BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Chores are child slave labor.

I see my opponents point. But I can say that it's not illegal to pay under minimum wage. A friend of mine and lannan13's used to work at Wendy's and he was given only 1-2 day a week to work and was only being paid 3.50. The company never got in trouble, even through all the complaints he probably sent to his former bosses. Other than that I have nothing else to argue. All points extended.
Chores are child slave labor.

Rebuttal 1: Some chores are also outside. Mowing, weed whacking, and clipping the bushes are just a few examples. These you wouldn't let a child do, especially by themselves. Many a parent will tell their kid to go out and rake or do some other physical chore while they sit down and watch a movie or play on their computer. The kid, especially if their small, are doing something that they may not have the physical capability of, but they have to do it anyway. The parent should be out there helping them. One shouldn't tell their kid to go out to do something and not help them. Argument 1: Grades can be affected by chores as well. If a child is expected to go clean their room, or even the yard. Depending on how messy it is, it could take away all their time to do homework. Children are encouraged to take at least 1-2 hours out of their day to homework. But if they are told to do a chore that could take a long time, they lose that opportunity. Then they're getting in trouble at school for not doing their homework and at home for not getting good grades. So who's the one that's supposed to be taking the heat (the blame/ chewing)? Rebuttal 2: Some parents will force their kids to clean their room everyday, even if it's already clean. My opponent says that some kids willingly clean their rooms to make their parents happy, but would a kid willingly clean a clean room? To add to that, some parents are bad enough to go and wreck their rooms while they're at school, just so the kid can clean. This doesn't seem humane to me. Rebuttal 3: Though I agree with my opponent somewhat. Some parents give their children treats for doing their chores. For instance, T.V. time, playing with friends, but the majority of parents don't really care, as long as they don't have to do the work. My parents for instance, feel that children were put on this world to do the work that the parents don't want to do. This is a little humane, but it's still a little bad.
Chores are child slave labor.

First off, I'll define some terms. Slave:Someone who is legally owned by another person and is forced to work for that person without pay. [. http://www.merriam-webster.com...]Labor:Expenditure of physical or mental effort especially when difficult or compulsory. [. http://www.merriam-webster.com...]Chore:The regular or daily light work of a household or farm. [. http://www.merriam-webster.com...]Argument 1: Willingness to workIn the definition of slave provided, the person who is enslaved is forced to work for someone, implying that the slaves would otherwise not be willing to do the work, were they not enslaved. This is not the case with all children doing chores, as many would gladly perform these chores simply to keep the house they live in clean or to make their parents happy. Some even do chores so that they themselves can feel pride from simply doing the task. Others may do it out of the kindness of their hearts. An easy way to show this is by looking at your average college student. He/she will clean, vacuum, and maintain their dormitory, usually because they would like to keep their house clean. Even so, I'm sure not many college students would say that they like doing chores, yet they do them anyways. So who would be enslaving these people? Themselves? Their home? So all in all, children doing chores are not just motivated by their parents forcing them to perform them, but can have many different motives. This means that the children are not enslaved, but rather voluntary workers engaging in a symbiotic relationship with their parents to help keep the house neat and orderly. Argument 2: Chores as "labor"In the definition of labor above, it is said that labor requires physical or mental effort (usually when difficult). However, the definition of a chore is the regular "light work" of a household. This does not sound like labor to me. If you need further evidence of this, simply look at some of the tasks that are chores: taking out the trash, sweeping and vacuuming, and even dusting. These tasks take minimal time and effort and should not be considered labor. There are also things that everyone should have to do that qualify as chores, such as doing homework, which kids may not want to do, but adults tell them to do because they know that these things are necessary to lead a good life. Argument 3: Cost of LivingChildren obviously do not pay bills or rent to their parents, even though these parents take care of their children by buying food, clothes, and other necessities for them. My opponent may argue that this is the parents' responsibility, however, I can in turn argue that it is then the responsibility of the child to do chores. This is supported by a recent ruling of the sixth circuit stating that household chores are not slave labor [1]. Children should be required to do chores as a sort of "rent" for their parents. Sources:1. . http://www.courthousenews.com...
Chores are child slave labor.

Children are forced to do chores all the time. You may be told that it teaches them to work, and that it's good for them, but the way I view it, they're lying. Argument 1: Kids are doing this work with out pay. One would say that their pay is a roof under their head, things that they want, food, clothes, and a place to sleep. But no. A parent is required by law to provide some of those things. Others kids usually get from what they believe to be Santa Claus and their friends on Christmas and their birthdays. Argument 2: They are treated like slaves. If they don't do as they're told their either beaten or grounded with the inability to do anything fun while in there until they get done what they were told to get done, or until the parent sees fit. These punishments can take months, to years. These kinds of punishments can be considered solitary confinement, which worsens the matter because being alone for that long can badly effect their mental state. Argument 3: Some parents, mostly the drunk ones, beat their kids even if they didn't do something wrong. Some slave owner back in the day would do this to make the slaves loyal and submissive and to teach them. By beating them, they're ensuring that the kid would be more likely to do the work, but it'd be out of fear of pain rather that out of sheer willingness.
Covers of songs are better than the originals.

As such, I ask that voters award source points to neither myself or my opponent. My opponents first premise is that popular musicians are losing creativity and that their lyrics are becoming less meaningful. However, this only makes a case for why covers are not better than the original. It would be better and more creative, for instance, for a songwriter to construct their own lyrics with meaning. If the source material is not creative with poor lyrical choice, then why would the cover of said song be better? As they say, garbage in, garbage out. For sake of argumentative clarity, I will now move to my opponents final premise. He states that he doesn't see how covers could be bad or worse than the originals. However, that is not the scale of this debate. As my opponent has already asserted, covers are always better than the original. This implies that not only are they at the same level of quality and professionalism (as content obviously has not changed), but that this duplication of someone else's art is actually better than the source material. My opponent cites very limited examples of covers that he enjoys more than the original songs. However, all one needs to do is Google or YouTube search "bad song covers" to see that not all covers are of any standard of quality. In fact, since my opponent based this argument on an allness statement, I need only provide one situation in which a cover is not better than the original song for his conclusion to be invalid.
Covers of songs are better than the originals.

Popular musicians are collapsing in terms of creativity and begin to slowly resort to using dubstep sounds, writing lyrics about sex and drugs, using the chorus five times to fit three minutes, and in some cases, autotuning their voices. The public who listen to music could think, "This is a terrible/great song. If I could make my own rendition of it before it blows up, that'd be awesome". The creativity of that person goes through the roof with ideas. I believe covers are better no matter how good the original is. For my first example, an Australian guitarist and vocalist named Steve Welsh uploaded a ska cover of Dean Martin's "Everybody Loves Somebody" which was a hit from the 50's. Have a listen to Steves cover: https://soundcloud.com...;This cover got me into ska music. When a song speaks to the brains of aspiring musicians, their cover will speak to the brains of others. Earlier, Steve (the same guy) has made a cover which came out in an utterly hilarious way. Selena Gomaz's "Come and Get it", also in ska: https://soundcloud.com...;I don't see any reason for covers to be seen as 'bad' or 'worse' than the originals. Whether professionally edited or not.
will ferrel founded the u.s in 1863

REBUTTALS: thats what they want you to think. Who is 'they'? Where is your proof? This whole debate, you have been unable to fulfill your BoP, while I have.will ferrel was god for america duhAgain, where is your proof? You have no evidence to support your claims. Your use of the word 'duh' is insinuating that either I am dumb, or that I am not competent enough to debate this topic. That is an ad hominem logical fallacy.ARGUMENTS:No new arguments; it is the final round and there is no need for any. May I point out that my opponent used 3 logical fallacies in this debate and did not fulfill his BoP, while I did in the second round.Thank you for reading, and please vote.
will ferrel founded the u.s in 1863

REBUTTALS:Um yeah. Check this out=living proof. (See link)The source provided is a picture of Will Ferrel and a black background. There is also a faded picture of his face next to the real Will Ferrel. In roder for the picture to be online, it has to de digital. Digital photgraphy was not invented until 1996 [1]; argumentum e silentio fallacyIt obviously shows that in the beginning of the united states there was nothing but black and he had an idea and created itThere was no black space before America was dicovered. How do you explain paintings from the 1200s?The resolution is that Will Ferrel founded America, not created America due to an idea. That argument is irrelevent; non sequitur fallacy.ARGUMENTS:There is historical documentation that Christopher Columbus discovered America in 1492. [2]http://www.bu.edu...;http://www.historyisaweapon.com...;
Error of Evolution Theory,Creation View as Truth - School assignment

My opponent's argument consists of the following:1. The Scientific Laws of Thermodynamics support the idea that everything that exists requires a cause.2. The universe exists, thus there is a cause of the universe.3. The cause of the universe is God4. Because God is the cause of the universe, the Christian Bible is to be taken literally and credibly to explain the existence of the universe.This logic is erroneous on multiple levels. To advance this argument we must assume that the Laws of Thermodynamics justify the existence of God. Note that this isn't a valid conclusion since thermodynamics apply to Newtonian Physics not quantum physics(1) and chaos theory(2), the sciences that apply to a scientific understanding of the creation of the universe. The fallout of my opponent's argument is that there is no reason to assume that since there is a God, the Christian Bible is a credible source to explaining the creation of the universe. There are many religions with a holy book and their own creation story(3). There is no reason to assume that the Christian Bible holds the truth to the creation verses any other religion. Sources1. http://library.thinkquest.org...2. http://www.abarim-publications.com...3. http://www.gly.uga.edu...
Error of Evolution Theory,Creation View as Truth - School assignment

k thank you for your support ... lol continuing on ill be holding the view of Creationism or fundamentalist now let us begin as Christianity,Jewish believe in the 7 day Record of creation where God created the Heaven and the earth,stars galaxies ,water est est.. i will hold to the Genesis theory and explain with detail why the big bang theory and man existence as well humanity is truth and how Evolution is error. so as we venture through this subject ill start with the literal 7 day period now the bible states a God creating humanity and the earth sky and day and night est est total of seven days. now many will hold to as literal or some hold to as thousands years for such state to exist. now as the bible should be taken as literal i will presume this theory now God created the universe in which God spoke it into existence im not referring to just "big bang " theory as some find but i am saying that all existence everything God created night/ day so on so forth all they way down the list in studying this theory thermodynamic is involved revealing evidence to the expansion as well the evidence to the universe as well the cosmological theory which states that their needs to be an uncaused cause for the existence of everything. stating in the theory of cosmological "Whatever begins to exist has a cause" meaning the universe began to exist therefore,the universe has a cause
Error of Evolution Theory,Creation View as Truth - School assignment

Thursday, March 22, 2012 The Error of Evolution Many people and Theologians are believing in a evolution theory, by this process removing any creation Facts but adapting to more a scientific mindset where the creation of man and the universe has spurned into a moment where spontaneously this dot of matter erupted expanding the existence of the universe where time and space began. While some refer to the Big Bang Theory as accurate Evidence of the existence and evidence of the universe.. Not only can evolution be False,but as science always changes. The theories for man`s origin as evolved species of primates or from an amphibious creature evolving through a series of Evolution states. Not only is this wrong but inaccurate to the forming of the Universe and Mankind existence as there is a substantial evidence for the Creation account of mankind from God a ultimate being creating the Existence of all things Atheists will disprove such a account to even prove an erroneous account of man from primates.. please fill free to blog and give opinions for this reason i am writing for a school assignment where ill need to show what evolutionist and Atheists believe names will not be given .. thank you
Death sentence should be included in the Greek Justice.

I thanatiki poini einai i moni poini me ekfovistiki dunami kathws o fobos tis poinis tou thanatou leitourgei apotreptika gia ton egklimatia. Se oles tis alles poines o egklimatias einai vevaios pws me enan kalo dikigoro i kali diagwgi sti fulaki tha kataferei na meiwsei sto elaxisto tin poini tou. Malista stis ergatikes fulakes to ena etos logizetai gia duo. Etsi loipon enas dolofonos me poini isovia (peripou 20 xronia ) pou einai i varuteri poini stin ellada mporei sta misa xronia na einai ektos fulakis akoma kai an exei afairesei anthrwpini zwi. Otan omws i timwria einai toso afstiri kai ametakliti sigoura apotharinei polu perissotero tous drastes.
Death sentence should be included in the Greek Justice.

Se auto to debate prokeitai na suzhthsoyme gia thn thanatiki poini. Thanatikh poini einai h poihi pou epivalletai se enan eglimatia apo tis arxes tou kratous kai exei na kanei me thn afairesh ths zwhs autou. Einai h austhroterh poinh pou mporei na epivlhthei kai suxna onomazetai "h esxath twn poinwn". Sthn Ellada, h thanatikh poinh katarghthike ton Dekemvrio tou 1993. Ola ta krath ths E.E. exoun pleon katarghsei th thanatikh poinh, alla sunexizei na efarmozetai se xwres opws oi USA, h Kina, h Iapwnia kai polla krath tou Mousoulmanikou kosmou. Ta perissotera krath pou efarmozoun thn thanatikh poinh thn efarmozoun se dolofonies kai alla sovara eglhmata opws viasmoi kai tromokratia. (1) http://sygklonistikagegonota.blogspot.gr... (2) -http://thepla-net.blogspot.gr... (3) - (4) - (5) - http://www.in2life.gr...
Death sentence should be included in the Greek Justice.

En kairo eirinis omws den mporoume na leitourgoume me to skeptiko ofthalmos anti ofthalmou. Apotelei mia varvari praxi, i opoia enantiwnetai sta anthrwpina dikaiwmata. Epiprostheta i praxi afti den prokeitai epanaferei sti zwi to thima, oute tha apaleinei ton pono tis oikogeneias toy thimatos.
Death sentence should be included in the Greek Justice.

kai ston polemo skotwnoume gia to kalo tis patridas mas. H thanatiki poini epivalletai se atoma ta opoia adikaiologita afairesan athrwpini zwi. H xwra exei to dikaiwma tis nomimis amunas kai autoprostasias apenanti se "exthrous" tis diladi se atoma pou den summorfwnontai me tous nomous kai apoteloun kinduno gia tous polites tis. Kata sunepeia mesw aytis tis poinis proaspizetai i asfaleia twn politwn apo egklimaties.
Death sentence should be included in the Greek Justice.

Akrivos epeidi i anthrwpini zwi exei tin ipsisti aksia thewroume oti i afairesi anthrwpinisi zwis prepei na exei isaksia antapodosi giati einai i moni pou armozei se egklimaties pou exoun afairesei i plixei anepanorthwta anthrwpini zwi (p.x vasanismoi paiderastia) . Posoi einai allwste oi viastes pou vgainontas apo ti fulaki i kai mesa se autin epanalambanoun tis apotropees praxeis tous.?
Resolved: Electric cars should be a priority in plans to fight global warming

Thanks for the definition and argument. "Pro offered no alternative to my interpretation of "given a priority" so I assume he accepts it. So far, Pro has not said what he would do to give electric cars a priority, perhaps a subsidy or mandate, nor has he offered any evidence that impact on global warming would result. Therefore, his case thus far is irrelevant to the resolution. " Rebuttal: I will like to state that my opponent's source does not match with the cite provided. My opponent brings up the interesting point of electric power plants fueled predominantly by coal and natural gas. My opponent however misunderstood my point.The fact still remains that an electric car has no emission of its own. It is true that the power plant does have small amount of emission; however we must always compare it to that of a gasoline powered car. The gasoline powered car not only emit huge amounts of green house gases, but the power plants used to drill this gasoline also emit huge amounts of green house gases. At the end of the day, after comparing the gasoline powered car to the electric powered car, we find that the electric powered car is far more environmentally friendly than the gasoline powered car. The fact that electric cars do not have any tail pipe excision also adds to its positive impact on global warming. below is proof of the electric car's positive impact in the issue of global warming. "BEVs are recharged with electricity from power plants that use fossil fuels, they are up to 99 percent cleaner than conventional vehicles and can cut global warming emissions by as much as 70 percent. " (http://www.ucsusa.org...) ". Switching the power generation sources is would cost about $26 trillion and save only 0.026 degree of warming" This statement is false. The problem with the gasoline powered car is not the power grid but the oil intake. The fact that the electric car unlike the gasoline car does not need oil, the amount of oil drilling will significantly decrease. "gasoline. The production and use of gas and diesel in cars, trucks, and buses also account for 27 percent of U.S. global warming pollution. Promising new transportation technology called plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) could help Americans spend less money at the pump, and at the same time reduce global warming pollution and decrease our reliance on oil." This means that the electric car can solve about 27% of the U.S global warming pollution.
Resolved: Electric cars should be a priority in plans to fight global warming

I appreciate Pro extending this challenge to me. His opponent in a previous debate declined to make a case. It's an important topic to understand. The resolutionSince the debate would be pointless if the resolution does not affect public policy, so I assume "given priority" means given a government subsidy or either mandated or encouraged by law.I interpret "helpful" as having a significant effect rather than merely a symbolic effect. We would "give priority" to something only if it had a significant impact on global warming. Pro has the obligation to show a worthwhile cost-benefit relationship between some form of mandate or subsidy for electric cars and the outcome on global warming.For this debate, I will assume that the consensus climate sensitivity supposed by CO2 crisis advocates is correct, which is is to say that CO2 causes two to three times the among of global warming than the straight physics pf CO2 as a greenhouse gas predicts. It's debatable whether that's true, but that's a subject for a different debate.Pro's QuestionsFor the purpose of introduction I will answer Pro's questions without arguing the reasons for my answers. Are electric cars helpful in fighting global warming?No, the use of electric cars would have an insignificant effect on global warming. Are electric cars economical?They are economic only for very limited use, basically only for small cars used for short commutes. Are electric cars compatible with electric grids?Small numbers of commuter electric cars are compatible, because they can be charged at night. However large numbers are not compatible. Pro needs to be specific about how many electric cars he supposes will be put to use and in what time frame. Are electric cars reliable?Yes, electric cars are reliable up to their battery capacity. Pro need not argue the point.My question How much will what Pro advocates cost and what reduction in global warming does he expect to get as a result?
Resolved: Electric cars should be a priority in plans to fight global warming

The debate will go in the following order: Round one: Intro Round two: main round/ Case Round three: CX Round four: conclusion. My opponent will answer the following questions as well as use these questions as a base for his contentions: Are electric cars helpful in fighting global warming? Are electric cars economical? Are electric cars compatible with electric grids? Are electric cars reliable? My opponent also agrees that i could use the same case as i did in my previous debate. http://www.debate.org... Thank you.