BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Men Should be Able to Give Up Their Parental Responsibilities

I apologize for missing the previous round, I had it all typed up here, I guess I must have forgotten to submit it. The difference is that forcing the woman would be forcing physical pain on the individual, while forcing the man is forcing him to pay money.This of course requires elaboration.When a man & women agree to have unprotected sex, they are agreeing to have a child, unless stated/implied otherwise.Now according to this logic the woman is agreeing to carry the fetus, & the man agrees to help support the child monetarily.The question is why is it that the woman can force the man to keep his part of the deal, but not vise versa.I'll give an analogy:When a person is hired, there is an agreement. The worker agrees to work & the employer agrees to pay.Unless specified otherwise; the employee can quite (i.e. make the deal void) for any reason at all, whileThe employer on the other hand cannot simply cancel the deal.The reason is because the former would be forcing a person to do something with his self, while the latter is forcing a person to give money which he agreed to give.We can't force parents to care for a child, but we can force them to pay for it's care.Now according to this it would seem to be unethical (even without getting into the pro life issue) for the woman to abort against the fathers will. It could be argued though, that since she cannot be forced to carry the fetus, it is thus common practice to abort, thus the agreement to carry is not inherently implied, & thus not unethical as far as the fathers "right".Now even if one doesn't agree to the above, the suggestion proposed by pro is certainly unfair.It goes to the other extreme in that it only looks at the fathers side, (i.e. from his point of view).Pro writes: "The man would have to give up his rights and responsibilities within a certain period of time, like within 90 days of the child's birth, or if the child is already born, within 90 days of finding out he has a child." Why should the man have so much more time than the women?If the male doesn't want to support, he should at the very least have to decide that before the child is born.After the child is born & obviously cannot be killed, the man can't now say, "oh I don't take responsibility".Sorry bro, it's too late, should have thought about that before (having unprotected sex, or at the very least before) the child is born.According to pro's logic the mother too should also be able to change her mind within 90 days. Then who's going to take responsibility of the child?
Men Should be Able to Give Up Their Parental Responsibilities

Under our current laws, women are afforded the right to decide when they become parents. Even if they choose to have unprotected sex, they have access to emergency contraception and abortion. Men are not afforded the right to decide when they become parents. If a woman chooses to have a child, the father of the child is financially responsible whether he wanted her to keep the baby or not. In this day, when men and women are treated as equals by the government, forcing a man to accept the responsibilities of parenthood before he chooses is discriminatory. Women have equal access to birth control In the past, women did not have equal access to birth control. It was reasonable to make men pay child support because women could not protect themselves from becoming pregnant. Men, however, could prevent a pregnancy. This is not the case anymore. Women have access to more birth control products than men. They can use the birth control pills, IUDs, the birth control patch, the cervical cap, the diaphragm, the vaginal sponge, the shot, and sterilization [1]. Men can no longer be held responsible under the premise that they should have used birth control. Women have access to many birth control choices and are still given the choice to terminate a pregnancy, therefore clearing them of responsibility.Men are not given a choice when it comes to keeping the child If a couple engages in intercourse that results in pregnancy, women are not required to ask the father whether or not he wants to raise his child, even if a man is financially prepared and is willing to take full custody. She can choose to have an abortion, and he has no legal means to stop her. Men also do not have the right to force women to have abortion, even if they are not financially able to raise a child. Men should not have to pay child support to women if women do not have to allow them to be part of the decision. If it is solely the woman’s choice to keep a child, it should also be her responsibility to care for the child.Sources[1] http://www.plannedparenthood.org...
The United States Should initiate a war against ISIS

Thanks for accepting. Constructive The United States should engage in a war against ISIS for two major reasons, Contention 1: ISIS is killing not only United States Citizens but Citizens world wide. Enough is enough. The fact that US citizens are being killed, more like slaughtered in Syria. ISIS has become a threat to United States National Security. The fact of the matter is, we as a country have the ability to take out ISIS and end the war, so why don't we? My opponent may argue something along the lines of "world peace." The fact of the matter is that world peace will never be achieved as long as ISIS is around. We need to end the threat in order to achieve world peace. Contention 2: ISIS is a National Security Threat. According to [1] ISIS is the biggest National Security threat since 911. This is completely true. Have you seen the news lately? ISIS shot down a Jordanian fighter craft, in December 2014 (video [2], article [3]). They just recently burned the Jordanian man alive, In a cage. The United States need's to engage in a war, because obviously they have the ability to fight down fighter planes. We need to neutralize the threat and end. A man was burned alive yesterday, and a few days ago a man had his head cut off. WE as a country need to blow up Syria, and go on with our day. How many more lives are we going to let die. [1] http://rt.com... [2] http://video.foxnews.com... [3] http://www.foxnews.com...
The United States Should initiate a war against ISIS

Please only accept if you're going to debate without any forfeits. Forfeit by either side results in automatic loss. Definitions ISIS- Refers to the terrorist group that rose to prominence this summer, taking over parts of Iraq and Syria, declaring a new caliphate and killing hundreds of people. War- a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state. Provide any other definitions you see fitting and enjoy the debate.
The United States Should initiate a war against ISIS

I'll reiterate my two contentions in short form. Contention 1: ISIS is killing not only United States Citizens but Citizens world wide. Not been touched Contention 2: ISIS is a National Security Threat. Not been touched Now onto my opponents one sentence for a case. "War us for sissies." I think you meant *is. The funny thing is that most of the people in our military could fight you or I or anyone for that matter and kill us in a matter of seconds. The fact that you call the military, the people who keep us safe, sissies for protecting us is a fault on your part. One key point of advice.. Don't take debates if you aren't going to post an actual debate. This not only makes you look bad, but it makes people want to block people like you. I think I'm saying something that everyone wants to say, "GET OFF OF THIS WEBSITE." Thanks. Voters- My opponent failed to post any real arguments, whereas, up to this point, none of my contentions have been touched. I've refuted his one 'point.' I think it's clear that I have won this debate.
D-Day was not a turning point in WWII and had no effect on the outcome of the war.

STAILN is making a Red Herring when he says Stailngrad was important. Staingrad WAS important, but so was D-Day. D-Day hasten the end of the war and saved Paris lot faster. Even if it wasn't a turning point, it had an affect. It opened a Two-Front war on Germany. This was a effect. The BOP is on STALIN to proved BOTH points or he loses.
D-Day was not a turning point in WWII and had no effect on the outcome of the war.

The Normandy landings, also known as D-Day is usually viewed by the west as one of the most important events of WWII. However what is not understood, is that D-Day took place in 1944 when it was clear that Germany would lose. Germany was heavily outnumbered on all fronts and had no sufficient reserves of planes and armor. During D-Day, 156,000 allied troops assaulted a 10,000 man German front. Germany had relatively few troops in France because most of those soldiers were fighting on other fronts. D-Day enabled the allies to later invade France, however besides shortening the war by perhaps a couple months, the allied invasion of France did nothing. Germany would have lose, sooner or later. [1] I will compare D-Day with Stalingrad, the real turning point of the war. Reasons that Stalingrad was important: -Saved Stalingrad (the second most important city in the USSR) -Saved the valuable oil-fields at the Caucuses (Grozny, Baku, Maykop, etc) which provided some 95% of Soviet oil. [2] -Saved the British Empire (stopped Germany from breaking into the middle-east which was lightly defended from where they could reach India and Egypt) -Germany suffered a staggering 850,000 casualties [2] -This was the largest defeat for Germany -The entire coarse of the war in Europe changed (in other words this was the most important turning point of the war) -The Germans were in retreat on a scale never seen before shortly following the end of the Battle of Stalingrad -Ensured that Turkey would not join the axis What was more important, a battle that resulted in 20,000 casualties, or a battle that resulted in 2,000,000 dead? At D-Day, Germany suffered some 6,000 casualties. At Stalingrad the axis suffered 850,000 casualties. Before Stalingrad, Germany had a chance to win. After Stalingrad the chances of a Germany victory were almost nonexistent. D-Day shortened the war by a couple months but had no effect on the outcome of WWII. I would like to also state that Con picked a weak battle to support in this debate. The Battle of Moscow, the Battle of Britain, or even the Battle of Kursk might have been debatable in importance to Stalingrad, however D-Day is not. The Western Allies promised to open a second front in 1942, then in 1943. However they only opened the front 11 months before the end of the war when there was no doubt about the outcome. Sources: . http://en.wikipedia.org...... . http://en.wikipedia.org......;
D-Day was not a turning point in WWII and had no effect on the outcome of the war.

"D-Day" is the Normandy landings. It will include the landing themselves and the Allied effort to keep the beaches. http://en.wikipedia.org... "Turning point" means that the battle shifted the gears. "No effect" means that even if the battle never taken place, the outcome would stay the same. Thank you for this debate.
Social Security is a Ponzi scheme

Ladies and Gentlemen, I regret to inform you but it seems as if my opponent has taken a fascination to straw manning my arguments. A quick look at the previous round will demonstrate my point. My opponent has given a superficial rebuttal of part and the least important part of my "fraud" rebuttal. It is not only the smallest part of my argument against the distinction of fraud, but also the least important argument. Right now, I shall go through each distinction on why SS is a Ponzi Scheme and show the points that my opponent has dropped. I will try not to introduce any new arguments. Note: I only have to prove that Social Security is like a Ponzi Scheme.1. Transfer PaymentsArgument for no operational constraint------------>Not enough evidence from my opponent. Rebutted by myself. My opponent had to BOP but failed to back it up. As a result, my opponent has not rebutted any of my arguments. Argument for payments being transferred-------> Not rebutted. Argument for new generation providing resources for the old generation-------> Not rebutted. Argument for being a "pay as you go" system in which money from today's beneficiaries are received from today's workers (supplemented by SSO GOV website)---------> Not even touched upon by my opponent.2. New investors to old investorsSame points as the first category. Not at all rebutted by my opponent.3. No profitPonzi Scheme makes no profit------->Conceded. Social Security makes no profit--------> Conceded. 4. FraudSuperficial distinction------> Not clearly rebutted. Fraud argument presented in last round (not the analogy which my opponent clearly straw manned)---------> Not at all touched upon, if even rebutted. Note: I must prove that Social Security is "like a Ponzi Scheme," as defined in the Preface, which my opponent agreed to. This is simply a superficial distinction and does not have to do with the way that SS operates.5. DR and reason that Ponzi Scheme failsDR is not similar to the fact of why Social Security fails--------> Rebbutted by myself. Striking resemblance between the DR and the reason that a Ponzi Scheme fails--------> Not rebutted. DR=Lack of new investors/labours. Ponzi Scheme fail= Lack of new investors. It is same thing and should therefore be approximated as such. This point was by far the most straw manned by my opponent and the one that is definitely worthy of recognition to myself. Conclusion Social Security involves a transfer of payments, like a Ponzi Scheme. Social Security involves a transfer of money from the new investors to the old investors, like a Ponzi Scheme. Social Security makes no profit, like a Ponzi Scheme. Social Security fails because of a lack of new investors, like a Ponzi Scheme. Fraud is a superficial distinction, which Social Security possesses. I hope the readers took into consideration that I only have to prove that Social Security is like a Ponzi Scheme. Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme.
Music Competition Debate

This debate should be impossible to accept. If anyone finds a way to accept this debate without my permission they will therefore forfeit the debate and all 7 points will go to me.This debate is.... DADADA! A Musical competition! Here are the rules:1. First round is for acceptance.2. Each round we will post a video of us playing a song.3. The song can either be an actual song, or be one you created.4. Playing an instrument in the video is required, singing in addition to playing is optional. Any instrument may be used, and any song may be played. Voting RulesThese rules will set the standards for all voting. Any votes that do not adhere to these standards will be removed. 1. Arguments points will go to whoever sounded better. Do not take the music itself into question, rather how well they played the song. For example, if you hate heavy metal and someone plays heavy metal, do not take away arguments points from them just because the type of music they played is music you don't like. Judge them off how well they performed the song. 2. Source points go to song difficulty. Whoever all-together played more difficult songs will win this point. SInging should be taken into context when awarding this point. 3. No other points will be rewarded for any reason. Any vote that adds points outside of the listed voting points will be removed. If there are any questions or concerns about these rules please post them in the comments section. Post in the comments section if you would like to take this debate.
Abortion

Not all chicken eggs are unfertilised (poultry standards are different everywhere), and they too have the potential for life. Furthermore, several living plants have to be killed to obtain food or wood, but no value of life over there eh? Or what about killing of living chickens and cattle for meat? And not every single proponent of a foetus should count as living. After all, it is not functional during that time period. Humans are superior to other organisms, but that doesn't reduce the value of a "life". Animals and plants are just as living as, if not more than a foetus. Yet we utilise them for our resources and benefits, and in case of hunting, for pleasure. Therefore abortion can be done as it will save our resources/benefit us, and not reduce pleasure. Furthermore, we can discard pets anytime we want, yet we have to always keep a child? That hasn't even come into the world yet? Pets are fully living and functional, they love us even more than children at times (dog=man's best friend), yet if they even get slightly injured or start taking up more funds than allocated for it, we send it away? This is unfair. If the parents are not ready for a child, or they changed their decision, it should within their rights to kill the foetus. One reason for abortion would be financial problems, for many families may not have the time or the money required to give their child the right growth. Or a surprise loan/ accident cripples the person, and causes problems for the upcoming child. We shouldn't force parents to keep a child they don't want. This will be bad for the child due to ill-treatment from the parents, and will be bad for the parents for the reason they wanted abortion. Suppose if we find out that the unborn child has some deformities/ infection, shouldn't we give it a merciful death rather than an impaired, handicapped life?
The use, sale, and manufacturing of marijuana ought to be legalized in more areas of the US

PROS CASE(A) It is the personal choice of each individual american as to whether or not they smoke marijuana, regardless of the harms (assuming that the persons are informed on the potential harms). Just as is the case with tobacco and alcohol, each US citizen should be allowed to choose for themselves whether or not they want to use marijuana. As long as the citizen is informed by the manufacturer of the potential harms (as is the case with alcohol and especially tobacco products), it should be the choice of theirs, not the governments, as to whether or not they choose to use marijuana. Each adult citizen is responsible for making these decisions for themselves. (B) Marijuana can be used for medicinal uses. Another reason marijuana ought to be legalized in more areas of the US is that marijuana has useful medical employments. Marijuana is used to treat symptoms of cancer and chemotherapy. Marijuana is also used to treat glaucoma. Marijuana ought to be legalized to help treat those afflicted with diseases that can be treated with medicinal marijuana. (C) Legalizing marijuana would reduce drug related crime rates. With Marijuana legalized, the government would no longer need to arrest all marijuana dealers, only the unlicensed ones. Also governments would not have to arrest users of marijuana. Non-violent drug offenders now account for 1/4 of the prison population (1)"The cost to put a single drug dealer in jail is about $450,000, composed of the following:The cost for arrest and conviction is about $150,000. The cost for an additional prison bed is about $50,000 to $150,000, depending upon the jurisdiction. It costs about $30,000 per year to house a prisoner. With an average sentence of 5 years, that adds up to another $150,000. The same $450,000 can provide treatment or education for about 200 people. In addition, putting a person in prison produces about fifteen dollars in related welfare costs, for every dollar spent on incarceration. Every dollar spent on treatment and education saves about five dollars in related welfare costs. " (2). I await my opponents response response eagerly. Sources1. . http://www.cepr.net...2. . http://druglibrary.org...;
The use, sale, and manufacturing of marijuana ought to be legalized in more areas of the US

"Ok i see you point but the drug is already being used for medical help in all the states and yes they're would be less crimes but there would be more wrecks and stealing from places because the drug gets people high and there for its shouldn't be legalized i await my opponents responses eagerly also"This is not true. Only 20 states in the US have legal medicinal marijuana. (1) You show no sources to suggest that there would increase car wrecks or crime, whereas I have shown that it would significantly reduce the crime rate. Furthermore, marijuana is a depressent. Users feel tired and lack the motivation to move. Many users would not likely want to drive while intoxicated, unlike alcohol, which is a barbiturate. Furthermore, people wouldn't have to steal to get marijuana. They could esily work legitimate jobs just as they normally do and buy marijuana with disposable income.Con fails to present a compelling argument or sources. VOTE PRO!Sources1. https://www.medicalmarijuana....procon.org/
God is a sinner and thus is flawed.

Enlightening response, and timely too. On the part about me not showing how God sinned, I did state how. I said that the bible defined sin as breaking one of God's laws (the ten commandments). God broke his own commandments, you even admitted in your rebuttal that God broke his own commandments, there's no getting around that. Whether deserving or not, justified or not, sin is sin. Just because you kill someone because they deserved it doesn't take away from the fact that you still killed. So, by HIS OWN DEFINITION HE IS A SINNER. War =/= murder? And you are right on that one because war doesn't necessarily equal murder. However, that is only because murder implies intent/motive and premeditation, where as God's armies followed blindly and killed for no other reason than because they were told to. So God's followers were killers and God is the murderer. And who created war? Who created sin? Who created evil? GOD DID. God IS all knowing, he knew how the events of the world would unfold yet created it anyways. God cannot be just if he created evil. God cannot be good if he created evil. Thus, God contradicts himself and must, by every definition, be flawed. Another premise I failed to bring up before is us as human beings. God created us in his image, we are flawed, so God himself must also be flawed. Matthew 5:48 states that, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." So if God is perfect, how can all of his creations be flawed? Yet another contradiction, again supporting the only logical conclusion, which is that GOD IS A CONTRADICTION AND THEREFORE MUST BE FLAWED. GOD'S WORDS CONTRADICT HIS ACTIONS, THUS GOD IS A CONTRADICTION AND BY HIS OWN DEFINITION AS WELL AS BY ALL LOGICAL REASONING, IS FLAWED.