BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Spanking

I'm pro- spanking. As a seventeen-year-old girl in the "kids these days" generation I have seen the effects first-hand on what can happen when a kid is raised in a household that is lacking proper discipline. Granted some kids will never need a pat on the behind ,which is exactly what I'm talking about no bruises or welts involved, most adolescents will require it some time in their childhood. When from a loving parent who will punish not out of anger, but for their kid's well being. A spanking is hardly abuse. I'm looking for someone with well-supported arguments to prove me wrong.
Robots Will Take Over The World

2nd Round Opening Argument Hello and welcome to the 2nd round of this debate. The topic is that Robots, mechanical machines made by humans Will Take Over The World, destroy all human beings and live on Earth by themselves. i the negative speaker believes hat this is a pathetic idea that is not likely to happen and for good reasons too. however it is up to humanity whether or not this will happen. Imagine a future that is very technologically advanced and seeing in today's society we already are starting to make robots that can walk talk and do anything a human being can do. Robots in the future will be much more advanced. By this stage of time they may look like humans, talk like humans and even be able to act like humans but one thing I should expect of these people that live in this futuristic time is to know how to control their robots. If we in the future give our robots the right to think this could result in a number of things. 1. Robots may see the world or how it is and in the blink of an eye figure out what they can do to fix it and do you know what that answer is going to be. Rid the earth of all humans. This is because we as human beings are pests, we kill each other, start wars, harvest the earth for it's many foods and minerals. Technically are destroying the Earth. Now this may seem that i am vouching for the Pro side now but i assure you i am not. The only reason why this is not going to happen is because that the builders of the robots need to make sure that we do not give them free will or the ability to free think. This is when a complication of this ramification will take place. So it is our responsibility as humanity that this situation does not take place in years to come.
Should students have to retake dropped classes.

While it is true that motivation is not the only reason and we all know that no one wants a doctor that is uneducated, we must also realize that the people who do fail classes because they werent motivated know what the teacher is asking of them and know the answers but they dont want to do the work. Most of the students that fail from motivation know all there is to know so they will have a better chance of making it to college and getting there minds set, but the students that fail because they werent prepared don't know all there is to know. They may try but if you arent strong in the subject you arent going to do very good in the future compared to a person who failed the class because they knew the subject well but didnt do the work. So if the students did not have to retake the class then the ones that knew the subject obviously have a way better chance than the ones who do not and werent prepared. Plus a sergeon with only 50% test scores could come from anyone. Even the best prepared and most likely to pass can fail too. It is biased that only the non-prepared students are the ones that fail when anyone can fail. While it may be true that there are more people that did not try and fail to the amount of students that try and fail, but it must also be recognised that everyone can fail depending on many variables like how the teacher teaches may be unfamiliar to you or you do not understand his instruction. Maybe they do not understand the homework or the tests. And what do the people that try hard and fail get. They get a one way ticket to repeating the class when they were trying hard. If the dropped classes were not mandatory to be repeated then the people that try hard and fail will move up just like the people that do not try hard but know the subject.
Should students have to retake dropped classes.

I will maintain the stance that students should have to retake classes to move on. Lack of motivation does not give a student a free pass to go through the classes. This will encourage the rising generation to be lazy and not want to work hard because they know they can go up through the classes no matter how hard they work or how well they know the material. This logic does not make any sense. Do you want a doctor to treat you who cheated on his medical exams? Do you want a surgeon to perform surgery on you that only has a 50% success rate? Education is a privilege. It is something that you must work at to receive. Although my opponent's source says some (only 35%) of students fail classes because of lack of motivation, it must be pointed out that the reasons for failing classes vary widely. Just because some students fail classes because of lack of motivation does not mean all do. My opponent is advocating for all students to have a free pass while at the same time believes students should not have to retake a class if they already know all there is to know about it. According to the source, 12% of students fail classes because of academic unpreparedness, so does this mean that these students should get a free pass too? According to my opponent's resolution, which is to lift passing restrictions, yes.Being academically prepared is not the only element to having success in life, just as it should not be the only element to passing classes. Motivation, study habits, and responsibility are all part of the equation. If students are not taught to be responsible and be motivated as well as be academically prepared, we will have an upcoming lazy generation as I mentioned earlier. Also, it is impossible to tell of students do or do not know the material if they don't pass their tests. The teachers won't say "well, we'll just assume they know the material anyway and pass them on" and think that the real reason students are failings is that they aren't motivated rather than not knowing the material.My opponent states that "Students just need to be more focused on learning and not procrastinate when it comes to doing work." I agree, but students are going to be much less focused and will procrastinate more if they find that they don't have to retake dropped classes to pass them."I would know because I had the same problem." If you are lazy than that is your fault. Only you can change that, and only you can determine your success.
Should students have to retake dropped classes.

Students should not have to retake dropped classes. If they failed math class and had to retake it then they would just be repeating what they already learned before. According to http://cop.hlcommission.org... the main reason why students are failing classes is lack of motivation. Because of this lack of motivation students tend to procrastinate about homework and then the end up failing tests and eventually the whole class term. I believe that students should not have to retake a class if they already know all there is to know about it. Students just need to be more focused on learning and not procrastinate when it comes to doing work. I would know because I had the same problem. And I bet most everybody else had this problem too.
Should students have to retake dropped classes.

"We must also realize that the people who do fail classes because they weren't motivated know what the teacher is asking of them and know the answers but they don't want to do the work." Actually, we don't know if the un-motivated students know the answers. The only way to know that would be to check their test scores, which would be low regardless because the students just don't care enough. If these students really don't care about getting high scores, then why should they pass the class and move on to college? Why should colleges accept them knowing these students really don't care about education? These students probably won't even apply for college because of their lack of motivation.Having an lazy student retake the class could help them regain their motivation. They know they don't want to be stuck retaking that class forever, so their desire to move on grows until they learn to do the work and put the effort into the class. My opponent is assuming that students who skip class retakes and move on will get better, but in reality this is not the case. Having the student retake the class is the most of efficient way of gaining back their inclination to succeed."Even the best prepared and most likely to mass can fail too." Yes, but what of use are these students if they have no desire to put their knowledge to the test? Knowledge is pointless if it is never used. No matter how smart someone is, they are of no use to society if they refuse to use their knowledge in an effective way.My opponent is now using "students who just aren't smart enough" as his argument. Students who do not know the material should not be allowed to move on because having knowledge and applying it is a requirement for not just school but for society. Let's say a student tries hard in high school but does not get high enough scores on tests to pass the class, so he drops the class. Then, a "no class retake" advocate such as my opponent comes along and establishes a rule that allows all students who have failed to move on. This student moves on to medical school and again gets bad grades, but is allowed again to move on. This graduate student receives a job as an uneducated surgeon and begins to perform surgery on people, but has a pretty low success rate because of his lack of knowledge. This creates a problem in society: jobs are given to the people who don't do well. This "everybody is a winner" philosophy doesn't work.
If developed, a pre-natal cure for homosexuality would be desirable

Thanks for the prompt response! I'm in two other debates and I daresay this will be finished first. Questions 1) In your contention 1, you seem to mention that ~35% of the population is homosexual. Why do you prefer the Kinsey reports over the "Modern Survey Results" section below? 2) Can you explain your contention 4 more? 3) Can you explain your contention 5 more? 4) Your contention 6. Some people are wrong about homosexuality being a choice. So what? 5) In your contention 7, you assert sexuality is a continuum and there's gray area. Can we agree that the resolution applies to people who predominately prefer same sex relationships? 6) In your contention 9, don't you agree its a good idea to try and treat undesirable conditions? 7) Your contention 11. Why do you think this one incremental step is a slippery slope? 8) Your contention 11. Don't you think parents should have the option to cure pre-natal diseases? 9) Your contention 13. How is the "gay uncle" roll of homosexuals essential, particularly in the increasing prevalence of stay at home dads? (1) 10) Would you equally prefer having gay or straight children, even though homosexuals have lower life expectancy and worse quality of life indicators? (1) http://en.wikipedia.org... I'm pleased there are a handful of people interested in this topic.
If developed, a pre-natal cure for homosexuality would be desirable

I accept your format with one caveat. In round three (cross examination) ONLY QUESTIONS must be asked, no answers or other arguments. Answers are given in round 4, where extra rebuttals may also be given. Otherwise it's not fair because I need to respond and ask questions, while you only have to ask questions. I also agree mostly with your definitions, although I think "desirable" should not only be for unborn children, but society as a whole. In this debate I agree that unborn children are the most important consideration, but that doesn't mean other stakeholders can be excluded from the discussion. In particular, one of my arguments will focus on specific cultural practices that your narrow definition would exclude, but which are important a relevant to the discussion. As foreshadowed, I plan to argue the good old "There is no problem!" reasoning, that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality and that therefore there is nothing particularly desirable about removing it. Like you this is not my area of specialty and I'm not sure if this is a good case to run, but I'll enjoy it for sure! Thanks for making this topic, I look forward to round 2 when you're ready.
If developed, a pre-natal cure for homosexuality would be desirable

Make sure both participants understand and are happy with their ground. If necessary, we can go to the comments section to clarify everything further. Second round is for constructives. No rebuttals. Third round is for cross examination. 10 question limit. Fourth and fifth rounds are for rebuttals. No new arguments can be brought up in the fifth round. Only extensions. ----------------------------------------- The basic idea of the resolution is if you know a child will be born homosexual, a vaccine to make them heterosexual would be desirable. Pre-natal is the incubation period between fertilization and birth. Homosexuality is defined as sexual attraction between members of the same gender Vaccine can be treated as medical magic that simply makes the condition disappear Desirable is in the interests of the unborn child. I plan to argue desirability from behind the veil of ignorance. . http://en.wikipedia.org... This topic is not my specialty. I sided pro with my gut, and I hope to learn a lot as I research this position! Cheers.
Christianity is under attack in America

The attempt to remove "In God We Trust" is not an attack. It is an attempt to make it so that the Christians do not get an upper hand in this country. It is also a poor representation of our country because it implies that all Americans believe in a god. This is not the case. You can find 2,495 American atheist members on this website. So, clearly, these 2,495 members are not represented. There are also 1,680 agnostic Americans on this website as well. Since agnostics to do not deny nor accept a god, they are not represented. And there are 61 Hindu Americans on this website, and hindus believe in multiple gods, so they are not represented. And there 161 Buddhist Americans. Buddhism does not require the belief in a god, so they are also not represented. Christianity is not under attack. Christianity is just facing resistence to it's attempt to oppress millions of people who do not want to be represented as Christians. I disagree with the news report cut off. If they are trying to relay news in an unbiased way, they would not allow any religious imput. They would cut off anyone. However, they would probably experience a little heat for doing so. None of the attempts to knock Christianity off it's high horse are attempts to hurt them. However, if we look at the news and listen to the radical Christians, many Christians react negatively to people trying to tell them that they are not better than everyone else. That is not an attack, even if it feels like one.
Christianity is under attack in America

Yes, our currency does in fact say "In God we trust" and yes, that is the God that Christians believe in. However, there have been many attempts to have that removed because others find it "offensive". The idea that it is even being threatened to be removed is putting Christianity under attack. I do agree with your point that Christianity should be equal with other religions (or lack of religion) in our government, but to fix this, our government is going about it wrongly. We are, in a sense, over-correcting by trying to remove Christianity from our government and from our media. Just look at Benjamin Watson responding to Ferguson on CNN. Watson claimed that the true issues were that of the heart because of sin, and the only way that we can solve anything is through Christ. When he mentioned Christ, he was cut off. Had he said something along the lines of "We must put our trust in Buddha" nothing would've happened. And a correction to your argument that true Christians "cannot judge fairly" other Christians: Christians can call out other Christians if they are doing wrong (Luke 6:41-42 41"Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 42"Or how can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take out the speck that is in your eye,' when you yourself do not see the log that is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take out the speck that is in your brother's eye." This meaning that we can judge/call out other Christians on their sins as long as we first evaluate our own lives and see what sins we have. If Christians need to be taken off our high horse, we are currently going about it all wrong. I'm all for other religions/people groups having more representation in our country and in our government, but it should not have to come at the expense of Christianity.
Christianity is under attack in America

Christianity is not under attack in America. Our currency is stamped with "In God We Trust" as our slogan. This god is the god of Christianity of course, because it was added by Christians in the first place, and it is not being taken off anytime soon, regardless of how many people attempt to get that change due to it's unconstitutional nature. It is unconstitutional because it adheres to religion. Although it seems like many are attacking Christianity, they are simply trying to lower it's affect on us and get Christianity to the same level as the Jews, Muslims and atheists. The religion (or lack there of) of these groups has no affect on American government, but Christianity does. Christians have been doing the attacking for the most part. Christians usually say that the attacking Christians are not real Christians, but they, according to their holy text, cannot judge fairly. As an atheist, I can only see that the attacking Christians are the real Christians because they are simply trying to enforce the law of the land. The bible wants it's followers to help make the bible the law of the land, and the Christians that are doing so are called attacking Christians. The bible doesn't encourage hate, but it encourages killing those that do not agree with your faith. This may seem like Old Testament, but the Old Testament is still viable in the eyes of Jesus as he is quoted saying "not a tittle of the law shall pass away before heaven and earth do." He goes on to say until all is fulfilled, but fulfillment of all is the rapture. So, until the rapture, killing and putting an end to anything that is not biblical is biblical itself. Christians are not under attack. The people of America just want Christianity to be treated no greater than any other group of the country, and they are. The Christians have laws in their favor in America, for example, 7 states require a person accept that there is a higher power in order to hold any political office. Now, this isn't specifically Christianity, but you can safely assume Christians made up this law. Christians just need to be taken down from it's high horse, for it should not judge the law of the land.
Christianity is under attack in America

In America today, Christianity is being removed from television, school, and the internet. The media tends to shorthand Christians, showing only awful things that alleged "Christians" do. I am a Christian, and I will concede that there are simply put, stupid Christians out there. The Westburro Baptist Church is one of the most commonly known churches in America because of their extremist views and constant anti-gay, anti-abortion and anti-war rallies. This, however, is not a true representation of Christians. True Christians would not promote hate towards any person or group of people, however, you never hear that from the media because the media hides that. This is because Christianity is indeed under attack in todays day and age.
The 'Problem of Evil' never succeeds (Attempt 1)

It's always a pleasure to debate with a knowledgeable theist. As my opponent has noted, there are different versions of the argument of evil (logical and evidential versions being the two main categories). In this round, I will simply supply my argument but I won't go into intricate detail until the 2nd round - thus giving my opponent a fresh argument to attack (I'm always interested in seeing other criticisms, or one developed in other various ways). I will also observe that we both have a burden in this debate; my opponent's burden is to disprove my argument while my burden is to prove it. The following is the most common formulation of the argument of evil (AE), an evidential version relying on the concept of gratuitous evil: (1) Gratuitous evils probably exist. (2) Gratuitous evils are incompatible with the God of theism (omnipotent, omniscient, all-good). (3) Therefore, the God of theism probably does not exist. This argument is logically valid and if the premises are true the conclusion must follow. Given it's evidential nature, it relies on probability rather than certainty, which is no rarity when it comes to philosophical arguments. I would suspect that the main point of conflict would be premise 1, the question of whether or not gratuitous evils exist. By gratuitous evil I mean evil that is unwarranted or unjustified[1]. In other words, the premise argues that there exists pointless evil, or evil that exists in which there is an insufficient moral reason to account for it. This is a simple formulation of the argument, and I eagerly await my opponent's response. ---References--- 1. . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...