamentally flawed. 13. Resolved: That it is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save more innocent people. (LD Debate). 14. Man is not the main cause of global warming today.
We have been visited by extraterrestrial beings

" I will refrain from opening arguments in this round for the sake of stating my position." The reason I suggested that you present your arguments in the opening round is so we can get it started quicker. I have no arguments to present as there isn't really any way that I can PROVE that we've never been visited by extraterrestrials. I will explain this a bit further below as I explain BoP. "what does Bop mean" BoP is Burden of Proof. Since you accepted the debate under the condition of having sole BoP, that means only you have to prove something. I, in this debate, don't have to present any arguments of my own but can try to rebut yours. You must present arguments in order to fulfill your Burden of Proof to prove that we have, in fact, been visited by extraterrestrials. If you think about it, it doesn't make sense for me to have Burden of Proof as there's no way I can prove that we've never been visited by extraterrestrials. It's the same if you said that there is an invisible, intangible monster behind me and asked me to prove that I don't have a monster behind me. I'm sorry if this explanation is sub-par and I will gladly discuss this further in the comments if I haven't managed to explain it properly. Essentially, YOU are making a positive claim, therefore YOU must prove it. In this debate, I don't have to prove anything. Please present your arguments.
We have been visited by extraterrestrial beings

Thank you so much I enjoy this debate! "In 1983, the Officer of Air Force History concluded that the most likely explanation of this incident was as simple as meteorological balloons causing panic and setting off the event. " -Yes, but the government will come up with an explanation for anything. The balloons would have also had to fly over mountains, and it is very unlikely (given the distance of where they would have came from) that this is possible. But of course, all we can ever do is speculate. "If my opponent could provide evidence that these objects were indeed UFOs or something of the sort, then it would be worth discussing." -If i could prove they are UFOs then we wouldn't be having this argument. But I can point you to a former Area 51 worker, who claims the US has worked on them before. (Read Here: http://www.techtimes.com...) " First of all, virtually ancient civilization can be seen to have built some amazing things that seem "ahead of their time", so is my opponent suggesting that every civilization was visited by aliens?" -No because not every civilization is ahead of their time. The expression "ahead of their time" means that the other civilizations at that time were far less advanced. So could other beings have taught the advanced civilizations? Maybe. " On a side note, it doesn't make sense to me personally that aliens would come to Earth to...show people how to carefully place rocks? In the example of Puma Punku that my opponent brings up, why didn't the aliens perhaps show them "the wheel" instead, which seems much more useful?" -Not to show them to place rocks, but show them the technology that can do so. During that time temples were common and it makes sense that they would use to knew tools to make some kind of temple area. "My opponent has done very little (if anything) to show why it is extraterrestrial visit that is the answer to this question." -For example China for the longest time thought they were the only civilization on earth, so why do we find specific similarities between China and other civilizations that are so far apart. If alien visitors came, it is possible they spread some of the other ideas during this time. Ideas that these civilizations couldn't have acquired otherwise. "I actually disagree here. If we look at human history we see that pretty much any time a more advanced civilization come across a less advanced one, there isn't much "sharing of knowledge" as much as conquering." -Very valid point, but why are we reaching out and trying to find aliens today? Are we trying to find aliens to conqueror them? No, we want to share knowledge between the civilizations. So what if they are doing the same? Sorry I am in a huge hurry (once again) and have many grammar errors. Please excuse the messy format and grammar. Thank You for this debate! I look forward to the next round!
The religious indoctrination of minors is a form of child abuse

Adults who sexually interfere with minors, be they parents, friends of the family, teachers, priests or complete strangers are rightly punished when their crimes are uncovered. However, in addition to the sexual molestation of children, there are three other forms of child abuse: physical abuse, emotional abuse and neglect. http://www.nspcc.org.uk... My contention is that adults who indoctrinate children with religious propaganda, whether they be parents, teachers, preachers or anyone else and whether they be Christian, Jewish, Muslim or a follower of any other faith based belief and whether they are at home or at school or at a place of worship or any other public place, are guilty of emotionally abusing children. Please review the embedded YouTube clips of kids at ‘Jesus Camps'. Can you honestly say that brainwashing children at such early stages in their lives has improved those children's mental health and will help them to become well-adjusted and emotionally stable adults capable of distinguishing between scientific facts and ecumenical myths? I think not. Of course, the Christian fanatics behind this type of brainwashing deliberately prey on children because they know that most rational adults would not swallow a tale about a mystical being that created this planet 6,000 years ago and who put us all on the Earth to glorify him and that science is a merely a wicked tool of some evil spirit. I, therefore, affirm that children have the right to grow up without being subjected to religious molestation at the hands of cynical adults who are anxious to enlist new recruits (and future financial donors) to their church, synagogue, mosque or temple and that indoctrinating impressionable youngsters should be considered a form of emotional child abuse. Thank you. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...
should you have to be 16 to get your license

Let me begin by thanking cjbulldogs2013 for starting this debate. --> "well what if you were smarter than most kids and could pass the test at age 14 and could reach the pedals and still see over the dashboard" I agree with you that 13, 14, and 15 year olds could pass driving tests and see over the dashboard. However, I've already demonstrated that 13, 14, and 15 year olds are disproportionately more likely to get in fatal car crashes than older drivers. If we allow younger kids to get a license they will almost certainly be an even greater danger to everyone else on the road than normal 16 year olds. Consequentially, allowing drivers even younger than 16 would represent a public safety threat. --> "what if you had found out that your parents were in an accident and you had to go see them and you wouldn't get into trouble if you were under age because you had passed the drivers license test" If a 14 year old wants to visit his parents he can get someone else to drive him there or he can walk. Moreover, people don't have a legal right to drive. Driving a car is a privilege that one acquires at a certain age once one have met certain requirements. And as I have demonstrated earlier age limits are not discriminatory, because age correlates with cognitive development. ========= Conclusion ========= My opponent has failed to address either of my two arguments and has failed to present any compelling argument himself. Therefore the outcome of this debate should be clear.
should you have to be 16 to get your license

well what if you were smarter than most kids and could pass the test at age 14 and could reach the pedals and still see over the dashboard then you would have to wait to get your license for 2 more years and that should not be aloud because what if you had found out that your parents were in an accident and you had to go see them and you wouldn't get into trouble if you were under age because you had passed the drivers license test
should you have to be 16 to get your license

Let me begin by thanking cjbulldogs2013 for instigating this debate. I will be affirming the resolution that people should be at least 16 before they are allowed to get their license. Contention 1: Sixteen is a very reasonable age for being able to acquire driving privileges. By the age of 16 most people have almost fully matured, in a biological sense, and they also posses most of the mental capacities associated with a fully developed mind. Unlike a 10 or 12 year old a 16 year old is, on average, better able to evaluate the dangers and responsibilities associated with driving a car. Consequentially, even though a 12 year old may be just a tall and capable of driving a car as someone who is 16 they are, on average, less capable of fully understanding the dangers and responsibilities associated with driving. Moreover, allowing younger children to drive cars would represent a public safety threat. Contention 2: By reserving drivers licenses for 16 year olds we help ensure the safety of other people on the road. It's not exactly a secret that younger drivers are more likely to get into car accidents than older drivers. I have little doubt that many 11, 12, and 13 year olds could pass a driving test and I also have little doubt that they would be disproportionately more likely to get into fatal car crashes than older more experienced drivers. In fact, "16-year-olds are three times more likely to die in a motor vehicle crash than the average of all drivers." [1] Moreover, according to the California DMV, "The traffic accident rates for 16- to 19-year old drivers are higher than those for any other age group." [2] It is therefore dangerous and irresponsible for us to allow even younger drivers on the road because doing so would almost certainly increase the rate of lethal car accidents. In order for us to maintain road safety it is an imperative that we maintain the age at which one can acquire a license to 16. ========== Conclusion ========== When all things are considered the age for acquiring a drivers license should remain at 16. This helps ensure the safety of teenagers and the other drivers they come in contact with. And younger drivers are statistically more likely to get in fatal accidents and endanger other people on the road. (Resolution affirmed) Sources: [1] http://www.rmiia.org... [2] http://www.dmv.ca.gov...
The NBA Draft Lottery should be abolished

My opponent states ///The point of the Draft in professional sports is for the bad teams to get better players and the good teams to get worse players/// However this is not even in the slightest true. The point in the NBA draft is for professional level teams to acquire new players out of the collegiate level. Thus filling in the gaps where players have retired, been traded, or have been released. Also the difference between the first pick and the last pick is moot. For sure the first few picks are fought for due to about the top 5 being the top players coming into the draft. However these are the only spots that truly make a difference. As the draft gets deeper and deeper players begin to level out in ability. Finally if the good teams are meant to get the worse players then they wouldn't just stick them with the picks late in the round, because many players that are taken in later rounds turn out to be just as good if not better than some of the players in earlier rounds. ///By having the lottery the worst team is not getting the best player. /// Who is to say that the worst team in the NBA would get the number one pick. Regardless of what is thought, many teams in the NBA may indeed tank when the end of the season is drawing near and they are without a doubt not going to make the playoffs. Thus a team that may deserve the 6 spot might get the 1 or 2 spot. This is where the lottery comes into play. With the lottery all teams are given chances at getting the one spot based on their rank at the end of the season. The chances are staggered and start at a standard 250 out of 1000 chance for the worst team and is then adjusted based on the degree of difference in the teams records. For example say the two worst teams in the NBA have a very close record, only a few games apart. It would be unreasonable for said teams to have a substantially different chance at obtaining the number one pick. Hence the numbers are altered, and teams are given a fair percentage based on their record at the end of the season. Finally the NBA lottery is in place to prevent teams from obtaining top spots for multiple years in a row, like happens in other leagues. In the NFL, a league which does not have a lottery system. The Detroit Lions obtained a top spot from 07-09. One year being which they traded the pick. In essence, the lottery is in place in order to keep the draft in check and not have it become waited in any one teams favor.
Homeschooling

I will do the same - I will post my personal opinions and then the actual fact in the next round. I just want to say that I am not against public education because I am pro-home schooling. My personal belief is that parents and students should make their own educational decisions. If one prefers public schooling, let him/her go into public education. If one prefers home schooling, let him/her be home schooled. I want it to be a personal decision, not one that is mandated by some outside force such as the government. You may not have enjoyed home schooling, but that is an opinion. Some folks may despise it, but others may enjoy it and may want to enrich their education with it. Every student is different, and learns in different environments. If one learns better in an environment with peers and teachers, let them do what they want. If one learns better on the computer or from their family, let them do what they want. You mention the social side of home schooling, and that it limits a student's social growth. This may have once been correct, but with the introduction of home schooling clubs, sports teams, etc, home schooled children can be just as social as school children.Some things matter more to one person than to another. One girl may want to go to prom so horribly, and wear those pretty gowns and gobs of makeup. Another girl might care less, and prefers to be alone. One boy might want to sign up for every sport team and club. Another boy might care less about things like this. What I am getting at is that people find interest and fun in different things. You may regret not going to prom, but another home schooler might not give it a second thought. And it's the same for those that are in public education. Not everybody in public education goes to prom. And I believe you will learn better and more efficiently in a home setting. There are hardly any distractions that students in public education face - like other students. Home schoolers can avoid the self-consciousness that they face in a public setting. Instead of worrying about their physical appearance - acne, clothes, etc. - they can be more themselves when learning. Home schooling should not be an ignored method of education. I support both public and home education, because some students may find pros and cons in both types of learning.
Homeschooling

Well lets get this started.... I want to say I've experienced home schooling & it was one of the biggest mistakes I ever made academically wise. I missed out on homecoming, prom, sporting events & worst of all the chance to experience my high school social life & I was constantly distracted by all the technology around me. Sure home schooling on the computer or being taught by family physically gives such a sweet comfort & you may learn better by being in your comfort zone. Although, this kind feeling of being home schooled is not how it is in the real life. Us Americans are becoming so dependent on individuality & it's becoming a wrong way of lifestyle, we need to appreciate the community we have around us such as school, work, sports, etc. I believe if young kids in ages 6-18 go off education by being home schooled they will lose their chances of being socially involved anywhere, this is not healthy for such young people. Young people are the future & they must be able to communicate face to face to evolve this country to something greater. For the first round I just put thoughts on computer, next round I'll put in more research & numbers & give more information. Again first round was just my thoughts. People who read this debate PLEASE do NOT be one sided, consider both parties statements & think about what we are trying to say. I look forward to debating with Pro & thank you for accepting the challenge.
Under no circumstances should arms be regulated

I wish to address the first example my opponent gave of Child Access Prevention laws. These laws do not prohibit the use of guns in any way, so it does not go against my original defining of regulating guns by preventing the use of them. However, I do realize one flaw in my argument that I concede, I never did state an age range on guns. I agree that young children are incapable of properly using a gun and can endanger the lives of others. Children should not have access to guns. Since this is contradictory to what I originally said, because I had no limits on gun use outlined, and I didn't make everything clear, I will either concede this debate to my opponent for pointing out an instance that makes complete sense to regulate gun use, or if my opponent wishes to give me a fair debate now that I recognized an instance where I personally would be fine with regulation, we can set up a new debate specifically with you if you wish to do this one more time but with any instances where I think gun regulation makes sense is outlined, and where it shouldn't regulated is outlined as well. It's up to my opponent, I will be fine with conceding this debate to them, or if they would rather have a more challenging debate, we could start a new one where I outline instances where even I see it as okay for there to be some sort of regulation on guns. One instance is that there should be an age minimum for purchasing a gun. So, would you prefer to continue this debate where I concede, or would you rather set up a new one where I better outline exceptions to my general rule of that guns should not be regulated?
Under no circumstances should arms be regulated

I wish to open up this debate with two quotes: "All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party." R32;- Mao Tze Tung, Nov 6, 1938 "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let"s not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." -Adolf Hitler at a dinner talk on April 11, 1942 What these two quotes show, is that tyranny most easily comes to power when arms are taken away from the people. By only allowing the state to possess arms, it means that they now have all of the power and the people are powerless. What can people do against such a government if they disagree with it? Liberty can only be defended by arms. When some people are allowed arms and others are not, that puts one group above another in power essentially, for what can the people who are unarmed do against those who are armed? In addition, if the general populace is not allowed to have guns, but some people illegally obtain them and then go shoot at a group of people, that group of people has no means to defend themselves. So not only do guns protect us from the government, but also criminals. The police can only investigate a crime after it has occurred, they can't prevent them from happening, so they can't prevent you from dying from a criminal's gun, but your own gun can. There is no reason whatsoever to regulate guns for the honest law-abiding citizen, and I would even argue that for criminals arms should not be taken away either, since they should still have a right to potentially overthrow a tyrannical government and defend themselves against other criminals. However, if they are a murderer, they would most likely be imprisoned for life anyways so wouldn't be able to use a gun anymore to harm anyone anyways. There are many arguments in favor of gun control that I've heard of before I could address now, but I will wait for my opponent to make those arguments before I address them, otherwise this wouldn't be much of a debate, now would it? I turn this over to my opponent now.
Some Ron Paul supporters are too out of touch with reality.

My point was not to have a debate on those topics. My point is to tell people and ask them if they agree that Ron Paul supporters go too far in believing all these theories. 1) "Yes, a majority (not 100% or even 95%) of scientists believe that the Earth is warming" ------ They all believe the Earth is warming! That is not the point in question. Why do you think Ron Paul does not stand a chance in the primaries and in the election? Because he's the only one there against the Global Warming theory. And that scares the hell out of people. We're not about to let New York disappear for him and his supporters to realize that something needs to be done about Global Warming. (Please don't go on telling me that Ron Paul does stand a chance, because I've heard that one a million times too, but the numbers don't show it) 2) "even though I do admit that we have the bulk of the 9/11 crazies in our camp." ------ Those are the ones I'm referring to and trust me, there are many. If I put out a debate saying "Al-Qaeda blew up the towers" most likely a Ron Paul supporter would take me on saying the government did it. 3) You gave me the talk that I've heard for so long. But the point of this debate is that Ron Paul supporters are consumed by conspiracy theories and the most radical arguments being said out there. There will always be theories. I could make up 100 theories but probability is they won't be true. So many well informed people will refuse to vote for Ron Paul because he will "flip the country upside down". (I'm not saying it wouldn't be nice to flip that national debt upside down and turn it into a positive number ;)) But reasonable people who look only at facts, usually don't believe more than 2 of Ron Paul's conspiracy theories.