BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Adults smoking in a vehicle with children inside

However, I will address some things and refer back to my previous round. 1) While I am sorry for your loss, within the realm of debating such things are logical fallacies known as appeals to emotion (it is also anecdotal evidence and so dismissable on that alone). 2) My opponent never addresses the point that by rolling down the windows, the car can become extremely ventilated and much safer than most other places, of which my opponent is not wanting to ban. 3) My opponent suggests that "young adult" means teenager. While no source is provided for this distinction, it makes little difference. 18 and 19 year olds are still mature enough to take care of themselves to a significant degree (if they can join the military, they can ask someone politely to not smoke around them, or roll down a car window).
Adults smoking in a vehicle with children inside

Agreed on that statement on private property but a child is not private property. One's choice that affects one's health should not be inflicted on another human. By young adults I meant Teenager. And I agree that if they own the property then they can do what they want with it but the smoker needs to be considerate of young children in the area with them. Their body tissue in their lungs are still developing and smoke from a cigarette that an adult is smoking could damage their tissue development. Some smokers don't consider that and smoke in front of small children and infants which could lead to lung cancer from second hand smoke. I lost my younger brother to lung cancer when my parents use to smoke around us. We were to young to realize that smoking was bad and we were at the age that we didn't know we could ask the grown ups not to smoke in the same area as us. Because of that I no longer have a little brother.
Adults smoking in a vehicle with children inside

In this debate I will be arguing for the rights of private property ownership and the right to do what you want in your own private property. First we should note that "young adults" is the age group 19 - 40 under Erikson's stages of development [1]. Most psychological stages place young adults well into the 20's and often 30's. People of this age are significantly past the point where they need someone else to stand up for them. If the driver is the owner of the car, it is well within their legal rights to smoke in any private property that they own, be it a house, car, or cardboard box [2]. Second, there cars have one of the best ventilation methods of any closed space. It is called, rolling down the windows [3]. This allows the air to circulate extremely efficiently, thus making smoking in a car, actually one of the safest places to do so. It would be completely illogical to ban smoking in cars due to health concerns without banning it pretty much everywhere else as well. Thank you [1] . http://psychology.about.com... [2] . http://americanpolicy.org... [3] . http://l.wigflip.com...
Adults smoking in a vehicle with children inside

Adults and other smokers should not be allowed to smoke in a vehicle that has children , or young adults inside. Lung cancer not only affects smokers, but second hand smokers as well. I agree it should be up to the smoker if he/she smokes if they know the consequence and health risks involved but their choices should not affect another human beings health, especially a young child who may not have an understanding of how un-healthy smoking may be, or maybe too afraid to speak up and asked the smoker not to smoke. In a vehicle, the smoke would be allowed to circulate in the car, allowing more of the toxic materials in the smoke to affect a child. This should not be allowed. A child's body is still forming, not just on the outside but on the inside too. Smoke could damage and/or hurt a child's still forming tissue in his/her lungs.
Rationalism pertains to Atheism (Rationalist ought to be an Atheist)

As far as my opine is concerned I really do not believe that Rationalist and Atheists are just differed by semantics. They have different ideologies altogether Rationalist like you said though are self forming agency etc. and they simply reject the very notion of the supernatural but yet you may find many of them believing in God and likes. They may explain an accident with rational reasons but yet if they are saved from it most of them will be thanking GOD. Atheists are a different lot they in both the cases will not bringing in God. So not necessary for a rationalist to be an Atheist
Rationalism pertains to Atheism (Rationalist ought to be an Atheist)

I understand what you're saying. My understanding is atheists often call rationalists dogmatic though. For example, rationalists often believe in "a priori" reason, free will, self-forming agency, moral universalism, etc. Atheists tend to be relativists who claim that rationalism is just an opinion without evidence. The only difference between rationalism and religion is semantics. How do you deal with that?
Rationalism pertains to Atheism (Rationalist ought to be an Atheist)

Actually talking about empiricism may be something off topic because again its a type of rationalism with different source of logical explanations given. Empiricism deals with learning from experience while rationalism has different source but not anything related to superstition etc. I am saying it would be off topic because it will take a different path of types of rationalism. Here is what will give you an insight why suggested this topic , it was a matter of personal inquistiveness. The other day I was just going through some articles on the topic whether Astrological predictions hold true...and most of the articles and comments of people I read I could observe that the ones rejecting astrology and the likes (supernatural occurences, exorcism etc.) so called rationalists claim to be atheists too...So I was just thinking whether its a mere coincidence or this is the case with every one the one who is a RATIONALIST ought to be an Atheist too.
Rationalism pertains to Atheism (Rationalist ought to be an Atheist)

Being an Indian with 33 million gods I am very much a theist but being an educated graduate I have a bit of rationalism in me often overpowered by superstitions and irrationalism. So for me its not really that necessary for a rationalist to be an Atheist as personally I am a rationalist but because of family have to support irrationalism
Atheism

Refute what? What has Con actually said? Con was conditioned with theistic information and so responds accordingly. I was not conditioned with theistic information so I do not respond in the same way as Con If you wish you can refer to me as an atheist. But this is meaningless. We were born without labels and we will die without labels. Non-justifiable laws of rationally contradictory gobbledegook or something like that. . . ". . Bizarre. And Con still hasn't found the men in the clouds. And they probably never will.
Atheism

It's still all words. Rational justification of non-contradiction or non-rational contradiction of justice, Or something similar. Brain derived utterances and symbolism. We take information in and swirl it all about and then spew it back out again in all sorts of random fashion. We have spewed out gods, Those sovereign authors of the universe, For generations in response to our ignorance. Some still continue to retch in this ignorance, Whereas others are now able to rest easier in the contentment of their own reality. And the men in the clouds are still hiding. And Con believes that if they vomit gobbledegook for long enough that one day they might see them.
Is Doctor Who the best show ever made

My opponent did nothing to refute my statement that it impossible to prove that a television show is objectively the best show ever. Pro tried to argue that because Doctor Who is the longest running sci-fi show, indicating that there is great demand for it, that it is superior to other shows in the sci-fi genre. I would like to respond by saying that:1. Not necessarily. Popularity does not indicate quality.2. Even if it is the best sci-fi show, the debate is over whether or not it is the best show, period.My opponent then went on to list other statistics showing the popularity of Doctor Who. Once again, popularity is not the same as quality.Whether or not one's understanding of a show is dependent on if they've seen previous episodes is not a litmus test for quality either. If anything, shows with "strict storylines" tend to be more complex and better written than those without.Voting pointsI would like to offer several voting points, or things voters should keep in mind while making their decision:1. My opponent did not prove that it is even possible for a show to objectively be the best. In fact, since I raised the objection that it is not and he did not respond, he has more or less conceded this point.2. My opponent's criteria for quality were refuted.3. My opponent cited no sources.ConclusionWhile it may be true that Doctor Who is the show that my opponent most enjoys, he failed to prove that it is objectively the best show ever created.
Is Doctor Who the best show ever made

I am trying to prove that Doctor Who is the best show ever made with facts, not opinions. Doctor Who is the longest running science fiction show ever made. That statistically puts it ahead of all other shows in this category because it shows that this was liked and requested by a great amount of people. There was another record set this past weekend when a premier episode of a new season aired in 94 countries. This shows that not only the most people watch this show, but a very diverse population of people watch this show. The show has grossed more than 300 million euros. The fact that you don't have to watch every episode in order to understand the next one, which appeals to people who have busy lives. This broadens the viewer range farther than some other shows that stick to a strict storyline and are harder to follow on a non regular watching schedule.
Is Doctor Who the best show ever made

There are no suitable criteria to determine the best television program. Taste in and enjoyment of the arts varies from person to person. There is, therefore, no need to refute the criteria that Pro presented. I will do so anyway.My opponent presented the longevity of the show as one of his criteria. However, many shows have had longer runs than Doctor Who.(1) Also, in TV Guide's "Best TV Fans" contest, bronies were found to be a larger (or at least more vocal) fanbase than Whovians. (2)And so, my opponents argument fails on two levels:1. He is trying to prove the unprovable.2. His criteria do not stand up to examination.Sources1. http://en.wikipedia.org...2. http://www.tvguide.com...
Religions cause more harm than good

I would like to give a thanks to my opponent for taking on my first debate. I know that I will most likely lose this due to my inexperience and the lack of support for my topic but, let us debate away. The resolution is: any religions cause more harm than good to society. In essence, a world in which the majority of people are atheist or agnostic would be superior to our world if it were religious. It is my belief that religions are a problem for society. Religions not only causes(d) bloodshed and thousands of lives lost, but also detracts from the state. An example of this is the Protestant Reformation led by Martin Luther. Luther believed that the Catholic Church was corrupt and had strayed off of the divine path, as such he started a movement that literally split Europe. During the Reformation the infallibility of the Catholic Church and Pope was challenged. The Church during this time period was the government in everything but in name. The Catholic Church during the late middle ages was the unifying structure of Europe. Literally, the monarchs of each state depended upon the Church and Pope, for in order to become a 'legitimate' monarch, one needed the Pope's consent. This dependency upon the Church puts a great responsibility upon this structure. When Martin Luther initiated the movement against the Church, he essentially stripped the Church of its power. As such, citizens refused to pay taxes to the Church, they refused to acknowledge the Church's infallibility, and most of refused to acknowledge the monarchs approved by the Church. Such disagreements lead to bloody revolts to overthrow Catholic monarchs. One such example is: The Great Peasant's Revolt of 1525, during the revolt it is estimated that over 100,000 peasants were killed, in just that one uprising. (Bedford County Schools, AP European History, bedford.va.k12us.com/_tools/?u=57785) (http://depts.washington.edu...) (http://hirr.hartsem.edu...) (http://www.boisestate.edu...)
Student performance should be a factor when determining K-12 teacher salary

If we believe that additional pay will motivate teachers to work harder, we must also believe that teachers know what to do to improve student achievement" and that they aren't doing it because they aren't sufficiently motivated. The assumption is that they must value financial rewards more than student success. Does anyone really think that large numbers of teachers know what their students need but are willfully withholding it? That they would help students learn more, if only someone offered them a bonus to do so? This is a highly cynical view of teachers, one that teachers understandably find demeaning, not motivational. Most teachers care about their students and want them to succeed. Why else enter the profession? But although presenting information may be simple, successful teaching is more complex. Some teachers could certainly do a better job, but they mostly need mentoring, support, supervision, and training in new techniques"plus opportunities to learn, grow, and take on additional responsibilities just like the rest of the workforce. In the end, it is inherently ignorant and flawed that perfor
Sex in Public Should Be Legalised

Firstly, I would like to say that I am not judging whomever chooses to debate this topic. This is an unprejudiced and open discussion. Thank you and good luck! It is simple. Sex is beautiful. It is a way of life. Why should we not present it in public, where the world can see how we feel about love and passion. Why should we be denied our desires simply because we're in a shopping mall, or a park? Sex in public doesn't have to be awkward, or uncomfortable. Hey, we pee in public toilets, right? This is the opportunity we need, to have public sex legalised and release our real desires!
Sex in Public Should Be Legalised

Once again, my opponent has forfeited his/her round, nor has he responded to my comment, even though he is evidently active on DDO with him posting comments and engaging in new debates. Please extend my previous arguments and rebuttals and vote CON. On a side note, I forgot to post the source that I referenced in Round 2 under the [1] citation, here it is: . http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com...
Gays are going to be raped by satan

As the President of the USA I would know about gays, the gays love me, I have a great relationship with gays. Scientific research shows all gays have a 103% chance of being raped by Satan, so I will be making satan ILLEGAL! You're welcome America. Satan will not be allowed anymore! Next up, I will make covfefe a word in the christian dicktionary. T-Dog out.
Abraham Lincoln would beat Barack Obama in a fight.

This will be an... interesting battle. We need a Deadliest Warrior Announcer guy.Abraham Lincoln. Worker turned president, who abolished slavery in the south!VS.Barack Obama. America's first Black President, who altered health care on a wide scale!Who. Is. Deadliest?!Thank you, sir, for starting this debate.On a sidenote, I hope this is actually a fight debate, and that this isn't going to be a flame-war.
Abraham Lincoln would beat Barack Obama in a fight.

If Lincoln is too old for his prowess, then we must consider Obama too old for his prowess just to be fair.We must keep in mind that Michelle is a fitness freak. Obama will be in good shape.Lincoln, however, depressed. This would make him less likely to work out.Again, the skills you learn will stick with you for the rest of your life.Keep in mind, Abe wasn't active since he was... what? 30?He has hadn't been trained in a decade. He would surely not retain his prowess.However, Barry would still be fit due to Latiffa's orders of fitness.That still can't compare with killing vampires.Let's look at da facts:NEVER GO OUT AT NIGHT!ALWAYS CARRY SILVA BULLETS!NEVER CARRY BLOOD AROUND!Livin' in da hood is comparable to fightin vampires.Obama does not play basketball as often as he used toHe is fit enough to be fast. Remember Latiffa's obsession with fitness. She took away my school's chicken nuggets.
Abraham Lincoln would beat Barack Obama in a fight.

1. Lincoln can ACTUALLY fight. Yes, Lincoln is 51 in this battle. However, Obama is 51 too. So if Lincoln is too old for his prowess, then we must consider Obama too old for his prowess just to be fair. Plus, usually, the skills you learn will stick with you the rest of your life unless you purposely forget them. 2. Military Skills Again, the skills you learn will stick with you for the rest of your life. 3. He fights Vampires That still can't compare with killing vampires. Obama had to fight people for lunch money, but Abraham slayed vampires (which are like 3x stronger than a human) with an axe just because he freakin wanted to. 4. Height Height does not make an advantage nor a disadvantage. 5. Speed First of all, Lincoln is larger than obama. Obama does not play basketball as often as he used to, for he mostly did at back in his high school days when he was known as, "Barry". 6. Sports Again, their skills have to be equal and fair since they are both 51. 7. Health Both competitors get equal healthcare. So Obama does not have more than Abe in this case.
Abraham Lincoln would beat Barack Obama in a fight.

1. Lincoln can ACTUALLY fight.Maybe when he was younger, but now he is a we bit to old for that to be a factor. I don't doubt that the current President has some skill, but at 51 years old, it will be endurance and sheer strength.2. Military SkillsAgain, when he was younger, he was likely unmatched in physical prowess, but now, after sickness and serums have taken their toll, Obama has the ability to power through.3. He fights VampiresOH YAH?!?! OBAMA (aka Jerome da Gangsta) GREW UP IN DA GHETTO. HE HAD TO BEAT PEOPUL FOR DA LUNCH MONEH! HE LIVES WIT DA GHETTO MECHELLE (aka Latiffa). HE BEAT DA WITE MAN ALL AROUN!______________________________________________________________________________HeightI was just trying to show that Abraham's height would not be a significant advantage.SpeedObama, though definately larger, would have more lowerbody strength due to basketball. This would increase his speed and balance, I bet.SportsIn his older age, he probably had to slow down, or at least lower his intensity. Again, injuries and illness take their toll. Meanwhile, Obama who, at worst, got shingles and broke an arm, and, at best, had a common cold and spraint a wrist. Either way, Obama seems to be in better condition.HealthWhile Obama may not have always had the best health insurance (livmin in da ghetto), he certainly had some healthcare.Even if Lincoln were to get medicine, would that fix years worth of illness? I say no.About mentality, it was well documented that Lincoln was depressed. I think he'll set that aside for a moment, just because he's so determined to beat his enemy.
Abraham Lincoln would beat Barack Obama in a fight.

Height You argue that Obama is too a tall man. However, I don't see a way of which height effects your performance in a fight. Even if that did give Obama the advantage, it would be small. Abe's and Obama's height differences are only a matter of three inches apart.Speed From the previous paragraph, you have argued that Obama has an advantage because he is smaller. In this one, you discuss this point again, but this time you say that Obama would be faster due to his smaller size. However, I see no way in which smaller height gives you more speed. The only thing of this matter would be that if you are larger in weight, you are slower. But history has shown us that Lincoln had just the right amount of muscle but was still a thin man. Sports From http://www.abrahamlincolnsclassroom.org... , "For Mr. Lincoln, athletics was not just a way of explaining his political situation. It was a way into politics." This shows that Lincoln was not only a fan of sports, but he took attendance in them, such as notable prowess in wrestling. Evidence also shows that Lincoln was an excellent horshoe-pitcher, obviously giving him the arm and accuracy for a fight that he is sure to win.Health Lincoln and Obama would have access to the same health insurance. If you are arguing that both should fight at the age of 60, then Obama would be out of office by that time. If Obama is out of office, he cannot force all of his once-loved healthcare on himself. Plus, since Lincoln was a former president and a legendarily (I think I just coined a word) good president, everyone would love him so much and give him certainly enough health. Besides, Abe still does fight vampires. Finally, with 3 hours preparation (I believe I specified that) Lincoln should be able to dose on appropriate medicine, train, and make sure he is in tip-top shape for the fight, since he certainly has the mind to do that.
Abraham Lincoln would beat Barack Obama in a fight.

I assume that rebuttals are round three, so I will rebut next round.HeightIt is true that Lincoln was a tall man. 6'4. That is tall by even todays standards. However, Obama is by no means short. He is 6'1, which is fairly tall. So lincoln does not have a significant size difference.SpeedI reckon that Obama is faster and more agile, due to his smaller size and Basketball skills.HealthObama would be in a better physical condition compared to ole Abe. Even at 60, Obama would have access to the finest healthcare, and modern stuff at that. Abraham was recorded as having several possible deseases including, but not limited to, Malaria, Smallpox, Pnamonia, and several other ailments that wore him down. Indeed, the year before his assassination, there is evidence to support that he had malaria! Abe might be able to fight, but at 51, he would be very old, would be very weak, and his previos years' illnesses would take their toll.
Abraham Lincoln would beat Barack Obama in a fight.

1. Lincoln can ACTUALLY fight. Abraham Lincoln was known for his skill in wrestling. There was one instance where Lincoln was challenged by the leader of a gang to a wrestling match. Lincoln accepted, and the fight went a little something like this: Yes, that is Abe holding the other man.2. Military Skills Abraham Lincoln was a Captain in the Black Hawk War. Therefore, Abe has had military training, meaning that he definitely can fight. However, Obama has never been in the military. Thus, he lacks the fighting skills that Lincoln has.3. He fights Vampires I mean seriously. If Lincoln can fight and kill vampires, he shouldn't have a single problem fighting Obama. This also gives Lincoln an axe. And what does Obama get? Oh yeah that's right. Scandals.