BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
All parents should be required to attend parenting classes before having a child.

What if the parents intend to give the child up for adoption upon delivery? IF so what would be the point of classes to an already stressful situation. Surveys show most pregnancies are unintended [1]. This again would be hard to arrange for classes in the right timely manner. A possible solution would be to make parenting classes part of the basic education of children prior o going into high school (or another grade set by government). Though I am pro to people in generally being taught basic child care such as the proper Heimlich maneuver on infants. and how to change diapers and limit the spread of illness. I am CON to the idea of parenting classes. These classes would have a curriculum more than naught based on opinions I may or may not share. Placing young adults in a classroom and being presented with such information would cause them to unduly assign an authority to the type of parenting being taught. The type of parenting being taught would be the kind of practices preached about by varying groups that fail. Such techniques as reasoning with your child like they are an adult. For young ages like 2 this is like talking to a brick wall. There is little to any evidence that these new age tactics are any better. I prefer the way it is done. My parents raised me. I know what I want to keep from how they did it and I know what I dropped.
Palestine

I afraid to report that my opponent has plagarized his entire argument. It can be found here (. http://www.harunyahya.com...) It is towards the bottom of the page. I'm not going to bother giving a reply since I put forth the thought, effort and time to come up with my own argument while my opponent simply copy and pasted drivel that does not even counter the points I make. My opponent has show terrible conduct by plagarizing. My opponents plagarized argument does not even respond to the points I have made.
Torture

The US should not torture terrorists. While it does help get needed information, it is unconstitutional and against the Geneva convention. The moral implications say that it lowers us to the level of terrorists. Also, it widens ant-American sentiment in other countries. Besides, other methods are just as effective like the usual backhand or a punch to the face/crotch. The 6th amendment states that all accused persons are "innocent until proven guilty". But why do cops, even today with DNA, or the CIA who torture terrorists, always come to the wrong conclusion even on innocent people? It's morally and physically wrong. I'm going to use a most uncommon example for why torture is wrong: A movie. Its called "Unthinkable", starring Carrie-Anne Moss and Samuel L Jackson. In the movie, Jackson plays a former Black Ops agent who knows many torture methods. He is called in by the FBI to interrogate an American-born Muslim who claims he has hidden 3 nuclear bombs in 3 cities. He is allowed to use whatever means are necessary to break him. So for days, he tortures him and interrogates him about the location of the bombs. At the end, he threatens the man's children if he doesn't cooperate. He breaks, giving him the addresses, but he goes crazy and gets killed by the FBI. But there was a fourth bomb. So in the ends, torture doesnt really accomplish that much I leave my opponent to rebut. . http://www.balancedpolitics.org... . http://www.lewrockwell.com... . http://en.wikipedia.org...
human laws were elevated by Moses to the law of God, and adds to discrediting OTestament Law

con is ignorant of meaning of the laws of the old testament. and makes a bunch of points that are irrelvant to the debate. yes laws were often presented in response to sins of people. but that doesn't have anything to do with moses giving people an opt otut with legal divorce. con also says old testament laws do not apply to us. sure, but that doesn't mean JEsus and his predecessers didn't follow them, and that we as christians aren't called to view them as the laws of God before the new covenant. and that's the point. the mosaic law that included the stuff in this first post of this thread, was raised to the law of God and was to be accepted by all as such. even Jesus took it as such.
human laws were elevated by Moses to the law of God, and adds to discrediting OTestament Law

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5:17-19 Pro illustrates a substantial lack of knowledge regarding the contextual nature of the Bible. For starters, God did not give the law to Adam and Eve. Was hacking or software piracy illegal before computers existed? No. Laws were put into place as a response to people's misuse of computers and the internet. Likewise, God's law was given to Moses as a response to the awful things going on. That's why Jesus says "it wasn't this way in the beginning." Christians are not bound to the Old Testament. Why is in the Bible? It gives context to the existence of Jesus. The Old Testament is about Jesus. If Jesus isn't in the Old Testament, how is it about him? The Old Testament contains many references to a Messiah. Now, you may not believe Jesus was the Messiah but the basis of Judaism is waiting for a Messiah. If you miss that, you have no understanding of the significance of Jesus. The Law of Moses was necessary in bringing God's sovereign plan to fruition. "And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself" Luke 24:27 The main point though is that Christians are not bound to the law because according to the Bible, Jesus fulfilled the law. Jesus never broke the law and death was His consequence. Thus fulfilling the law, dying in the place of those who broke the law. As a result, death is no longer the consequence of breaking the law. Since the basis of Christianity is Jesus and His fulfillment of the Old Testament/law, there has to be a law for him to fulfill. Pro ignored substantial amounts of Biblical and historical context making his argument.
human laws were elevated by Moses to the law of God, and adds to discrediting OTestament Law

human laws were elevated by Moses to the law of God, and adds to discrediting OTestament Law here is an example. Matthew 19:8 "Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning." this teaching by moses was considered part of the law required by jews to follow, mosaic law. if what Moses taught was not the law of God, according to Jesus, doesn't that mean moses elevated human law to the point of God's law? and what are we to think about OTestament laws when we have such nonsense?
Cassadee Pope deserved to win the voice

Pro offers three links to clips from the voice, and says that "you should decide for yourself. " However, this is a debate. Videos are pieces of evidence, but they are not arguments in themselved. Pro never tells you WHY these clips are significant, and what about them should merit a Pro ballot. He offers no arguments--and has therefore ceased to debate. I have provided concrete reasons why Nicholas David should have won, rather than Cassadee Pope, inlcuding: 1. His unique vocal quality 2. His great performances 3. His artistic versatility 4. His creativity I have also shown why Cassadee Pope should not have beat him out, namely that she lacked creativity and versatility, and that her was not a unique style. The Voice is about awarding a creative, unique, powerful vocalist--Nicholas David better exemplifies these traits. Thus, I ask that you VOTE CON. Thank you. And, I will leave you with one final song of his. .. . http://www.youtube.com...
Cassadee Pope deserved to win the voice

Thanks to Pro for initiating this debate. I will present my arguments, and then rebut Pro's. ARGUMENTS Unique Vocal Quality Nicholas David has an extraordinarily unique voice and presentation style. It has a raw, folksy, and, yet jazzy, quality that is easily recognizable when listening to it. His falsetto, specifically, is highly unique--it is accompanied with an odd, but pleasing vibrato, without falling flat. I have provided some samples of his singing, as testimony to this point. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... Powerful Performaces Nicholas David is an intense, and captivating on-stage performer. His funky personality and quirky visual appearance truly come though, and give you insight into him as a person that is compelling. He's clearly very intensely into his music, and his performances can both be powerful (Over the Rainbow) and amusing (Play the Funky Music.) http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... Stars need to create a recognizable "style" that help form their persona and build their charisma. He has done this with his long, untamed beard, and ecclectic, not-quite-hippster, not-quite-bohemian style. THis fashion choice is evident in all the clips, and only serves to augment his performing ability. Versatility He can go from rock (Great Balls of Fire), to soul (Lean on me), to pop (Criminal), to disco/blues (You're the First, the Last, My Everything), to jazz (Over the Rainbow.) [1] His ability to work well in a variety of genres, but to make each song his own, shows creativity, but also versatility. This implies a level of skill--being able to work outside one's comfort zone well--that Cassadee, who's limited herself to pop-rock and country, as yet to display. Creativity The way he's reworked songs shows artistic creativity. Look at "Over the Rainbow" and how he incorporated jazz influences into it in order to make it fit his style of music. He doesn't just reperform music, he reinvents it--and his reinventions work. That's artistry. REBUTTALS 1. Pro posits only one argument: Cassadee Pope pulled in more genres to appeal to more fans Clearly, the winner of the Voice should be someone with the most skill, not just the most liked. Moreover, I have shown the Nicholas David has expanded beyond the genres in which Cassadee Pope has confined herself, so this argument actually flows Con. 2. We can also see the Cassadee Pope lacks creativity and uniqueness, not just versatility http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... Her rendition of "I'm With You" is remarkably close to Avril Lavigne's version. While contestants are singing the works of other artists, they are encouraged to put their own spin on the songs, to make those songs "their own." These videos clearly show that Cassadee hasn't done that. Thus, I submit that Nicholas David should have won the voice. Over to Pro...
Marijuana should be legal

Marijuana is used almost like alcohol, but has been used in a more abusive way. Marijuana was used as a medicine until we abused it and perverted it into a gateway drug. just because liquor is legal doesn't mean we should use and abuse it extensively, like we have with Marijuana. and that's why Marijuana should remain illegal. Furthermore i would like to thank lightningbolt50 for the debate opportunity, and you for reading. vote for whoever you think did the best. Thank you
Marijuana should be legal

Remember the prohibition of liquor? It was an absolute disaster. Whenever you try to illegalise something this widespread and used, it causes major problems. First, people will try to get it from drug dealers, which makes the buyer in danger an funds crime. Second, it causes huge and unneeded incarceration. We have 25% of the worlds prison population, with only 4.5% percent of the world population, a huge contributor to this is people incarcerated for marijuana.
Marijuana should be legal

My bad I read the post wrong. I believe medical marijuana is a legitamate way of treating a sickness (within reason of corse. ) But marijuana that anyone can receive would catastrophic in that anyone could receive marijuana even younger children. Meaning that if my theoretical son Timmy wanted some pot to smoke with the cool kids and I happened to be in possession of it he could easily get it. Of course fast too he might be able to receive some from other children. And the transfer of marijuana would be legal too, as the government would have no way of determining who can receive marijuana whether the person is responsible or not. Also I never said alcohol nor cigerets should be aloud. In all reality they should be illegal as well but that's a debate for later
Marijuana should be legal

Well, that wasn't much of a opening argument as a rebuttle, but ok. The strong majority of people in prison for marijuana are for nonviolent crimes, just posession of it or taking it. Also, if you legalise cigarettes and alcohol which is way more harmful, it's just hypocritical to not legalise marijuana, which is not only much less harmful, it even has good sides unlike e former. It only leads to other drugs because people have to get them from illegal dug-dealers, if it was from legal drug stores there wouldn't be a chance of that happening.
Marijuana should be legal

It is very tame drug, and has little effects. While it's not without it's problems, it's less harmful than cigarettes and even over-the-counter pills. There has been no recorded deaths in history by over-consumption of marijuana. It is not only less harmful than cigarettes and many other drugs, it's much less addictive. Unlike tabacco, it can be eaten and doesn't have to be smoked, thus reducing it's harm even more. Meanwhile, a number of studies in recent years have demonstrated the medical potential of pot. Purified forms of cannabis can be effective at attacking some forms of agressive cancer [1]. Marijuana use has also been tied to better blood sugar control[2], and may help slow the spread of HIV[3]. Legalization of the plant for medical purposes may even lead to lower suicide rates [4].Decriminalizing it would also drasticly reduce the prison population, about 800,000 people are in jail for marijuana, and 70% of that is just for posession of it. [5][1]http://www.huffingtonpost.com...[2]http://www.reuters.com...[3]http://www.huffingtonpost.com...[4]http://www.huffingtonpost.com...[5]http://hashexpress.wordpress.com...;
Marijuana should be legal

Ii will be arguing that the U.S. should legalise marijuana (both recreational and medical) for 18 year olds and up.Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Opening statementsRound 3: Refutation Round 4: Closing statements.There will be 24 hrs to argue.You will have a character limit of 8,000.There will be a 3 day voting period.Votes must include a comment.The voting style is open voting wth no Elo minimum or maximum.
Absolute universal love is impractical

--- Pro is making an argument out of sentiment: suppose one of Pro's scenarios occurs, and a stranger saves someone over their mother as a result of a coin flip. Pro's claim that this is wrong assumes non-universal love. If Pro did love universally, he would see that, in such a case, one equally loved person is saved either way. I request that Pro explain exactly why saving a family member is better than saving a stranger. Furthermore, Pro fails to see that love is not the only motivator of human action. If there is a reason to save a family member over a stranger that does not involve love, then universal love is not going to result in coin-flip decision making. If there isn't, then there is no fault to saving a stranger over a family member if both are loved equally. --- "Joe could choose not to trust these people, but has he loved them equally without trust?" Love does not imply nor require trust. For instance: a parent may love a child deeply, but this does not require that they trust them. Perhaps the child frequently misbehaves. So an individual who loves universally is not necessarily more susceptible to being swindled. --- "By valuing all things deeply, we demean our own success in life." Firstly, that depends on what success is. Secondly, universal love implies an equal share of self-love. Thirdly, you have failed to explain why this is so. --- "When one is capable of such deep love for any single being (i.e. to the point in which they make extraneous sacrifices), their love for the rest of the world would bleed them dry." Love, by your definition, does not require sacrifice. One could go through life without giving a thing to anyone, and still love everyone.
Absolute universal love is impractical

I accept. Practical - (of an idea, plan, or method) Likely to succeed or be effective in real circumstances; feasible. Effective: Successful in producing a desired or intended result. Pro must prove that: The feeling that one experiences in relation to all individuals, in which certain sacrifices may be necessary to preserve the well-being of said individuals, is not likely to be successful in producing a desired or intended result in real circumstances. Good luck.
Absolute universal love is impractical

First I will start with definitions that must be agreed upon before anyone takes on this debate.1.) Like [verb]: The feeling that one experiences when one appreciates another individual thing.2.) Love: The feeling that one experiences in relation to another individual, in which certain sacrifices may be necessary to preserve the well-being of said individual.3.) Universal Love: To love all individuals equally.My argument shall naturally be anthropocentric, on account of the fact that I am opposed to universal love. The extent to which my opponent intends to take universal love is inconsequential to my willingness to continue this debate: whether my opponent chooses to extend love to all humans, all animals, all life, or all inorganic matter, it matters not (no pun intended). I will, nonetheless, debate against any notion of universal love.Rules: 1.) The first round is acceptance.2.) Your screenname cannot be, "RationalMadman."3.) This is a classic debate between Confucianism and Taoism. Still many other eastern religions espouse a view of universal love. That said, Scripture/sanskrit is welcome, provided that it is backed by reason. In fact, this exception is extended to all religious viewpoints, from the Judeo standards to the shamanistic traditions.4.) Drugs are great, but experience based on drugs stands for nothing. Druggy experiences are tantamount to anecdotal evidence, and thus they are not acceptable in a debate.5.) Your screenname cannot be, "RationalMadman."6.) Your screenname cannot be, "RationalMadman."Let's keep it pleasant, and may the best debater win.
Riddle

Hmmm... The template used to decipher the code for the first message appears to be to use the first letter of each "word", then the second letter, then third... etc etc. to form a messageApplying the template to the first code we get:wmoa eemn cfuu orrs - 1st letters: weco 2nd letters: mefr3rd letters: omur4th letters: anusTogether this forms: "wecomefromuranus" With spaces added, this of course would be "We come from Uranus", so my template matches Andy's. Now to apply it to the rest of the message: wkia eesn ltpe ihlt - welikethisplanethwth oeno pgem eewe - hopewegethomewsta auob rnpl ispe - warisunstoppableaust lmmd laui hnse - allhumansmustdieSo Andy was worried because the decrypted message reads: "WE COME FROM URANUSWE LIKE THIS PLANETHOPE WE GET HOMEWAR IS UNSTOPPABLEALL HUMANS MUST DIE" Many thanks to Azul145 for the challenging riddle :)
Riddle

Rules: I will post a riddle and Con must solve it. If con gets it right, voters give him 7 points. If he fails to answer or gets it wrong, I get 7. Andrew Richardson, deputy head cryptographer at a top department of defense facility, was working late one night. The last set of codes received to decipher came from NASA's space station. Apparently they had been receiving the same 5 set of codes over the past week on a high frequency band on digital format. they read........ wmoa eemn cfuu orrs wkia eesn ltpe ihlt hwth oeno pgem eewe wsta auob rnpl ispe aust lmmd laui hnse "Strange" Andy thought. "Never received work from this cite before." Eager to finish and get home, he set to work on figuring out the troublesome codes. The first one took him some time....... WE COME FROM URANUS "What!" He laughed. he thought it was a joke or he had deciphered incorrectly. however he continued using the same template, and by the time he had finished he wasn't laughing anymore. He quickly picked up his phone and dialed his director and then the head of his department. Somehow he knew he wasn't going home tonight. What did Andy find that worried him so much? Hint: Figure out Andy's template then try solving piece by piece.
The moon landings were not a hoax (continued)

Debunking the debunk: 1. And, as you can clearly see, the Astronaut was saluting the flag, not unfurling it. That does like a bit of a bullsh*t answer, considering the fact that NASA said that after the pictures were published. After they realized their mistake. 2. Well, if the Mythbusters say it, it must be true. I mean, it's on TV for gods sake. In keeping with true conspiracy-theorist thinking, Alan and Jamie were probably paid by the government to falsify a science experiment. 3. "like above the moons odd surface, lack of atmosphere, and color can cause shadows to act differently than on Earth." But not that differently. The photo was clearly taken from above, on fairly flat ground, with what is either a camera crew or a robot arm holding a camera. You don't actually have evidence to support your opinion, not even Mythbusters pseudo-science. 4. What I read on this page doesn't actually debunk the C rock claim. It just says it was a hair that NASA digitally removed. It also claims the picture is a "third generation copy", which is a nice idea but utterly meaningless without records. NASA could just of easily removed a stage marker from the rock, destroyed the original picture, and presented the nice, clean image to the public. I, Nerd in a Trenchcoat, declare the debunks debunked! Cool new connections found by paranoid weirdos living with their mothers: The "No Stars" thing Look at these photos. See anything strange? http://i2.wp.com... http://i67.photobucket.com... http://www.cricketmag.com... http://i.telegraph.co.uk... The Astronauts are on the moon, a place with no atmosphere. No atmosphere means nothing to block the starlight. Why aren't there any stars in these pictures? They certainly didn't have a problem with this one: http://en.wikipedia.org... Or this: http://en.wikipedia.org... I'll leave you to ponder on that. Peace.