BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is God complicit in the sexual abuse of children

As title says IS GOD COMPLICIT IN THE SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILDREN well not bothering to quote bible verses (there are many) but a summary God is all knowing He knows what is going to happen to you He knows what you are going to do So if a child is sexually abused by a religious person (minister for eg) God knew this was going to happen God knows the person planned this God could of stopped it from happening but chose not to. God knows the effect this would have on the child so yes Lets now Indict Him and charge Him (If a parent acted this way we would remove the child from their care/charge them/find them guilty/and send the sucker to jail.... SO OFF TO JAIL YOU GO, GOD GOOD BYE Also there is a legal precedent wilful ignorance.... where a person in charge of an organisation is negligent is exercising a reasonable level of control to ensure compliance with state federal statutes/laws/regulations etc.
Technology is hindering American work ethic

In my final round I would like to say that the challenger said that the kids would have to their homework later or fail the class, that's my point because they put it off until the last minute and the make up answers. I would like to say that the challenge agrees with phones being confiscated with the way he answered my 2nd question. In my first speech I said to fix this problem parents/employers must confiscate phones so they kids/employees can stay on task. So I believe that flows to my side. While some technology does help with learning, I believe that sometimes kids play games. I know that was not clear so here's an example. In my English class the room is very comfortable. We use chrome books to do everything because the teacher is pretty much paperless. While the teacher is talking or we're suppose to be typing a paper or doing a English lesson kids are playing games.To wrap this up I would like to thank my opponent for debating me on my first finished debate on here and it's been a good time. So, again thanks.
Technology is hindering American work ethic

No i do not have a source but i used past experiences and common sence. 3rd question I think people play games on their phones because most of my classmates and friends are waiting to do homework the next day or at the last minute before school. 4th questions yes people can take 10 minute breaks but my point is some people take longer breaks than necessary Last question it is just consfiscating like you are being grounded not stealing. I look forward to my opponent's answers
Technology is hindering American work ethic

my questions are: 1. Do you have actual sources 2. If so will you please share them 3. What makes you think people will be playing video games on their phone? 4. If people need a break should they be allowed to play video games for 10 minutes? 5. If you take property from someone is that not stealing therefore breaking a law? hope to answer your questions soon and see the answers I need.
Technology is hindering American work ethic

intro: My cell phone is my best friend. It's my lifeline to the outside world. Carrie Underwood 1. Why children need cell phone. Some of the best reasons come from a news report in the link below. http://ireport.cnn.com... 2. How these phones and electronics help the classroom. Read the story on the link below. http://www.usatoday.com... 3. How lawyers see it. You know what to do. http://education-law.lawyers.com... conclusion: cell phones help and are needed. Please side with me!
Technology is hindering American work ethic

1. American work ethic is being hindered. Kids are playing on their phones or other tech. devices when they should be doing their homework. Adults are also being hindered by tech. Adults are not on task when they are playing games, causing projects to be late. 2. To solve the kids problem parents should limit their screen time to make the kids do homework. Finished homework= better grades. To solve the adults problem the company should filter sites they can be on and take away their phones when the workers come, and return the phones after the workers leave.
Technology is hindering American work ethic

I will be arguing that technology is hindering American work ethic. Which means people are spending to much time playing games when they should be doing something productive. Definitions: if a definition is asked for then give it to them in the comment section. Rules: Rules: 1. ) Round One is for acceptance 2. ) A forfeit of concession will not be allowed 3. ) All arguments and sources shall be posted in the round. If challenger does not have enough characters, send them in a outside link. 4. ) Debate resolution, definitions, and rules can not be changed. 5. ) Only 10 cross x questions allowed for both sides. 6. ) optional must give clear road map and go in that order.
Libertarian socialism is not an oxymoron

Pro is arguing that the above statement is true, thus con is arguing that libertarian socialism is an oxymoron. Since this debate is a debate over semantics, no definitions of "libertarian" or "socialism" will be provided or agreed upon in my first round. Instead, we will be arguing why your own definition of the terms "libertarian" and "socialism" are more valid than your opponent's definition. We will, however, agree upon a definition for "oxymoron". I present this definition of oxymoron:" a figure of speech in which two opposite ideas are joined to create an effect."[1]My opponent should not accept this debate unless they agree to this definition, or else offer a different definition in comments, in which I can possibly agree to if I choose and I will replace this definition with that one. Rules:1) Con may begin their arguments in round 1 if they so choose to. However, if they choose to do this, they must waive round 4 in order to give both sides an equal amount of arguments, since I am not using round 1 for debate. If they don't begin their argument in round 1, obviously they don't need to waive round 4. 2) No new arguments should be presented in the last round of debate(probably round 4, but if con uses round 1 for debate, then it would be round 3 for them, but round 4 for me)3) Ad hominem attacks, or personal attacks/insults will be a violation of conduct. Definition of ad hominem can be found in my second source [2]If any of the above rules are violated by either side, voters should award the point for conduct to the debator who did not violate any rule. If the above rules are (not) violated equally by both sides, conduct should be a tie; if both sides violate them, but one side does so less than the other, the one who did so less should be awarded the point for conduct.Sources:[1] http://literarydevices.net... [2] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...
The Role of the USSR in Defeating the Axis Powers was Just as Great as that of the United States

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) provided many great advantages to the allied war effort. In fact the USSR lost the largest number of military fatalities by any single nation in the Second World War. The sacrifice of those men and many civilian casualties can not be ignored but the political leadership, primarily Joseph Stalin, produced a system that complicated the Geo-political response, gave Hitler a green light to invade Poland, and left the Soviet Union in a constant defensive position during the vast majority of the war. For the simple reasons that Stalin engaged in Appeasement of Hitler and failed to estimate German strength when planning for the Soviet Defense, Stalin"s actions diminished the Soviet impact on the allied war effort. Soviet Appeasement Emboldened Hitler: In August 1939 being more occupied with the expansion of the Soviet sphere of influence Stalin ordered the USSR into a pact with Nazi Germany over the annexation of Poland. Stalin went so far as to encourage trade between the USSR and Nazi Germany in effect making the British blockade an impotent tool of war. Stalin repressed anti-Nazi uprisings in Soviet controlled territory suppressing the chance of an over throw of the Nazi regime in these areas. Stalin failed to estimate the threat Hitler posed to the Soviet Union: By 1941 Soviet Generals could see the handwriting on the wall and repeatedly warn Stalin of a potential invasion by Germany. Stalin ignored those warnings and failed to move troops to the border in a defensive position. This was further complicated after the invasion by Germany that it took Stalin until mid 1942 to get serious about defenses of the Soviet Union. The fact the Nazis made it to within 30 kilometres of the Kremlin defies imagination. It is sad so many Soviet"s had to give their life because of two major flaws in the Stalin"s prosecution of the war.
The Role of the USSR in Defeating the Axis Powers was Just as Great as that of the United States

I will be arguing that the Soviet Union did just as much to defeat the Axis Powers as the United States did. My opponent will have to show how the role of the United States in WWII was greater than that of the USSR.Axis Powers: Germany, Italy, Japan, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Finland, Vichy France, Thailand, Iraq, Croatia, Slovakia, Albania, Manchukuo, China-Nanjing, Mengjiang, Burma, etc. Some of the axis powers that I listed above were puppet states and Co-belligerents. All of the axis powers are shown here:http://en.wikipedia.org...Structure:Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Arguments onlyRound 3: Arguments/rebuttalsRound 4: Arguments/rebuttalsRound 5: Arguments/rebuttals/conclusionThis will be a tough debate and I don't know if anybody will be willing to accept it. Anyway, lets begin.
unfair advantage in debating

"That doesn't make it any less of a disadvantage."My opponent didn't refute the fact that someone must speak last, he is just complaining because he lost all the debates he instigated, this disadvantage is NOT from the DDO system, but his own arguments and probably the voter's ignorance."consider a court system in which the jury is told that if they acquit the defendant they will be awarded a million $. Would you say that the system is fair its just the jury which is unfair, obviously no."Actually, if the jury has been told that, it would be a mistrial, but if the circumstances say that the judge didn't no but the jury aquitted, then the jury IS unfair.And the blue thingy analogy, I don't get and has no relation to this whatsoever."I hope I have cleared things up."Actually no, but I still refuted them in the previous rounds."To repeat the 3 reasons which are now the corner stone with the other points of my debate are as follows:"Refuted, refuted, refuted.I urge the voters to VOTE CON, because we all know, that DDO and its debating system is as fair as it can be, it gives the debaters equal speech and so on. Please consider some of my arguments in the previous roundsThank you.
Abortion is murder

I'm only "admitting" that as the law is currently, technically you can't define abortion as murder. However this is only due to the fact that abortion is currently legal. If it was illegal there would be no doubt in defining it as murder. I do find that this whole argument for why you can't call abortion murder wierd, but it's in the way that the word "murder" is defined. However I still believe that abortion is wrong, becuase it's killing a future human being, even if I can't directly call it a murder. There is a difference between what a womans body naturally select to do, and the act of choosing to interfere in a pregnancy. This is where the killing part happens. It's like dying a natural death, instead of being killed by another person. For adults there is too a difference between dying from old age and getting shot by someone else. You're saying something about why mothers who want to sacrifice their child should be able to do so. My short answer to this is that sometimes we as a society have to make certain choses in order to protect those who are weaker than most and those who do not have the voice to speak for themselves. Where would our society be if we didn't once in a while make decisions to protect these people? Just because they are smaller and more dependant on other people taking care of them dosen't mean we can just get rid of them, even when they are seemed as unwanted. You don't just get rid of a child that have already been born, why should you get rid of a child in development.
Abortion is murder

So you're admitting that abortion is not a murder. I don't know if that's a win or not for me but you're agreeing with the pro of the title. However, I'd still debate your other statements. Embryo is a potential human. However about 10 to 20 percents of embryo ends in miscarriage. Every human was once an embryo but not every embryo is going to be a human. Just like an unfertilized egg is. Unfertilized egg is a potential human. It is in fact a potential embryo which indirectly makes it a potential human. Yes, unfertilized egg has less chances of being a human than an embryo but they are both potential human. It's like saying that A has a sin of lying, B has a sin of murdering, yet A does not sin while B does. They both "have sins" even though A is more acceptable than B. Of course, women could not have a choose with their menstruation and it happens naturally. But sometimes, so do embryos. I know that sex is intended or does not happen naturally but what about all the teenage girls who gets pregnant because they were raped? What about girls who have to sold theirselves to become sex slaves and get pregnant? It's not something that they wanted. "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." Everyone. Of course. Every human or post/potential human. Just like the unfertilized eggs, sperms and all embryos. We could never make everyone happy, you know? Besides, it is up to the mother anyway right? If the teen mom wants to sacrifice her child so she could have a second chance, why not? Let's say a 15 years old got pregnant and aborted her child. Why would it be wrong? Imagine being in the child's place. He/she might have to be raised without a father, most likely to be in a poor condition, possibly to be disowned by his/her mom's family, being called out as "love child", etc. Don't you think it's too much? It also sacrifices the mother's future and dreams. Do you really think sacrificing all these for a life of a child who might end up hating herself/himself? Like comegys59's comment said, a girl's life worth more than a potential human's life. It is also a woman's right to decide things like having her own stomach as a 9-month-home of a love child that could sacrifice her own future and whole life. Anyway, thank you for the link. However it said that after 20 weeks old unborn babies can feel pain. That means around 5 months old. Reminder that abortion is illegal to several states in the US when performed after 18 weeks old. Average abortions are performed during 6 weeks old which mean less pain and consciousness for the unborn. Also, it might be unnecessary for us but what about for the teen moms? Necessity is relative. Remember, any woman would be happy to bear a child of her own IF it's the right time and does not destroy her future and all of that. I remind you that it is the woman's right to do so. Note: I apologize that I do not have links to these informations because you can just google it and it will pop right up.
Abortion is murder

It seems a bit backwards that abortion can"t be classified as murder, by the simple reason that it"s not currently illegal. An embryo is an early stage in the development of a newborn, and it should count as a human being right after conception. It"s from this stage and on that the human-to-be begins to develop, and that"s why you can"t say that all women murder a post-human, an unfertilized egg would never develop into a human. And besides that, it"s not like women have a chose about their menstruation, it just happens naturally. Obviously abortion too is not murder, if it happens as a miscarriage or spontaneous abortion, since this is the way our species get natural selection around the unborn. You"re talking about getting second chances. I want to clarify that I"m not against this statement, and believe that people should be able to get second chances in society. However we have to still take care of those who can"t defend themselves. Article 3 in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights state that "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person" this means that we should always preserve the life and security of a human being, even if it means that we cannot give that "second chance" to teenage girls to maintain their earlier lifestyle. This is also extends to the poor family example. The right to life is still stronger than not having to grow up in a poor family. Even if there might be more problems than in a less poor environment, and even if they have to fight through some of the limits that poverty will give, there"s no doubt that it will most likely not be a life of purely sad memories. Being poor doesn"t mean that your life is worth less than others. Lastly I noticed that pro came with the argument about whether or not embryos feel pain during an abortion. As a matter of fact it appears as if they do (1). And yes it"s true that no one would be able to remember what happened to them during that time of their life. Even less would remember the feeling of getting aborted, well obviously, since they died during this process. But even if a child would not be able to remember anything all the way to 3-4 years, does not justify us as grownups to expose these innocent children for unnecessary pain. (1) http://www.mccl.org...
Abortion is murder

Hello. I accept this challenge and I wish you a good luck, Con. I am going to be the pro abortion of this debate. However, please note that I am doing this logically but not emotionally or maybe even morally. But here goes nothing. First of all, I'd like to say that abortion is not a murder. The definition of a murder is to illegally kill a human being on purpose. However, embryos are not a human being. It is a post-human being. It is a developed post-human cells. So technically it is not a murder. Besides if you count an embryo as a human. Then that makes all women a murderer. Why so? Because each time we have a menstruation, it means we're killing a post-human cell that could actually be a human. Next, I have an opinion that abortion is useful. Surely people aborts their child for a reason. Sometimes female teenagers get pregnant, dumped by the father and ruin their lives. Yes, it's the consequences that they had to face because they had sex but I am a big believer of second chances. I believe that all of us make mistakes. No matter how small or big it is. Therefore, a female teenager, no matter how bitchy she can be, she should have a second chance by getting an abortion. Abortion can also be useful for poor people. Sometimes, even married couples had to abort their going-to-be child because economical problems. I think that is reasonable because it's better to remove the embryo before it is born and have to face with being poor and struggling with life. This goes to the female teenagers too. If an underaged couple had to quit school, raised a child together and built a family, it would be a total chaos. They would fight a lot and maybe even get abusive. The innocent child does not have to go through that if they aborted him/her. I noticed that Con also said that embryo feels real psychological and physical pain. Embrios might feel it, no one actually really knows that for sure, but does the embryo remember it? No, it does not. People usually started to remember after the age of 3 or 4. I doubt that a one month child can remember anything, let alone an embryo. Therefore we do not actually harm them because they don't remember it. It's like breaking someone's heart but they never thought we did. Maybe it's not right to do so but it is the mother's right after all because if she didn't want to abort him then surely she wouldn't even consider it. Therefore, my conclusion is just because people thinks abortion is cruel and is considered as a murder, it doesn't mean it's a crime. You might be saying that killing a going-to-be human is a crime but does it go the same with animals and/or plants? Just because we're on top of the food chains, doesn't mean we don't get a natural selection. You either have to ruin their life or let them ruin yours.
Abortion is murder

This is a debate about whether or not abortion should be legal. I will be arguing con abortion, and my opponent will be arguing pro. We are taught that killing other people is wrong, also when they are smaller and weaker than us or more dependent on others. Yet still a lot of people think that abortion is alright. Abortion is killing another human, and as if that"s not bad enough in itself it"s killing an innocent life that has no way of defending itself. But of course, that is only true, depending on when life starts; at birth, or at conception. We are not certain on this matter, but one thing is certain, at some point the embryo get too developed, and we can call that a person. Already at the +8th week the embryo feels real pain, both psychological and physical pain. Just like a toddler, embryos are still a human being, a smaller and way more dependent human being, but none the less still a human being. This is a difference in degree and not kind. Therefor is abortion murder, and should be illegal.
Radical Life Extension technology is worth pursuing.

" you stated in your paragraph about afterlife that we could not become invincible. " ". .. .. .we do not know that. " We don't know anything about the future, let's not get ridiculous in our speculations though. Even if invincibility became a possibility, it's unlikely that it would be forced on people. The only people missing an afterlife in your scenario would be people who didn't believe one exists. " The reality is this procedure wouldn't cure any kind of illness " What procedure? Radical life extension technologies would obviously be a convergence of several different technologies that push back life expectancy a little here and a little there, and when all of it comes together has a huge impact. I've already mentioned the radical life extension that has occurred since the year 1900, which can be attributed to probably over 100 things. Radical life extension would likely benefit the sick and the healthy alike. Better medicine will help us push back our sick years and preventive medicine such as vaccines will prevent many sicknesses. " This will be expensive " Why are you assuming low supply and high demand. I've already explained why this wouldn't be the case. You can't assume because something is high demand it will be low supply. Or because it's low supply it will be high demand. Even if the costs are high so what. At least some people would be able to live longer and some are better then none. If you look at my opponents last paragraph in the previous round you will see she is now a proponent of radical life extension. She points out that we will learn more about nutrition and it will allow us to add several years to our life. She points out that this knowledge ( technology ) is a good thing. Con has conceded the debate.