BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Parents have a fundamental right to elective circumcision of their offspring

One of the most insidious and contentious debates alive today is that of whether parents have some fundamental right to irreversibly modify the bodies of their children according to their own desires, however they may be movated. It is often contentious, with deep spikes of animosity arising from contentions over religious freedom, and even deeper ties to the self image of those who do the arguing.Anyone wishing to argue PRO, but who has reservations or contentions over the resolution, is encouraged to leave comments such that the resoluon and rules may be updated, and contentions resolved before initiating the debate.This resolution, to further clarify, is about parents modifying their children and not about people modifying themselves. It is further NOT about circumcision in situations of medical emergency.Rules: 1) First round is acceptance*, second round is argument, third round is rebuttal and additional supporting arguments, fourth round is pure rebuttal and final round is closing.2) *PRO may go first; if PRO uses his first round for argument, PRO agrees his last round shall be a blank post, and for the purposes of voting, rounds shall be offset by one post3) Responses shall be directed towards the previous rounds(s) only.4) No direct "vote pandering". An argument ought stand on its own, without appeals to emotion or ad hominem.5) No "sneaky ****erism". This is defined as making declarations to win an argument rather than making an attempt to investigate whether a claim is actually valid or supported by reason. The winning argument here is to be determined as that argument which stands up to reason, not which argument/person people subjectively like more. In accepting, PRO agrees that any votes which do not reflect an objective evaluation of the arguments (subjective votes) are invalid and to be ignored during final evaluation, retracted, or negated.6) No extended arguments, except if mutually agreed upon.First, let me start by saying that this is a resolution which probably triggers a very strong "yuck factor" with a whole lot of people, and is a likely target for trolls and idiots. As such, I've made this debate proposal/challenge as a way of finding those who would debate the topic in a mature and objective way, and then directly offer the challenge. The proposed rules of the debate are as follows:7) Shared BoP; all positive claims must be defended, and all arguments must be supported with reasons; this is a philosophical debate, and first principles must be mutually accepted, if used as a basis of argument. Argument from authority, argument from tradition, and the naturalistic fallacy are all accepted as fallacies by CON.8) Shared participation is encouraged; while there can only be one formal "PRO" and one formal "CON", any independently supported argument may be advanced and picked up by the formal debators.9) First principles accepted in this debate must include that: "The universe exists"; "knowledge exists"; "all descriptive models have greater value than any non-descriptive model"; and that "equals OUGHT be treated equally".
America is the Greatest Nation

I too am a loving patriotic American. I would state that America, While under threat of no longer being the greatest, Is still in fact the greatest. This is all somewhat opinionated if we're honest. I could point out any one of the things that the U. S has, Such as speech and gun rights, That no other nation has. I would actually say that the size of the U. S. Military is one of the reasons why no other nation will launch conventional warfare. It is a deterrent just like Nukes are. You also have to understand the ever changing pace of war. In war you attack with what your opponent doesn't have. Not with what you have. So if the U. S. Lost all of its tanks one day you can bet your bottom dollar people would attack the weakness. The reason war has become so unconventional is because people are probing for weakness. They are looking for what we don't have. The polarization of parties is indeed worrying but the solution is to reach out to the other side. People think having a debate means that we are so fully against each other that we need a stage to yell or something along those lines. A debate can simply be what it is meant to be. We can think about things differently and still come to bipartisan solutions. The main point I'm trying to bring about is that as long as we can still debate freely like this we can not be silenced. As long as an open discourse can be maintained violence will not ensue. (thank you debate. Org) Now you didn't post any supporting articles for round one so I will do the same. We can just call this round a preface round or something if you like.
America is the Greatest Nation

I am a country loving patriotic American but with that I would like to open up the debate that America is no longer the greatest nation in the world. No I do not have another nation that I would say is the greatest nation currently but I believe the place of hopes, Dreams and achieving greatness through hard work that was America has been loss. While yes I recognize the United States incredible feet of economic success and overall prosperity we have fallen prey to general ignorance and arrogance as a nation. Our military is ridiculously over sized for the current world, Their will never be another mass invasion of another nation so I must ponder the question of why we have thousands of tanks, Planes, Artillery and short range missiles as a war will be cyber or nuclear. Our country achieved great success out of World War 2 but we seem to still be stuck in the time period paying little attention to the fact that isolationism is impossible in an online connected world with missiles that could annihilate a country in minutes. The polarization of parties in the country has taken a deep toll on civil political discussion with many getting offended or quick to be angered at simply an opposing opinion. While I will go ahead and cite more statistics and facts to backup my next round of arguments I would like to present just a general overview of why I believe the United States of America is no longer the greatest country.
There is not actually 7 continents.

We may all know that there are seven continents, but what we know in this area is generally just what we have been told. The conventional continents that we know are: Europe Asia North America South America Australia Africa Antarctica If we look at a political world map, these continents are clearly labelled with continental borders etc. However, if we take a closer look without taking into account political borders, we start to notice that a lot of these are actually joined by land and the only borders that actually separate them are the political ones. If we were to use a definition such as ‘a continent is a large landmass', we could presume that there are only 4 continents, as North and South America are joined by a thin strip of land; and that Asia, Europe, and Africa are also joined by land. This is not what I want to argue, though. I wish to argue that there are 6 continents. It could be easily argued that a continent is a large, clearly defined landmass, which means that when we look at a world map, North America can be defined as a different landmass to South America due to it being joined by only a thin strip of land, which is actually technically divided by the Panama Canal. The same thing can also be said about Africa and Asia, as they are also only joined by a small piece of land, which is also cut through by the Suez Canal. This leaves the Europe and Asia problem. Looking at the world map, Europe could be called a peninsula of Asia, as there are vast stretches of land joining them, and they are clearly part of the same landmass. Sources: http://maps.google.com.au...
There is not actually 7 continents.

Sorry about that. Little busy with summer things. My timeline is at 32 minutes right now, so I will try to conclude this concisely.1. The Urin Range of mountains, the vast rivers, the Caspian Sea, and the dramatic change in culture safely and soundly justifies the splitting of the continents: Asia and Europe. --No this is not like splitting Australia. Same culture, no geological divide, and it would be too small (which is a criteria of yours, yes? ) 2. Therefore for these reasons it is not a common discussion between people on whether Europe should assimilate into the same. What this shows is that people just inherently understand why. They are vastly different lands.3. Take Central America and then South America, for example. My opponent states these are clearly two different continents (N. and S. America) because of the clear divide they have at the Panama Canal, which is very minute, un-observable divide. These bordering countries have very little of a difference culturally (relevantly. ) Naturally speaking, they have no geological divide, whatsoever. And the same exact thing goes for East Africa and the Middle East.4. This leads one to a reasonable conclusion that the only three continents that are naturally and culturally justified are -- Europe, Australia, Antarctica5. Thus, tomorrow, when I wake up 2 p. m. I will know in the back of mind, quite confidently, that there are seven continents. AND YOU CAN TOO !
There is not actually 7 continents.

I can clearly see the point being presented by the con; however, I do feel that the information presented is fragmented and, at times is even counter-intuitive. This, conversely, is not what I am here to debate though, so I shall continue with my point. It should be clear that my argument is strong and when you stated that my paradigm of continental definition would create many gray areas and confusion. Not to mention inconsistency; you have also not taken into account political diplomacy, which I am sure would create much more confusion. Using physical barriers as a means of separating continents and using one broad banner when defining what is and is not a continent is what I see as the simplest way of defining continental barriers. You say that the U.K. would not be part of Euro-Asia under my definition, and right so: it is unmistakably seen that it is not. You then go on to say that according to my logic, the Isthmus of Panama is a clearly defined barrier, which it is. This does not, however, allow for you to jump to the conclusion that because of this, that the U.K. is a new continent. This is where your argument is counter-intuitive. As my definition clearly states, to be a continent, it has to be a great landmass, and considering the U.K. is not a large enough landmass, it cannot therefore be counted as a continent. What I must also include is that I am not basing the definition on plate tectonics. It is that the Middle East would be part of Euro-Asia since, even though it may be on a different tectonic plate, it is still joined to the rest of Euro-Asia by a considerable amount of land. To keep this argument to land surface, we should not go into the semantics of plate tectonics and continental drift in this debate, as it is unnecessary. ﻿We should also not include Greenland as a continent as it has a considerably lower land area than Australia. If we simply based the definition of a continent on the fact that it is a great landmass with an area of over 7, 000, 000 square kilometres, we then have six continents. Even though Europe has 10, 000, 000 square kilometres of land, it has a direct and large connection to Asia, making it part of the greater Eurasian continent. Once again, the only thing separating these two political continents is culture and a ridiculous governmental boundary. Now, you may say 'but there are rivers and mountains that could be separating it'. If you do, think about Australia, does that mean that it is two continents because of the great dividing range? Of course, this is not correct. I shall not pass the debate back to the Con:
There is not actually 7 continents.

My opponent claims there are six continents.He bases this off of this statement of his, "It could be easily argued that a continent is a large, clearly defined landmass"Throughout this debate I will demonstrate that if this were accepted as the standard it would bring about too much inconsistency, grey-area, and confusion. Thus is not an acceptable paradigm of continental divide.Under this standard the U.K. would not be a part of the continent of Euro-Asia, as it apart from the "large, clearly defined divide."Especially since under the standard of my own opponent the Isthmus of Panama makes a "clearly defined" separation between North and South America, then clearly the English Channel does so also. Therein under his own paradigm, just using one example of the U.K., we are already back to 7 continents. But there are more examples that illustrate inconsistency in the same manner such as Greenland.Physical justifications of continents causes to many dilemmas. Even if you broke it down in plate tectonics, you would have awkward placement such as the Middle East would become it's own continent. Thus the best and simplest way to justify continent is by the way it is today, through a combination of politics and geography. As it becomes possible through this combination that your able to make divides based off of common sense. When physical elements dictate the divides exclusively, the formations of continents become complicated and confusing and greatly inconsistent.This is Round 1 so I'll keep this at a preamble of sorts and hand it over back to Pro:
Hello again again

repetitive - containing or characterized by repetition, especially when unnecessary or tiresome. According to Google. By definition, saying hello again is repetition. This is unnecessary, routine, tiresome, and boring. IMPACT: "It is clear that negatively valenced repetitive thought has bad consequences for mental and physical health".-American Pyschological Association Having to say something again in fear of " the risk of the person not hearing you the first time" is negative form of repetition, which leads to negative consequences according to my source. Vote Con based off impact. Pro never provided sources, evidence, or solid reasons why. http://www.apa.org... Thanks
Homosexuality

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:1871 Sin is an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law (St. Augustine,Faust22:PL 42, 418). It is an offense against God. It rises up against God in a disobedience contrary to the obedience of Christ. [1]2357Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. [2]2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. [2]2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection. [2]Q. 278. What is actual sin?A. Actual sin is any willful thought, word, deed, or omission contrary to the law of God. [3]So from 1871 and in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and 278from the Baltimore Catechism we can see that sin must be willful.From 2357 to 2359 Homosexual deeds are "acts of grave depravity,tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved."Thus objectively sinful by Christian standards.However, homosexuals practicing chastity "can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection."Thus homosexuals are able to approach Christian perfection and are not anymore inherently sinful than any other person. Thus homosexuality is defined as being sinful only when willfully acted upon. Thus homosexuality itself is not a sin, only acting upon it is.[1]http://www.vatican.va...[2] http://www.vatican.va...[3]http://www.baltimore-catechism.com...
Resolved: Same-sex couples outght to have the same adoption rights as straight couples

ResolutionResolved: Same-sex couples ought to have the same adoption rights as straight couples. Rules1. No forfeits2. Citations should be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final speeches4. Observe good sportsmanship and act civilly/decorously in the debate5. No trolling6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolutional definitions8. The BOP is evenly shared9. Follow the structure of the debate properly11. Rebuttals of new points raised in an adversary's immediately preceding speech may be permissible at the judges' discretion even in the final round (debaters may debate such rebuttals' appropriateness)12. Violation of any of these rules, or of any of the R1 set-up, merits a lossStructureR1. Pro's terms and definition; Con acceptsR2. Pro's Case/arguments; Con generic Case/argumentsR3. Pro generic Rebuttal; Con generic RebuttalR4. Pro generic Rebuttal; Con generic RebuttalDefinitionsSame-sex- of or involving a sexual relationship between two men or between two women: [1]adoption- the act or process of adopting a child [2]rights- morally or socially correct or acceptable [3]Ought- used to say or suggest what should be done [4]Sources1. (. http://tinyurl.com...) 2. (. http://tinyurl.com...) 3. (. http://tinyurl.com...) 4. (. http://tinyurl.com...)
The Bible is Not Without Error

Hello there, welcome to round 3. I wish to thank my opponent for his responses to my arguments. Crucifixion TimeMy opponent offers the simple explanation that they are using different methods of time. I do not buy this. I would like to offer my rebuttal to why this explanation fails: There is no reason to think that they were using two different time methods; Most damaging-the Jews and Romand used the same time method. [1] First appearance of JesusMy opponent has offered the simple explanation that there were two visits; one in Galilee, the other in Jerusalem. This explanation would work until we actually read the verses in context. Allow me to give you the verses to prove that both gospel's were talking about the first appearance from the "resurrected" Jesus."And the angel answered and unto the women, "Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucifid. HE is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Com, see the place whre the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and behol goesth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you." And they [the women] departed quickly from the sepluchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word. And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, "all hail." And they came and held him by the feet, and worshiped him. Then Jesus said unto them, "Be not afraid: tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me." (Matthew 28)The context is clear. The women meet the angels, the angels command the women to tell the disciples to go Galilee. Galilee in this passage was the first meeting place. No mention of Jerusalem.As far as Luke 24, here is what the Atheist Bible Companion has to say;"The apparition of Jesus tells the women to have the disciples meet him in Galilee, which they do. Again, there is a direct contradiction in Luke, where Jesus meets the disciples in Jerusalem, and orders them to remain there “until you are clothed with power from on high” (Luke 24:49). See also Acts 1:4. This is not simply an omission on Luke’s part, for his timeline gives no opportunity for any meeting in Galilee."You see, it isclear that there is no time for a meeting in Galilee, especially when considering the fact that Galilee and Jerusalem are very far away. Your explanation fails.The FloodMy opponent is correct, there are numerous versions of the flood. The problem: They all contradict each other. [2] If this was a historical event, why do they all contradict itself?Also, there are MANY different things wrong with the flood [3] that just cannot be explained away.| Conclusion |I have shown why each of my opponents "explanations" fail. In addition, my arguments fail. Know that I am arguing from a literal interpretation of....I understand many Christians do take it figuratively. Sources1. Life and Leisure in Ancient Rome, p.12. http://www.talkorigins.org...3. http://www.talkorigins.org...
The Bible is Not Without Error

Thanks! I shall defend the position that the original manuscripts of the Bible are without error. I do not claim to necessarily hold this position, and this position could be wrong, and I am sure that there is much to learn concerning it (maybe from this debate), but I do find it defensible. One thing I ask is that you do not post a long compiled copy-and-paste list of such errors from all the websites you can find. I don't respond well to steam-rolling. I hope to keep this as fun and as light-hearted as possible. Cheers!
The Bible is Not Without Error

In this debate, it is my job to prove that that the Bible contains errors. These errors include, but are not limited to: Contradictions, Science/Historical mistakes, Failed prophecies, and absuridies. The Bible: 66 books of the canonical scripture rpthat is recognized by both Catholics and Protesants. Without error: To be free from any errors or mistakes, Round 1 is for acceptance only. In round 2, I will list the Biblical errors. Good luck.
Prostitution should NOT be legalized!

As you've stated, rape is affiliated with prostitution. You must also take note about how they signed up for that kind of treatment, its a repetitive understatement of how you should expect what the job comes with. I did not misread your statement about the child sex trafficking. I am simply pointing out how the number of underage prostitutes is so low compared to the total population, that it is not a global conflict to be taken harshly. Although child sex trafficking is horrible, the government has much more problems to deal with than prostitution. With sleeping with loved ones without force, of course there is consequence to that choice as well. So then should we just outlaw sex in general? It was the choice of the partaker to have sexual intercourse and must face the consequences. To conclude my final argument, prostitution does not have a positive effect on the youth of America in any aspect. Prostitution is a low-profit business and it does not encourage girls to abandon their education for this business. I thank you for the argument and thank you to all the readers, I hope you vote based of evidence and not morals. Thank you for your time.