BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Donald Trump's wig is actually a sentient alien from another dimension

con and i have come to an agreement on whether the wig is sentient or notthe wig is out of this universe because its actually a species known as the malemns. the ancient egyptians and the aliens known as the malaprops worked together to defeat the malemns, which ate the egyptian pharaoh's dog. the malaprops banished the malemns into a different dimension, but the malemns promised to have their revenge and look what has come of it! donald trump, puppet of the malemns, is the leader of america
Only if Mom says so? A debate against abortion.

To address the topic from another point, her boyfriend mixed a drug into her drink. Mixing any drug into a drink could lead to any situation such as rape or murder of the person themself. It is true that pro-abortion activists feel the fetus is not ahuman and does not have rights. However, the fetus has the DNA used to develop a human body and organs. The boyfriend's attempt in this was to kill the fetus and stop the growth of a human body. Thus, we have murder. Calling for assault in this case would change the foundations of just what a crime is in our country. The drug could have very well had effects on the mother's body as well, her boyfriend was putting her in danger as well. It is almost a given that the mother's consent should be given before ANY drug enters her body or any abortion occurs. How can one argue such a point?
Only if Mom says so? A debate against abortion.

In Wisconsin, a man attempted to spike his girlfriends smoothie with a chemical known in the abortion industry as RU-486. The girlfriend was only made aware of it after growing suspicious of her boyfriend when she noticed him stirring her smoothie. After the libation was handed to her, she noticed a powdery residue on the rim of her cup. To confirm her suspicions, she took the drink to a laboratory for chemical analysis, which determined that mifepristone was mixed in to her drink. The defendant, Patel, has been charged with seven felonies and two misdemeanors, including attempted first-degree intentional homicide of an unborn child. So here is the underlying question, and indeed, the moral of the debate: Why is murder only contingent upon the mother's say-so to terminate a pregnancy? Why does a mother become the arbiter of homicide; of who is human and who is not? My detractor will say that what made it murder, and immoral, is that he did not gain her consent -- since consent seems to be the grand arbiter these days. But here's the clincher that makes consent specious: Why the charge of murder? You can only murder a human, right? But a fetus is not human, nor does it retain any rights as such, say pro-abortion activists. If that's the case, then why was Patel not charged with aggravated assault and battery? Why the charge of murder?
Only if Mom says so? A debate against abortion.

Thank you for your response, FiredUpRepublican. As best I can tell, you aren't the right person to be debating because you and I are actually in agreement. My post was designed to lead pro-abortionists in to an inescapable conclusion -- namely, that abortion is indeed the homicide of a human being, or at the least, to concede that their position is illogical. So I certainly agree with the charge given to Patel. Patel was also charged with battery and assault of his girlfriend, as well as a plethora of other charges.He had done this to her numerous times, in fact! She has lost, I believe, 4 children because of this man. But specifically, I wanted to ask the question why it only becomes murder when the mother wants the child. That is completely illogical from a lawful standpoint.
Homeschooling is better than Public school

I wish to say that the tutor idea is just one solution, there is also online education avaible that costs farless compared to the tutor dea. This is where the student is assigned work from online schooling and the student has to complete it without any assitence of parents/tutors and especially not 24/In conclusion i would like to say that homeschooling is a comfort...it gives the student self-esteem instead of being beat up by the local bully gang. It allows a student to chose what they want to learn after learning the basics. It allows a student to make their own choices, and not get influenced by freinds so they could "fit in". Homeschoolng makes life easier and will allow any student to be freee unlike public schooling. Even on a brighter side later in life a homeschooler will take benefit because colleges do recognise homeschooling in a beter way than public schooling. A child will learn more in a peaceful and respectful way. After all if the child needs a hug....h or she will get one Thank you for this debate! xD
Homeschooling is better than Public school

I would like to question your counter-arguments.While it is true a parent can hire a tutor, or even multiple tutors, to assuage time constraints, this is not much of a solution considering tutors charge an average fee of $15 to $50 an hour. The average tutoring session is four to six hours. This would put significantly more strain on the financial situation of any household. Since public education is free, it would be fair to say only those with extreme financial means or a large degree of dedication to their children's personal needs. This typically does not describe the average working family. In regards to people being against homeschooling because it is considered "unusual", this is true, although many people's reactions may just be based on the fact homeschoolers account for a mere 2.2% of American children. It might be more of an uncommon issue, than a unusual one.
Homeschooling is better than Public school

I would like to question some of your arguments: As a single homeschooling mom, Mickey wrote to say that single parents who homeschool their kids face even greater time restraints: "We have to be very creative in our timing because I work and homeschool. Luckily, I work close to home and have a lot of time off, but it's still a challenge." Homeschooling is not only done by a parent there are homeschooling tutors which have this task as a job. It is purely a parent`s choice if they would like to do it personally or not....if they chose a tutor this will not be a problem... Also most of you reasons are talking about how homeschooling is not "normal" things may go unnoticed.....the problems you find in homeschooling are that this is an idea out of everybody`s comfort zone. Homeschooling is deffinetly not mainstream and most people are too lazy to go into this idea. Homeschooling is in several ways better than public schooling both physically and emotionally! This is an idea people dont like, because it is unusual they would just prefer to stick to the usual and simple way and leave it that way... Thank you for responding to my debate request xD
Homeschooling is better than Public school

Time Restraints: There's no way around it: learning outside of a school environment can consume a lot of mom or dad's time. Most folks visualize that time being spent at the kitchen table with textbooks and worksheets, but for most families, that's not the case. As a single homeschooling mom, Mickey wrote to say that single parents who homeschool their kids face even greater time restraints: "We have to be very creative in our timing because I work and homeschool. Luckily, I work close to home and have a lot of time off, but it's still a challenge. " Financial Restraints. : For married parents, one partner often foregoes full-time employment out of the home in order to homeschool. This can be a big sacrifice for families who are struggling to balance their budget. Surprisingly, most homeschooling families believe that the brief loss of income is well worth the satisfaction of watching their kids grow and learn in freedom. Being with Your Kids 24/7: There's no denying it " if you choose to homeschool, you're going to be with your kids most of the time. This can caused strained relationships or unnecessary pressure to coincide peacefully. Limited Team Sports or Extracurricular Activities: While community sports activities fill the void for younger kids, teens often find limited opportunities to join sports teams, especially competitive ones. Depending on where you live, homeschoolers may or may not be welcome to participate on teams with their public-schooled peers. Nor will they be able to participate in many of the clubs, or social events designed to draw kids out of their shells, such as school dances or field trips. Living Outside the Norm: Like any activity that challenges mainstream thinking, homeschooling may be seen as an oddity at best, or even as a threat to those who are unable to accept ordinary parents succeeding where trained professionals often fail. Lack of Socialization: Children and teens who homeschooled can have limited social contact with their peers, leading to introverted personalities and trouble connecting to others. This can lead to difficulties in the workplace or any other aspect of life that requires human interaction. The Dangers of Being Home: Homeschoolers often are without the safety net that a mainstream education can provide. Problems such as learning disabilities, personality disorders, and physical, mental, and psychological abuse can often go unseen and unchecked, as most parents are not trained to, or are unable to, spot their own children's discrepancies. Homeschooling can also provide a smokescreen to a parent's teachings of immoral or destructive behaviors.
YOU HAVE HOLES IN YOUR SOCKS

My opponent starts his round by insisting that I provide him with my personal information. In response, I'm going to have to decline his request for it is his job to do his own research for his own arguments. Since he initiated the topic, the burden of proof is his. Demanding that his opponent do so is inappropriate in the context of a debate. Furthermore, none of that information which he requested could be used to confirm whether or not I owned a pair of socks. Even if I were willing to provide that information, I certainly couldn't fit all of it into this 8,000 character limit. I would need some contact information from my opponent. As you can clearly see, he has provided none, so helping him with his research is completely out of the question. The fact of the matter is that my opponent is taking a gamble; he is unsure of the outcome of my personal information. The fact that he doesn't KNOW whether or not I even own a pair of socks should be a clear indication that he cannot support his arguments independently. As I predicted, my opponent failed to provide decisive evidence for his claim (or any evidence whatsoever for that matter). Since this is the Internet, you can't honestly take my word or his word on the matter of whether or not I actually own socks as I could very well lie about the issue. Thus, while still negating the resolution (and as I've suggested in the previous round), I will take the position that it's merely possible that I own socks with holes; contrary to what my opponent insist, it is not certain. Of course, if you are willing to take my word, then I will say that I don't own a pair of socks at the moment.
YOU HAVE HOLES IN YOUR SOCKS

OK, ALL I HAVE TO DO IS PROVE THAT MY OPPONENT HAS LEGS, OWNS SOCKS AND WEARS THEM, AND THAT THE SOCKS HE OWNS HAVE HOLES IN THEM. IN ORDER TO DO THAT, I'M GOING TO HAVE TO DO AN EXTENSIVE BACKGROUND CHECK ON HIM. I WILL NEED HIS MEDICAL RECORDS, BANK / FINANCIAL RECORDS, SEVERAL REFERENCES, HIS CONTACT INFORMATION INCLUDING NAME / ADDRESS / PHONE NUMBERS / EMPLOYER INFORMATION / ETC AND THAT OF HIS CLOSEST FAMILY AND FRIENDS FOR INTERVIEW PURPOSES, POLICE / CRIMINAL / PERMANENT RECORDS, DRIVERS LICENSE NUMBER / BMV RECORDS, MOST RECENT PICTURES, SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER, AND SCHOOL RECORDS. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ANY OF THESE REQUESTS ON MY OPPONENTS BEHALF IS BASICALLY A FORFEIT DUE TO THE FACT THAT SUCH ACTION WOULD BE AN INTENTIONAL IMPEDING OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THIS DEBATE. ONCE IT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED THAT MY OPPONENT INDEED OWNS SOCKS, ALL I HAVE TO DO IS PROVE THAT THERE ARE HOLES IN THEM. ASSUMING THAT WE ARE DEBATING ABOUT SOCKS IN THE CONVENTIONAL SENSE, THAT IS THAT THEY ARE MADE OF A MATERIAL AND INTENDED TO COVER HUMAN FEET, ALL SOCKS HAVE HOLES WHICH ALLOW A PERSON TO INSERT HIS OR HER FOOT. IF MY OPPONENT OWNS SOCKS THEN HIS SOCKS HAVE HOLES IN THEM FOR HIS FEET. IF WE'RE DEBATING ABOUT SOCKS IN AN UNCONVENTIONAL SENSE WHICH MY OPPONENT OWNS SUCH AS SOCKS WITHOUT FOOT HOLES, DECORATIVE SOCKS, A DRAIN PIPE SOCK, ETC, THEN MY OPPONENTS SOCKS STILL HAVE HOLES IN THEM BECAUSE THEY ARE MOLECULARLY AND / OR CELLULARLY PERMEABLE. IF MY OPPONENT CLAIMS TO HAVE AN IMPERMEABLE SOCK, IT WILL HAVE TO BE SHIPPED TO ME SO THAT I MAY VERIFY THAT IT IS INDEED IMPERMEABLE. YOUR WELCOME
YOU HAVE HOLES IN YOUR SOCKS

I strongly negate the resolution for three reasons: 1) The resolution assumes I own socks. For all my opponent knows, I could possible not be financially secure enough to own a pair of socks. Either that, or maybe I don't wear socks. Maybe I find the climate in my area to be warm enough to the point that I don't need socks. Or maybe I'm just too lazy to purchase a pair of socks. 2) Maybe my legs have been amputated. 3) Most importantly, the burden of proof belongs to my opponent. I challenge him to prove that I live up to condition provided in the previous reasons as well as prove that these socks possess holes. In this debate, I will urge that it's merely within the realm of possibility that I have socks with holes, but that my opponent won't be able to provide decisive evidence which is needed to prove the resolution. Thank you.
Feminism is morally good

I want to first start by formally apologizing to both the audience and you, (while I do feel my argument was fairly sound in a number of points to be made, but not in this particular debate) I hereby concede the debate. The reason? I simply have not done enough research on the Feminist movement and it's stand on morality to make a solid case as to why it would not be within moral standards. Once again I do apologize, for the start of our debate was very interesting. I look forward to a debate with you again, (perhaps on a topic to which I have particular expertise). Let it be known readers that my opponent has won this case not be default, but by a simple edge in expertise to which I lack.
Feminism is morally good

Thank you for accepting. Based on such a definition, I'm afraid Ill have to respectfully disagree. Let it be known, there may be few individuals as hard-pressed for equality as I am. But, Morally I believe the feminist movement has strayed a tad too far from their main goal. to which I understood as "all people are equal in the eyes of the law". As with any groups as well, I have noticed that there are more than one sub-group of feminists and I feel this could be detrimental to their cause, but I digress. The Moral is defined as: "Concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character." I fail to see the morality of trying to come out on top. will you deny the existence of the radical feminist movements that are so ant-male that it would seem they would wipe them out if given the chance? They are under the banner of "feminism" correct? Is this healthy for society? If women want equality, is claiming a title the way to go about it? how can one achieve equality when they're under a collective banner? It's similar to the Boyscouts of America, (they consist of ALL male followers and leaders, and women are not allowed) Is a group consisting of an entirety of a single gender really helpful? they arent receiving any feedback this way...they would only ever hear like-minded opinions from followers they knew they would already obtain (AKA women) And to be perfectly honest, the strategy seems a tad "off" to me. I would gladly elaborate further but It would seem that my points might be jumping in several directions at once. Please, proceed. I shall organize these points to make them a bit less obtuse.
Feminism is morally good

I'm re-doing this debate after a request from Awood8964. Understand feminism as a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women and morality as the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are "good" (or right) and those that are "bad" (or wrong). Under this context, I will be arguing pro, which means I defend the case of feminism being morally good, as opposed to any ideology that enters in direct conflict with feminism.
Technology in the classroom

I would just like to say, this is the most unclear subject, perhaps ever. Is it should technology be used in a classroom? If this is indeed the subject of the debate, then I think I win almost automatically. If it isn't please explain what is.The answer is, of course, yes, for technology is defined as the application of knowledge for practical purposes, especially in industry. Pencils, pens, and papers are all technology, and they are almost required for any class whether it be mathematics, grammar, English, reading, speech and debate, drafting and design, principles of engineering, etc. Computers/electronic components are required for many classes, for example, coding, computers, computer aided design, robotics, electric theory, etc. And at least in the Western World, almost all attendance and grades are done via a computer system. One could even say a classroom itself is applied engineering whether it is a wooden hut or a fancy private school with a pool and a Starbucks. But what if we don't have a classroom, pens, paper, desks, chairs, computers, etc. and we just have some teacher teaching on the mountain or such? What do you do with the diabetics? Or someone who requires a pacemaker? Or even a kid who eats peanuts and needs an EpiPen? Without technology, kids would just be dropping dead all over the place. This is under the presumption that you even have enough kids to have a class in the first place. Go back to stone age child birth, where many pregnancies ended up in death, of the mother, the child or both. Then since we wouldn't have farming technology, we wouldn't really even have time to teach a class, since well, you need to eat. Without any technology whatsoever, we aren't even living in the middle ages like in the Harry Potter series. It would be like being the hunter-gather Sentinelese people, who have lived in relative isolation for over 60,000 years. They have no agricultural practices or methods of producing fire. For all extents and purposes, they living in the Stone Age, with hardly any technology to speak of. I'm quite sorry if this isn't your position I horribly straw-manned you. But admittingly, you weren't very clear.
Gay Marriage

1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control. 2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people can't legally get married because the world needs more children. 3. Obviously, gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children. 4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if Gay marriage is allowed, since Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful. Also, as further proof of this I have documented a long study which strictly proves that only heterosexuals are capable of upholding the sacred bonds of marriage that. Oh, wait, I'll have to get back to this later, "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire" is on. 5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are property, blacks can't marry whites, and divorce is illegal and punishable by death. 6. Gay marriage should be decided by people not the courts because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of the minorities. 7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America. 8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall. 9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract. 10. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children. 11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to things like cars or longer lifespan. 12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages for gays and lesbians will. And let's not forget camps! If those homos get too rowdy, we can always send them off to go camping for a bit. Just look at how it mellowed out the Jews in WWII Germany! If we really want to protect the institution of marriage, we should adopt a constitutional amendment that makes infidelity unconstitutional.
Weed Should Be Legalized every were

I will assume "weed" as the following definition: "Cannabis, heroin, cocaine, marijuana, or any other drug that are illegal in most U.S. states and is extremely addictive." - Legalization of drugs on crime My opponent asserts that legalizing drugs would keep people out of jail, I assume he is stating that the legalization of drugs would reduce crime. This is not true, however, but that the legalization of drugs do not reduce crime in any way, as reported by the police department and its recorded statistics.[1] First of all, most people who consume drugs do not get caught doing so, which therefore takes out any effectiveness legalization has on reducing crime. Several years ago, as stated by the police department, that in 1987, out of approximately 25 million people who consumed weed, only about 350,000 arrests were made. Other studies were made which proves that weed do not relate to crime in any way. Therefore, weed does not in any way, correlate with crime. - Public health concerns Weed has led people to be more aggressive when intoxicated. Weed damages and impacts the body and brain of an individual. This will not just only threaten themselves, but threaten the people around him and the welfare of the society he lives in. Many proponents of weed legalization has asserted that weed is no different than alcohol consumption. However, out of hundreds of millions of Americans who consume alcohol, 85% rarely at all become intoxicated, compared to weed users who become easily intoxicated.[1] This proves that weed do cause a decrease in public health for the society. - Legalized drugs exploit people in poverty The legalization of weed will, without doubt, have current weed users easily influence others who are in poverty stay in poverty since weed or cannabis destroys all sorts of motivation. Additionally, children in schools are easily influenced and more children will begin to consume weed if we legalize it. In conclusion, the legalization of weed would decrease public health by a dramatic rate and exploit children in schools and people in poverty. I would also like to state that the legalization of drugs do not in any case, reduce crime. Sources: 1: http://www.policechiefmagazine.org...