BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Doing the same thing/s the bullies did to their victims as a punishment is a bad idea

Please extrapolate what you mean when you say "just be a big mess after that." This is an abstraction and doesn't provide any substancial evidence for your argument. Also, as I have already said in my first argument, it is obvious that teachers cannot hurt students now, but for the sake of this argument that focuses on the pros and cons of using such force, we are suspending the legal implications. In the past it has not been unusual for teachers to be allowed to use force against their kids, especially rulers, lets revert to those laws. Sending bullies to juvenile prison is an odd idea. First of all prison seems like a very harsh punishment for the level of bullying that we are talking about. However, before I can make a proper formal argument against it, I would like you to extrapolate exactly what you mean. Where are you incarcerating them, in juvenile hall with kids who actually committed crimes? Furthermore, the prison system in the united states is meant as a system of punishment for people who do wrong. Although it isn't exactly what the bullies were doing to someone else, it is a similar concept to the tit for tat principle you are arguing against. Please clarify this point and prove that it isn't. Additionally, your idea of "Make them more active (eg. make them do push ups in front of the class or grade)." Is also very similar to the idea of public humiliation that I brought up in my first argument. In fact, I would agree that that sort of punishment, especially where it is relevant (where a perceived physical imbalance of power is at play with the bully) would be very much aligned with my argument. Although your argument can be praised for its brevity, I would aslo ask you to further explain why any of your alternatives is a better way of dealing with bullies. Although you have provided some alternatives, you have not provided any reasons why my method is wrong or indeed why your's is right.
Doing the same thing/s the bullies did to their victims as a punishment is a bad idea

It's a bad idea because the bully would just be abused and there could just be a big mess after that. Sending them to juvenile prison is better than doing it back to them. Besides, teachers are not allowed to hurt students physically now. Another thing, I have other ideas about what kinds of other things people could do to the bully other than doing it back to them.1. Send them to juvenile prison.2. Make them more active (eg. make them do push ups in front of the class or grade).3. Talking about bullying more in the school and make them think about what they did to their victims.4. Make them talk to an expert.5. Give them time out.6. Send them to the principal's office.And so on and so forth.
Doing the same thing/s the bullies did to their victims as a punishment is a bad idea

This seems to be an argument of stories and anecdotes, so I have one that you should consider in regards to your arguments. There was a boy named Tom that my brother's friend used to babysit that came home one day with a story about his friend. It went something like this. Tom's parents were a huge fan of brainwashing, a fact that Tom was very proud of. However, it meant that when he told stories about it in school his friends would get jealous and steal things from him. One day when his friend Tim stole Tom's casserole something inside Tom broke. He grabbed a spork and stabbed at Tim, not meaning any real harm, but it cut his wrist open and he died. Tom was charged with assault and sent away to Juvenile Hall. There they took away his books and his brainwashing and left him to rot in a cell for weeks at a time. Throughout this time he was sent to counselor. She was a good woman and an even better social worker, but unfortunately (as Tom says) they never are able to reach anyone. During his stay, the warden provided a new benefit for the inmates: they were given books to read on bullying and they were shown websites about bullying. The iron shutters of the roof on the prison shook with the might of their riots as they protested this action. Then, just as the courts decided they were lost causes and sentence them to death, the Warden was struck with an idea that was so crazy, it might just work. She dove into the archives and searched for days on end until finally she found it. She took a stack of binders and slammed it upon the court's floor to draw attention above all the contesting voices. She then solemnly approached the first boy and after she got the court's attention, started to punch and kick the bully, until there was severe bruising. He went back to school in CA and was on the honor role for 3 years. One by one she went, the folders of the original records of the boy's misdemeanors in one hand and various bullying tools in the other. One boy ended up going to Harvard and another won three Pulitzer awards. Tom's is now is an astronaut-president-jedi-Bear Wrestler who secretly invented a time machine and set up the world so he could make money off of apple so is a billionaire too. As we can see from this story, counseling and giving bullies books on bullying to make them better has no effect on children at all (in fact it can cause riots of a violent nature!). However, when the bullies were exposed to what had been done to them, the results were astounding. I wish that my teacher had used this technique on me, I would also like to be a bear wrestler. I think this story proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that my suggested tit for tat method is the best method for teaching bullies.
Doing the same thing/s the bullies did to their victims as a punishment is a bad idea

Have you thought that not all bullies know that they're bullying? They could be brainwashed in some way. They could be worried something might happen to them if they don't do it. They might have mental problems. Maybe they don't even know they did it. It's not always about them breaking rules, but it's about what they actually know. You might think that they know it, but what if they don't? Maybe they do, but they didn't know they did it? Harassment is bad, but their education is more important. You have to teach them about harassment so they know. For those who don't know, can keep being punished so they could learn. Borrow books for them to read about bullying, show them websites about bullying, etc. If they don't behave, get them suspended or something. Or send them to another school. I've heard about this boy that was a bully. He was so bad, that he got sent to another school. He was more well behaved in that school and he had discipline. He learned. He dropped his bad habits.
A healthy debate for two.

Hello, Debate_master1 I am sorry but I said in the rules, if you actually read them, that you must comment before you join the debate. I understand that it was not a closed debate but I am new to this and did not know you could do that. I am happy that you were eager to start a debate with me but I am planning to cancel this debate. I might do a debate with you on vegetarians later but for now I am in school and need to get back to homework. If you have any questions then you may ask them.
A healthy debate for two.

Hello, This will officially be my first debate and I am VERY excited but I am incapable of coming up with what to debate about so I would like it if someone could help me come up with the debate topic. It could be simple or complex but I ask you, please do not join without my permission. I will look at the comments and see who is the most applicable for this. If you do not wait for my permission to join you will in turn be saying you forfeit the debate to me. The first round will be acceptance to give a fair number of turns and after that we will debate the topic we choose. Thank you for looking at this and if you read this far, please find a spot to put "this looks awesome". it is just to show me that you read this and agree with my terms. Have a nice day.
Youths today are too heavily influenced by media.

"Can my opponent agree to these standards?" Yes. Media today are everywhere and close to us, unlike the past where they were scarce and can only be transmitted through radios and televisions. Now, they can be transmitted through our daily gadgets, big screens on buildings and computers. Therefore, the vast exposure of medias to youth is indisputable. Under such vast exposure, it is no surprise that youths today are too heavily influenced by media. Romance scene from korean dramas encourage teens to get into relationships at an early age. I believe that primary school teachers would agree with me that there are rising cases of youths as young as 8 years old are starting to get into relationships. Sexual scene from R18^ films teach youth about "female biology" and encourage sex. Do not be surprise when primary school children starts talking about sex. Their knowledge in sex are equal to us. Whether this knowledge is good or bad is another debate itself, the key point is, youths are naturally curious and like to explore. This encourages underage sex. It is true that even though cases such as violent and romance are rising, it remains at a low level. This is because moral values, laws aand orders, and wisdom refrain us from making these mistakes. However, it cannot be said that they are not influenced by media. Influenced by definition means the capacity to have an effect on character, development, or behavior of someone. It is the thoughts rather than the actions of youth that decide if youths are influenced by media. These thoughts could be killing their bullies, fantasizing a relationship, behaving violently.
Youths today are too heavily influenced by media.

Introduction: To begin, I would like to take the moment to give a word of appreciation to my opponent for setting up this debate. Since Pro has not provided a structure for Burden of Proof, I presume that it is equally shared. Similarly, since Pro has not put forth a definition of the terms, I shall do so myself. Definition and Terms of Debate: While I am fairly certain that we all agree that media has an influence on minors, each side must either affirm or negate the claim, respectively, that media influences the young too much, which I shall, for the sake of this debate, define as exerting an influence that is, on balance, more harmful than helpful for childrens' social, physical, intellectual and moral health. Can my opponent agree to these standards?
It Is Morally Acceptable To Get Pregnant Just So You Can Have An Abortion For Fun!

Con must argue from a pro-choice perspective but against the proposition.I hold that if a fetus is not a human life with any rights then it follows that it is morally acceptable to get pregnant just to have an abortion for fun.You aren't killing any living being, just having some tissue removed from you, having some "weight" taken off. This could help someone to lose weight from the nutrients that go to the fetus.
It Is Morally Acceptable To Get Pregnant Just So You Can Have An Abortion For Fun!

"Since the fetus is not a person, but merely tissue no moral complaint can be made against people who choose to have abortions for any reason whatsoever. [. .. ] To say otherwise is to confuse the fetus with a person. " FUTURE LIFE No one is confusing the fetus with a person in this debate; however, the fetus is a potential human being. Had the woman never had an abortion, the fetus could very likely have gone on to become life. And while I must clarify I am indeed pro-choice in situations such as rape, incest, and failed contraceptions, I must say that it is immoral to unnecessarily terminate what could have been (and very likely would have been) a human life for nothing more than mere petty amusement. THE FATHER My opponent also makes the crucial mistake of assuming the fetus is the only factor relevant to the scenario. However, there is another: the potential father of the fetus this woman so gleefully wishes to eradicate. While the woman may be uninterested in having a child, the man who contributed his half of the DNA, may wish to keep it. The only way for a man to ever succeed in bringing a child into this world is by allowing his genes proper time to develop into life in the woman's womb. And I find it quite immoral for a woman to borrow a man's DNA (a man who very well could want deeply nothing more than to have his lineage continue) temporarily only to snuff it out, all the while deriving pleasure from this act.
It Is Morally Acceptable To Get Pregnant Just So You Can Have An Abortion For Fun!

I request that my opponent to clearly and concisely state the premise in which he will be defending the validity of during the opening of the next round, in order to dispel any possible ambiguity in the future. For the moment, however, (and for the remainder of this debate if he does not articulate the premise), I shall assume this is an accurate representation of my opponent's stance: "It is not immoral for a woman to purposely become pregnant only so that she can later get an abortion for fun. " And I shall argue that this premise is not true, or at least that it should not rationally be believed to be true. Fun will be defined as such: "Enjoyment, amusement, or pleasure derived from a particular action (in this case, having an abortion)". I also elucidate the definition of the "fetus" in this hypothetical scenario as my opponent did in the instigation. For the purposes of this debate, a fetus will be defined as having these properties (and I urge my opponent to either agree or disagree with each one): 1. It is non-living (at least in any stage that our hypothetical woman will be having an abortion). 2. As requisites from the first property, it has no rights, no conscious, no sentience, and it can feel no physical or mental pain. 3. It will eventually become a living human (but only months after the hypothetical abortion; perhaps not even until it exists the womb).
Most of the things written in the Bible cannot be true.

First you said the God brought a flood that killed EVERYBODY. But is that what the Bible really says? Genesis 7:7 says"So Noah, along with his sons, his wife, and his sons’ wives, went into the ark ahead of the floodwaters." Yes so god saved Noah and his family, on the ark, but he destoyed the rest of the wicked world."Christian's believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old (as stated in the bible)"First we do not beleive that. Why? Well the Bible does not give an exact date of when god created us. [1] So the earth could have been created billions of years ago, it could have been created 6,000 years ago. The answer is not in the Bible therefore we do not know FOR SURE."Noah's Ark. A ship that is longer and bigger than the Wyoming, which is also a wooden made boat. A boat that is described in the Bible, being made by peasants and farmers. HOW?!?! The Wyoming was made by professionals, and still wasn't anywhere compared to Noah's Ark. Not to mention they had to put over a hundred animals on a cheaply made structure by peasants and farmers. How could they make it? The ship would sink."Ah well do you know what the structure for the Ark was?In size the ark was 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high. Conservatively calculating the cubit as 44.5 cm (17.5 in.) (some think the ancient cubit was nearer 56 or 61 cm), the ark measured 133.5 m by 22.3 m by 13.4 m (437 ft 6 in. × 72 ft 11 in. × 43 ft 9 in.), less than half the length of the ocean liner Queen Elizabeth 2. This proportion of length to width (6 to 1) is used by modern naval architects. This gave the ark approximately 40,000 cu m (1,400,000 cu ft) in gross volume. No known cargo vessel of ancient times even slightly resembled the ark in its colossal size. Internally strengthened by adding two floors, the three decks thus provided gave a total of about 8,900 sq m (96,000 sq ft) of space. People before Noah's time were forgers of metal, which would mean that Noah had the available resources to build a good ship.Please state the many examples.2 Timothy 3:1,2But know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here. For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal,2 Timothy 3:3,4 having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness, betrayers, headstrong, puffed up with pride, lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God, 2 Timothy 3:5 having an appearance of godliness but proving false to its power; and from these turn away.These perfectly describe the world today.
Most of the things written in the Bible cannot be true.

Alright, I'll give you that one, it does say to discipline children, but actually, some parents believe it is child abuse, so they do not spank or discpline their children. So techincally, that whole thing is based off the opinion of the parent."This is just one of the many examples that prove the bible trustworthy." Please state the many examples.Flaws in the BibleIn the Bible, God decided to send a worldwide flood. This would drown men, women, children, babies and infants, as well as eliminate all of the land animals and birds. All of the birds, animals, lands, and obviously people, are still here... how is this possible? [1]Also in the Bible, it states that a great rain covered all of the land in water. There is absolutely NO evidence that this could have happened, considering that all the land would be gone and eroded for a very long time. Things like the Himalayan Mountains are not eroded for some reason, I guess? Christian's believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old (as stated in the bible)This cannot be true. It is invalid. -There is a city in Croatia that is over 7,000 years old. That was just discovered. Take a lookfor yourself: http://theweek.com...-There is also a tree that is over 9,000 years old. Take a look: http://en.wikipedia.org...How can this be? I thought Christians(and the Bible) believed the Earth was 6,000 years old!Noah's ArkNoah's Ark. A ship that is longer and bigger than the Wyoming, which is also a wooden made boat. A boat that is described in the Bible, being made by peasants and farmers. HOW?!?! The Wyoming was made by professionals, and still wasn't anywhere compared to Noah's Ark. Not to mention they had to put over a hundred animals on a cheaply made structure by peasants and farmers. How could they make it? The ship would sink. (Comparison: https://cdn-assets.answersingenesis.org...)My arguments stand, Con, you're up.Cite:[1]- http://danielmiessler.com...
Most of the things written in the Bible cannot be true.

Ok Here I go.Note: I will give points that the Bible is trustworthy and true.A professor once said that spanking a child is wrong. Lots of parents believed him, and did not spank thaeir children. A few years later, that SAME professor said that spanking a child is not wrong and that it teaches the child discipline and the consequences of doing the wrong thing.However, the bible has always said that children should be disciplined.(Proverbs 19:18)This is just one of the many examples that prove the bible trustworthy.Check.
Most of the things written in the Bible cannot be true.

I accept this challenge. But I have a rule of my own. No forfeiting, be a man ( or woMAN) and play this through to the end. First of all your first thing you want me to prove "You must use evidence how it can be true. For example: Jesus having super-natural powers. You must prove that can be true." Is stupid. Jesus was gods son and was made in his image. So when he came to earth, as a PERFECT human, it only makes sense that he would have powers. 2 Timothy 2:16 says, "All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness." So if god inspired the bible, and he does not lie, (Titus 1:2) the Bible must be true.
Most of the things written in the Bible cannot be true.

Rules: Grammar counts, obviously. No swearing of any sort, or you will be violating my rules. If there is swearing, I will urge a deduction point for conduct. 6,000 characters, 72 hours to argue.You must prove that the things in the Bible are most definitely, true. You must use evidence how it can be true. For example: Jesus having super-natural powers. You must prove that can be true.Good luck.
Evidence against the Big Bang

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to defend the Big Bang Theory. I honestly am not that familiar with the theory as I am with biological theories, but I am very interested in learning mroe about the Big Bang Theory in this debate. I request that we have an agreed upon definition of the Big Bang Theory. I define the Big Bang Theory as follows:"In the distant past, the universe was very dense and hot; since then it has expanded, becoming less dense and cooler. " [1]Also, I agree with the syllogism; however, I will bring this up:1. Theory T predicts observation O2. Observation O IS observed;3. Therefore, theory T has been given added support [2]Good luck and I am ready for this debate. References1. . http://www.talkorigins.org...;2. Note that there is no such thing as absolutes in science.
Evidence against the Big Bang

As I feel that my arguments were not adequately responded to in our past debate, I will send this to Stephan_Hawkins should he accept. If he does not then this becomes open. The Big Bang theory: See [1] for more general information on this, although I do not believe it is required. Evidence: For this debate, evidence will be defined as the data collected via the scientific method. The scientific method can be paraphrased to "testable, repeatable, and falsifiable." According to the falsification criteria set by Karl Popper: 1. Theory T predicts O will not be observed 2. O is observed Therefore T is false. Rules: 1. No logical fallacies are allowed, I would especially like to mention strawman. 2. The definitions shall not be changed in any way. 3. The BoP is only on me. 4. No plagiarism. 5. If Pro uses any arguments outside of those in the following bracket, he will concede the debate immediately. (CMBR data, Time dilation in quasars, and redshifts in quasars {Within which there may be sub/minor-arguments}) 6. If Con does not respond to just one of these arguments, he must concede. 7. No trolling 8. No vulgarities There will be a period of 1 week voting, 72 hours arguments each person/round, 8k characters, and comments in the comments section is required for voters. Should any voter not provide a reason in the comment section, it becomes a vote-bomb and it is expected of other voters to counter that vote. There will be five rounds. 1st round will be for acceptance. 2nd-4th round will be for argumentation 5th round will be for closing. In the 5th round there can be no more than 1k characters. Should any of these rules be broken, the offending party must concede the debate and it is requested that 7 points be placed on the one who did not break the rules by the voters. Otherwise it is requested that a fair vote be made. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...