BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
As a parent you should NOT punish your kids.

Now, most of that round was been off topic about pets, with only the last two paragraphs actually about children. Even though I only provided a few sentences about the pets and just a number of quotes and sources. I would prefer not to have this debate distracted by that, so I will keep the pet's section short, and focus on the children.1) Pet trainning. Regarding the quote from my opponent's source 1, the choke collar would be considered a correction, rather than a punishment, since it is done at the moment of bad behavoir. However, we can disregard it's definition of "punishment" since "punish" has already been defined in R1 and has not been challenged. If you look at their source 2, we find that it is just a blog with no formal source. It lists a study, but doesn't link, and if you google search the study, you'll only find other blogs that source it without links. Looking at their source 3, we see that it is in favor of punishment. It is just against the use of traditional punishment as a primary punishment option. That is, of course, not what I'm arguing for. Merely that punishment (not just traditional punishment) is a viable option.2) ChildrenMy opponent's fourth source is again, talking about traditional punishment, not punishment as a whole. If you look further into that source, we will see, "The misbehavior [coming home late for dinner] can be prevented by not allowing the child to go out to play after school. He can't be late if he's at home when dinner is served. The consequence is not designed to impose punishment on the child but to be sure he's home when dinner is served. "This clearly falls under the definition of punishing. Since they don't come home on time, they are not allowed out of the house. My opponent says that because children will continue being around roads their entire life, you shouldn't even try to keep them out of it. This is a lazy and apathetic view. This would be the same as "we're never going to stop all murder and rape, so why bother making it a crime? "Clearly the purpose is to teach them that the road can be dangerous if they are not careful. Natural consequences are not an option, and as presented in my opponent's source, natural consequences for somethings take too long for the child to care (like not doing their homework, or not coming home on time). With these, just as my opponent's source stated, a logical consequence should be imposed. These logical consequences are still punishments. Now, as we go into the final round, we can see that many of my opponent's own sources actually support my side of the argument, leaving me little to do when it comes to sourcing. I will pass this back to my opponent for their final summary round. Thank you,
As a parent you should NOT punish your kids.

Hello again!1) The sources you quoted are actually outdated. Choke collars and the concept of an "alpha" are no longer used. "A dog should never be punished for deeds you do not like, but rather corrected. What's the difference between a punishment and a correction? A correction is when you give a command of disapproval at the moment the deed is about to be done or is being done. A punishment is anything thereafter." [1]Clicker training is now dominating contemporary training, in all types of animals. "Positive training methods are kind and gentle, and are scientifically proven to be the most effective way to train your dog... According to the study, there was a direct correlation between punishment methods and problem behaviors, which included but was not limited to barking, fearfulness, aggression, separation anxiety, and inappropriate mounting." [2]"When you use this sequence [clicker training], correctly, you may be surprised at how rarely your dog needs corrections -- but there will always come a time when you need to tell your dog that obedience is not "optional." [3]This proves my point again, that positive reinforcement is better than punishment. "Traditional punishments make children feel punished even when having little or no effect on their behavior... When we free ourselves from the mistaken belief that children must be punished for their misbehavior (a belief that has strong traditions) we can usually find creative ways to insure that misbehavior is punished effectively without having to punish children." [4]2) Con showed to me some things said on my own sources that conflicted with what I was arguing for. I admit, I don't agree with everything it says about disciplining children. If the child runs in the street, a simple, "Watch both ways or you'll get hit by a car" is sufficient. Your child will continue being around roads his entire life. You cannot keep him away forever, or even for the rest of that year, so why try? What makes you think that when you aren't looking he won't go in the street again? Thank you. [1] http://www.dogbreedinfo.com...[2] http://ptfordogs.blogspot.com...[3] http://www.clickandtreat.com...[4] http://www.cyc-net.org...
As a parent you should NOT punish your kids.

I will first present my arguments first, then relate them to these two situations. 1) Parents need to prepare their kids for the real world. A parent's responsibility is to prepare their kids for the real world as best as possible. This covers a broad spectrum of duties, from helping their kids get an education that provides the most opportunities, to helping their child find that passion in life. But for this debate, we will focus on, preparing their child for social interactions in the real word, both with other individuals and with the law. Believe it or not, if you do something bad in the real world, there will be negative consequences for it, from losing friends and relationships, to losing jobs, to jail time. It is the responsibility of the parent to ensure that their child is aware that negative things may happen to them if they break laws and/or social codes. The best way to do this is to instill discipline, starting at an early age. Since the later you wait to start, the harder it is. Numerous studies show an inverse link between child discipline and criminal activity [1][2]. 2) Children are happier and more emotionally stable in a balanced disciplined home. From a psychological standpoint, children subconsciously desire proper discipline. Those that don't get it are actually more depressed, have a harder time controlling their emotions, and actually do not understand the difference between right and wrong [3][4]. There are two forms of improper discipline. They are "lack of discipline," which is when parents do not discipline their children at all, so their children do not learn that what they are doing is wrong, and so never learn to not do it. And there is "inconsistent discipline" where a parent allows "bad behaviors" one time, then lash out against those same behaviors some other time. Such as letting their kid run around the yard playing one day, then another day, give them a spanking for doing the same thing. This causes children to become confused about what is right and wrong behaviors and so they also do not properly learn them. This also causes them to resent authority figures in general for uneven applications of punishments. I will leave it at that and allow my opponent a chance to respond. Thank you [1] . http://www.fdle.state.fl.us... [2] . http://www.indianjpsychiatry.org... [3] . http://childparenting.about.com... [4] . http://www.eduguide.org...
As a parent you should NOT punish your kids.

Con has lay out two situations here for me. Situation 1 -Your 9 year old son has just been sent home from school because he was caught in the boys bathroom seeing how high he could pee on the wall (having a competition with two other 9 year old boys. .. they were never heard from again, but he did win, if that is any consolation). I will not address this situation here, just present it and let my opponent start with it next round. In this case, I would explain to him why what he did was wrong, and leave it at that. It's up to him to make his own educated decisions in life. Even if I did punish him, what good would that do? I would only instill anger, fear, or a combination of both, depending on what the punishment was. Situation 2 -5 years later, your wall-peeing son, is brought home from the police department because he was caught spray painting racist and homophobic messages on another kid's home, who happens to be black and gay (and any other minority statuses I can think of later for this, oh yeah, lets add poor and an immigrant, and has only 1 parent). I would tell him what I honestly thought of the situation, such as being horrified he could be so cruel. Then I would explain why I don't think he is going down the right path and leave it at that. Why punish? There are many kids that act like that during high school. It's almost the norm. They act the way they do regardless of how their parents respond. Some kids are beaten or grounded, and they still get themselves in trouble at school. Punishment, when you really look at it, does virtually nothing to alter your child's behavior, unless you are so feared to the point where they will go out of their way to avoid any trouble with you (a dark path in which I wish on no child). Either he is a trouble-maker or he isn't. As a parent, it would be up to me to guide him down the right path, not try to force him. In the end, the choice is always the child's. His punishment is already the consequences of his own actions. Surely that must be enough? I eagerly await my opponent's reply.
As a parent you should NOT punish your kids.

I would also like to state what our positions are, based on the resolution. My opponent is PRO for "as a parent, you should NOT punish your kids. " This means, that under no circumstance should you punish them. I will be arguing that there are circumstances where you should. Let us define "punish" as "Inflict a penalty or sanction on someone for (such an offense). " This can be summarized as any negative consequence for an action. I would like to restate that I will be arguing that there are SOME circumstances, not that ALL circumstances should be treated that way. As such, I can say that for this particular circumstance that my opponent lays out, a positive response may be best. However, that does not affirm the resolution. Allow me to point out another situation or two. Situation 1 - Your 9 year old son has just been sent home from school because he was caught in the boys bathroom seeing how high he could pee on the wall (having a competition with two other 9 year old boys. .. they were never heard from again, but he did win, if that is any consolation). I will not address this situation here, just present it and let my opponent start with it next round. Situation 2 - 5 years later, your wall-peeing son, is brought home from the police department because he was caught spray painting racist and homophobic messages on another kid's home, who happens to be black and gay (and any other minority statuses I can think of later for this, oh yeah, lets add poor and an immigrant, and has only 1 parent). I will pass onto round two and let my opponent have the first say regarding these two situations. Thank you, [1] . https://www.google.com...
God Is Not Dead, He Still exists

Having just realized that Pro only gave 5 mins to respond I am put in a bit of a stressful position. Acting on the assumption that the phrase ‘God is dead’ means that he never existed. God doesn’t exist. There is no good thing a Christian can do that an Atheist cannot do, and that is not proof of his existence. Even if Christian charities are doing plenty of great things all across the world, in no way does that prove the Christian god exists. Instead focus on the lack of proof. Praying does nothing. Evil exists.
The Battlefield series is an overall better series than the CoD series

"The gameplay for cod is much better and you see these big. Youtubers play cod.the gameplay is smooth and I don't see nukes in battlefield i thought people said its like today's wars . so put your debates aside cod is a much better game."Youtubers play CoD. This is not an argument... and I do not see your proof for this. Battlefield's gameplay is smooth, too. So this isn't really an argument, again. Nukes were only in CoD for Modern Warfare 2, no other games, so my opponent fails to have an argument too.. because it is for the whole series, not a individual game. It is NOTHING like today wars.. you can call in attack dogs, you can somehow get up in a helicopter in a matter of seconds... while in Battlefield you have to actually get in the helicopter instead of being teleported. ConclusionMy opponent again says that CoD is a better game... but he has no proof for any of these, and he just stated mostly opinions. Stating "put your debates aside cod is a much better game" which he did not prove in his arguments.I have actually given evidence, from critics and I ACTUALLY REBUTTED MY OPPONENT'S ARGUMENTS.I urge a vote for Pro, in conduct (for not following rules and not rebutting arguments) and grammar, considering he barely even used grammar.The rest is up to you, thank you.
The Battlefield series is an overall better series than the CoD series

"Cod has more games then battlefield and it make your reaction better not battlefields crap halo game style so thumbs down for battlefield"I guess since my opponent did not follow the rules, I will rebut his argument..No, CoD does not. Look at these two links, and see who has more games. Battlefield has about 5 more.(http://en.wikipedia.org...)(http://en.wikipedia.org...)Um, "it can make your reaction better." I don't see how this is an argument."battlefields crap halo game style so thumbs down for battlefield"Halo has actually got better ratings than Call of Duty, so I guess that is in favor of Battlefield. [1]My opponent has failed to rebut my past arguments, but since I am nice, ARGUMENTS EXTENDED. Please rebut them.Cites:[1]- https://www.google.com...;
The Battlefield series is an overall better series than the CoD series

"cod is much better, then battlefield the controls are not hard in cod"The controls are the same way, with a few differences, but you can actually change the settings to make it like CoD. (. https://www.google.com...)Let's compare Battlefield 3 and Call of Duty Ghosts, first. (I will get to the rest of the games later, because I am unsure if my opponent is going to forfeit or not. )Battlefield 3's ratings: IGN - 9.1/10 (. https://www.google.com...)Gamespot - 8.5/10 (. https://www.google.com...)Gamestop - 8.3/10 (. https://www.google.com...) Time for Call of Duty: Ghosts. Call of Duty: Ghosts ratings:IGN - 8.8/10 (. https://www.google.com...)Gamespot - 8/10 (. https://www.google.com...)Gamestop - 5.3/10 (NOT LYING: . https://www.google.com...)As you can see, Battlefield 3 has pleased the critics more than the CoD: Ghosts. NOT TO MENTION THE 5.3/10 IT GOT FROM GAMESTOP. I expect Con to rebut. Good luck.
The Battlefield series is an overall better series than the CoD series

Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Ratings/Critics opinionsRound 3: GameplayRound 4: ConclusionsDebaters must have 1500 Elo to prevent trolls.Rules: No swearing, Con must argue that the CoD series is overall better than the Battlefield series, No debating in the comments (This goes for only Pro and Con, the audience can if they want.)Good luck, and have fun.
Video Games have made a positive impact on our everyday lives.

"1. Video games encourage learning and activity" This point is true for some games but we know this isn't true most of them. Most games are hours worth of brainless activity. The games that help learning are more popular now but not throughout the history of video games. Video games have replaced playing outside and reading a book. "2 Video games improve our technology beyond video games " "3. Video games provide entertainment" This stuff doesn't make something good. Nuck bombs make advancements in other areas of science such as energy. (Of course I don't find video games that bad) Entertainment is something we will still have without video games. Entertainment can have negative impacts. Impacts on behavior and culture Computer, television, and video game increases are now used in a growing trend of neglect. People are talking to their kids for 5 minutes and then given a video game so they will be left alone for hours. Kids are also becoming much more in need of entertainment things like cellphones and gameboys like never before.
Video Games have made a positive impact on our everyday lives.

Now for some specific points: 1. Video games encourage learning and activity Many video games are used as educational tools rather than just education. Some games, including Brain Age, are used to test math and reading skills, and neurologists suggest using the game to prevent Alzheimer's, as seen here (. http://ds.ign.com...) and here (. http://www.usatoday.com...). Additionally, Wii Fit and Wii Sports encourage fitness, especially Wii Fit, which has been proven to help people lose weight, and is used in physical therapy. (. http://videogames.yahoo.com...) 2. Video games improve our technology beyond video games Video game companies are always looking for new technological improvements to get an edge over other companies, such as Nintendo's most recent motion-sensing came console, the Wii. However, such technological advancements do not just show in video games, but also in other industries. I heard from an Anadarko computer scientist about how the graphic cards designed to improve video games is also used to enhance MRI scans and the maps produced by seismic waves so that oil companies can locate oil deposits and find clues to the Earth's geologic past. 3. Video games provide entertainment People play video games because they are fun. People give video games great reviews because they think that they are fun. Here is an example of a happy person who is happy because of a video game: . http://www.gamefaqs.com... I don't think I need to explain that one much more. And now, to attack your two points: 4. Video games are no more violent than TV shows and movies A video game rated E is just as violent as a movie rated PG. A video game rated T is just as violent as a movie rated PG-13. Do you have any proof that video games inspire violence. 5. Video games do not encourage obesity Just look at the argument about Wii Sports and Wii Fit, two video games that are designed to fight America's obesity problem. Plus, video games are better than just watching TV, as you are actually moving your fingers, and perhaps your whole body, and diet problems are more likely to lead to obesity.
Abortion

Other than that, everything (excluding blatantly anti-debate practices like Google Doc links to avoid the character limit) is fair game. Alt accounts of ours are allowed to vote. If Zarroette votes, the member she votes for instantly wins. Definitions"Should" implies moral desirability. A "living constitution" is one that " . . . changes over time, and adapts to new circumstances, without being formally amended" (1). Generally, this interpretation is opposed to originalism, which states that "those who make, interpret, and enforce the law ought to be guided by the meaning of the United States Constitution—the supreme law of the land—as it was originally written" (2). Sources: . https://www.law.uchicago.edu...http://www.heritage.org...
an eye for an eye will make the whole world blind

First off, I'd like to keep with tradition and thank shilpa0691 for initiating this debate. Good Luck. _______________________________________________________________________________ 1. I believe my opponent is taking this quote out of context. It only means that one shouldn't be looking to get revenge.... that one should be willing to forgive and forget. 2. This quote is true and important in two main ways... a) Mutually assured destruction- when we look at the globe in it's current nuclear state, what is it that keeps China and/or Russia from blowing the United States off of the face of the earth? The fact that if they try, the US would in turn attack them with it's own nuclear arsenals. Now, this is important, because it shows how this quote shows the ability of a deterrence in the fact that all parties would end up dead (blind). b) Personal Issues- there is a major quote that basically says that if one seeks revenge, one should dig two graves. One for the person who offended you in such a way that you would want to get them back, and one for you. Revenge is detrimental to society, and is a major reason the quote in question is so popular. 3. I reserve the right to clarify and explain in further arguments. Conclusion- As my opponent stated, our freedom was gained not through peace sittings, but through force. I agree, but it was not in retaliation, it was in revolution. This is why it is obvious that "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" is a good and relevant quote that more people should follow. Thank you.
Gay Marrige

Not necessarily, if you ask around, most don't have a problem with gay marriage. It's their choice! Why be bothered with it. That would be like a homosexual person walking up to a married couple and telling them that there marriage shouldn't be allowed because it's just not normal. What is normal then. Whats normal for the spider is terror for the fly. Whats normal for gay people is immoral for us. Why be bothered with it. Give 'em there rights, it really doesn't affect us that much.
Gay Marrige

Sorry for not responding. My wifi went down. Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses. The promoters of same-sex "marriage" propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementarity in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children. Another issue with gay marriage is that it leaves children without a mother or father. This can cause issues with the child's upbringing. Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed by natural law. Natural law"s most elementary precept is that "good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided." By his natural reason, man can perceive what is morally good or bad for him. Thus, he can know the end or purpose of each of his acts and how it is morally wrong to transform the means that help him accomplish an act into the act"s purpose. Any situation which institutionalizes the circumvention of the purpose of the sexual act violates natural law and the objective norm of morality. Being rooted in human nature, natural law is universal and immutable. It applies to the entire human race, equally.
I'm Too Lazy to Debate Something that Matters

The resolution states that JimTimmy is too lazy to debate something that matters. The resolution does not specify whether or not this statement describes JimTimmy's overall laziness to debate something that matters or his laziness at the moment he instigated the debate, therefore it can only be assumed that the resolution refers to overall.Seeing as different things matter to different people, that there is such a thing as subjective importance, it can be said that this topic may very well be important to someone somewhere. For instance, I might find this topic important because I believe that JimTimmy has the potential to debate well, so this resolution does indeed matter.However, things that are more typically seen as 'mattering' have been debated by JimTimmy in the past: welfare, wages, health care, and other things that are currently controversial issues that are considered as 'mattering' at the current state in time and in the past by many people.As I have proved that JimTimmy is not too lazy to debate something that matters, I now conclude my arguments.