BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Fathers should not have a say in whether the mother keeps or aborts the child

I don't quite get your side note there, you say " Sexual intercourse is not the only way to produce a child. A male does not have to be present to make a child." Which is true somewhat. However it still requires a man's semen to make a child. Not only that it would also be somewhat impractical to have a child any other way than sexual intercourse(aside from adoption). Anyways, you say "The most the male will have to do is support the child and mother. " the thing that bothers me is that you act like that isn't a big deal. But what you have just done is proven that a man has quite a substantial role in child birth! Supporting the mother and whatever other family members who live with them could be considered the most important part, meaning that the man might have to work two or more jobs to support the household(pay taxes, pay for food, etc.) You say "A mother has to face 9 painfull months while the father lives on with the rest of his life." However, don't you think the father suffers as well? Trying to support the household(as I stated previously.) that can be a bit stressful. Then you go on to say "The Second argument is that most fathers aren't even in the child's life so why would you need to have a say if your not gonna be there." Your whole second argument is based around circumstance. Not all men try to deny that the child is theirs. Not all men want to abort the child. Now in your last argument you say that it affects the mother more? Well, that's an opinion, some people say it affects the mother more, and some people say it affects the father more. Your whole argument is circumstantial, and would not apply to all mothers and fathers.
Fathers should not have a say in whether the mother keeps or aborts the child

Just a side note. Sexual intercourse is not the only way to produce a child. A male does not have to be present to make a child. Now on to my arguments.The first argument i made was that the father does not face the burden of carrying the child. A father will never understand what it is like to have a child and how it tremendously effects the mothers life and health (as well as the father but not as much as the mother) in many ways. A man isn't effected the way a women is. The most the male will have to do is support the child and mother. That is all. A mother has to face 9 painfull months while the father lives on with the rest of his life. That's how I feel about that. The Second argument is that most fathers aren't even in the child's life so why would you need to have a say if your not gonna be there. Most men try to deny that the child is there's so they don't have to give up there life. While the mother has to deal with health and financial issues. It would not be fair to the mother if the father tells her to abort the child so he doesn't have to be a father early in life but what if the mother wants to keep it. Last argument was that it effects the mother more. Think about it. When did a man ever have to go through the physical and mental part of birth. They never have had to so its not there place to give a opinion. Most importantly it's the women's body not the males. You don't make decisions for other people's bodies.
Fathers should not have a say in whether the mother keeps or aborts the child

Look at it this way, to have a child you must have two people, a woman and a man. So how is it fair if the woman is the only one who gets a say? I understand that the woman is the one who goes through labor, but the process of making a child includes the man (or the husband in this case) so it doesn't seem fair that the man doesn't get a say.
Haiku Challenge

I realize that this is a faux pas on Debate.org as it's not a debate.... my apologies. I debate plenty; this is just not one of those times. I saw someone else running a haiku challenge on DDO and I have decided that I want to do one as well. Rules: Haiku Template: 5 syllables 7 syllables 5 syllables First Round is acceptance, although you MUST accept with a Haiku (I ask voters to penalize for failure to follow this) After the acceptance round, I will throw down my Haiku, in which you must counter with your Haiku. You MUST counter my Haiku and not create a new one. (Voters you know what to do) I will do the same to yours and it goes on as such. OPENING HAIKU I am not kidding. (5) I write haiku constantly. (7) Accept this challenge! (5)
Ban cell phones for people under 16

Bullying does occur even without cellphones and children should tell their parents, but the responsibility does not rest solely with children. If parents are not involved in their children"s lives and rely on cell phones to know where they are and what they are doing then they will miss some or all of the signs you pointed out. The fact is that staying involved in your children"s life may be one of the hardest things you'll ever face; studies show that it's also one of the most significant things you can do to ensure your child makes it to a happy adulthood. Parents often cite safety as a major reason for wanting to give their child a cell phone. They believe that the ability to easily reach their kid and vice versa means it is somehow safer. But I think the result is exactly the opposite. Giving a child a cell phone creates a false sense of security and that can cause parents to be less diligent about the details of their child's life. And while it's true that a cell phone makes it easy for you to reach your child anytime, anyplace, it also makes it easy for everyone else to reach your child, anytime, anyplace. And this easy access and exposure can dramatically reduce your child's safety. Behind the concern over children's safety lies an important question: Where is your kid going that is so dangerous? If your child's daily life involves situations like school and extracurricular activities, there are probably plenty of phones around at any given moment. When your kid is at school, there is a phone in the school office and chances are there's one in every classroom they sets foot in, on top of all that there are cell phones in every teacher's pocket or purse. When it comes to extracurricular activity, if the activity is in a building, like a dance studio or a gym, that facility surely has a phone. Even if the activity takes place outside like on a sports field, I am sure that the coach and all of the other parents have cell phones. Rather than giving your child a cell phone, do something that will really make a difference in terms of her safety and quality of life. Make an effort to get to know the teachers, coaches and other parents well enough to exchange contact info and even cell phone numbers with them.
Ban cell phones for people under 16

Every parent should keep tabs on their child under 16. Knowing their child's safety is crucial for any parent. "The survey showed that the top reasons parents had for buying phones for this age group are safety (84 percent), tracking a child's after-school activities (73 percent), and that the child asked for one (16 percent.) As for what kinds of phones parents are buying for their tweens: A perhaps surprisingly low 4 percent got a basic phone with no Web or texting ability." http://www.consumerreports.org... Parents can confiscate their child's phone every day/night to see what their child is talking about and what pictures he/she is taking. Bullying can occur even without a cellphone, a child is responsible for telling a parent/guardian what is happening before it can get worse. There is always signs a child will show to prove he/she is a target for bulling. For example, "Declining grades, loss of interest in schoolwork, or not wanting to go to school. Unexplainable injuries. Feelings of helplessness or decreased self esteem. Etc" http://www.stopbullying.gov... These are ways any person should indicate their child is being harassed. Every parent wants for know where their child is and what they're doing. Looking up information for class is beneficial. Having a map to help you locate places. Responsibility is one way to show a parent their child is capable of having a phone and maintaining good grades or not loosing it. Cellphones should be allowed for children under 16.
Ban cell phones for people under 16

A World Health Organization study released in 2010 showed that using a mobile for more than half-an-hour a day for ten years increased the risk of a brain tumor. Many public health experts believe that, as serious risks to children could be involved, we cannot wait for science to be conclusive. John Wargo, Ph.D., professor of Environmental Risk and Policy at Yale University and lead author of a report released in February 2012 by US health charity EHHI that "The scientific evidence is sufficiently robust showing that cellular devices pose significant health risks to children and pregnant women." (mobilewise.org) Parents should be building relationships with their children and not relying on cell phones to keep tabs on them. There are many instances where a cell phone is useless, dead battery, poor signal or turned off any of these instances would add to a parents worries about their child. Victims of cyber bullying are the targets of lies or vicious gossip or are victims of impersonation. Most parents of victims have no idea it's happening. Victims often don't want to tell their parents about it; they may be embarrassed or, they may not fully realize that they are being bullied. They know that what is happening makes them feel bad but may not connect with the fact that it is wrong and something that they should tell someone about. Cyber bullying can lead to suicide. According to the CDC (Centers for Disease Control), 4,400 children a year commit suicide and for every child who dies there are 100 suicide attempts. Cyber bullying has been linked to suicide, whether the child is the bully or the one being bullied. Children under 16 should not have cell phones but should supervised by adults.
Ban cell phones for people under 16

A child under the age of sixteen should have a cellphone for the reasons I stated. Cellphone use among young children is growing everyday. For safety reasons a parent would allow their child to have one. Every parent should know where their child is after school and what they're doing. A cellphone helps parents do that. The phone can be prepaid and without a camera so sexting won't occur. If there is an issue with a bully there can be blocked. The parent should also give there child the cellphone in case of emergency and cut off internet so the child would not be distracted during class.
Ban cell phones for people under 16

P: Children do not need to use cell phones during exams. P: A person under 16 or child should know their parents contact information without having to get it from a cell phone, because if the phone has a dead battery or is defective in any way then it is useless in an emergency. P: Parents should build trust with their children instead of using cell phones to track them. Also parents teach their children how to become a responsible person. P: Sexting is against the law and can result in child pornography charges for the sender or senders even if they are minors. According to nsopr.gov sending or posting nude photos or videos starts at a young age and becomes more frequent as teens become young adults. And that 51% of teen girls say pressure from a guy is a reason girls send sexy images or messages, only 18% of teen boys said pressure from a girl was a reason. P: Text bullying can happen 24 hours a day, even at home, which is usually a refuge from bullying, so it can feel inescapable. This has become a serious problem among adolescents and teens. It can have devastating consequences, and parents may not even know it's occurring. Text bullies are often much meaner because they don't have to see their victims. The victims may not know who is sending the messages, which can be frightening. Victims often respond by sending mean messages back to the bully, becoming bullies themselves. C: Cell phones make children less safe, because they are less aware of their environment. Children under 16 should not have cell phones.
Ban cell phones for people under 16

Children under the the age of sixteen should own a cellphone. For exams, in case of a emergency the child would have their partners contact information right at their hands. A cellphone can also be used to track a child since it has a GPS. A cellphone can also allow the parents to know where their child is and if plans happen to change. Also, having a a cellphone can teach kids about having responsibility. http://www.sheknows.com...
America should have never gotten involved in world war 1

I shall address first, suxxex agreement. I for one don't see reason why the US should have continued to trade with Britain or Germany when they were at war to begin with. Trading with them essentially encourages that war, so I challenge the reason behind the US sending ships to trade with Britain to begin with during a time of war. The sinking of the Lusitania should have told us it was not a good idea to continue trading with powers that are at war. It can happen, even accidentally, that ships of ours would be sunk, so we were already putting American lives at danger by trading with a country that was at war. I argue it is thus, partially America's fault for American lives being killed since I argue it is a foolish idea to trade with countries at war with each other who are willing to go to great lengths to win the war. However, as usual, we let profit guide us rather than keeping Americans safe so America chose to endanger the lives of Americans. Next, I'll address the Zimmerman Telegram. There is absolutely no reason for America to be concerned with that telegram. Notice how it says "We shall endeavor in spite of this to keep the United States of America neutral. In the event of this not succeeding, we make Mexico a proposal of alliance..." All of those terms of Mexico gaining its territory back is all dependent on if America decides to intervene in the war. If America remained neutral, this wouldn't be a threat whatsoever. The fact America did get involved potentially ran the risk of Mexico joining Germany in the war. Germany was only trying to protect their own interests, and wanted to make sure America didn't get involved, and America is not the only country that matters.
America should have never gotten involved in world war 1

First off, boy. It has been quite a while since I decided to invest myself on another debate for months, hopefully I am still in form and we can make this a good debate. As per the request of the proposition I will point out that I am a enthusiastic historian in my own right, being part-german got me quite invested in learning about German history and in particular, the Great War. As for my premise as to why the US should have been involved in the war, for now you can say that my view is opposite of yours. As much as I do support it wasn't their business to begin with, I will argue on the premise that it BECAME their business as the war progressed. I will point out now that I will not deny that their involvement contributed to future issues that are prevalant today, but from the context of how the proposition has stated his premise it sounds an awful lot like it was BECAUSE of US involvement that those future issues happened in the first place, which I will argue about. My justification for that was mainly due to its inevitability, but let us save that for the debate. One last thing, please clarify whether or not new arguments can be brought up in the final round, that isn't exactly clarified upon in the rules. But otherwise, good luck! Hope for a great debate.
America should have never gotten involved in world war 1

Why isn't there a history section to put this in? Oh well, I guess politics works. Anyways, Rules: Round 1: Acceptance, intro, a brief explanation of your position Round 2: Main arguments Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: more Rebuttals/conclusion I believe America should have never been involved in world war 1 because it lead to future wars and our problems today. In addition, it wasn't our business either.
Evolution is a proven scientific theory

I fail to see where my statement is wrong. 'Theory', in the context of science can be accepted as fact, until a newer one displaces it. My contention is that it is CURRENTLY proven. Now, to my case. First, a definition Evolution A change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes such as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. Point 1 Our family tree can be traced back to Luca, the Last Universal Common Ancestor. (he was probably a bacteria) From there, we lose track until Lucy, Australopithecus. http://upload.wikimedia.org......... This is startlingly human-like. However, scientists have carried out test which show that she knuckle-walked, just like a gorilla (you can see the rounded fingers), and probably had fur, just like an ape. Point 2 Our genome is like a map of who and where we came from. We share 99.8% of our genome with apes ,therefore it seems almost self-evident to assume that we must be close relatives of apes. There is no bone in the ape body that I do not share. Heck, there isn't even a brain lobe that is different! Point 3 We've seen it happen. We've started, and are continuing an experiment known as the e-coli project. Basically, it consists of taking bacteria, and waiting. A long time. And sure enough, the generation 50000 bacteria grow about 100 times faster than Generation 1. I believe that this proves that evolution takes place, beyond any reasonable doubt. (1)http://humanorigins.si.edu......... (2)http://myxo.css.msu.edu......... (PS, thank you to my opponent for accepting this debate. It's going to be interesting!)
The U.S. Dept. of State should issue special "Agricultural Intern" entry visas to famine victims

I would like to thank Chrysippus for accepting this debate and for posting such an eloquent rebuttal together with an alternative proposal I accept that to ship all the starving Africans into the U.S. would swamp the country but America has a free-market economy and the market will decide how many agricultural interns will be imported - as the market begins to become saturated, the price per unit will fall to a level where it is no longer economic to transport agricultural interns into the United States. I also accept that Mexican migrant workers will be displaced by the more economic agricultural interns but please don't think they will go hungry back home: after Americans, Mexicans are the fattest people in the world [1]; they'll get their bit, don't you worry about that. And with regard to language barriers, migrant workers from Mexico tend to speak very little English – indeed, in certain U.S. states such as Texas, Florida and New Mexico you can't get served in some shops and restaurants unless you speak Spanish – I recently passed a store in a suburb of Miami that had a sign in the window that read "ENGLISH SPOKEN HERE"! In sub-Saharan Africa, on the other hand, English is the official language of Botswana, Cameroon, The Gambia, Ghana, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Malawi, Mauritius, Namibia, Nigeria, Rwanda, St Helena, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe and English is also widely spoken elsewhere in Africa even though it has no official status. Therefore, there should be no problem in the agricultural migrants understanding simple commands such as: "Stop moaning you bunch of skulking savages, you'll get fed when the crop is picked and not before" and "Put your backs into it, or I'll have you whipped to within an inch of your lives you indolent work-shy slackers." Now, regarding my opponents alternative suggestion of imposing American sovereignty on errant African nations: the American colonisation of Africa would be difficult politically as most sub-Saharan African countries are members of the British Commonwealth who are committed to protecting democracy and human rights. Invading a Commonwealth country would lose the U.S. the friendship of Commonwealth members such as Canada, Australia, India and, of course, the UK. Furthermore, the American record of colonisation is not unblemished. The population of Red Indians prior to the foundation of the United States is conservatively estimated to have been 12 million but by the 20th Century the population had decreased by 95% to a mere 237,000 – representing one of the largest and longest sustained genocides in human history. [3] That's why the best way to alleviate famine in Africa is to rescue the victims and grant them special Agricultural Intern entry visas to the United States. Thank you. [1] http://www.nationmaster.com... [2] http://www.thecommonwealth.org... [3] http://www.iearn.org...
The U.S. Dept. of State should issue special "Agricultural Intern" entry visas to famine victims

Famine is a perennial problem in sub-Saharan Africa and every year brings wholesale death from starvation to the native population. These tragedies are mitigated to some extent by aid donated by developed countries but all-too-often the food and money is intercepted or diverted by corrupt governments and their officials. [1] That's why I propose private trading companies send ships to regions affected by famine to rescue as many natives as they can and ferry them to America. Upon entry into the United States the immigration officials will grant the new arrivals special "Agricultural Intern" entry visas similar to existing U.S. work permits [2] and attach them to the importer's passenger manifest (as the rescued Africans are highly unlikely to have passports). Of course, the trading company will have to cover the cost of shipping, feeding the Africans during the crossing, etc. and make a small profit on top, and they will do this by auctioning their human cargos off to farmers and plantation owners - handing the purchasers the individual's visa documents as a receipt of sale. The new owners of these agricultural interns would be able to recoup the their initial outlay and the ongoing costs of housing and feeding their purchases by putting them to work in their fields. Now, in order to foil agricultural intern-rustlers, farmers and plantation owners would be encouraged to tattoo their logo or mark on their workers' foreheads. This would also prevent any ungrateful interns from breaking the terms of their visas by leaving their owners' farms in order to seek alternative employment. Of course, these agricultural interns should only stay in the U.S. as long as is absolutely necessary and just as soon as Africa is free from famine and corruption they should all be returned to their native homelands. This plan would save the lives of hundreds of thousands of starving Africans and boost the profits of American farmers and plantation owners at the same time and I, therefore, affirm that the U.S. Department of State should issue special "Agricultural Intern" entry visas to famine victims. Thank you. [1] http://www.usaid.gov... [2] http://travel.state.gov...