BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Discipline should be instilled by parents not school.

I assume your argument is entirely from <http://www.cyc-net.org...;. I understand that in many developing nations where standards of living are not up to modern standards, inappropriate punishments are often carried out by parents and schools alike. However, initial argument topic explicitly states that parents should carry out disciplinary actions. I believe that your argument in a way depreciates your own view, because the article states that parents are equally to blame. Also, in developed countries, where rights of children are protected, it is not common for this to happen. Therefore, we can assume that these schools will be responsible when carrying out punishments. Finally, discipline does not solely include physical punishments. In developed nations, often times discipline by school means detention, suspension, or other "civil" punishments. Therefore, I still believe that schools must be allowed to authorize discipline to certain degree.
Discipline should be instilled by parents not school.

What you are saying is absolutely true. A child's parents, especially mother, has and should have the most influence on a child's action and discipline. However, I believe that schools should also instill certain level of discipline. Parents have a right to know with absolute certainty that when their child attends school, he/she will be kept safe and transformed from a child to a responsible member of the society. If the school has no way of disciplining the students, how will the students react to 6~8 hours of complete freedom from all authorities that restrict their freedom? How can parents be assured that their child will not become spoiled in an environment with too much freedom? I agree with you that parents should have the most influential role in child's discipline, but I politely disagree with you in that they should be the only ones administering discipline, and the school should not have any role in it.
Prove Jesus is the Messiah

In order to prove Jesus was the Messiah one has show that the prophecies given to the prophets was fulfilled in Jesus Christ. In my arguments I will attempt to show that 1. Jesus fulfilled the prophesies that were required to be fulfilled during the time the Messiah was to be revealed. 2. Show that Jesus claimed to be the Messiah. 3. Those who witnessed Jesus either said he was the Messiah or said that Jesus maid the claim that He was. Note: All verses will be used from ESV/KJV 1. "The Messiah would be born of a virgin" Isaiah 7:14,Matt 1:20; "The Messiah would be born in Bethlehem" Michah 5:2 Matt 2:1;" Messiah would be called Immanuel" Isaiah 7:14,Matt 1:23; "A messenger would prepare the way for Messiah" Isaiah 40:3-5, Luke 3:3-6; "Messiah would be rejected by his own people" Isaiah 53:3, John 1:9-11;" The Messiah would be a descendant of David" 2 Sam 7:7-12, Matt 1:1;" The Messiah would be resurrected" Psalms 16:8-11, Acts 13:35-37; "The Messiah would be the suffering servant Isaiah 53; The Messiah would bring the New Covenant" Jerimiah 31:31, Heb 8:6-13. There are many more prophecies Jesus fulfilled but these are a few. (http://jewsforjesus.org...) 2. In John 8:59 and John 10:30 We have two examples of Jesus claiming to be Messiah in terms the only way the Hebrew people understand it and in both cases Jesus was accused of claiming to be God and so the Pharisees attempted to stone Him for Blasphemy (Leviticus 24:16). 3. Those who witnessed Jesus first hand claimed He was the Messiah. John the Apostle in John 1:1,1:14 claimed that from the beginning of the Universe Jesus was God. When Thomas reffered to Jesus as "My Lord and my God" (John 20:28) Jesus did not correct him. The Jewish man in John 9:35-38 came to Jesus and after hearing His words worshiped Jesus and called Jesus God. The woman at the well in John 4:19-26 meet Jesus and During there conversation Jesus claims to be God and she believes the Jesus is and tells all the people in her town. It is clear that Jesus fulfilled the prophecies of the messiah, claimed to be God and those who witnessed Jesus believed that He was as well.
Homophobia is beneficial to many heterosexuals

The official definition of homophobia according to Merriam-Webster is the "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals." Note that this includes discrimination against homosexual people. Discriminating against gay people is not okay. According to cdc.gov, "LGBTQ youth are also at increased risk for suicidal thoughts and behaviors, suicide attempts, and suicide. A nationally representative study of adolescents in grades 7"12 found that lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth were more than twice as likely to have attempted suicide as their heterosexual peers." Being irrationally cruel to a person simply because they are homosexual is not a realistic method of avoiding unwanted sexual advances. However, if a gay male or female was persistently sexual with someone (sexual orientation doesn't even matter in this situation) who had stated they were not interested, that becomes sexual harassment. Homophobia is not a realistic method, rather it is harmful especially with the suicide rate of LGBTQ youth. "Straight friend crushes is one of the most common issues in the gay community." This is not factually based. I am sure that this can be an issue for gay people. I would find it very difficult falling for someone I have literally no chance with. However, neither gay people nor straight people consciously choose who they fall for - it just happens. I would never be upset with another girl for having a crush on me because that's not her fault. I would be flattered, but make it clear that I am heterosexual. I also think that you are making the false assumption that gay people fall for every member of the same sex regardless of sexual orientation. To say that homophobia is "beneficial" to heterosexuals can be true to an extent, but there can still be compassion and understanding for homosexual people. Like I said before, persistent sexual advances from one person to another is sexual harassment. If a gay person hasn't exhibited any harassing behavior, what is the point of literally terrifying them to the point of staying away from you because you don't want a gay person to "crush" on you? Why is it so difficult to say "I'm sorry, I'm flattered, but I'm not gay." A gay person being attracted to you does not make YOU gay. Being bicurious is perfectly healthy. Gay people do not "make" straight people gay. If a previously straight person decides to experiment with the same sex, that does not necessarily make them gay - simply bicurious. It is up to two consenting adults to make sure that they are having safe sexual relations. Your argument that homophobia prevents STDs is not logical. Male and females can also get STDs from each other. If you have unsafe sex, then you are at risk for contracting STDs. It has nothing to do with sexual orientation.
Homophobia is beneficial to many heterosexuals

Let's just keep it simple. State your argument and we will see who wins. Beneficial - favorable or advantageous; resulting in good. 1. Straight friend crushes is one of the most common issues in the gay community. Many closet and open gays crush on their straight friends. Many heterosexuals consider this a problem. Homophobes are less likely to experience this problem because homophobes wouldn't befriend open gays in the first place in which keeps open gays out of their life to avoid any possible discomforting friendship issues. Gays are less likely to come on to homophobes in which saves homophobes from being discomforted compared to non-homophobic heterosexuals . Gays are more likely to attemp to sexually seduce gay friendly heterosexuals based on wishful thinking that the non-homophobic heterosexual might be a little gay. Closet gays are less likely to even reveal their crush. Closet gays are also less likely to come out to a homophobes in which prevents discomforting homophobes. These real situations gives homophobes the favorable outcome resulting in good for the homophobe compared to non-homophobic heterosexuals giving the same situation. 2. Some gays attempt to sexually seduce heterosexuals hoping the heterosexual might be a little gay. Gays are less likely to attempt to sexually seduce homophobic heterosexuals because of safety concerns and undesired responses. This saves homophobic heterosexuals from unwanted sexual advances giving non-homophobic heterosexuals the disadvantage. 3. Some heterosexuals experience homosexuality out of curiosity in which increases the chances of contracting deadliest stds. Homophobes are less likely to experience homosexuality compared to non-homophobic heterosexuals. Some non-homophobic heterosexuals experience homosexuality for the money. Some non-homophobi-heterosexuals are weak so they let homosexuals persuade them to be sexually seduced. Homophobic heterosexuals gets the advantage because our homophobia, make it less likely to experience homosexuality in which decreases the risk of contracting deadly stds. The homophobes who are caught engaging in homosexual behavior are fake homophobes. In other words, they are pretending to be homophobic.
The FBI or the Police should have access to the deep web

You have ignored the fact that I explained on how the police does have access to the deep web, But it is really hard, To borderline impossible to actually catch these guys. The police are human being like you and I. It is not hard for me to right now, Install TOR, Code up some firewalls and other privacy VPNS, And surf the dark web for cocaine. It is common sense. If someone got kidnapped to a place, The first thing would not be to look on the dark web, It would to actually search for this person in real life, Look for ACTUAL evidence during the scene of the crime, And to investigate as hard as they can. Also do you know how hard it is to actually find for things on the deep web? It makes up 96% of the internet's content. While 4% is what you and I are using, The surface web on Google, Yahoo, Bing, Whatever. Not all of the deep web is illegal however, That does not make this situation any better although, There would be so much protection against posts, And so many anonymous, Blocked IP addresses, And tracking lead to dead ends, That there would be almost no point. One of the most successful ways the FBI gets this guys is through undercover, You can research what that is if you are clueless of it's existence.
The FBI or the Police should have access to the deep web

But still, Some criminals can't be caught unless you look on the deep web. Kidnappers are one of them, Maybe someone is kidnapped to a place far away and chained somewhere. The mother of the victim would not automatically know where her daughter or son went or what happened. But maybe the deep web would help because it might give a hint as to where the daughter or son is taken. Also if their's multiple people that could be to blame for the problem, The deep web is sometimes necessary to decide which one is the real criminal.
The FBI or the Police should have access to the deep web

The police can access the deep web if they want to with undercover cops and information as such. The point of the deep web is for any providers, Browsers, Or companies to not track or gain or keep any information of their user, Which is a great start for privacy. The reason why it is so hard for these people to track down deep web users, Is the amount of protection and walls they have against their posts, Making it really hard to find or track the users without any exact evidence. TLDR; popo has access, No point in going there if it is too hard to track criminals.
Is Islam a violent religion

Hi! I do not believe that Islam is a violent religion. If you look deeply into any religious books you'll noticed that most of them mentions some kind of violence against someone. Just like the bible, the Quran should not be taken literal. Islam is actually a peaceful religion when it is not practiced to the extreme. The KKK is a group, however you don't see a lot of people writing Christianity off because of that bad group. So just because some people are using the religion in a wrong way doesn't mean everyone practicing the religion is bad.
Aliens have helped develop our society

Very good point Con! Although the Egyptians are very well known for their advancement in technology, which thanks to your response and link to Dunn's website, I am convinced in this area. But you leave out the other civilization in Bolivia responsible for the building of Puma Punku. Evidence supports that the Andean peoples with "simple reed boats" could not have moved these giant rocks over 10 km, which was where the rock quarry was located. The type of holes and drilling that were so mathematically exact, proves impossible to use from stone or copper tools. They would need a more advanced way to cut the contoured holes out. These contoured holes through the huge slabs would show that they are similar to interlocking building blocks. I would say that compared to just stacking huge blocks on each other, "interlocking building blocks" would require a significantly higher amount of thinking and reasoning. Keep in mind this was all done with almost exact precision with one of the hardest stones on Earth. The sheer sizes of these rocks, with the intricate detail in the overall engineering of the rocks interlocking and precision cuts and drills prove a thinking process higher than that of the civilizations known at that time. Not to mention the transportation of the red sandstone block slabs, about 85 metric tons, up a steep hill from the quarry 10 km away. Although concrete would be a solution to the complexity and the regularity of the rocks, there aren't any concrete in that area at all. Plus modern day geologists would be able to discern rock from concrete. But what about even lifting the stones into place? They would need cranes of course, but operated without any engines, so it would all be muscle to operate which would be even harder because the crane wouldn't be 100% operating efficiency and the work to maintain the "machinery". They would also need ropes or cables strong enough to lift these blocks somehow. This is great by the way!
Aliens have helped develop our society

Ok, great to have you here! I think it is almost crazy not to be opened to other intelligent life forms. I'll even go out on a limb and say that there are evidence that supports they helped our early societies. Not to mention the billions of stars within just our galaxy, and the trillions of planets orbiting those billions of stars, there has to be another planet that is in the same scientific dimensions to sustain life. Although there can be other forms of life that don't need to be in our type of environment to live. We obviously don't know. But my point also is if you take ancient civilizations for example. Peoples in Mexico and Egypt have pyramids which we know have an astrological meaning. In paintings and drawings, Egyptian rulers have elongated heads and show UFO's in the sky. In South America, look at Puma Punku, estimated 17,000 years old. They had blocks of granite, one of the hardest stone on earth by the way, one at over 800 tons precisely cut. We would have to use diamond tipped tools to cut it as fine as the Incas did. If they didn't have diamond tools, how did they cut it? They would have to have significant knowledge in mathematics, have schematics, etc but no evidence. Even with modern technology it would be nearly impossible to recreate. The average modern tower crane can lift a little less than 20 tons. You would need mobile, two tower cranes, which involve power (engines) and significant metal work and inventions, with no evidence to any of that except the ruins left behind. The stones interlocked and were drilled (again need to be diamond tipped) perfectly and of same depth. They were constructed using no mortar and were even 4 levels high! The nearest quarry for granite was also over 10 miles away, which means transporting 800 ton sized rocks. This entire process requires extremely complicated logistics and they would have to have intricate infrastructure to support this. There is also other sites besides this like the pyramids of course, Easter island and the Stonehenge site. With all of this evidence of ancient monumental technology with combination of ancient stories, religions and the fact of how much we don't know of our own planet, this has to be true. 70-71% of the Earth is covered in water. Only 5% has been explored or seen with the human eye. What if ancient civilizations live underneath us? I am really excited to debate with you, and hope you find this just as much fun as I do. Good luck!
Rap Battle

What the hell is this kid thinking accepting a match from the King I’m going to end this sht fast, my bars will reign supreme My words are like ink and I’m about to paint a masterpiece. When this battle is over they are going to label you deceased I try to be adept at everything I do Rap is just for fun, but that don’t mean I aint going to murder you If this is halo you can call me master chief I’m the fukin Spartan that sunk the entire covenant fleet I have a sniper on my back, and rifle at my side I’m all about accuracy; all it takes is one bullet to end your life Stick a sticky grenade on your head, and kick you away from me Turn around and walk away as your pleading for mercy I am going to stick on you a cross, and put a spear in your side Pretend you’re a metaphorical Christ, then watch you bleed until you die The only difference is you’re not coming back to life When I put in your place, you’re going to be stuck behind that rock Btch is so lost he doesn’t even know what to say Just another noob, that got sniped in the face Just like every other debate I’m in, this is just another win Copy his words, wins for me get categorized as “add infintum”
NBA & NCAA one-and-done rule

First off, I would like to inform my opponent that Wikipedia is in fact, not, a dependable resource. Simply because anyone can edit their pages. The opponent brings up a few successful players who skipped playing college ball and went straight to pro but truthfully there is only a select few who were able to be successful in that transition, have you ever heard of Eddy Curry, Kwame Brown, Gerald Green, or Sebastian Telfair? They are only four of the numerous who fail at the transition from highschool to pro basketball. This rule was put into effect to make sure the playing quality stays high for those who watch NBA, no one wants to watch a poor quality game. Another claim in my opponents argument is that in other sports you can become pro sooner. In the NFL there is a rule that states you must have completed 2 years of college before entering pros, and it's great. It keeps competition fair and hard. It also gives pro teams longer to monitor the athletes and see their strengths and/or weaknesses. Another reason that becoming pro in other sports is a shorter process is because they are not as popular as the NBA or NFL and they have more room for the newcoming. Having players complete one year of college is not only beneficial for colleges but also for players, the higher-skilled players often get full scholarships and are taking classes for free. If something were to happen to the player, such as an injury, that does not allow the athlete to play then the scholar has a degree to fall back on. The one and done rule does not force the athlete to attend college for four years and after one year the player has a choice on whether they would like to wait longer before entering the draft or not.
NBA & NCAA one-and-done rule

"simply skipping college basketball and going straight to pro would be like going from elementary school to highschool"No one is forcing these players to jump from high school to NBA. If the player feels he is good enough to play he should have the right to enter the draft. Most players are probably smart enough to know wheyou need the middle man to prepare you, in this case, for fast paced games.If this were true, then how come we had players like Lebron James, Kobe Bryant and Tracy Mcgrady who entered the NBA and have had successful careers.Many players have been opposed to this"Kansas State freshman Bill Walker, said (as a junior in high school), "I'm against it. I don't see why you have to be 19 to play a game of basketball when you can be 18 and go to war for our country and die. It's ridiculous." Jerryd Bayless said "It's not fair at all. If a tennis player can go pro at 13, I don't understand why a basketball player can't go pro at 18."To sum up, I think its an unnecessary rule that does more harm than good.Next round, I encourage Pro to refute my arguments.Sourceshttp://en.wikipedia.org...
People will typically vote for what they want versus what is right.

"Libertarians and Republicans vote for their best interests by voting to lower taxes, and thus keep their own money." These groups are voting for what is right, and the fact that it is in their best interest is incidental. They are not voting to take from another, but to keep what is rightfully theirs. That's the difference. I was a libertarian in college-- long before I had any money to protect. Who is taking from who is the question you need to ask. Many Republicans vote to inject their religious beliefs into government policies, thereby limiting (or taking) the freedoms of others. That is plain wrong, regardless of popularity. Some ideals of right and wrong are impervious to opinion. Stealing is wrong, regardless of whether a majority think the ends justify the means. I can't help notice an implied fondness on you part of European countries and their socialism. I'm glad you have a safe haven to run to if the U.S. straightens up and becomes a great capitalist nation again. We true capitalists (almost said Americans) have nowhere to run once we get swallowed up by the socialists, who I beleive will soon be in the majority. By the way, the dollar is crashing in comparison to the Euro because we keep borrowing money to pay for programs and wars we can't afford.
People will typically vote for what they want versus what is right.

You are also assuming that people will vote to steal from one another, or oppress one another. What about people that vote to limit governmental power for themselves. ie. Libertarians and Republicans vote for their best interests by voting to lower taxes, and thus keep their own money. This is also for the benefit of all. Also, Libertarians and democrats vote to ensure the civil rights of the people because it best serves their own interests. It is also what you are calling the "right" thing. You are also going off of the presumption that people vote to acquire money from one another. Why is it then that so many middle-class, upper-middle-class citizens vote for the democrats? They do so because they are doing what they think is right. You are also assuming that what is right is less governmental power. Yet, there are no grounds for this. Europe worked very well while socialism was around. The Euro is more powerful then the dollar. Countries like China, where so much is controlled by the government, are some of the fastest growing nations.
People will typically vote for what they want versus what is right.

Sounds like we agree, but you're happy with the fact that people vote on for what they want versus what is right. Good for you. You obviously have no fear of the socialist state that the mob rule we call democracy will eventually create. I'd sleep better at night if I adopted your attitude. Let's just examine this effect. People are actually walking into voting booths and supporting policies they know are unjust. It has to be the anonymity. It's the same effect that takes over some people when they get behind the wheels of their cars. They do things they would never dare do if they were walking down the sidewalk. They cut you off, honk their horns, refuse to let you over when you turn on your blinker. It's like they think their car is a cloak of invisibility or something. It allows them to partake in what they would otherwise consider rude and embarrassing behavior.