BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Men should be able to abandon their child

The use of the word "should" would make this a moral debate not a legal debate....if we just examine the law, we see that a man simply does not have the option to abandon his child.....a woman, on the other hand, does have the option to terminate her pregnancy....that's the legal facts... If you want to debate whether a man should be able to abandon his child, it would inevitably be a moral argument just as it is in the case of abortion....in the case of abortion, the liberal argument that it is morally wrong for a woman to be forced to carry her baby to term has won out.
Men should be able to abandon their child

In the US, women have the right to continue or terminate their pregnancy, regardless of their partner's wishes, due to very obvious factors (i.e. right to their own body). Because a man has no say in what his partner does, at least legally, he should lawfully have the option to sever his ties with the woman and the child before it is born, requiring no payments of child support or any sort of attention from him. This is not a debate about the morality of men abandoning their children and partners, much like how morality does not play a part in the current laws on abortion. I in no way condone a man who abandons an unwanted child merely because of that fact. I also respect the rights of women and their choice to use abortion or not. From here on out I will use the phrase "child support" to make reference to all acts of financial aide that the child receives. In order to prevent any off topic discussion, let us assume that such a law can only take effect BEFORE the child is born, and that the man must make his decision to care for the child or not before its delivery. This is my first debate here, so please point out any more information that I should include next time I start one. Thank you.
The man from the Curiosity Shop is the man from the Trading Post.

Here are the three questions I asked in the previous round:1. Considering that Kafei is in hiding but revealed himself to the man from the Curiosity Shop, how does the Trading Post owner know that Kafei is a "kid"?2. When the Curiosity Shop opens, the Trading Post is attended by a part-time employee. If you wear the Stone Mask to make yourself invisible, you can sneak up and hear the employee saying, "We don't get many customers, so why does the boss have so much money?" Does this not imply that the Trading Post owner ("boss") is getting money elsewhere?3. Considering that the Official Nintendo Player's Guide itself explicitly says that "they're the same person," is there an argument more conclusive that could override this?Your goal will be to answer these three questions and perhaps give counterrebuttals for what I have said in Round 3. Also, I just noticed in Round 1 that you said, "As Pro proposes, I shall merely make a minor statement, unless I feel the need to object." If I am correctly interpreting what you mean, I never said that you should only give a "minor statement"; you may use all 5,000 characters given you.At this point, I believe that I am the winner (though it could of course change). Here are the reasons why:ConductCon forfeited, so I should win in regards to conduct.Spelling/grammarI think both of our posts were readable, so I consider this a tie.More convincing argumentsCon has only responded to my first point from Round 2, while I responded to all of his. Also, I used an official source to verify the proposition, which explicitly says that "they're the same person!" Therefore, I think that I win in regards to more convincing arguments. Most reliable sourcesWe both used wikis, and I used original research, but I also took from one wiki a quotation from an official source, so I probably win in this regard.With that, I will turn the debate back to you, Con!
The man from the Curiosity Shop is the man from the Trading Post.

Yes, they do in fact look similar, but who's not to say they're twins? My argument for why they can't be the same person: - "on the night of the second day, before 9PM, both the Man from the Curiosity Shop and the Man from the Trading Post can be seen in their respective stores." says the LoZ wiki. If they were the same person, then they couldn't be in different places. - Also, the wiki states talking to the Trading Post owner does not put the Curiosity Shop owner in the Bomber's Notebook. Trading Post isn't entered either, but this is (some) proof that they aren't the same person. - Trading Post owner is more polite compared to the Curiosity Shop owner. With that, let's see Pro's response!
The man from the Curiosity Shop is the man from the Trading Post.

Thank you for this Legend of Zelda debate. Nice to add some variety onto this website! I'll be arguing that The Curiosity Shop owner is not the same as the Trading Post owner. In Round 2, I shall make my argument saying why they are not the same. Round 3, I shall refute my opponent's claims. As Pro proposes, I shall merely make a minor statement, unless I feel the need to object. I have no immediate responses to make, so let's hear Pro's argument. Good luck, and let's begin!
The man from the Curiosity Shop is the man from the Trading Post.

Here are the rules:1. By "The man from the Curiosity Shop," I refer to the character from The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask that runs the Curiosity Shop in Clock Town, whose Zelda Wiki article is here: http://zeldawiki.org...2. By "the man from the Trading Post," I refer to the one operating the Trading Post near the Curiosity Shop, whose Zelda Wiki section is here: http://zeldawiki.org...3. By "is," I am connecting the man from the Curiosity Shop with the man from the Trading post, saying that they are both the same person.4. Con shall make his opening statement in Round 1, getting the first word; Con is not permitted to make any arguments against the proposition in Round 4, the last round, but may make a comment in order to avoid a forfeiture—giving me the last word.5. The burden of proof is shared; Pro (myself) will argue that the proposition is true, while Con will argue that the proposition is false.6. References shall not be placed in the Comments section.7. The rules mentioned above shall be in effect according to my interpretation of them.
Bronies are gay

In the next round you are able to agree with the definition terms or you can object to change the definition for the debate. Seeing that you did not have any objection against the definition in round 2, I assumed you were okay with it so I proceeded with my own arguments. This happens fairly often during debates and you have to be able to change your original argument to fit the definitions we have. Since the definition of gay is being used as happy or merry I suggest you change your argument to fit the current definition. This round will not be counted by voters and now we can proceed with the debate. I await my opponent’s response to what I wrote in round 2.
Bronies are gay

I do apologize for not paying attention to your original post in wanting me to write out my argument in round one. Now then, of course Bronies are happy. If Bronies were not happy they wouldn’t be watching My Little Pony and getting the joy that they get out of it! In fact, MLP (My Little Pony) brings a peace of mind to many Bronies and allows them to escape a dark world of murder, distrust, selfishness, greed ect. and get absorbed into a world of friendship, love, trust, honesty, loyalty, and all of the great, wonderful things about life! We can see this through the following quotes: "Really why I like it is the plots are good, the morals and lessons are good and its all in an interesting story. Honestly I think friendship is nothing to be afraid of and these ponies are all about friendship ."(1) “It’s a dark world we live in.” However, My Little Pony offers “a place where simple ideas like friendship, honesty, loyalty, generosity and laughter are pure and undiluted. It’s a happy place. There aren’t many happy places out there anymore.” (2) Also, MLP is known to have a great storyline, very well made characters, and a good overall moral code to follow. (1) In addition to all of this, there are a lot of MLP fan fiction sites, fan art sites, and just general fan sites! (3) Plus we can't forget about all of the Brony and Pegasister meetings that are held by real life club members! (4) I await my opponents response. Thank you! (1) http://answers.yahoo.com... (2) http://www.guelphmercury.com... (3) http://www.pokecommunity.com... http://www.mlparena.com... http://www.fanpop.com... (4) http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...
Homos that rape underage girls should not face prosecution

My opponent disseminated my argument and posted three rebuttals which I would like to respond to in turn as follows: Liability for Homos' Actions ================= There ought to be accountability for Homos' actions, I agree, but the Homos themselves should not be held legally liable. For example, if an unscrupulous owner trained his pet Homo to go out and burgle and shoplift and pick-pocket and the police spotted the Homo with a swag bag full of stolen loot over its shoulder and followed it back to its owner's home, surely it would be the owner they would arrest and not the Homo? The Homos' Inability to Defend Themselves =========================== During the Napoleonic Wars between Britain and France (1803-1814) a French ship was wrecked off the coast of Hertlepool in North East England. The sole survivor was the ship's pet monkey, which was washed ashore, bedraggled but alive. For the purpose of amusement, the monkey had been dressed in a miniature military uniform and, not being sure what a Frenchman looked like, the locals of the town assumed the monkey was one of the crew, accused it of being a French spy and put the unfortunate creature on trial. Now, just like a Homo floresiensis, that simian sailor was unable to adequately defend himself and the poor, innocent little monkey was wrongly found guilty and duly hanged. . http://www.hartlepoolunited.co.uk... Now, imagine if a young teenage girl falsely accused her pet Homo of rape and the hominoid was brought to trial: it would be her word against the Homo's word and the Homo's word would be "ugggh" – not a very convincing defence, I'm sure you'll agree. It would be wrong to allow this sort of miscarriage of justice to tarnish our admirable legal systems. A Case of Mistaken Identity? ================== The first picture I posted was of an adult human woman with an adult Homo floresiensis female. The second picture I posted was also of an adult human woman with an adult Homo floresiensis female. Here it is reproduced once more, but this time with its title: . http://www.sciencephoto.com... You see! Even my opponent couldn't tell the difference between an adult Homo female and an adolescent human female, so what chance would a male Homo have? For all these reasons I duly reaffirm that Homos that rape underage girls should not face prosecution. Thank you.
Homos that rape underage girls should not face prosecution

For those who don't know, Homo floresiensis are diminutive hominoids who are known to have lived on the Indonesian island of Flores as recently as 13,000 years ago, when it is believed a volcano wiped them out. [1] However, Flores is very remote and largely unexplored so it quite possible that some Homos survived the eruption and their decedents are living on the island, undiscovered, to this day. It is my intention to capture some of these Homos and breed them in captivity for sale as pets. However, it occurred to me that this plan might present me with some legal difficulty in the future if I sold a Homo to a family that had an adolescent daughter as a member. That's because adult Homo floresiensis females only reach 3' 3" in height and, to a male Homo, a human girl who has just reached puberty might bear more than a passing resemblance to a sexually mature female Homo [2,3] and it might well attempt to have sexual intercourse with the girl. Now, if this horny Homo was brought before the courts and successfully prosecuted for rape, the family could then sue me for supplying them with a pï¿½dophile pet. So my argument is that Homos who rape underage girls should not stand trial because they cannot be held liable for their actions, nor are they be capable of defending themselves, in the same way has modern humans are, and therefore, any trial would be unfair. Thank you. [1] http://news.nationalgeographic.com... [2] http://www.sciencemag.org... [3] http://www.sciencephoto.com...
Driving Age Should Be Lowered to 14

Public transport will always take you most of the way. When I go to work on the train, I walk the rest of the way. It's never far for someone to get to work from a public transport stop and to say otherwise is making excuses. If they really didn't want to bother anyone for lifts, they'd accept the means that's available and affordable to them, which is public transport and walking the rest of the way. It won't kill them, and in fact, would get them some fresh air and exercise, which a lot of kids don't get, these days. Also minors can't work late shifts, by law. All public transport runs until at least midnight in most countries. I know I've gotten a train to get home from work after my late shifts, so they're insured to get a bus or train. And if not, taxis run 24 hours a day and it'd still be cheaper than keeping up a car. But again, none of this would concern minors, because they have to work day hours.
Driving Age Should Be Lowered to 14

Again, that is what public transport is for. If they don't want to bother anyone for lifts, they can just as easily take the bus or train to where they need to go and it would cost a lot less money than upkeeping a car. Most people need a full time job to be able to afford a car, and with 14 year olds still being in school, they wouldn't be able to work enough to afford it, especially since the younger you are, the less salary you earn. And at such a young age, why would they require to go such a distance for work, that they'd require a car? Every town has a load of shops and companies that require work. Ok, a lot won't hire someone that young, but that's not going to be any different in any other town or city. They aren't qualified, they aren't always responsible and they require more training and supervision than any other employee would. You also don't have to know how to drive, in order to be committed to a job. I know plenty of people who work full time and don't own cars, they either walk it, bus it or take a taxi, and they're all over the legal age to work and drive. And if they can do it, so can 14 year old's.
Driving Age Should Be Lowered to 14

And that automatically means that people should be allowed to work or drive at that age? Legally, you can only officially work once you receive your National Insurance Number or Social Security Number, which can only be received at the age of 16. Anyone working at a younger age, that is up to the employer who is willing to hire them, but most won't, simply because the majority of teenagers at that age are not responsible enough to hold a full time job. Nor are they responsible enough to drive safely on the road.
Driving Age Should Be Lowered to 14

I would have to respectfully disagree with you. In this matter, to have it lowered to such a young age is not wise. The majority of teenagers at this age are not mature enough to be careful on the roads. Already with how low the legal age is, the average 5000 people between the ages of 16-20 have died from fatal injuries due to car crashes per year, and over 400,000 have receive serious injuries per year. So to lower the age would more than likely only increase that number. They also cannot work until the legal age of 16, so why have it as low as 14? They would be unable to afford the lessons and test, let alone the car itself, the tax, the insurance, etc. If someone at 14 years of age wants to go somewhere without bothering their parents or guardians for lifts, that is what public transport is for.
The Bible is not inerrant.

Quite simply, the Bible is not inerrant, nor does it make any such claim. For this debate my opponent must be familiar with the conservative doctrinal position of Biblical inerrancy. That is, the Bible is totally without error, and is free of any contradictions. It is not to be confused with Biblical infallibility. It should be duly noted that I am a firm believer of the Bible and am not arguing against inerrancy because I believe the Bible is inauthentic - I merely believe Biblical inerrancy is an unnecessary doctrine. Argument: The Bible never claims to be inerrant. There are geographical errors, minor contradictions, and approximations (more specific examples forthcoming). Dare ye disagree?
The Bible is not inerrant.

The bible is inerrant because I have faith. ///////////////////////////////////////////// This is not my argument below: If I am a person of faith, logic and empiricism are irrelevant. I can not use logical arguments or actual text to prove my point. If I am a person of faith all of your arguments are irrelevant. Any outside consideration is irrelevant. The story of Job, defines the context for which those of faith are to adhere to. Regardless of boils, misfortune in business etc. faith requires no logic, evidence or greater understanding. *IF* i'm a person of faith, the only argument I need is: The bible is inerrant because I have faith.
The Bible is not inerrant.

The Bible is not inerrant because I have proof. The Bible is not inerrant because I have proof. The Bible is not inerrant because I have proof. Does spamming the same thing over and over again improve my argument? It is a strategy I am unfamiliar with. If this were a vocal debate, I would find it somewhat annoying if my opponent consistently repeated himself and then sat down. Such repetition seems unfruitful. Since this is my closing argument, I might as well include some of the specific examples I said was forthcoming in my opening statement. The sign above Jesus' head is phrased differently in every single Gospel (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John). The order of events in the Gospel of John could not have geographically occurred in the amount of time specified. Peter's denial is recorded differently in the Synoptics - was his denial before or after the rooster crow? As is abundantly clear, I need not waste time nor space with more examples or even specific reference to them. Just know that I can prove they exist while my opponent has faith that they do not.
The Bible is not inerrant.

With rebuttals like this, it seems this debate will be over rather quickly. My opponent thinks he is being sly by purporting that there are three ways to "prove" something. Most probably not in order, he states (1) logic, (2) empiricism, and (3) Faith, are the means by which we may acquire proof. My opponent has forgotten the very definition of faith: Merriam-Webster's: "Firm belief in something for which there is no proof" Dictionary.com "Belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact." The very definition of faith excludes proof. One cannot presume to have proof that the earth is flat because they merely believe that it is. Even logic, though my opponent marks it as number one, can be absent of proof. I could use logic to show that since cows eat grass and we eat cows, thus it is beneficial for humans to eat grass. However, as empiricism shows us, human stomachs have difficulty digesting raw leaves and grasses. And the nutirtion in grass is nonexistent and will do more harm than good. Empiricism and Logic are most often acceptable forms for acquiring proof in a courtroom, but Faith is most definitely not. If such were the case, many people would be convicted of crimes merely because they were believed to have done it. My opponent did not substantiate his claim, and in fact was very wrong in it. Therefore, it behooves all who read to vote PRO. P.S. "The Bible is inerrant because I have faith that it does not." It does not what? Make errors?
Hitler was insane.

"You are a liar. " I am not a liar. I came up with the logical argument on my own; I merely utilized my source to familiarize the readers with some background on Hitler. "When the definition of "insane" in a medical dictionary is "of, exhibiting, or afflicted with insanity" (. http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com......), the definition of insanity requires application. I admit that I should not have defined insanity with a syntax dictionary in the first round, but this definition is clearly more valid, as insanity should be judged from a medical standpoint rather than the standpoint of an English teacher. " My opponent proposes another definition in the final round. He first defined insane as mentally deranged with dictionary. com, then defined insanity in the second round with a medical definition, and in the previous round correlated insane with the definition of insanity from the medical standpoint. I find it highly unfair that my opponent is constantly changing definitions, and there is really nothing to rebut here. My opponent now defines mental disorder, but I already defined "mental disorder" several rounds ago, and since my opponent did not disagree with that definition, my original meaning stands and his new definition should not be taken into consideration. My logical argument deduced the definitions and properly aimed at the resolution. Once again, bringing up new and unfair definitions does not prove a point. "My opponent asks why it matters that Hitler is responsible for his actions. His being responsible for his actions makes him sane according to the medical field. My opponent conceded that Hitler is responsible for his actions by saying "So? " So, my opponent has conceded the debate. " Everyone is responsible for their actions, it is obvious. But that simply does not mean one is sane or insane. Insane people still must be held responsible, for every event has someone responsible. I believe we have differing opinions and definitions of responsibility, and since it was not defined, this responsibility argument is irrelevant. I have not conceded the debate. Let's review: -I gave a logical argument to show Hitler's insanity. My opponent really did not present a new argument to support his side. -Responsibility is not relevant. Without clarification, it is in the eyes of the beholder of the definition. I urge a Pro vote.