BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Age discrminination in the workplace should be illegal.

Hello. This debate is open for a challenger. The resolve is that age discrimination in the workplace should be illegal. I will now start the affirmative constructive stating why it should be illegal. I will first define a couple of words stated in this debate. (1) Age is the length of time during which a being or thing has existed. (2) Discrimination is defined as treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit. (3) A workplace is a person's place of employment. This debate is regarding ahe discrimination upon the termination, demotion and hiring of employees for a company. My first contention is that the elderly may be just as capable as the young. Since age is not necessarily an indication of inferior ability or potential, treating a person less favourably purely on the basis of their age is just as unreasonable and unfair as doing so on the basis of his race or religion. It would also be inconsistent with the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination, which is the base of individual rights. For an example, If a particular elderly worker truly has, say, less concentration or manual strength than a younger worker, and this objectively and reasonably makes him less qualified for the particular job, then employers can still make their decisions based on his relative lack of suitability for the job, not on his age. Age by itself should not be a determinant. My second contention is that businesses are liable to be held accountable in a lawsuit. As a result of someone getting "let go" or demoted from their employer, they are going to try and get the money that they deserve. Federal Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Laws state that there are lawsuits that can be, and have been started as a result of their termination because of age. The source also states that age rights are protected till the age of 40. An example of this happened in my hometown within the police department. Lt. Gary Honulik brought a cause up to the State of Connecticut Superior Court because he was denied a promotion because the department('s attorneys) stated that he was past the age of retirement, and was not worth the position due to the fact that he could leave at any time. I affirm the resolution that Age discrminination in the workplace (any workplace) should be illegal. For one, the elderly may be just as capable as the young. Another point I brought up, as my second contention, was that businesses are liable to be held accountable in a lawsuit, therefore wasting hard-earned money. I look forward to continuing with this debate. Sources (1) http://dictionary.reference.com... (2) http://dictionary.reference.com... (3) http://dictionary.reference.com... (4) http://www.idebate.org... (5) http://www.eeoc.gov... (6) http://www.greenwichtime.com...
Abortion

Great, so we get this magical law protecting unborn babies. What's that the parents aren't prepared to help them grow and nurture? So they gave it up for adoption. How sad that that child is now homeless living with the other orphans whose pain could have been saved.So now we have even more orphans without families. My cousin had a child and didn't want her so you know what she did? She dumped them off with my 80 year old grandparents. They can't take care of a baby at 80 years old. Why should they? Why should other people have to deal with this. So here's a thought, what if there's a mother(i'm positive there is) who if she has her baby will kill her, and the only way to save the mother is to terminate the pregnancy. Why should that not be okay. Now I see your side of the view, if this is allowed then what is to stop people from having unprotected sex and facing almost no consequences? Well why not have to provide a financial statement to show that you cannot have a baby financially.
Abortion

Laws are protecting unborn babies therefore abortion should be illegal. Murder is illegal. The definition of murder is the unlawful killing of a human being. *If, abortion were illegal it would be considered murder because basic science proves that an unborn child, fetus whatever you want to call it is a human being. These babies are fully human even if they"re not born yet. They"re just like us but the difference is that they are innocent little people, voiceless and helpless. Abortion is contradicting the U.S constitution. "The Fourteenth Amendment to the United Statses Constitution says, "No State shall " deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The fetus should have an undeniable right to live. As a matter of fact, this has been written in the U.S constitution since 1787. People have been ignoring this for years. That"s why we have abortion.* If people are ignoring the constitution we might as well not have a constitution. The death penalty law states, "Federal law prohibits the death penalty for pregnant women until they give birth. (18 U.S.C.A. S.3596) In essence, the law declared that an innocent unborn person cannot be sentenced and put to death for a crime he did not commit. If the unborn child were not seen as a person in the eyes of the law, there would be no need for this prohibition." You can only kill a person if they committed a crime. That"s why people say that you"re killing an innocent person because it has not done anything wrong to get to the point of taking away its life. Laws have always been against abortion.
Abortion

you keep using the term "unsafe abortion" If you go to a clinic where this is practiced is is way more safe than getting it from that hobo down the street. And another thing, you have a better likely hood to gain depression when you have a child as well. And it isn't our place to say anything about mothers who have abortions. What if it wasn't there fault. What if the condom broke, what if the birth control pills didn't work? Why should it be there fault then. Why should we get to judge them based on their decision. This is their choice. And yeah it's very sad, and suicide sadly is an option for them. But if you can't handle a baby then wouldn't it be better to bring a baby into the world when they, THE PARENTS are prepared?
Abortion

First of all, abortions are not safe. A woman has a high risk of getting depression. In fact, this can last at least five years after they abort. They also have a high risk of suicide. (154% more likely than women who give birth.) *If , someone decides to have an abortion. Their lives are going to be miserable. They"re going to be depressed. Especially the day the baby was supposed to be born or/and the day they aborted. The Guttmatcher Institute says, "Unsafe abortion has significant negative consequences beyond its immediate effects on women"s health. For example, complications from unsafe abortion may reduce women"s productivity, increasing the economic burden on poor families; cause maternal deaths that leave children motherless; cause long-term health problems, such as infertility; and result in considerable costs to already struggling public health systems." These are some of the bad things that can happen after an abortion. And these are not the only ones, there"s many more. Lisa B Haddad, MD says, "Some 68,000 women die of unsafe abortion annually, making it one of the leading causes of maternal mortality (13%). Of the women who survive unsafe abortion, 5 million will suffer long-term health complications."
Abortion

"The greatest destroyer of peace is abortion because if a mother can kill her own child, what is left for me to kill you and you to kill me? There is nothing between," says Mother Teresa. Abortion, what does this really mean? The definition of abortion is the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks. About 42 million women in the entire world with unintended pregnancies choose abortion. Abortion is a big controversial topic, people believe abortion should be illegal and others think it should stay legal. Why would someone want to kill an innocent little life? It"s not their fault people made mistakes and now they"re the ones having to pay for it. Abortion should be illegal because abortions are not safe, laws are protecting unborn babies, and fetuses can feel pain. Abortion should have never been legal.
Telivision is the main cause of violence in youth

I must say, I mean no beratement with the argument, I was only trying to stress the importance of using proper spelling and grammar to avoid semantic trolls such as mysef.To answer my opponents question, I did not provide an argument supporting the negative resolution because I did not hold the burden of proof. It was only required of me to refute Pro's argument, and required of him to provide arguments and rebuttals. To avoid such a format, I would suggest my opponent put "BoP is shared" in his opening round to require Con to make an actual construct.Other than that, all I have to say is,Pro's BoP is unfulfilled. Telivision is not the main cause of violence in youth.
Telivision is the main cause of violence in youth

I must confess that what all my opponent has said is nothing but a sheer wastage of time. I would although like to question him, that even after 4 rounds, didn't he have time to support his side with an argument rather than mere criticism. i must make it clear that all this debate is about TELEVISION as TELIVISION as a word has no entity at all, on what my opponent is arguing. I prefer to peep in once into the dictionary before accepting the challenge, and will prefer if my opponent had done the same. Typing mistakes are common in writing, but, that doesn't mean that the opponent develops a separate word and also the meaning of the same. The debate is all about television and that's the reason why i have been at my side all the time. I fail to understand how you joined the debate thinking the word to be "Telivision" At the end, I think it wasn't what a debate shall be like. However, I'd like to take part in more healthy debates with my opponent in future. All the Best!
Telivision is the main cause of violence in youth

My opponent is obviously deeply confused. Allow me to remedy this.The resolution stated that "Telivision" is the main cause of violence in youth. Telivision and television are 2 completely different things. Or at least one would assume so since they are spelled differently. My opponent is trying to explain why television causes violence in youth when he should be explaining why Telivision causes violence in youth.Seeing as he has not even attempted the latter, he has not fulfilled his BoP. My opponent is case shifting by making a debate concerning Telivision and then debating about television, therefore tricking anyone who accepts the debate into accepting a false debate. Television causing violence in youth is not relevant to the resolution, and therefore and arguments made towards supporting it are useless.My opponent needs to explain what exactly Telivision is and why it's causes violence to even have a chance at winning.
Telivision is the main cause of violence in youth

my worthy opponent, if you aren't satisfied with the given arguments, i request you to prove your point, to why have you chosen the side of con for this topic. for your kind information, I am not shifting at all. I am on my topic and the best example goes on to the above rounds, with lots of examples stating that television spreads violence. this is what has to do with violence. yes, its total nonsense, nonsense about television that is continuously spreading violence in youth. give me at least few points that I can agree to you that its not. children spend a lot of time before it, and thus it has got to do with all the violence rampant.for your statement that questions are unanswered, i am in a state of deep flutter when I read these lines. I am unable to find any argument or question from your sides, thus, your point of questions being unanswered has no entity at all.
Telivision is the main cause of violence in youth

What is all this nonesense about television? I accepted this debate thinking I was refuting that "Telivision" is the main cause of violence in youth.Why is Pro case-shifting? What is Telivision and what does it have to do with violence? What does television have to do with anything?!These questions are unanswered and I'm starting to question my opponents intentions. He has yet to provide an argument actually addressing the resolution.
Telivision is the main cause of violence in youth

my worthy opponent, i'd like to quote that television has no entity without t.v. shows. i think you shall ponder upon the topic again - "Television is the main cause of violence in the youth" and how is it so, i have mentioned in the above 2 arguments. when we talk about television spreading violence, we directly mean it to the violent television shows and not to the black box. I firmly believe that your so-called point has no entity at all. I request you to please put forward a good argument, on how are you against the very topic.
Telivision is the main cause of violence in youth

I am greatly amazed by the so - called argument put forward by my opponent. being an Indian, i know best about the T.V. shows here. for your kind information, in the present society when problems such as unemployment and poverty are rampant, then, don't these shows like Crime Patrol etc. show a path to resort to any sort of violence to fulfill their needs? please put forward an argument and not sheer criticism
Telivision is the main cause of violence in youth

these days all t.v. shows are filled with such scenes that teach the present young generation yo resort to violence at every step. the main reason for the same is the special mindset of many children and youth that inspire them to follow people like action heroes and role models like Martin Luther and Mahatma Gandhi are now a thing in past. present generation blindly follow their role models keeping aside the very fact of what's needed and what's not. blindly following salman khan and his pictures not only teaches them its basic value but also supports then to take in action stunts, which are more threatening than the so-called benefits.
If Atheists took over, the US would turn into North Korea and a genocide would begin on Christians

Pro has succeeded in completely neglecting my entire argument, and instead acted as if I had said nothing at all.Rebuttals - My opponent claims that since an atheist has no respective dogma associated with his atheism, he can do whatever he wants. This is untrue. An atheist is still restricted by the United States constitution, law, and other things.Additionally, the fact that have no strict dogma has no significance as morals can still be developed atheistically, like in the case of buddhism.- My opponent claims that "...a Christian, in order to call themselves a Christian, has to follow Christian dogma. So, if a Christian violates that dogma, they are not really a Christian" This is untrue. Christian, as according to dictionary, is defined as "of, pertaining to, or derived from Jesus Christ or His teachings: a Christian faith." Therefore, if someone makes actions pertaining to the teachings of Jesus Christ, whether they do so wrongly or not, they can effectively call themselves a christian.- Once again, my opponent fails to explain how these particular atheists represent the views of every other atheist in existence. How does Stalin speak for the views of a Buddhist Monk or an American Intellectual?- Let's be hypothetical for a second. Let's say all my opponent's claims were true, and that atheists are all somehow evil tyrants. My opponent, in her argument, claims that the reason those "thousands of other atheists in government" did not commit murderous acts, would they not be stopped in the US as well?- My opponent asserts that I hold a burden of proof in asserting that her theory is incorrect. This is a fallacy and not how the burden of proof works. Voters, it is not my duty to disprove her "genocide chain theory", but rather it is her duty to prove the definitive and universal correlation between atheists and mass murder, which she has failed to do.My opponent has done nothing other than use fallacious reasoning, manipulations, and purposefully anecdotal views about atheism to make it seem as if she can prove that all atheists are genocidal and hate christians. She has not even come close to filling her burden of proof. For these reasons, vote for con.Sources for all of my arguments, including in round 2:http://en.wikipedia.org...;http://en.wikipedia.org...http://atheism.about.com...http://www.skepticink.com...http://dictionary.reference.com...;
If Atheists took over, the US would turn into North Korea and a genocide would begin on Christians

Con, as expected, has ignored the content of my article and rather insisted that "it's ok because Christians have done it before too".This claim is false, as no true Christian would ever commit said acts.An atheist has no dogma restricting him and henceforth he can do whatever he wants, including murder, whilst not disrespecting his atheistic name.But a Christian, in order to call themselves a Christian, has to follow Christian dogma. So, if a Christian violates that dogma, they are not really a Christian, but something else.. perhaps an atheist?Yes, that's right! Since the Christians who supposedly committed these acts did not actually do it in the name of Christ, and were false Christians, they were likely either Satanist's or atheists trying to disgrace the name of Christ.Those "thousands of other atheists in government" that you speak of can easily be dismissed, as they are inviable: they were minor politicians and did not have the power to conduct any genocides, there were other Christians in government there to stop them.In ConclusionCon has provided no evidence that the endless chain of atheistic genocide will end. Therefore, he has failed his burden and an atheist in government would likely conduct genocide against Christians as done in the past.
If Atheists took over, the US would turn into North Korea and a genocide would begin on Christians

My opponent's proposal is laughable - meaning it literally made me chuckle. Her entire argument is anecdotal.Not only is her argument empty of any real intelligence, the fact that she had the audactiy to cite Yahoo Answers as a source.. oh dear.But, alas, I will refute. My argument starts here.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------My Rebuttal(s)1. To say that because Stalin was an atheist, and committed murders, so all atheists are responsible;is akin to saying that since Osama Bin Laden was a theist, all other theists, including christians, hindus, and the likes are responsible.Atheism and theism are broad terms, and people who describe two these two concepts often have extremely varying political positions and views.The only connection that atheists have to each other are a disbelief in god.The only connection that theists have to each other are a belief in god.Therefore, they both share the same moral permissibilities.If you are to say that since, one atheist commits a foul act, all atheists are responsible, no matter how different they may bethen you must also concede that if one theist commits a foul act, all theists are responsible, no matter how different they may be,or that if one agnostic commits a foul act, all agnostics are responsible, no matter how different they may be.And, this, of course, is a logical fallacy. My opponent has a sad and bigoted outlook on life, in which she sees everything in black and white: where all people who even have the remotest of associations to any sort of criminal are thus equally guilty of another's crime.Like theists, atheists are an extremely diverse group: some atheists are literally nothing like other atheists with the exception of having a belief in god.Buddhists, in all technicality, are atheists.. when has a buddhist leader ever commited a genocide? Or a taoist leader?Atheism is too broad of a term to begin associating people to specific practices.2. Hitler was not even conclusively an atheist; rather, an anti-theist. There is no conclusive proof of such.The other political figures named, Pol Pot and Stalin, are merely two examples of literally thousands of atheists throughout history, the majority of which were not murderous or genocidal. So, even if my opponent's argument wasn't an illogical fallacious mess, it would still be a manipulation and thus untrue.3. My opponent holds the burden of proof. She has failed to prove that the actions of one atheist are universal and that all of the world's hundreds of millions of atheists will pursue the same path when provided with power, rather, she has merely presented a slipper slope fallacy.Absolutely do not vote Pro, as her argument is an insult to the spirit of debating. This debate is already won.
If Atheists took over, the US would turn into North Korea and a genocide would begin on Christians

My Argument against the tyrannies of atheismThere is a correlation between atheists and murderous or genocidal governments. Almost every example of an atheist being elected as a leader of any country or powerful state has resulted in the following resentment and genocide towards Jews, Christians, and other ethnicities.Examples of Atheist Mass Murderers:Pol Pot, of Cambodia, an adamant atheist, he forced socialism onto his people, and enslaved them as labours. 3 million christians died during his regime.Adolf Hitler, Fuhrer of Nazi Germany. Adolf's logo, the swatsika, represents a disfigured cross. Being an atheist in power, as easily predicted, without the proper morals that a religion offers to guide him, he butchered millions of jews, christians, and other ethnicites in the holocaust.Stalin, an adamant atheist who butchered millions of Russians during his stay in office.Examples of communistic atheists:Karl MarxEvery time that an atheist has been elected into office, his oppositors have undergone butchering and murder.. so why would it be different this time?- Without a key set of morals to prevent atheists from murder, history has proven that they have no problem with killing to achieve political aspirations.- Con cannot refute the simple fact that genocide and death accompany atheistic power.Sources:http://www.doxa.ws...https://ca.answers.yahoo.com...;http://www.discoverthenetworks.org...
If Atheists took over, the US would turn into North Korea and a genocide would begin on Christians

I will be arguing that Atheistic society is almost always accompanied by crime, genocide, and mass murder, and that religion is required in a moral society. Round 1:AcceptanceRound 2:Arguments + Rebuttal by conRound 3:Conclusion + Conclusion and Rebuttal by ProViolating the terms of the debate constitutes in an automatic forfit
Internet vs Electricity

So, I can see where you are going but, the thing is that electricity has reached its end on evolving. The internet has just gotten started. The electricity can do things like power a flashlight and all those other kinds of things. But later on, we will find other things to use rather than electricity. Due to our very fast thinking, we can easily think of alternatives of electricity. We could probably replace everything we have right now with oil or fuel. With everything that has happened in the past decades, it has revolved around the internet. Our evolution wouldn't even begin. Electricity can't go any farther from now because it has only one purpose, power things. But the internet would be able to develop something in about a decade to replace electricity.