BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Corporal punishment in the families!!!

Spanking Has Its Place I believe many would argue that spanking a child is a form of corporal punishment and it should be regarded as child abuse, but there is also a whole other group that supports spankings and they say it works. I've tried to use spanking with my child and I found it didn't work and I didn't prefer that method, but I don't see it as child abuse either. Of course, when parents over do it, or spank particularly hard, or hit children in inappropriate ways, then of course it is child abuse.
Corporal punishment in the families!!!

Today striking a child over the head is classed as abusive because it can lead to detrimental physical, psychological and congestive impacts which can be lifelong. I should have presented this point more clearly This point wasn’t supposed to sound as if I thought abuse was the same as corporal punishment. It was meant to read that definitions of ‘corporal punishment’ in the past contrast with our modern views of what acceptable methods of punishment were (e.g. hitting your wife for ‘disobeying you’. Okay in the eighteen hundreds, illegal today). The definition of corporal punishment is “… a means of discipline that relies on fear and submissiveness.” or more broadly as ‘… a wide range of parenting practices intended to cause physical pain. These include such acts as pinching, shaking, slapping, punching and kicking children, and, with or without the use of objects like belts, cords and brushes, spanking, hitting and beating children…’ these definitions mention nothing about the perpetration’s emotions at the time of the corporal punishment, or them having to ‘back it with love’. Your point goes against corporal punishment, not for it because some people use it while they are angry or frustrated at a child for the child’s actions so feel they should be disciplined. This definition doesn’t include anything saying that parents can’t be angry when they physically discipline children. Child abuse isn’t always deliberate or taken out of anger, passive emotion child abuse being a prominent example of this. I know this because I’ve spoken with child councillors from a national child abuse charity in person (as part of a project on child abuse). In my experience, parents who do use corporal punishment do so out of anger, not love. Besides, loving someone doesn’t stop it from being abuse; perpetrators of domestic abuse sometimes believe they love their victims so are a prime example of this. The link between corporal punishments in children and an improvement their long term behaviour has never been made. In fact, a recent study has shown the opposite. While all children can act out in public, my parents never used any form of corporal punishment on me, this hasn’t made me a bad person. It also never made us act out in public. In my childhood, I knew children whose parents used corporal punishment on them but behaved worse than me in public. The negative impacts of corporal punishment overweight the potential benefits of corporal punishment in children. There have been many studies which show that the negative effects of corporal punishment on children which disagree with your views. Notably, children who experienced parental corporal punishment are more likely to have antisocial behaviour and anxiety/depression than other children. The results of these studies are robust. Additionally, they have showed that children who experienced corporal punishment, similarly to those expeienced by child abuse victims.This impacts were outlined by Gershoff (sources in comments).
Is There Really a God? Part 1

God - an Eternal, Uncreated Being? In our everyday experience, Just about everything seems to have a beginning. In fact, The laws of science show that even things which look the same through our lifetime, Such as the sun and other stars, Are, In reality, Running down. The sun is using up its fuel at millions of tons each second - since the sun cannot last forever, It had to have a beginning. . The same can be shown to be true for the entire universe. So when Christians claim that the God of the Bible created all the basic entities of life and the universe, Some will ask what seem to be a logical question: "Who created God? "
The Killer Rabbit of Caerbannog is deadlier than the Black Beast of Caerbannogg.

The Killer Rabbit maybe able to suffer from a hear attack but IT DID NOT! Paper may not be able to have a heart attack, but its animator can, thereby causing the paper itself to end. A rabbit may die from a bullet wound, but bullets did not exist in the middle ages (explosives had been created). The paper would cease to exist because its animator is in the 20th century which did have bullets. The beast is dependent on the existence of its animator and therefore it is less deadly. WHICHEVER BEAST DIES FIRST IS OBVIOUSLY LESS DEADLY! So think before you rebut.
The Killer Rabbit of Caerbannog is deadlier than the Black Beast of Caerbannogg.

The sport of throwing holy hand grenades is popular in Swaziland . no matter how the beasts or rabbits are killed they both die. The killer rabbit is more likely to suffer from a heart attack as it is living and not paper. Paper can not have a heart attack but a living creature can. If you shoot a rabbit anywhere it will eventually die. If you shoot paper it will get a hole but not die(even if you shoot it's head off. Therefore the beast IS more deadly. Plus we are having a debate o who is the most deadly. SO WHY HAVE YOU RAISED WHO WOULD DIE FIRST?
That Hoppe's argumentation ethics is a justified theory of rights

Since R1 is for acceptance and clarification only. I'll start by saying, I accept this debate (obviously since I hit the "accept debate" button), and I'll clarify that I intend to argue that the NAP (or NAA, though the same thing), complete self-ownership, and/or the existence of private property are not necessarily presupposed in argumentation. And if they are not presuppsed, then they cannot assume to be just. Since no arguing is to be done in R1, I'll pass to my opponent for his opening argument in R2.
That Hoppe's argumentation ethics is a justified theory of rights

Rules/ Clarifications1. Drops will count as concessions.2. Semantic or abusive arguments will not be counted.3. Burden of proof will be shared.4. New arguments brought in the last round will not be counted.5. R1 is for acceptance and clarifications. Argumentation begins in R2.DefinitionsArgumentation ethics is "a form of discourse ethics that attempts to establish normative or ethical truths by examining the presuppositions of discourse"[1]Hoppe's version in particular argues "that an individual cannot consistently logically deny, in the course of argumentation, any of those things which the argument, or discourse, presupposes".[1]In Hoppe's argumentation ethics, he argues that the three things necessarily presupposed are the non-aggression axiom, complete self-ownership, and the existence of private property.Non-aggression axiom: an ethical stance which asserts that "aggression" is inherently illegitimate. "Aggression" is defined as the "initiation" of physical force against persons or property, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property.[2]Self ownership: the concept of property in one's own person, expressed as the moral or natural right of a person to be the exclusive controller of his own body and life.[3]Private property: the right of persons and firms to obtain, own, control, employ, dispose of, and bequeath land, capital, and other forms of property.[4]Justified: To demonstrate or prove to be just, right, or valid[5][1] http://wiki.mises.org...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...[5] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Golden Goose Sneakers that your

Curry's a casserole, casserole's a curry. In a hurry on the move Golden Goose Grease multi-purpose application, applicator not needed, just add. In the closet out the closet Marilyn or Mary Lynn, maybe. I asked the women out shoe shopping if they needed the extra space, responses were mixed. Curry mix, casserole mix in a fix, fix fax foo, three way interpretation simply said. Different sneakers, sneaky sneakers, leather all weather. Goats, sheep and cows flowing through the air, long shadows perhaps moon dark symmetry over sized, undersized ask Tina. I don't think it's definite. Hash up, mash up, canned music, tinned casserole. There's a buzz about the relationship down the avenue, well said. Music is good and integrated. New jersey, old jersey match that jersey for a retro look or power dress, CEO impress. Be suggestive if you like but it's all about the company you keep. Dance shoe, prance shoe three way cushioning, kish kush koo. Got the moves in the grooves. Coupled with jewellery, wrist, neck, more intimate. More intimate top drawer accessories, flat surface, watch out for those sticky deposits, let's keep it clean. very prominent in the groove, very smooth. Syrup sponge. Soft rain, absorbent layers Golden Goose Grease protection, just apply with a soft brush. Sponge on the plate not the shoe, sticky syrup interface sole adhesion. I'm content to be moderate and reserved. Tasty fruit preserve, three way jim jam joo, sponge excitement. He's a warrior no doubt. A warrior not a worrier. In a hurry or privileged necessity. it wasn't a detrimental experience a nine point experience. just the ticket, sticky wicket in the thick of it, three way adaptations. Bears hover with a relative average above or below a 15% to !8% territory. In good company it's likeable. The bears struggled to maintain the trend in December though, trend bend mend, three way Ursine initiative. What a day to hang out though! Everyday, sporty day, casual day, sporty active casual day, it's not rocket science. Sneaky women are often regarded as masculine with their broad shouldered look, but branded feminine. Feminine dryness, Golden Goose Grease application, applicator supplied. Upward maintenance is paramount. (a) (b) and (c), three way alphabetical order, sneaky women, cheeky women lubricated confidence.
Fallacy Debate: Marijuana should be smoked regularly by adults in the United States.

My opponent is only trying to convince you to fall into is oh-so-devious trap. He has not denied that he is only advocating the use of marijuana in order to enslave the world's population for his own greedy, tyrannical gain. Therefore, it must be true! My copy of the Bible is not as old as my opponent. Therefore, you would be more of a fool to believe my opponent than to believe the Bible. Only druggies smoke marijuana and druggies are idiots, because I know one druggy, and he's an idiot. Don't be an idiot. Don't smoke marijuana. My opponent is arguing against a law that has been in place for longer than you can remember. How dare he! My opponent argues that marijuana gives rights, even though he plans to use marijuana to strip every human being of every right he or she has ever known! Notice how I acknowledge women, and women's rights. That means that I am a great, fair person, and you should listen to me. If you smoke marijuana, you will surely die. If you smoke marijuana, your family name will rot into pieces. My opponent is an atheist, and yet he claims that he talked to God. He contradicts himself. Therefore, all things he says must contradict reality. I don't smoke marijuana, and I am smarter than a person who does smoke marijuana. Therefore, smoking marijuana makes you dumb. Don't be dumb. My opponent lies again. There was one man who never died, and never smoked marijuana. If you smoke marijuana, you guarantee your own death, as the only man who escaped death did not smoke marijuana. Marijuana is different in that it sounds funnier and more stupid than other drugs. Don't smoke marijuana. Smoke Advil. At least it sounds cool. My opponent is a blabber-mouth, and all things he says are therefore false. I just read Fermat's Last Theorem. However, my opponent forgot to translate "io," which means "not" in Fermatish. It clearly proves that marijuana must never be smoked. My opponent has set himself up for failure. You're not supposed to believe failures, because they fail. My opponent cites a correlation, but he is wrong. The correlation is between marijuana and loss of all control over your freedom. I would like to remind everybody that my opponent is an evil tyrant, who plans to use marijuana to enslave every man, woman, and child on this Earth. Smoking marijuana is only furthering his conquest for evil. Smoking marijuana would be like robbing your best friend. My opponent wants to strip you of everything you possess. Don't let him do this! Notice how my opponent makes no response to what I say here. Therefore, my opponent has obviously conceded, as he can think of no possible way to refute my points, because there is no way. Don't vote for the loser. Only losers vote for the loser. Vote for the victor.
Fallacy Debate: Marijuana should be smoked regularly by adults in the United States.

The Bible is such an old book. It is not to be trusted. Only an utter fool would believe it. Are you a fool? I thought not. No man would refuse to smoke marijuana unless he was too rich to know that it's good for him. If marijuana is made illegal, it will cause a chain reaction leading to the destruction of all life as we know it! Don't you understand? If marijuana is made illegal, freedoms will be restricted. The children of America need their freedoms! Why would you rob such a thing from the poor, helpless children? But on the other hand, if you smoke marijuana every day, you will free the children from their burdens. You will be the most honored person in the world. But if you do not, you will surely die. I said that my opponent believes in a talking snake. Just one. But NO snake can talk, since I've never even seen one. God told me that he does double tests sometimes. Therefore, God only placed marijuana on earth to test the people who think they are being tested. The real test is to smoke it. Sort of like sex. Marijuana is a lot like sex: it's tons of fun and has great practical results. But let's stop talking about God. No one can even DEFINE God, for God's sake. Hitler didn't smoke marijuana. Hitler killed people. It is clear that all murderers also do not smoke marijuana and all people who do not smoke marijuana are murderers. Haven't you seen all those people on the news who murder people and don't smoke marijuana? Global warming stopped in 1998. This is God's way of saying that we should smoke marijuana. 100% of people who do not smoke marijuana eventually DIE. It is a terrible fate that they reach. Only through marijuana can we be liberated. Some drugs have negative consequences, but marijuana is different. Marijuana is great. Everyone knows it. There is no use denying it. If you deny it, that makes you an undead monkey. You don't want to be an undead monkey. Why does happiness exist? Marijuana! What makes the grass green? Marijuana! These are objective observations; my opponent's subjective ramblings should be ignored. Read the proof for Fermat's Last Theorem. It clearly proves that marijuana should be smoked regularly. My opponent must not only negate the resolution, but he must also disprove Fermat's Last Theorem in order for him to receive the vote. Notice that my opponent can be directly quoted to have said "smoke marijuana. " Even he advocates for my case. I ask my opponent: When you rejected all morality, were you smoking marijuana? I didn't think so. I remind the reader of the correlation between marijuana and utter bliss. My opponent has not made any arguments contrary to my position (actually he's helped my case). Since there is no contrary evidence, I am the obvious victor. My opponent advocates suffering and pain. I advocate happiness and glory. The choice is clear.
Fallacy Debate: Marijuana should be smoked regularly by adults in the United States.

My opponent makes a case against the Bible. That is because he is an evil, immoral atheist. Don't listen to him. He obviously has no morals, and will make you do bad things. Listening to an atheist is like burning down your town! Obama is obviously always right. My opponent's lack of faith in Obama is clearly an example of his immorality and insanity. Obama has delivered, yet he denies it. Fool! My opponent dares to cite the law, when the law states that marijuana is a criminal offense. Why? Because it makes you evil, which is bad. You don't want to be evil! If you listen to my opponent, you must first believe that you are a monkey. And you are not a monkey! People love marijuana, but not for the reason my opponent claims. No, people love it because the people who smoke marijuana become idiots for them to laugh at. Don't be one of the idiots for the people to laugh at! My opponent sources scientists, but everyone knows that scientists are all evil, immoral atheists, who use their power to make you do what benefits THEM, at the expense of YOURSELF! Don't fall into their trap! Don't! They'll bite your head off! My opponent claims that God supports marijuana, when he is in fact against it. God only placed marijuana on this Earth to test people's ability to resist temptation of evil. Don't fail God's test! You will suffer eternally if you do! My opponent thinks that I think that there are talking snakes. That is preposterous! There was only one talking snake, ever, and his name was Satan. My opponent's misinterpretation of my case shows how unreliable he is. Marijuana is bad. The idea is not outdated. It recently came back in style! The lack of my opponent's knowledge of recent events only furthers the fact that we must not listen to what he says! Look at how my opponent tempts you with marijuana! He claims paradise, but he hides the true fact: if you smoke marijuana, you become his slave! Floro Sprouts [1], in fact, are made of marijuana! And if we all become his slaves, he will have us do work so terrible, nobody dares to speak of it! He calls marijuana a tradition, but that is false, because... I have green hair! My opponent is completely clueless as to marijuana's history. The Africans did not discover it! They planted it and let the Europeans take it away, hoping that someday, the Europeans would smoke it intensely, only to die in revenge. Don't fall for their evil scheme! I know that the little voice in your head is telling you not to smoke marijuana. Listen to it, for it is wise! My opponent has ultimately demonstrated nothing but his own cluelessness and unreliability. He cannot be trusted. He is crazy. Voting for him would be betraying your family's honor, and your great-grandfather does not wish for you to do that. Don't! Your only hope to save yourself is to vote CON. There is no other way to save those poor, innocent hostages in Iraq! 1. http://www.mariowiki.com...
Fallacy Debate: Marijuana should be smoked regularly by adults in the United States.

Remember not to vote for my opponent. He is but a Bible thumper. If he believes the Bible is true with no evidence, how can he possibly make a case against marijuana? He will continue to fail to use evidence. My opponent's case lacks fluidity. Would you vote for such a person? Of course not! In fact, all of his reasons actually argue FOR the resolution. Obama, for example, is never right. He promised hope and change. But since he has failed to deliver, he clearly never will. Do not place stock in our president. Marijuana is great, and everyone knows it. There is no use trying to hide from the truth. My opponent would have you run away from the cold hard facts; the law dictates that we learn the truth about marijuana. So listen to me. Listen to me and you will enter a euphoric paradise filled with puppies and dancing. Why is marijuana so great? Well, people love it! Everyone knows that marijuana is great, so they all try their best to fall into a deep loving relationship with marijuana. Let me demonstrate an amazing statistic for you. It has been proven by hardworking scientists that increase in marijuana usage leads to decrease in poverty worldwide (. http://www.ted.com...). This alone is enough reason to smoke marijuana on a regular basis. God is an amazing being. He thinks that you are a great and wonderful person. But if you do not smoke marijuana like He demands, He will eternally punish you. So it is vital for your sake that you smoke marijuana daily. Now let's examine my opponent's case. He has a clear motive: he wants to preach the Bible to you! That is his sole purpose! Do not be swayed by this irrational investment. My opponent actually believes that there are talking snakes. How silly! Would you listen to such a person? Of course not. Richard Dawkins never would, and he is an expert on life. The idea that marijuana is bad is an old and outdated one. Get with the times: join my side. All wealthy people know that marijuana has healing powers. Come to think of it, so do all poor people. You, the middle class, must join them. Smoking marijuana is a long and glorious tradition. People have been doing it for generations, and they all know the wonderful benefits. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we all lived is a magical paradise all the time? And what if marijuana could achieve this paradise? Let us look at the origin of the belief that marijuana is harmful. It related to the slavery of the Africans. The Africans discovered marijuana, and the Europeans wanted to cast down the Africans by casting down marijuana. They spread the idea that marijuana is harmful and wrong. But in fact, it is a symbol of liberation. You may realize that Con's case really comes down to "vote Pro! " So no matter which side you agree with, vote for me.