BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Religious/Ethical Circumcision is Male Genital Mutilation

Thank you for that response.I'm going to be rebutting that last round point by point.1) My opponent says that this plan doesn't protect women from getting cancer.I don't see how this is a relevant point to any degree. Women don't have penises, so any points about women are completely irrelevant, unless we're discuss the transimission of STD's, in which case women are sort of affected. But I'll hit that one later.2) Removing a girl's breasts after puberty is a bad analogy.Women's breasts are for feeding her babies, which happens later in life (hopefully). A man's penis flap doesn't have any benefits except a tiny bit more pleasure during sex. A woman needs breasts to provide natural food for her baby. A guy doesn't need his penis flap for anthing significant.3) My opponent's point about misdiagnosing is completely irrelevant.It's really difficult to misdiagnose a penis flap. If you look at the penis, and it has a flap, then the penis has a flap. If you look at the penis, and it doesn't have a flap, then the penis doesn't have a flap.However, both my evidence and her evidence proves that there are risks with circumcision, and my evidence proves those risks are miniscule for a new born, but they get greater even if the baby is just a year older. By the time a man can consent to circumcision, the operation will be a whole lot riskier.4) The NHS doesn't substantiate its claims.The NHS has two claims on the disadvantages of circumcision. They say it's a risky operation, and sexual pleasure is lessened during... well... you know... sex.However, one of these risks, as I've said, is significantly greater if the baby is not a newborn. The other risk is something that doesn't justify the medical risks.None of my medical risks were disputed. In fact, every single one of them was conceded.So increased risk of STD's (because the flap traps everything and doesn't allow for things to pass around while it's open).A man's flap can also get stuck up or down, decreasing pleasure in life overall.Diseases specifically related to the skin flap (an unnecessary part of the body) will not happen at all if circumcised.If the flap isn't cleaned regularly, the penis can easily get infections, even regularly.5) My opponent needs to prove substantially that the penis flap is necessary for a man.So far, I've proven that the harms of having a flap far outweigh the benefits. Penis flaps are just an annoyance except for during sex.Thank you for reading.
Religious/Ethical Circumcision is Male Genital Mutilation

Even if these claims are true (I don't see how it'd prevent cancers in women and, of course it'll lessen cancer of the penis- if I chopped of my arm, I wouldn't get a cancer on it because it'd be dead and thus never giving cancer a chance to form), shouldn't it be down to personal choice? Imagine if all girls had their breasts removed once they've finished puberty and doctors tried to justify it by saying 'it lessens your risk of breast cancer'. Totally unethical, right? It should be up to her to choose if/and/or when she has a mastectomy. All surgery has it's risks; it only takes for a doctor to misdiagnose you (happens to about 12m Americans a year) or for a fuzzy-brained surgeon to administer too much anesthetic and you can end up under six inches of concrete in the near-future. I'm not against circumcision- it has medical benefits, sure- but it shouldn't be carried out until the individual male can make the choice to be circumcised himself. Let's not forget that it has drawbacks too; many men say that circumcision lessens the feeling in their genitalia during sex and this can make it harder for a couple to conceive. According to the NHS website, circumcision has more disadvantages than advantages. Sources: http://www.dailymail.co.uk... http://www.nhs.uk... http://www.cbsnews.com...
people under the age of sixteen should have thier own debating site, instead of this one

"I think the main reason people act this way (profane language, etc.) is because they are not seeing or talking to these people in person, and they know they can get away with pretty much saying anything. Yes, some of this is teenagers, but you have to admit, there are some 'silly' adults out there who act just like a junior high student. (By the way, 38 isn't that old) :)" >Here my opponent has all but conceded the point by first agreeing with me (that the 'faceless' nature of internet communication is partly responsible) and then by falling back on her 'but adults do it too' argument. And.. just for the record, I KNOW 38 is not old.. I was being sardonic. "Agreed, we should have some line drawn, but not over age. Maybe they can have a period (say, a couple months) to prove that they are immature enough to stay here. This would be better than banning everybody." >But then, as you previously stated yourself, people could (and would) simply behave themselves for the probationary period until they got their foot in the door. "But what about the people on the u16 site who do not like that person, and they are only, say, 14? They would have to put up with the immature person another year." >Better them than than us! "Awww...but I just turned seventeen today, I still have to wait another year?" >Not if you win this debate.. if you lose you must set a good example and be the first to leave. ;) "This was, of course, as I was writing this. Numbers change daily. That being said, you can see that even though the majority goes to O16's, there is a large amount that are U16. This site would lose alot of it's members. About 1/4 of them, actually." >Good, more space for us and the influx of the new and, I would hope, better class of debaters, attracted by the new mature and scholarly atmosphere. Can you imagine what people think when browsing some of the forums? HOW many potential new members have AnimeFanTony, usakid and BigMac and many others like them scared away with their puerile antics? "Also, what about the debates that the U16s were in? Would they be transfered? And if so, wouldn't that take alot of time?" >Yes it would be a lot of time and trouble.. But anything of value always is. >>>Thankyou Rach3.. And Happy birthday:)
people under the age of sixteen should have thier own debating site, instead of this one

Thank you :) "This has not proved to be the case. Because of the nature of the internet, social etiquette (including respect for elders, and profane language etc) can be by-passed without fear of consequence. In short, I believe us 'oldies' (I'm 38) pay the price for a lot of pent up aggression and angst from schools etc. They get away with it because 'they can'." I think the main reason people act this way (profane language, etc.) is because they are not seeing or talking to these people in person, and they know they can get away with pretty much saying anything. Yes, some of this is teenagers, but you have to admit, there are some 'silly' adults out there who act just like a junior high student. (By the way, 38 isn't that old) :) "Let us use another example: Alcohol. We prohibit the use of alcohol for anyone under 18 in Britain (21 in the States right?) I am sure there are many many people under the age of 18 who could and do use alcohol sensibly. I know from experience that there are many many people over the age of 18 who do not use alcohol sensibly. Neither of these facts negate the fact that we have to draw the line somewhere. At debate.org we have no line at all, with often horrible consequences" Agreed, we should have some line drawn, but not over age. Maybe they can have a period (say, a couple months) to prove that they are immature enough to stay here. This would be better than banning everybody. "True, but then we could send them straight back. (the 'humiliation' adding a punishment element" But what about the people on the u16 site who do not like that person, and they are only, say, 14? They would have to put up with the immature person another year. "One more thing, I would actually prefer an over 18s site" Awww...but I just turned seventeen today, I still have to wait another year? --- There are 3,062 members under sixteen. 94 of these members have been recently online. This means a little under 3,000 are inactive or just haven't been on in the last 72 hours. http://www.debate.org... There are 9,299 members above sixteen. 135 of these have been online recently. This means a little over 9,000 members above sixteen haven't been on in the last 72 hours. http://www.debate.org... *This was, of course, as I was writing this. Numbers change daily. That being said, you can see that even though the majority goes to O16's, there is a large amount that are U16. This site would lose alot of it's members. About 1/4 of them, actually. Also, what about the debates that the U16s were in? Would they be transfered? And if so, wouldn't that take alot of time? Thank you this was a fun (and original) debate. Can I please ask the voters to give RFD's Thank you.
people under the age of sixteen should have thier own debating site, instead of this one

Being around "immature" people would make them mature? I think being around older adults makes kids more mature. " This has not proved to be the case. Because of the nature of the internet, social etiquette (including respect for elders, and profane language etc) can be by-passed without fear of consequence. In short, I believe us 'oldies' (I'm 38) pay the price for a lot of pent up aggression and angst from schools etc. They get away with it because 'they can'. "There are some O16s who are just as immature, or worse, on this site. It would not get rid of all of the immature people. " Let us use another example: Alcohol. We prohibit the use of alcohol for anyone under 18 in Britain (21 in the States right? ) I am sure there are many many people under the age of 18 who could and do use alcohol sensibly. I know from experience that there are many many people over the age of 18 who do not use alcohol sensibly. Neither of these facts negate the fact that we have to draw the line somewhere. At debate. org we have no line at all, with often horrible consequences. "The U16s could 'behave' until they were a part of the O16 site. Then, once they were on the O16 site, they could 'misbehave'. " True, but then we could send them straight back. (the 'humiliation' adding a punishment element) "We probably wouldn't have the fansite if he was on the U16 site. " I'm not a fan of the site, but I think my 'draw the line somewhere' argument pretty much answers this. Hey, maybe this is turning into a 'real' debate after all! One more thing, I would actually prefer an over 18s site.
people under the age of sixteen should have thier own debating site, instead of this one

Thank you :) and this debate is mostly just for fun. "(1) give the U16s the chance to 'cut their teeth' as it were, with people their own age, a chance to grow in confidence and, more importantly, maturity" Being around "immature" people would make them mature? I think being around older adults makes kids more mature. "(2) Protect the O16s from the worst elements of the U16s. Although it's not always the U16s who cause trouble they do tend to enable others to act with less maturity than they otherwise would." There are some O16s who are just as immature, or worse, on this site. It would not get rid of all of the immature people. "(3) The O16 site could vet membership by examining the U16s record, another reason for them to learn to behave themselves etc" The U16s could 'behave' until they were a part of the O16 site. Then, once they were on the O16 site, they could "misbehave". ---- Let me just say a few points: PoeJoe, is fifteen. http://www.debate.org... Yet he has a fansite up, and he has helped a lot with the website. {website} http://debatefans.com... We probably wouldn't have the fansite if he was on the U16 site. This is why not all of U16s should be on a different site. Thank you :)
people under the age of sixteen should have thier own debating site, instead of this one

OK, As Rach3ll3 has stated this started off from some comments on one of the forums. These comments were made in the wake of I-Am-A-Pandas banning from DDO. I must state that this is not something I feel particularly strongly about either way BUT I thought it would be fun to explore and for me personally to debate something other than our impending Eternal Judgement. ;D To begin. If debate.org (hereby known as DDO) were to be split between over 16s (hereby O16) and under 16s (hereby U16) users it would: (1) give the U16s the chance to 'cut their teeth' as it were, with people their own age, a chance to grow in confidence and, more importantly, maturity. (2) Protect the O16s from the worst elements of the U16s. Although it's not always the U16s who cause trouble they do tend to enable others to act with less maturity than they otherwise would. (3) The O16 site could vet membership by examining the U16s record, another reason for them to learn to behave themselves etc. That'll do for now.
people under the age of sixteen should have thier own debating site, instead of this one

hello :). We were talking about this in one of the threads of the forum, so I decided to debate you against this. ---DEFINITIONS--- people under the age of sixteen-(sixteen and under) should have thier own debating site- (one exclusively for them) instead of this one-(Debate.org) I am con, arguing that they shouldn't. ----- I will let you state your reasons, and I will post my arguments in round two. thank you DAT. :)
Obama moves to end the Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy

Don't Ask Don't Tell is the military term referring to the policy regarding gays and lesbians. The policy, signed in 1993 by former president Bill Clinton, was implemented as a compromise with legislature which opposed a repeal of the prior ban on gays in the military. According to the Department of Defense the policy states: Established under the premise of privacy, discretion and protection, the policy bans gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender people from serving in the military and prevents military officials from asking interrogatory questions or pursuing investigations of soldiers suspected of being homosexuals. Any service member that openly reveals their homosexuality through words or actions is discharged from service. On October 10, 2009, President Barack Obama reaffirmed a promise he claimed during his campaign- to end the ban against gays in the military, thus ending the Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy. The policy was made for the protection of gays after a Allen Schindler Jr., U.S. Navy Radioman, was murdered because he was a homosexual. President Obama will be jeopardizing the safety of gays who currently serve and will serve if he ends the policy; much less, if the policy is banned, it has potential to create tension so potent in our armed forces that it would distract our soldiers from being able to efficiently perform their assigned tasks. The policy should not be banned. Hiding ones sexual identity should be a small price to pay if they are truly dedicated to serving their country.
Star athletes are over paid

it seems that you are definitely a socialist and i won't argue why socialism doesn't work or why capitalism work this way i am just going to tell plain and simple this is a fact and any specialist will say the same 1- even if we got rid of the athletes it wouldn't get the kids any better if they stop working on fabric they will just die or fall for prostitution 2- the "upper levels" arent eating the food the food is stilll there and if peoples work they shoud be able to survive 3- whenever someone pays billion to another one to kick a ball is his option because its his money so he can do as he wish 4- you need to swallow your pride and start studying economics because this kind of utopic naive view won't take you anywhere i won't reply any further because it's evident to me that this will end on a idealist battle just remember that: 1- peoples are not supposed to be good and if they were they wont and they aren't, so expecting people to be good is a foolish and irrational, if you read and watch about philosophy classics like Machiavelli you will understand that government stand for manipulation and the peoples aren't there for you good but for themselves 2- if any real progress happens in africa it wont be fruit of charity but a fruit of cold hearted management and captalism
Star athletes are over paid

I think your statement is getting irradical. The fact they are poor is because the upper levels in the capital working map is taking all the benefits of the lower levels work and don't pay what they deserve. If what athletes make from getting into a contract with Nike could be spent on the workers of their manufacturers it could do so much better for the rest of the world. You are simply ignoring all the human rights as you are not one of the poorest people in the world. Just like you would go on and have fun with whatever you do poor people do have the same needs as you would. So what people do when they have no money and nothing else to entertain them? They have sex and mostly likely they can't afford condoms. They also commit crimes because they know their life isn't getting any better - the reason why there are many rapists most of the time. Food is also limited source. There are not enough food for every single people in the world. The only 1% in the world own car and 8% benefits from electricity. Tech is only available for the very few chosen people. I doubt you don't know what communism is. Communism is a form of ideology that believes all the resources must be owned and taken care by the community. What I'm talking about is common welfare inside the whole capital map. I'm not blaming the wrong person nor trying to connect star athletes with the poverty in Africa. My point is those sports are not the big of the matter in life when it comes to living. The entertainment is not the necessity in life. Those star athletes are just overpaid for what skills they have - it is not appealing enough for everyone. The best athletes are not getting paid as the star athletes. What franchises care is the looks and how interesting is the athlete not the skills the athlete has. Simply this is a set up marketing. No one should have been paid that lot of money for just throwing a ball in the first place. The biggest problem here is that those athletes weren't educated through their early life and when the big money comes in their pocket they get lost and spend money in all the stupid things. This is really a big draw back on the society as a whole. When they lose money on drug and gambling the money won't flow back for the sake of the community. What's the difference btw all the celebrities saying they started from the bottom and now they don't even respect the poors - what they were used to be - and people from the first world arguing that poor people deserve all the poverty thing. That's just moronic and I define it greedy and shameful.
Star athletes are over paid

from what i have seen you sound like a communist and this is not a bad thing the problem is that you are blaming the wrong person look someone did indeed lost money and it was the great clubs and franchises paying the athlete but if they don't pay the athlete the money would NOT be used for any children in africa it would be used in something else for their own sake now again you mistake food by money: "food is a resource" "not all resources are food" and one more thing currency is not the real value of a thing even if someone pay much for food the food real value still the same if you take the money from someone the food still there and yeah with our tech we could make food enough for everybody but pay attention: "why are the kids working on africa?" "why are the kids starving on africa?" its becase they are poor isnt it? and soon you start thinkning that its captalism fault and if everybody gave money it would solve everything right? BUT THIS IS WRONG the reason they starve is because a bunch of POOR and LAZY peoples decide to have a BUNCH of sons that they CANT POSSIBLY feed in fact their objective in having too many sons is exactly so that they can work for then do you realize now this is one of that situations where trash father steal from their childrens but in order to invalidate your whole claim just look at africa before the olympic games started and you will see thatit doesn't matter whenever athletes are gaining billion peoples in africa re still poor
Star athletes are over paid

This is my first debate and I am not used to it so tell me if I do something wrong 1- First off all the athletes gain does not imply in the African children's lost, just because they gain all this money it doesn't mean that it would go for the children's otherwise, capitalism is not a zero sum game besides money and supplies are different things even if all the money of the world is gone the food is still there it's not like the athletes are eating all food on Africa 2- It's not just with the athletes, private banks and multinationals owners also gain a lot without doing much and just look at their sons they will be heirs of a many life's worth fortune without doing anything to deserve it at all 3- Its not that they are over paid it's just that others are down paid, just like in any other field of work the best fight among themselves but only the strongest one wins, the problem here is not that athletes should get less but everybody who battles hard should also gain more 4- They do deserve it, in capitalism the better gain more and the athletes are the best among the best of their countries to fight with the champions of other countries and they fight their whole life with peoples who did the same to get on this spot why should they be hindered from their so deserved glory 5- The price of something is decided by the demand so if the clubs pay for it he is worthy of this money just like a actor or a dj 6- When they spend this money and go bankrupt or go jail etc... like most of then do it will all come back to the system so it wasn't of much difference at all, oh actually it does because the money that would be used by clubs will be used to make stadiums and help tourism market etc.. so they are doing a good for humanity 7- They spend their lives doing something giving up on a friendly easy life for a life of exercises and pressure and as a reward they gain a life of glory, your whole argument is based on the vision that this somehow prejudice the starving children in Africa but it doesn't your argument in a shame by saying that you are spitting on the dreams of every single athlete in existence the hope of a glory in what make these starving children to play football and believe that they can use their talent to make up for their poverty and you spit in these dreams with your economic ignorance you really should study a little about economics and you will see that capitalism is not such a 7 headed beast sorry if I was rude I am not used to English so I am not sure of how it sounded and sorry if I committed any error