BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Divorce should stop.

Ok. I see your point. Normally divorce shouldn't be needed if the marriage is correct where both love each other and the child. However if they do not love each other, shouldn't they be able to end the marriage because what is the point of the marriage? If they do not have a child, then use they should be able to be divorced and a stronger marriage which is better. Things change when there is children. They don't have to love each other but they should be able to put aside this because of their love for their children. If one doesn't love the children, then can he be really considered a father figure? Biologically yes but as a role model, no. What is the point of a marriage with children when the father doesn't even care about the child? Well this was a good debate and I understand your points. I don't think the problem is divorce. The problem is people entering marriage when they don't even love each other. The root of the problem lies in marriage.
Divorce should stop.

Thank you, we will drop the Christian aspect then. Well, i would disagree. The basis of family is to procreate, love would be on the side. You can love someone without marrying them and partaking in procreative activities, but not vise-versa (at least not morally). So that would be another problem, people entering marriage aught to know what it is really about. But the statistics agree with me, divorce ruins lives. As far as remarriage, no step-father or step-mother can replace a real one (and many are abusive to the step-children), so no you cannot just toss out and replace the blocks. Does not work like that.
Divorce should stop.

I am an atheist so I cannot really counter the Christian aspect due to my inexperience in that so forgive me there. It would be best if we focus on the social aspect because not everyone is a Christian so we can't use that when the two who are divorcing aren't Christian. As for the social aspect, yes they are the building blocks of society. The basis of a family is love. If you do not have love, what is the point of marriage? Is it better for the children to have a bad father who doesn't love the family or for the children to not have a father? Divorce is needed. Isn't it better to destroy the damaged building block by replacing it?
Divorce should stop.

On the Christian aspect, the object of marriage, i would say, is to populate heaven. To keep it out of things that your parents have the sole right to teach you, i will move on to scripture,God's words are these "And there came to him the Pharisees tempting him, and saying: Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? Who answering, said to them: Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, Made them male and female? And he said: For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder. They say to him: Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce, and to put away? He saith to them: Because Moses by reason of the hardness of your heart permitted you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery." (St. Matt 19: 3-9) The wedding vows also show that marriage is to be perpetual Moving on to the social aspect. Families are the building blocks of society. If the family is broken, so the society will be. Statistics show that children who grow up without a father are twice as likely to be a criminal. The divorce will hurt the children and then the children will hurt the society.
Execution is more important than an idea for a successful business.

Business Objectives: 1. Profit 2. Customer Satisfaction A bad idea, no matter how prepared or well executed, will not be successful. Why? People won't buy into the idea, thus negating customer satisfaction and a profit. A good idea may not be well executed, yet because the idea is good, you will probably succeed regarding at least one of the two objectives. Example: Say I live in an area where there is a high demand for toy stores, and no demand for shoe stores. Opening up a shoe store would be a bad idea; it would not generate any business no matter how well thought out or executed my business plans may be. Thus, 0 customer satisfaction (demand), therefore 0 profit. If I opened up a toy store; however, but priced my items too high, that would be an example of a good idea (opening up a toy store where there is high demand), but bad execution (high prices). Because there is a high demand directly correlated to the good idea, customers would in fact shop at my store despite their lack of satisfaction. Thus I may have failed in one aspect of my objective, but the profit I would make from the customers (even if there were few of them) would mean that I was successful in at least one of my endeavors. The same would apply if I implemented the opposite - good idea (toy store), bad execution (prices too low). The good idea of a local toy store matched by customer's desire for affordable items may mean no profit, but there would be high customer satisfaction. In other words, SUCCESS. This could only be disputed if my opponent deems both objectives be met at the same time in order for something to be successful. However, because this interpretation of success would be impossible to prove (and only rooted in opinion), my reasoning stands. The point is, having a good idea put forth with bad execution has a better chance of generating success than a bad idea with good execution. If the idea behind a business is bad, what does it matter how well a business is run if there is no interest in the product/service? Without a good idea to begin with, no execution is necessary and therefore doesn't even matter. Thus, clearly ideas are more important than execution.
Execution is more important than an idea for a successful business.

For the purpose of this debate: Business: an act of providing a valuable product/service in return of some type of, usually financial, gains. Idea: a product/service idea for a business. Execution: a process to build and market a business around that idea. Having a brilliant idea but not executing it properly leads to nothing but "yet another failure". People often wait for a great idea before starting a business but that fact it that -- it doesn't really matter how great an idea is; whats matters most is how that idea is executed. Having said that, now, I wait to hear and rebuttal my opponent's arguments (if any). Thanks.
Resolved: Animal Abuse is Acceptable

What!!!! When you hunt an animal you are not abusing an animal. This is because you are putting food on the table for people. Also you are not making that animal suffer for long periods of times like animal abuser do when they abuse animals so it's something different, and yes if they don't kill the animal onsite they kill them the 2nd time because they know it's the right thing to do and the animal is slow. Also animals do not take "up resources (food, water, space, air)" it is actually vise-versa we as humans take up water and recourses from animals . As for air that can't be taken away from us it is already on Earth and there is plenty to go around. Also even if it does contaminant we have farms and hunting seasons so there is no need to eat them anyway. Lastly even when people do abuse animals it is not like they are going to give up the animal for people to eat.
Resolved: Animal Abuse is Acceptable

Con argues that "There is a reason to why animals are on earth and it isn't for anyone to abuse them." That is entirely true. However, look at things like Silly Putty, which was originally designed as an adhesive, or WD-40, which was originally meant to displace water. Con goes on to say "Animal abuse should not be acceptable because even if a human is frustrated or upset they have no right to abuse the animal, and that reason does not justify why they should abuse an animal no one should let their anger or emotion make them take it out on a living breathing thing. Yes sure animals do have large populations but just because they do does not mean you should abuse an animal. When animals are over populated they have hunting season to control the population. Also when animals are over populated they usually "put them to sleep" which is painless unlike animals abuse." He is perfectly right. However, putting animals to sleep outright deprives someone of their fun, if they're into that kind of thing. Hunting could be construed as a more impersonal and long-ranged form of animal abuse, because what if you hit, but don't kill it outright? I fail to see why we should waste resources on killing an animal when we could simply turn it over to an animal abuser and let him or her do the dirty work for us. Sure, it sucks to be the animal, but that's what you get for not being human. Con, and this is my favorite part, says, "If you are to abuse an animal I still disagree with keeping it locked up I mean they are still suffering no one should even abuse animals but unfortunately people don't do it and if you do really don't make the animal suffer "put the animal to sleep" in the most unhurt full [sic] way ever." To begin with, yes, that is entirely the option of the person making the decision. However, as I said before, the animals are using up resources (food, water, space, air), and if we are to recoup those expenditures, we should get some measure of gratification out of them. Putting them to sleep contaminates their meat, so we can't eat them. Abusing them, however, grants a bit of fun. Remember, animals are a drain on resources, and are nothing more than tools for gratification. You may not agree with me, but my point still stands.
Resolved: Animal Abuse is Acceptable

Animals should not be abused for our own purposes. For example if someone were upset or pissed off you shouldn't take it out on a animal just because it's there. That animal has done nothing to you so there is no reason to abuse it. Yes animals are not humans but it is not ethical for anyone to hit a animal just because they can. There is a reason to why animals are on earth and it isn't for anyone to abuse them. There isn't a big difference between a human being abused and animal except one is more civilized and actually knows what they are doing (the humans) and one is in the wild and innocent unless it is defending its self. Also a lot of people do care because animals are really important to our world whether it's for companionship or for food. Animal abuse should not be acceptable because even if a human is frustrated or upset they have no right to abuse the animal, and that reason does not justify why they should abuse an animal no one should let their anger or emotion make them take it out on a living breathing thing. Yes sure animals do have large populations but just because they do does not mean you should abuse an animal. When animals are over populated they have hunting season to control the population. Also when animals are over populated they usually "put them to sleep" which is painless unlike animals abuse. If you are to abuse an animal I still disagree with keeping it locked up I mean they are still suffering no one should even abuse animals but unfortunately people don't do it and if you do really don't make the animal suffer "put the animal to sleep" in the most unhurt full way ever.
The US federal government should bomb ISIS

I’ll use this round to do my rebuttals to my opponent rebuts. R1: “My opponent claims that with hurting ISIS we help Assad, because ISIS is part of a rebellion against Assad. So I have a few different arguments against this. 1. ISIS is the greater of the two evils. ISIS is an international threat that has much more aggressive behavior that extends to a potential nuclear war threat, if ISIS were to get their hands on nuclear weaponry and means to launch it. If Assad will be benefited by taking out ISIS then so be it. 2. Assad is predicted to fall soon regardless of ISIS. http://www.voanews.com...... 3. ISIS is only one of the many forces fighting against Assad. If that one force is lost it won't be that much of a change for Assad. 4. We do not necessarily have to pick one or the other. Both can be taken out in time even though one or the other may be temporarily benefited.” Firstly, Assad is just as bad and arguably a greater evil than ISIS. Assad has been in power in Syria for 15 years, a part of the greater Al Assad dynasty. In Assad’s time in office he has committed human rights violations far more numerous than ISIS, such as the use of chemical weapons on the civilian populace, the systematic torture and murder of 11,000 civilians. As well as countless war crimes committed during the Syrian civil war, his forces have used cluster munitions and barrel bombs as well on the civilian populace (not forgetting to mention that Cluster bombs were banned during the Geneva Conference. If Assad were to be funded and his regime allowed to survive, then he would most likely carry one with his human rights violations. Attacks against ISIS would not only be a temporary benefit to Assad, as ISIS alongside Al-Nusra are among the largest provider of weapons to the Syrian Rebels. Attacks against ISIS would mean losing a good quarter of the Syrian rebellion, meaning that the long stalemate in the Syrian civil war could very easily turn into Assad’s favour. R2: ” My opponent's argument here has a lot of flaws. He states that more than just airstrikes is needed, so therefore the effort is counterproductive. That just doesn't make any sense. I never argued that the only action taken should be airstrikes which is what Con's entire argument hinges on. According to the resolution the only area I have to prove is that we should bomb ISIS, not that we should only bomb ISIS.” However, you very much implied that was the case. You did not fully specify the degree of intervention you wanted the US military to use. And as seen in the argument about lowering the causalities of soldiers, you’ve implied that airstrikes were the main form of intervention that you were looking for. (Apologies but due to outside factors I am unable to finish the next two rebuttals. Thanks to Pro for the debate) Sources: 1. https://www.hrw.org... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://www.bloombergview.com...
The US federal government should bomb ISIS

This is for round 2 of 1harderthanyouthink's beginners tournament between Utherpenguin and myself. Rules: 1. BOP is shared 2. No Ks 3. Be open minded Setup R1. Pro instigates, posts entire set-up (definitions, this, etc.)/Con posts acceptance *only* R2. Pro opens/Con opens Con is not allowed to rebutt pro's arguments R3. Pro rebuts/Con rebuts R4. Pro closes and rebuts/Con closes and rebuts *no new contentions/arguments shall be put in the last round. Definitions US deferal government- The central government of the United States of America bomb- Commence in bombings and airstrikes, this includes drone strikes. ISIS- The Islamic State, an extremist terrorist organization.
Every Child Should Have A Phone

To be very honest the other definition of child is "a son or daughter of any age". So you pertaining to just one definition not all of them. I was just talking about a mobile device that you can communicate with each other on. Perhaps this link will also help: https://www.google.com... I think about the reasonable idea also so I would ask my contender what she thinks about "children" using phones and the reason to have them.
Every Child Should Have A Phone

According to the topic "Every Child should have a Phone", I like to please address one definition which my opponent did not provide. That definition being "child", where it states: "A young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority". This can refer to a 10 year old, to even an infant. I ask my opponent, why should an infant have a phone? According to the definition of "phone" or "telephone", it is: "A system that converts acoustic vibrations to electrical signals in order to transmit sound, typically voices, over a distance using wire or radio". They are to young to have a phone, especially when the topic is that "all" children should have a phone, but why an infant? They are to immature and are not mature enough.Definitions:https://www.google.com...https://www.google.com...
Every Child Should Have A Phone

For this debate, I would like to sum up on how it went and point out many flaws within my opponent. Firstly, my opponent argues that there is no need for a "set definition", but there has to be otherwise we will have different views on what is being discussed. With that in mind, if it is broken; this isn't really a true debate becuase of not being on the same page.Secondly, my opponent has failed throughout the debate to answer my question about infants with a phone. The topic clearly states: "Every child", and this includes infants. Because of the topic also dealing with infants, not every child should have a phone for the fact that it is to much money, for an infant, and possible dangers if an infant does get a cell phone. I asked my opponent constantly, "What about infants"? My opponent did not respond to this question, making his or her argument flawed.And finally, to provide a source of why a child should not get a phone, besides infants, I like to please look at the following source. Stated under "5 Reasons Your Kid Should Not Have A Cell Phone", it states many down factors, where one is isolating themselves from society. Should a child recieve this fate? A phone is kind of like a drug, once someone takes it; they will get addicted to it. If a child was to get a phone at especially a young age, it would isolate themselves from society becuase of its addicting powers.Adults don't have this effect because of having a more developed brain, while a child is still trying to develop that brain. Source:http://sahm.org...
Every Child Should Have A Phone

I am very sorry about the gender situation. The set definition would not be quite reasonable to add in the argument because I am talking about children in general. In context clues, the definition would be quite clear but I would clarify it much better next time if that is needed. Children in elementary school should actually be able to use phones for this reason: http://www.cnn.com.... Many people do not think shooters coming to elementary schools because they would think they have a heart. Some do and some choose not to. Children should be able to contact their parents in times of troubles. Toddlers should not have not have a phone because some don't have the correct education in order to contact their parents. Parents although should check out where their toddler is at every time. It would quite reasonable for an elementary student and higher to have a phone because anything can happen.
Every Child Should Have A Phone

First off, I'm actually a he, not a she; but not going to take to much offence. Secondly, I will agree that there can be multiple definitions for "child", like the one my opponent provided; but a definition was not established, so it can mean anything. My definition is under the age of puberty, while my opponent's can be different; but my opponent failed to provide a "set definition" within the first round.. However, the topic states that every child should have a phone; and ask my opponent "Should an infant have a phone". They shouldn't, they are too young and is a waste of money to get a infant a phone when they won't need it; especially in Elementary School.
The Eragon Movie Butchered the Book

I apologize for the confusing resolution. Between the title of the debate and the full resolution I thought I made my intent clear. Definitions: Affront - to insult especially to the face by behavior or language. http://www.merriam-webster.com... This debate was not intended to be about whether or not the movie was a good one or not. From an objective standpoint if I had seen the movie without reading the book I likely would have enjoyed it. This debate is more about the fact that so much was changed from book to movie and the movie therefore affronts the book. It is actually my personal opinion that the movie should not even have been called Eragon because of the glaring and numerous dissimilarities. These dissimilarities include not only all of the points mentioned in the book but there are also many, many more. If my opponent has read the Eragon book and seen the movie then he can attest to the truth of the following descriptions of both book and movie, if he hasn't then in the last round I will provide a source for all of them. More important, and not so important, differences: *In the book Eragon hatches Saphira from an egg and then spends the next few months raising her and bonding with her while in the movie she hatches, flies into the air, and lands a full grown dragon. This bonding sequence is important because it shows how Eragon and Saphira gained the level of trust that they have in the movie. *In the movie the Ra'zac are more like beasts than they are sentient creatures. Eragon and Brom also kill them in the movie which again hinders any plans for a sequel as the Ra'zac are important to it's plot. *Other than events there are many people important to the plot of the sequel books that are not even included in the movies. The include following excluded characters make it literally impossible for a sequel to be accurately made unless they are awkwardly introduced: - Katrina, Roran's wife - Orik, Eragon's dwarf friend - Jeod, Brom's merchant friend - Helen, Jeod's wife - Elva, a girl Eragon accidentally curses - Solembum, a werecat *Saphira breathing fire was a big deal in the book. In fact she didn't do it even once until it was used in saving Eragon's life near the book's end. The fire was not an important portion of the movie. *Perhaps the most downplayed element of the book was the character of Brom. In the book Brom was a very important character. He was Eragon's mentor and only friend for a majority of the book. They spend months together training and Brom teaches Eragon everything he knows about being a Rider, magic, and swordplay. He does this so well that Eragon becomes one of the most powerful humans in the world when using magic and one of the most skilled swordsmen. However in the movie Brom's personal relationship with Eragon is greatly downplayed and not nearly as much is taught. All of these differences, and those listed in round 1 mean that the director took way, way, too many creative liberties with his screenplay that affronts the book and that story-accurate sequels to this movie can not be made. I look forward to my opponent's response.
The Eragon Movie Butchered the Book

"Full Resolution: The movie Eragon should have followed the book more closely, been longer, and been rated PG-13 instead of PG." This is very unclear. Are you arguing that the "movie should have followed the book more closely" in order to (a) be a good movie? (b) or to avoid doing discredit to the book? Since you haven't specified it, I'm going to assume (a). ======================= Contention 1: Too much of the book was cut/edited from the movie to make it appeal to a younger audience. Having less violence =/= being a bad movie. Contention 2:The elves didn't have pointed ears. The elves didn't have pointy ears? Oh. My. God. Immaterial detail. Contention 3: Eragon did not suffer a terrible injury at the end of the movie. To argue that an omission in this movie MIGHT have a harmful impact in later movies is baseless speculation. The lack of an injury doesn't worsen THIS movie significantly, and in the NEXT movie, who knows, the producer might come up with a twist that will be better than the one in the book... ============== If you're arguing from a (b) standpoint, you need to make your arguments much, much more clearer.