BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Attending elementary school should not be mandatory in the USA.

Education is a human right. It is also such an important right that it is not to be given to the parents. The reasons are that not all parents have their child's best interest in mind. For nowadays you no longer need just a high school diploma…it is essential that you have a college degree and just to get into a decent college you need to be on the cutting edge in your class. So if the parent's would rather have their child do something else such as working for there living than that would be horrible considering the fact that education is a catalyst for development. That is why it is so key to offer education to third-world countries—if it weren't, than why would we be constantly wasting our time? Thus, it isn't fair for a child who might yearn for the power of knowledge yet denied it because of their parent. It's the child's right to have the same stepping-stone that most of their peers will have. If a parent objects to the way the school system is run than they have a choice of home-schooling their child but if they are too lazy to do even that…then they don't care about their child and obviously incapable of making such a decision on whether or not their child should even have an education. A parent has a right to make adaptations to their child's education—share their beliefs, take an active part, choose the school, and the choice…but to deny it altogether is a risk for the future. It is like food—the child has a right to eat but the parent chooses what mainly goes in it. The child has a right to education but the parent may choose what mainly goes in it. This concludes my first argument, and I thank those who have taken the time to read this. I'm also sorry for the delay in this post.
Attending elementary school should not be mandatory in the USA.

I would also like to ask everyone who will vote in this debate to vote based upon the debate itself, and not your own opinions. Thank you Also before I start my argument, I would like to spell out what I mean by the topic so that there is no confusion as to what we are debating about. Attending: Going to Elementary School: Grades K-6 Should not be: Self explanatory Mandatory: required, and you have to In the USA: Self Explanatory Hopefully this will alleviate any confusion that ultimatley comes from different people reading this debate and thinking completley different things about the topic. Now to my actual argument. First off, I am in no way against education. I just believe that it should not be against the law not to go to school. The government has no business in telling children what to do. It should be the parent's choice whether or not they want their children to go to school. The parents should have the ability to say, I don't want my kid to go to school, and I don't want to teach him/her at home because. .. There are many reasons parents might not want this, and it should be the parent's choice, not the governments law. I will leave my opponent with this.
Taxpayer Dollars Paying For Abortions

I do not understand your analogies or what you mean by half of the things you say. One of you sources was from a pro-life source, so how can it be trusted? It seems to me like you are content with oppressing women and denying their rights of abortions. When I say a baby isn't a real baby, I am saying that I cannot see it or hold it, so to me, it doesn't count as a life. Until it is out of it's mother, there is no reason that she shouldn't be able to put it down and continue on with her life and there is no good reason that you shouldn't be assisting her financially.
Taxpayer Dollars Paying For Abortions

I honestly cannot tell if you are serious or not. Your demeanor has obviously changed very dramatically. Again, I do not hate women and I am in no way Anti-Women. If the woman cannot pay for her actions, why should taxpayers be forced to assist her. How in the world is she ever going to learn not to do it again? I have no idea why you brought up Capitalism and called me a "Bible-Thumper". I will attempt to respond to your wild arguments. Are you being serious when you say the baby isn't a real baby? I have no idea what you even mean by that. You even admit that you have no source to back it up and that you just heard it somewhere. Scientifically speaking, after 6 weeks the heart is beating and there are detectable brain waves. After 8 weeks, the brain is functioning. Week Six: The heart begins to beat -The embryo has reached a size of about 8 mm (1/4 inch) in length. -The spinal cord, which until now has been open, is beginning to close. -The first blood cells and blood vessels are developing. -Blood moves through these primitive vessels connected to the yolk sac. -A pipe-shaped heart is formed and begins to beat. -The brain begins to divide into 5 parts and brainwaves are detectable. -Optic pits form the start of the developing eye. -The cells destined to be the arms and legs are in place. At this time the embryo is still smaller than the size of a raisin. Low on the sides of the head are two folds of tissue that will become the ears. Although not completely developed, all the major body organs and systems are formed. The heart also forms, and it begins to beat on the 25th day after conception (about 6 weeks after the last menstrual period), and a heart beat can already be detected. I will include the actual sources that support my argument and because no pain can be felt, that makes it justified? Answer me this. If I gave you an extreme pain killer or I knocked you out with anesthesia like drugs and killed you, would that be okay because you couldn't feel any pain? Is that the criteria you are seriously going to use? Shooting someone in the temple also produces no pain as they die immediately. Is that now okay because in the long run, at least they didn't feel any pain? Again, you seem to be obsessed with forcing your agenda down my throat and labeling me as Anti-Women for simply being against the murder of innocent children in the womb. I am a Homosexual who is very skeptical of Gay Marriage and I have many African-American friends who are against Affirmative Action. Does that make me a Homophobe and my African-American friends racist? I know many women who side with me on this issue. Are they somehow Anti-Women as well? Your argument seems to have no basis except for a huge amount of attacks that have absolutely no backing. We just concluded our debate on Civil Unions and I asked you to be a bit more Civil (no pun intended), but it appears as though you have ignored that request. Thank you for the debate and I look forward to viewing your response. May the best debater win. Source: http://prolifeaction.org... Source: http://www.baby2see.com...
Taxpayer Dollars Paying For Abortions

I cannot believe how Anti-Women you are!! A woman is going through an extremely emotional time and deserves all the help she can get. How hateful of you to deny a woman her reproductive rights just because she cannot pay for them. This is the problem with Capitalism and America today as whole, we are full of selfish bible-thumpers that just want to keep their money and help no one else. I would NEVER give my money to support Anti-Abortion bills because the baby isn't even a rel baby until 3 months into the pregnancy and women can do whatever they wish. There is also no pain felt ever by the children, so if there is no pain, it should be allowed to be terminated. I do not have the current source for this, but I remember hearing it somewhere. I am just so so appauled at how Anti-Women you are. Typical Conservative to be oppressing women as much as you are. You should be ashamed of your ways.
Taxpayer Dollars Paying For Abortions

My personal beliefs are that abortion should only be used in extreme cases, so in turn I do not believe that the fruits of my labor should go to support something I am forcefully against. It is not oppressing anyone, but the innocent taxpayers who should have nothing to do with an abortion they have no say in. Would you be willing to pay for my mistakes or my decisions? Of course not. If someone wants an abortion, fellow citizens should NEVER be forced to help pay for that abortion. Refusing to give money to a cause I do not support is in no way greedy. I am quite positive my opponent wouldn't give his money to support Anti-Abortion bills. Does that mean he is greedy? Again, of course not. Other social programs have absolutely nothing to do with Abortion. There is a huge difference between food stamps and welfare (which I am NOT in favor for) than an abortion. All genders are allowed to benefit from welfare and social programs, while only women are the ones on the receiving end of your proposed taxpayer assisted abortions. I will then turn this same concept around on you. Since abortion assistance can only be given to women (because women are the only one's who would ever be receiving an abortion) then what program are men entitled to to assure it is equal. It sure doesn't make sense to me that women have the ability to receive assistance for their choices, but men do not. Obviously, I am not being serious, I am just putting this argument into context. Claiming that someone is somehow selfish because they do not want to devote their hard earned dollars to something they are 100% against makes absolutely no sense and comparing abortion to social programs and even claiming that the two could be hand and hand (by saying "other social programs") shows the lack of knowledge you have on this subject. I rest my case for the time being.
Taxpayer Dollars Paying For Abortions

By not assisting women when it comes to reproductive choices, we are oppressing them. They need all the support they can get in such a trying time and the last thing they should have to worry about is greedy Conservatives like yourself who do not want to lend a helping hand. It is her business what she does, but if she does choose to abort her child, taxpayers should be expected to assist her. We have other social programs such as welfare and food stamps, so denying women the same benefits when it comes to abortion is sexist and oppressive.
Taxpayer Dollars Paying For Abortions

I am challenging my opponent to a debate on whether or not taxpayer dollars should go to pay for contraceptives and abortions. I firmly believe that if a woman's reproductive decisions are her's and her's only, then no one should ever be forced to help pay for her choices. If taxpayers got some sort of say in the decision to abort, then I might have a different opinion, but if the government is truly supposed to stay out of the bedroom, then they shouldn't be funding the results of what happens in the bedroom.
The abuse of the American welfare system

The Pro is trying to debate an issue that no longer exists, welfare abuse has been made nearly impossible by government regulations and standards. 1) Welfare programs have requirements Welfare programs like TANF are run by each state individually. All states set limits on the amount of TANF is available (no longer than five years in any state) 2) All recipients TANF must find a job within two years of receiving 3) No real numbers The Pro uses vague number words like "many" to support the arguments and provides no real evidence at all, only unsubstantiated claims. Source: http://www.welfareinfo.org...
The abuse of the American welfare system

Hello everyone. The American welfare system is being abused. The original purpose of welfare has been lost in translation, and far too many citizens of the country are not using welfare as a means to survive, but rather as a means to benefit off of the government due to a lack of a proper foundation for this system. The system itself is too "one-size-fits-all", and while there are people in genuine need of government assistance, there are also far too many people who should not be abusing this system, and have the potential to make/are making more than the average working class American.
Batman vs Superman

Thanks to Pro for challenging me to this debate and to the readers for sticking around. Allow me to quickly address Pro’s final round before summarizing the debate.1. Pro has dropped all of his prior arguments. Please consider them conceded.2. Pro has not addressed any of my rebuttals or contentions. Extend all arguments. 3. Pro’s entire final round is a new argument. Standard debating protocol dictates that no new arguments are to be presented in the final round.4. As I explained in Round 1, this debate is to cover both characters in their “standard comic book canon.” The animated film Pro describes, like the comic it is based off of, is not considered canon. Instead, it is told as a hypothetical tale about what may have happened if Batman retired after the first Robin’s death [1].5. The fight Pro describes isn’t even resolutional, as Superman was not trying to defeat Batman, he was trying to talk to him. Once again, it is made clear multiple times during the issue that if Superman ever wanted to stop Batman, he could.In ClosingBy dropping all of his arguments, my arguments, and presenting a final new argument that isn’t canon, my opponent literally has no case. It is just as well, as I showed proof in Round 2 that Superman both would and could defeat Batman. Easily. Thanks for reading!1. https://en.wikipedia.org...
Batman vs Superman

I thank Con for his points. They are hard to beat. But there is a movie where Batman beats Superman, Batman Returns part2(Superman was not in part1). Superman is sent by the government to kill Batman. Both are going try hard. Batman used sonic devices to stun Superman by injuring his sonic hearing. Batman also used electric gloves too wich gave very violent shocks injuring Superman and disorienting him. Batman at the time wore a suit that gave him strength and durability. He attached a thermal bomb to Superman's chest exploding and inguring him. Batman then gave Superman a dose of Kryptonite dust. That dust made Superman age to about 55. Batman told Superman to remember the one man who defeating him. He then faked his death leaving Superman old, alone and defeated on a psychical(aged up 30 years) and mental(believing he was responsible for his best friends death) level. I enjoyed debating with Con, he was a force opponent. I still respect Superman though. I thank Con for his time.
Batman vs Superman

I thank Con for his examples. But in that fight Batman probably was holding back too. Batman only wanted to hurt him cause he was being controlled. If Batman wanted to kill him he would have a better weapon and a better plan. I'm not familiar with that story line so I ask Con this: How was Superman freed of his mind control? Now for new points. Superman loses his powers when he is exposed to a red sun. Batman could trap him in a chamber that would take his powers away using the rays of red sun like in Superman 2. Maybe expose him to Kryptonite then trap him. Since Batman is rich and brilliant it is very probable. But it must be made of something to withstand Superman's strength. It maybe could be made of Kryptonite to weaken him. Another way Batman could make use of the red sun effect would be maybe a gun that emits the rays from a red sun. That could work too. With Batman's money, mind and creativity there are many ways Batman could use Kryptonite or the red sun to his advantage.
Batman vs Superman

Now, Superman has his weakness towards Kryptonite. At the end of the movie, Justice League Doom, Superman gives Batman some Kryptonite. With Batman's brilliant mind and that Kryptonite, he could create a device that would blast or maybe shoot Kryptonite. Maybe a Kryptonite dart gun or a Kryptonite grenade. Batman is also one of superman's closest friend, so he would know Superman's emotional weakness' too. Finally, cause of Batman's trust issues he created devices and plans to maim or (if necessary) kill all members of the Justice League. Since Superman is in the Justice League he would already have a plan to defeat him. In a fight he has a plan where as Superman would have nothing besides his powers. With Batman's plan or device and the Kryptonite weapon, it would render killing Superman a lot easier. I look forward to my opponents reply.
Children should receive vaccinations.

Conclusive Round:The debate is practically over and I am clearly its victor. I will show you why I win on all accounts:Arguments: All of my arguments have been dropped by my opponent and his only ones have been disproven. Conduct: My opponent has forfeited 2 rounds, so there should be a definite win for me in conduct. Spelling and Grammar: Nobody commited any errors in spelling or grammar. Sources: I have produced many reliable sources, whereas my opponent has produced none. I have definitely won this debate. For a crystillization of my arguments you can see my last entry.
Children should receive vaccinations.

To begin, I will remind my opponent that his/her next round will be their concluding round, in which they may not present any new information. This means that he/she can only weigh and crystallize arguments. My conclusion will be the first part of round 5, directly after my opponent's. My Arguments:My arguments have all been dropped by my opponent. This means that all my arguments have been accepted to be true. Refutations:Since my arguments have been accepted to be true, my opponent's incorrect and unproven assertions that vaccines are untrustworthy and harmful have been disproven by my arguments. I have proven that government-approved vaccinations work reliably, or as reliably as you can expect anything to. You can risk the slight risk of your child having an allergy and then have compensation from the government and protection from herd immunity. [1] This is obviously different from drinking orange juice from the grocery store, risk the slight chance of getting orange juice that is past expiration date, and then return it, get compensation from the grocery store, and get better orange juice. (Please infer sarcasm).
Children should receive vaccinations.

This debate is on children having mandatory vaccination with the exception of children who cannot receive it for reasons such as (but not excluding) allergies or religious reasons. Definitions: Child: A young human below the age of 18. Vaccinate: treat with a vaccine to produce immunity against a disease; inoculate. [1] Rules: 1. No trolling. 2. No outsourcing to other texts or images, except for sources. 3. Above are the terms and definitions that will be used throughout the entire debate. 4. Forfeiting one or two rounds is acceptable but will result in loss of conduct points. Forfeiting 3 or more rounds will result in a forfeit of the entire debate. 5. My opponent will provide his or her arguments in the end of round 1. For round 4, no new arguments or "ideas" are to be provided. The same goes for me in round 5.
Wearing a helmet when cycling should be a law.

The BMA's board of education and science, which has examined the evidence, has just concluded that helmet use should not be compulsory in the UK. This is probably because in Victoria, Austrailia, although deaths and serious head injuries fell by around 45% in the year following legislation in 1990 so did the number of people riding bikes - by 40% in adults and 60% in children explaining the drop in injuries due to helmets being made compulsary [1]Cycling can geatly enhance health, however if bicylcle hemets must be worn by law less people will cycle as evidence shows. Also, the wearing of bicycle helmets does not reduce the risk of injury, see below:"In the state of Western Australia where bicycle helmets have been mandatory for all ages since July 1992, the annual cyclist death toll from 1987 to 1991 (pre-law) averaged 7.6 fatalities per year. From 1993 to 1997 (post-law) it was 6.4 fatalities per year, representing a 16% reduction. However, Government cycling surveys show cycling declined in Western Australia by approximately 30% during the 1990s following mandatory helmet law enforcement. Thus, relative to cycle use, fatalities went up, not down." [2]There are various reasons why wearing a bicycle helmet increases the risk of injury e.g. motorists will give less room while overtaking, helmeted cyclists may take greater risks especially when they have cameras attatched, and helmets are seen as a way to limit the consequence of the risks they want to take. In cycle sport internationally, the number of deaths in races has increased markedly since helmet use became mandatoryIf people are required to wear a helmet by law they are much more likely to continue wearing one that has been damaged and which won't prevent serious brain injury. Since it is common for helmets to break without the polystyrene foam compressing at all it would also be impossible to enforce the use of "safe" helmets. When it is voluntary to wear a helmet people will be much more likely to replace a damaged helmet sooner, and have the correct attitude towards safety i.e. not rely on the state of art design of the helmet to save them. Afterall no helmet design can save someone who is flung in the path of a lorry.sources: [1] http://www.theguardian.com...[2] www.cylclehelmets.org
Wearing a helmet when cycling should be a law.

Cycling is a very common sport amongst all ages. Bicycle helmets reduce head injury risk by 85% which is why some people prefer to wear a helmet when riding. However the majority of the population do not wear a helmet for personal reasons. Only 14% of British children wear a helmet whilst riding a bike. But no more that 17% of fatal cycling accidents were wearing a helmet proves that wearing helmets have saved lives.
Wearing a helmet when cycling should be a law.

It would be better to wear a helmet than no helmet if you are involved in an accident, but making it a law to wear helmets does not save lives. I'd like to take this opportunity to remind voters that "saving lives" is used to justify doing just about anything including war crimes such as the japan bombing of hiroshima and nagasaki where more lives were lost than saved in the end, and the bomb was used to save soldiers not civilian life. Laws should be made to protect people from other people, not from theirselves.
hitler and jews

Sorry don't mean to insult.Okay i will promise i will stop it.What else actually hitler done good thing except smoking campaign.OKAY name good point about what hitler has done? I understand that during 1920s is the weimar republic fall.And the inflation rate is very high in germany.YES I admitt that he make the german economy better than before.He reduce unemployment rate and provide many campaign for helping people.But i totally disagree about killing people.They way hitler act it's too extreme and abnormal about killling people.I understand that jewish people manipulate german people during germany crisis.And i actually don't like jewish people either.But instead of killing jewish people ,why not protest and kick them out of the country.That's would be much better than killing people.Also he start world war 2 first which he actually shouldn't do it.
hitler and jews

Are you actually serious?If you think killing people are normal then you are totally abnormal person.There is no good thing done by nazis.1.They kill million of jews,homosexual,and sinti and roma 2.They start the world war 2 first.If it's not because of them,world war 2 wouldn't happen 3.After world war 2 germany still live in poverty afterward.Many people suffer from starvation,homeless,trauma,injuries,and poverty. Also hitler is a psychopath .There is nothing to be admired about him.
hitler and jews

Well actually he uplift the german economy during germany crisis in 1920s.But later he want to start having world war 2 .At the end ,after the end of world war 2 ,germany still living in poverty.Yes you are right.But if he didn't start world war 2 , the disaster wouldn't happen.That was his biggest mistake that he has done.No i don't agree with him about killing people.I think i already have told you.