BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Assisted Suicide

first of all I am not that great believer in religion as you think you seem upset that I used that kind of arguments but I Mention that just to show how assisted suicide affect their families in your first argument you mention that assisted suicide promises a painless death other treatment such palliative care promise a painless death but without killing you palliative care provide relief from pain and other distressing symptoms and integrates the psychological and spiritual aspects of patient care and now we get back to depression depressed people who has incurable diseases should be treated from depression before making such decision because they should have the best environment to make it and discover all the other option in the coming final months or weeks of his life so without assisted suicide depression rates will not grow higher also legalizing assisted suicide has bad effects on society more than the individuals adults and the people in control like governments should not encourage people to assisted suicide because they are role models to others so encouraging assisted suicide will encourage suicide in general especially for children and the next generations to come and spread a giving up mentality
Age of Consent Policies

Opening Arguments As my opponent said, The age of consent governs the legal age one must be at in order to legally agree to have sex with another individual. Consent: give permission for something to happen. The point of the age of consent is outlined in the following arguments: The Effects Obviously, Intercourse goes beyond simple pleasure. It can cause pregnancy, Which has multiple effects itself. For example, Consider this: "In 2017, A total of 194, 377 babies were born to women aged 15–19 years. . . Only about 50% of teen mothers receive a high school diploma by 22 years of age, Whereas approximately 90% of women who do not give birth during adolescence graduate from high school. " Another point is that sex spreads STD's: "1 in 4 teens contract a sexually transmitted disease every year. " The Impact The government itself already spends plenty on contraception prevention efforts: "if we were able to avert all unintended births among teens, It would amount to $1. 9 billion in additional public savings each year in the United States. " Besides this, The fact that students are dropping out of schools because they are getting pregnant affects more than just them, But their parents as well. Assuming these are rational, Loving parents, They are going to help their child to raise this child, Which puts stress on them to, In some cases, Have to work more in order to pay for such things. Teenage mothers also have horrific health: "According to a study published in Maternal Child Health Journal, Teen mothers had the poorest physical health of all categories of women studied, Including women who engaged in unprotected sex. Teenage mothers may neglect their physical health while caring for their babies. They may also not have access to or know about healthy foods and eating. They are also more likely to be obese. " Their children experience this as well: " effects to a child of a teenage mother include: greater risk for lower birth weight and infant mortality less prepared to enter kindergarten rely more heavily on publicly funded health care are more likely to be incarcerated at some time during adolescence are more likely to drop out of high school are more likely to be unemployed or underemployed as a young adult" Culmination: If most teenage mothers are dropping out of school, They are not contributing to society as much as they could be had they not gotten pregnant. This is not to say that they have a duty to stay abstinent in order to contribute to society, But it is most definitely a motivator to discourage them from intercourse. This as all led up to say this: the persistence of the age of consent laws are not about the age of an individual and that effect on their decision-making capacity, But rather the effect of intercourse by teens on not only themselves, But their families, Their children, And society as a whole. It causes the U. S. To pay more money, It causes families more stress, It causes teens to have worse health, And it causes their children to live worse lives. Sources:Please check my profile comments for the sources because I was unable to post them here.
Learning a Second Language

Thank you, good luck to you as well. My argument is the following: I think students in the United Stares should be required to learn a Second language because it provides them with several benefits. For example: learning a second language allows people to communicate with more parts of the world; and given that the U.S is so involved in other countries it can provide many benefits in business, international affairs or just personal relationships. By learning other languages, people also learn about where those languages are spoken; therefore, providing them with more awareness of other cultures and places. Being bilingual, or even more than that, brings along benefits like better paying jobs as well. Apart from those, there are improvements on how your mind works when learning a second language. According to an article in The Telegraph, there are 7 ways in which your brain gets better when learning a second language: - You become smarter -Learn to Multitaks -Stave Alzheimer's -Your memory improves -You become more perceptive -Decision making skills improve -Improvement of Native language (in this case, English). (http://www.telegraph.co.uk...) I believe that learning a second language is just as important as learning other things, and maybe even more, because it develops different areas of the brain while providing more opportunities in different fields. Thank you.
Learning a Second Language

Thank you Con for your response; as well as taking on the debate. 1.I was just using History as an example, but I do agree that it has its importance even in the modern day. But I do have to say that while it may help people understand why the United States is doing certain things, or decide their political philosophy to a certain degree, I think that learning about other cultures and other languages can also provide a lot to the same things. Also, if we are talking about America (not just the United States as it is commonly poorly referred), more than half of the countries that make up the continent have Spanish as their first language, and are more encouraged to learn English than vice-verse. 2. Yes, it may be far more important for students to learn math better and put more effort into that; but in order to learn everything else, the more English they know the better. Learning a second language provides them with this opportunity. 3. I was actually not taking into consideration immigrants and communication with them as much as people from the U.S. going to other places. If we want to even consider requiring people learning English when they come here, what can you say about other places wanting the same? Finally, I believe that you have made some good points as to why it should not be mandatory. However, I do still believe that it should hold more importance and be more encouraged than it currently is. It provides people with more benefits than negative effects. Thank you.
Learning a Second Language

Thank you for your arguments. In response to number 1: You claim that "a major part of school is learning information that will better your ability to survive on your own in the world," and the distinction between necessary and excess information. I believe that speaking a second language is far more important than learning let"s say History. Yes, it does teach about our past, but it does not have much utility in the day to day living, and even less when we talk about survival. Since you mentioned age groups, I would actually say that this be focused on younger kids. After kids have learned some of the basics of their native language, it becomes easier to learn a second language while improving their native skills as well. While your argument of "no teacher can teach every subject, why then must a student learn every subject," provides a good point, I believe that the efforts of learning a second language should be put above other subjects. As for number 2: There is still a requirement to learn a language, at least two years. Those classes are taken very lightly, therefore students don"t learn too much. Precisely because only 26% of people in the U.S. can only hold a conversation, don"t you think it would be better for people to learn more? People fail when applying the knowledge of a language because they do not look for opportunities to improve and practice; much like the other classes that they took, they do what they need to get good grades and that is it. But given the nature of learning a language, they would need to put in their own effort in practicing. I do realize that people are more likely to not want to put in the effort, but requiring them to learn more might motivate them and giving them better results. Would you maybe agree with more encouragement to learn a second language, not necessarily being mandatory? Thank you.
Should Gay marriage be allowed

What's the point of being homosexual if you can't even express your love? Exactly. No point. I am bi and I am planning to marry who I love, no matter what gender, male or female. I am also planning to save at least one of those children that get tied down EVERY SINGLE DAY! I do not really care about religious beliefs right now. You are right. Being bi or homo sexual is a natural thing but if its a natural thing, why can't marrying the same sex be natural? You say a normal couple could adopt a homeless child but do you think they WOULD! Many "normal" couples would prefer to give birth to a baby. And you call them normal couples, why can't same sex couples be normal too? This is very unfair to us homo sexual and bi's.
Should Gay marriage be allowed

I do not have a problem with homo or bi people. Being bi or homo sexual is a natural thing, even monkeys have this. But I do have a problem when a person would like to express their love through marriage or other sexual desires. If I were born homosexual I still would not have thought it right because of my strong religious beliefs. It is extremely difficult to argue my perspective without using the Bible as I mentioned in a previous "argument". But still a normal couple, in my opinion, can adopt the homeless children. Many men and women have fertility issues. I think that these couples should be the ones to adopt those children. By a couple I mean a man and a women.
Should Gay marriage be allowed

There are many kids out there who don't have a home. Studies say that we die faster than we reproduce so why not save those kids first? If you ask me, we should all be adopting the kids until we save many lives and then we can reproduce. Then again, there are many people out there who can reproduce. You might say that you don't care but just hear me out. Many kids out there who don't have families and who are stuck in orphanages are not treated has good as you think. You might think that its the orphanages job to take care of the kids but they don't do it very well. As we all know, kids need exercise to grow. Well, many orphanages tie down the kids so they're easier to be taken care of. Did these kids deserve it? NO! But they don't get to make their own choices because they are being taken over by these irresponsible "parents" And you need no reason to apologize to me. We both have our beliefs and I respect that. And we are debating here! We are not apologizing for our own mistakes.
Should Gay marriage be allowed

Let me ask again; what is the purpose of the male and female reproductive ograns? Is it not to reproduce. You may say, however, that "today" they are no longer called reproductive organs... well in that case there is no way that I can argue a point like this. It is very difficult to argue a point like this without directly referring to the Bible. Sorry for the offense that I made earlier. Please do not be offended by this... I really do think that homosexuality is a terrible menatal disorder. SORRY!! Anyone who would try argue a point like this in the world we live in today will, unfortunately, not get anywhere. And again please do not take any offense.
Should Gay marriage be allowed

It seems that you refuse to respect those who don't believe in a god. I don't choose to believe in one but I at least respect that the religious have their own beliefs. I respect what your "God" said but it really does not matter to me. I will not respect your god if you do not respect that some people do not believe in God. What I am saying is that not everything revolves around this one particular person. Have you ever seen this god except in churches? In churches, they just imagine what god would look like. How do you know that God helped us. How do you know he isn't some sort of criminal that tricked us all? How do you even know if this God is a "he" or a "she"! If you cannot tell me these things, you cannot prove that their is a god. If you ask me, this God shouldn't be anyone's center of belief. To take away our rights to marry who we love like that? If I were to believe in a god, it would be a god that doesn't control us like this. A god that lets us marry who we love no matter what. You "God" (if I can even call him/her that) is a disgrace to humankind and interfering with our lives. For example, If you just go on in normal life and suddenly you come across the god that you decide to believe in, you suddenly change for the sake of this god. You become vegetarian, you believe in things you never believed in before. It's just like he's taken over you entire life and drowned it in his beliefs to be right. I apologize if this offends you in any way but just hearing you say that everyone must believe in a god makes me angry. We have rights and you make it sound like God takes that all away. I know I shouldn't be offending your beliefs and I'm sorry for it. I know you have strong beliefs for this God but not everyone has to follow this God of yours. So again, I sincerely apologize for any offense caused to you are your Lord.
Should Gay marriage be allowed

Let me say, "If atheism is a religion, than bald is a hair color." I really cannot debate a topic like this if you do not believe there is a God that clearly condemns same-sex marriage. And is not the purpose of marriage to reproduce. "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it." God also said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him and help meet for him. And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found and help meet for him. And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, this is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." Notice cleave unto his wife, which is a woman. Even arguing from an atheistic level we can say that this is a mistake. The purpose of the man and a women"s reproductive organs is to reproduce, obviously. In my opinion this is a huge mistake. A man and a man cannot reproduce neither can a women and a women reproduce.
Should Gay marriage be allowed

That is a great offense to many athiest. You are assuming that everyone has a religion? And it doesn't matter if it is "disturbing" or "disgusiting" because that is who people love. Those are our rights to marry who we love. Are you saying just because its "disgusting" and "unbiblical" (again assuming everyone has a religion), you are going to take our rights away? I also apologize for the future coming if I do not submit on time. I am a very busy person serving in the military but I will try to do my best to submit on time because of course it is MY duty to argue against you. I wish good luck to you as well!
Logic suggest that some sort of creative, conscious God may exist . . .

Often what people argue when they say "God doesn't exist" is that a Christian God doesn't exist. Empirical evidence to refute the Bible or to refute the nature of the God in the Bible is often presented to argue the claim that God doesn't exist. But this sort of reasoning is flawed. God may in fact exist and it [God] may not be all too kind a character. A God might exist, for example, that created man only to waste away the time, to play with mankind as a cat plays with mice; consider what happened to the dinosaurs. God might alternatively be a God with natural limits, too, that can control physical phenomena and the fate of the universe only to a limited degree, but that genuinely concerns himself with the affairs of mankind and intelligent life elsewhere. My position is that logic suggest that a creative, conscious God may in fact exist - and that there is evidence to even support its existence. Con will argue that God does not exist, and he will present arguments to support his claim and also to refute mine. Con should begin his arguments in ROUND 1; ROUND 4 will be reserved for our final statements on this topic. (Serious debaters only.)
Institutional Racism against Blacks in the United States is non-existent

It has come to my attention that millions of Americans today are struck by the idea that the government is for some reason discriminatory against minority groups, most notably blacks within the United States, and that their economic and social misfortunes can ultimately be attributed to the direct cause of federally promoted racism today. I personally believe that not only does institutional racism not exist, but also that the consistent claims of the existence of institutional racism along with the victim mentality ultimately resulting in a greater dependence on the government and segregation amongst races hampers any form of progress that has been made throughout the 20th century. Thus I present my argument and position on this matter. Institutional Racism within the United States today does not exist.
Australia Day

There is much to celebrate on Australia Day. We Celebrate what we have become. If Australia Day was not January 26, then when should it be? Australia's origins cannot be pinpointed to colonial self-government in the 1850s, federation in 1901, voting rights for women from 1895, full Commonwealth voting rights for Aboriginal people by the 1960s, or the Hawke government's 1986 Australia Act, which severed Australia from the British legal system. Each of these were milestones, yes, but milestones in what was really a revolutionary process. Australia was not created, it grew.
Australia Day

Even Australia Day was when the first fleet arrived there are more important days to celebrate. For centuries, Aboriginals have been trying to get their point of view across to white Australians of how terrible Australia Day makes them feel. We could have chosen a much better day, like Federation Day, which is the 1st of January. Federation Day is when Australia became a nation. Australia Day becoming a nation is a very significant day giving Australia independence. If we don't change the date, we are celebrating rape, murders, death, the day aboriginals lost their home and disconnected culture. We must change the date now!
Australia Day

Many people say that this date is disrespectful to aboriginals however this date represents the arrival of the first fleet and the british colony who has populated our country and made it what it is today. No other date better reflects both the origins of the country and the nation it has become.Sure, let's ensure appropriate recognition of the indigenous community and do what is necessary to right any wrongs which have occurred, but let's not lose sight of the fact that January 26 marks the beginning of the nation we all (indigenous, those born here and the more recent arrivals) call home.
Australia Day

Australia Day is currently on the 26th of January, which should be changed. This is one of the most disrespectful and offending day to the innocent aboriginals that got slaughtered to death on that day. 26th of January created many problems starting with white people invading the land where aboriginals originally lived. White Australians do not own the land and we need to recognized the aboriginals too, we need to recognized their arrival, their language and their culture. By having Australia Day on a date like this, it makes aboriginal people feel completely unimportant which is unfair because they were here much before us. Australia Day is just a reminder of the cruel actions white people made and a special day like this should make everyone feel happy and proud of this country.
Zero is a number

My first point is that zero has to be a number. If we look at the definition of a number:Number: an arithmetical value, expressed by a word, symbol, or figure, representing a particular quantity and used in counting and making calculations and for showing order in a series or for identification. 0 has an arithmetical value, as it is the symbol used when there isn't something. Even if 0 is the absent of the number, black is still considered a color even if it is the "absense of color" That being said, 0 is definitely a number. If we didn't have a zero existing as a number, 30 wouldn't be an existing number, but 3 would. 29 has a value of 29, 31 has a value of 31, but if 0 isn't a number, 30 has a value of 3. This reasoning alone is my arguement. Again, thank you and good luck!
science can stop natural disasters

Natural disasters refers to things like volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, volcanoes, tornadoes, tsunamis, hurricanes, etc. and they're caused by soil erosion, seismic activity, air pressure, and ocean currents [1]. Even if science and technology advances for us to be able to predict these disasters way in advance and/or minimalize destruction (and protect ourselves and our resources), the laws of nature present the reality that we can not and probably will not be able to present these kinds of disasters. Moreover, there are all kinds of natural disasters that could result in or because of space; for instance all the science in the world wouldn't be able to help us if the sun was exploding. Back to Pro. [1] http://www.helium.com...