BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I will not break a rule.

RULES PRO BROKE: 27 (end paragraph 2) plus 28 (see below)! #4 is not broken by me as your 2nd non-foundational rule requires extra words - I did not break it! (note the valid use of epanalepsis without doubled words - ergo #7 remains unbroken & correct! You Lose!) #12 - in my defence, sentences 1/2, last round, are a perfect parallelism! NEW STUFF: 29 - "Kung Fu Panda" must be correctly quoted thrice during all forthcoming arguments; 30 - During later rounds, debaters can only write using sonnet form; 31 - Subsequent cases cannot contain the phrase "macaroni and cheese" because it's inferior to chocolate cake!
I will not break a rule.

My opponent has broken Rule #4; he was not allowed to post his first sentence, which was not required before! My opponent has broken Rule #7, which requires that "each player should have an opportunity to not break each rule": while Rule #26 applies Rules #11-13 to me, which means that by Rule #12, I must use one example of epanalepsis in each round, Rule #28 states that I may not use the same word twice in this argument; as epanalepsis requires the repetition of one or more words within a single sentence or clause (http://en.wikipedia.org...), so that the word was used twice, I cannot follow both Rule #12 and Rule #28! This same contradiction falls upon my opponent, which makes him lose by Rule #3, as well. My opponent has broken Rule #12; he has no parallelism! 14. Once per round each debater must use the British spelling of a word not chosen for this rule before; it must be done each round by each debater once! 15. Both debaters must include their favourite food somewhere in their Round 2 argument! 16. Both debaters must use the phrase "macaroni and cheese" each round!
I will not break a rule.

0. 1. Rules created hold power over all rules posted later, and no later rule can contradict an earlier rule. 2. Both players should still have the ability to post rules in their turn. 3. A violation of a rule that is not null and void will result in the rule-breaker losing this debate. If both players break a rule, the player that breaks a rule first loses. 4. With the exception of the Instigator's first round, a player may only do something besides make rules to discuss whether one has broken a rule, or whether a rule is null, unless a future rule requires otherwise. 5. Not counting these foundation rules, each player can only create 3 rules per turn. 6. Each player must produce 3 rules per round or they forfeit. 7. Rules cannot result in an auto-win. Breaking a rule cannot result in the victory of the rule-breaker. Each player should have an opportunity to not break each rule, and an opportunity to discuss rule-breakage. Rules may not require players to do anything within specific time periods, nor may they require players to do anything outside of this debate. 8. A voter must default all categories to the victor of the debate. 9. All rules are assumed to only apply to future actions and rules, including the rules and actions in the Round in which they were posted. 10. Each player must document his or her rules using the numbers 11-25 for PRO and 26-40 for CON. -------------------------- 11. No rule posted by CON may discriminate between the individuals PRO and CON in any way beyond what may be required by the foundation rules. 12. CON must include exactly one example of parallelism, one epanalepsis, and one sentence that contains alliteration in each round. 13. CON may not use any words not in the dictionary, according to this website: . http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Spanking your child is considered abuse

My opponent claims:“’Abuse’ includes a parent, guardian, or other person with control or custody inflicting excessive corporal punishment (which must be excessive to the point that the child's physical, mental, or emotional condition has been impaired or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired as a result). Rebuttal: Absolutely correct. Abuse is an excessive punishment resulting in impairment. My source has clearly shown that moderate, properly applied corporal punishment strengthens the child. Spanking is not abusive and my opponent has failed to supply any reason or source to draw a clearconnection between spanking and excessive beatings. Arguments extended to next round:” Spanking is beneficial”. My opponent claims:” Justification is not available if the person recklessly or negligently injures or creates a risk of injury.” Rebuttal: Absolutely correct. There is no excuse or justification for an injury to result from excessive corporal punishment to a child. That would be child abuse. =============================================================== Next round Arguments: The United States recognizes child abuse as a separate entity from appropriate corporal punishment. Spanking is legal. [1] In the state of Alabama, a parent “may use reasonable and appropriate physical force when and to the extent he reasonably believes it necessary and appropriate to maintain discipline or promote welfare of the child.” [2] In Alaska, the “Parent/guardian/other person with care and supervision of child under 18 may use reasonable andappropriate non-deadly force upon the child.” [3] Arkansas takes it a step further and defines spanking as a separate entity from abuse. As quoted by state law: “Abuse does not include physical discipline of a child if reasonable and moderate and inflicted by a parent or guardian for restraining or correcting a child.” During the first two rounds of this debate I provided evidence for the 1st half of my burden of proof: Spanking is a moral and effective tool for child rearing. Spanking is not abusive. Child abuse, molestation, rape and neglect are not synonymous with spanking. I look forward to the next round of this debate. ====================================================== References from this round: http://en.wikipedia.org... [1] Sec. 13A-3-24. [Cr.] [2] Sec. 11.81.430.[Cr.] [3] Sec. 9-27-303(B).[Ci.] [4] References from previous round : http://dictionary.reference.com... [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] http://www.newsmax.com...;[3]
Spanking your child is considered abuse

Cruelty to a child includes inflicting unnecessarily severe corporal punishment upon a child. ï¿½ 9:6-1. [Civil Code] "Abuse" includes a parent, guardian, or other person with control or custody inflicting excessive corporal punishment (which must be excessive to the point that the child's physical, mental, or emotional condition has been impaired or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired as a result). ï¿½ 2C:3-8. [Criminal Code] Justification is not available if the person recklessly or negligently injures or creates a risk of injury. any kind of physical harm to a child is considered abuse. spanking just teaches the child that its okay to hit as a punishment for being bad. say the child went to school the next day an saw another child acting out, if he were to hit him or"spank him" he would be in the wrong. it teaches a child to take actions into their own hands. some parents even t of control with trying to punish their children especially with hitting. There is the slight tap on the wrist and there is the actual slapping open handed to the bottom, face, arm or anything on the child. In years past, teachers silently instilled fear in their young students by displaying the wooden "paddle" on the classroom wall, as a reminder of the standard punishment for misbehavior. Today the paddle has been replaced with a "time-out" chair, a pass to the school office or a telephone call home. On the home front, however, the debate still rages as to whether spanking is proper punishment for children or is instead an abusive form of discipline. State laws and state administrative regulations vary as to the appropriate forms of punishment in different settings, including schools, day care centers and homes Student handbooks and staff rules may define what forms of punishment are allowed in the school setting Parents should thoroughly review with day care providers the forms of discipline which the parents will and will not authorize. physical force on a child does not teach them the proper ways of life. they start relating more to violence and will resort to it while trying to "punish" someone. they could possibly become abusive in relationships with friends or their own family. in any case putting your hands on a child is not right.
Spanking your child is considered abuse

Abuse [1] 1.to use wrongly or improperly; misuse: to abuse one's authority.2.to treat in a harmful, injurious, or offensive way: to abuse a horse; to abuse one's eyesight. 3.to speak insultingly, harshly, and unjustly to or about; revile; malign.4.to commit sexual assault upon. 5.wrong or improper use; misuse: the abuse of privileges. 6.harshly or coarsely insulting language: The officer heaped abuse on his men. 7.bad or improper treatment; maltreatment: The child was subjected to cruel abuse. 8.a corrupt or improper practice or custom: the abuses of a totalitarian regime. 9.rape or sexual assault. Spank [2] 1.to strike (a person, usually a child) with the open hand, a slipper, etc., especially on the buttocks, as in punishment. 2.a blow given in spanking; a smart or resounding slap. Opening Arguments: A recent study following 2,600 individuals revealed that the anti-corporal punishment movement is ineffective. The source is quoted as saying: “The claims made for not spanking children fail to hold up. They are not consistent with the data.” [3] The source continues to explain that “those who were physically disciplined performed better than those who weren’t in a whole series of categories, including school grades, an optimistic outlook on life, the willingness to perform volunteer work, and the ambition to attend college”.[3] During the course of this debate, I will satisfy the burden of proof for the following points: Spanking is a moral and effective tool for child rearing. Spanking is not abusive. Child abuse, molestation, rape and neglect are not synonymous with spanking. A reduction in the application of corporal punishment has directly resulted in an increase incriminal behavior. Spanking is not conducive to the emergence of a violent adulthood. A healthy combination of positive reinforcement and corporal punishment yields the most effective,moral and contributing adult citizen. I look forward to the debate. The floor is yours Con.
Spanking your child is considered abuse

I have no idea as to why parents think its okay to hit children. Even if a child is acting out violence is never the answer. Not only is hitting a child hurting them physically, but it's also emotionally and socially hurting them. Some children grow up to be an extremely violent person. A child that gets abused at home is most likely to end up being socially unstable and may even suffer from severe depression. There are so many cases in the world where a child had been killed by their abusive parent or guardian. Why should the child be punished so gruesomely for acting like a child? There should be no justification as to why a parent should beat their child. Child abuse doesnt consist of just hitting, it can be not feeding them, raping or sexually abusing them, screaming at them, or even not helping them in time of need. Neglecting a child is just as life changing and immoral as physically putting a hand on a child. About 2.34 children out of 100,000 die from injuries relating to their abuse, with 80.8% of deaths occurring in children under four years old. Knowing that statistic, why put your own blood into that much pain because you are angry or they dont meet up to a parents standards. A fourth of all girls and a sixth of boys are sexually abused by an adult before the age of 17. For these sexual abusers, they should have extremely severe consequences. The children that a person has should be brought up in a stable environment and be able to feel safe with a parent or family member. There are thousands of reports of child abuse in the world a day. Some cases are so extreme that DYFS has to get involved. The Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS) is New Jersey's child protection agency. Some children that get abused have no way of telling anyone because they are scared for their lives and scared that no one wil believe them. There are some hotlines that are annoymous that children are still unaware of. The state Child Abuse and Neglect Hotline, also known as the State Centralized Registry, fields an average of 15,000 phone calls per month. Schools should teach children to be comfortable with higher authority and comfortable enough to tell someone who can help get this child to a stable environment. In every community there should be one stable place an abused child should be able to go.
Evolution is true

There is a lot of evidence for evolution: 1. DNA exists and you get yours from your parents. 2. Mutations occur. 3. When an individual has a mutation that is beneficial for surviving in its current environment ( like giraffes having slightly longer necks so they can always reach for leaves that haven't been eaten by others.) the individual has a bigger chance to survive. 4. If you have a bigger chance to survive, you are more likely to have children. 5. Some of those children will inherit the beneficial mutation. 6. They will also have a bigger chance to survive and have children. 7. This will cause the population of individuals with the benefit ( longer neck ) to grow. 8. If this keeps happening with a lot of different kinds of mutations the species will eventually be totally different from the initial species, maybe so different they aren't able to have children with each other, what makes them a different species. So basically: If you believe in DNA, DNA-transfer and mutation, there is no other way than evolution being true. And to prove that two species can have a common ancestor: If to groups of the same species get separated and live in a different environment they will not have the same mutations and different kinds of mutations will be naturally "selected".
Lizard People do not exist

I welcome Stardestroyer484 to this site, and this debate. I will start my arguments now. Argument: Point 1: No evidence is present. This is a little weak of a point, but, none-the-less, I'm using it. There is no evidence (that I know of) suggesting these Reptilians (as I'll call them for the rest of the debate) do exist. I would like to see some from Con; evidence saying we are ruled by these beings. Point 2: Why are we not enslaved right now? This one is my main concern. The Reptilians want power, they had power 30,000+ years ago. According to David Icke, they bred with human females many years ago. "They created a 2nd breeding program 30,000 years ago", says Icke [Source 1]. So why aren't we enslaved right now? In fact, 30,000+ years ago, they started breeding. So shouldn't the majority of our population be Reptilian? I'll leave it off right there, since I have no further logic to suggest they probably don't exist. Let's hear what Con has to say, shall we?
Lizard People do not exist

I believe the Lizard People conspiracy is false. Definitions: Lizard People: They supposedly have the ability to shape shift, and are ruling us, or planning to anyways. Rules: 1. No more than 1 forfeit, or you automatically lose. 2. No insulting, kritiks, semantics, or trolling. 3. If you make a point, keep to it unless you concede said point, or it will be dropped. 4. Both sides will take the matter seriously. "Believe meh, they exist and will keel u!" will not be accepted as an argument. 5. Burden of Proof is shared between Pro and Con. 6. Any violation of the rules or round layout will count as a loss, and all points go to the opponent (If Con violates the rules, Pro wins. Pro violates the rules, Con wins.) Pro's burden: Pro must show why it isn't reasonable to assume the Lizard People exist. Con's burden: Con must show evidence, by any means nessicary, to prove the Lizard People do exist. Rounds: Round 1; Con accepts the challenge. If he/she presents an argument, or website, this violates #6 of the rules. Round 2; Pro presents why we aren't run by the Lizard Men. Con will present his/her argument, as well as a rebuttal if he/she wishes. Round 3 and 4; Rebuttals and Defenses by Pro and Con. Round 5; We summarize the arguments from Pro and Con, and see if there's anything to note. And with that, who will accept?
The electoral college system is more fair and effective than the popular vote system.

I would like to debate someone on the effectiveness of the electoral system over the popular system. The electoral college assigns values to states depending on population size, and all of the points for a state are awarded to a candidate when that candidate receives majority vote in that SPECIFIC state. The popular vote is a simple majority vote of the entire nation. I have started this debate because of the rising controversy from Hillary winning the popular vote, but not the electoral vote. The first round is ACCEPTANCE ONLY, so please be courteous and don't present an argument until the second round. You may ask me questions about the topic, but no more than that. This debate is only 3 rounds, because people keep forgetting to post arguments after about 3 rounds, which ruins the debates. Sorry if you wanted to debate more rounds than 3.
The electoral college system is more fair and effective than the popular vote system.

Because you have conceded that the electoral college system does violate the democratic principals of equal vote weight, I will not cover this argument in my last response. This only leaves the argument that the electoral college system is necessary to prevent corruption. I see no reason to add an intermediary between the voter and their vote being counted. Contrary to your argument, this increases the chance of corruption. This intermediary is just another point of failure that can manipulated, paid or otherwise mislead. Your main argument is that the electoral college can prevent corruption. The electoral college is not a good solution at preventing corruption. What I propose is a better popular voting system that would be significantly stronger at preventing corruption, voter fraud and also deliver equal vote weight. Blockchain technology is decentralized and has no single point of failure. It would be impossible for a voter to vote twice when blockchain technology is associated with solid two factor authentication. This would make the blockchain system significantly more resilient than the electoral college system. Blockchain technology is already being used in voting and is the way of the future. It is very short sighted to think that there is no better way and the current electoral system will remain what works best indefinitely. Other countries are already at various stages of deploying blockchain technology to offer more efficient and secure voting platforms [1]. Has far as Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump being sociopath or not have nothing to do with the electoral college being a good system. I personally didn't like either candidate and found it very sad that this was the best we could come up with. Regardless of the election outcome and as your candidate Donald Trump stated, "The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy." [2] Sources: https://venturebeat.com... [1] https://twitter.com... [2]
The electoral college system is more fair and effective than the popular vote system.

The electoral college may have made sense many years ago when it took weeks to hand deliver votes by horseback to Washington, DC but it no longer makes sense. With today's technology it is possible to tally everyone's vote quickly and securely. Unfortunately, the current implementation of electronic voting is lacking from a security perspective but that shouldn't affect the scope of this debate as it could be fixed and implemented using current technology. Giving more power to residents of Wyoming over the residents of California is simply not fair. Each and every american is as much as American as the other one and each of their vote should be counted equally regardless of any state borders. Of course California should have more influence as it contains many more Americans than Wyoming. While states can and should regulate themselves, when it comes to our nation, we are all the same. As far as susceptibility to manipulation and corruption, with proper multi-factor authentication, authorization, cryptography and other strong security controls being used, a modern system can be significantly more trustworthy than this archaic system. The current system rely on trusting people which are often shown to be corrupt [1]. Using blockchain technology to vote could be used to provide much more secure voting with built-in validation vs. the current system [2]. In addition, as you have stated, 1% of electors sometime do not vote per their constituents which is 1% too much. A properly designed, vetted, tested and peer reviewed algebraic solution to voting would represent the will of the people 100% of the time. In conclusion, the electoral college had a purpose that it no longer serves. By switching to a better and more secure system, the will of the people would be respected 100% of the time and the risk of tampering with election results would be significantly reduced. Sources: http://www.politico.com... [1] https://followmyvote.com... [2]
The role of the U.S President is just a figure head postion

While the president can do all of those things. In all, the real power is congress. They, along with the cabinet, govern most of the decisions made by the president. If the president does become too far out of control he is stressed by officials into resigning. Ex: President Nixon. The president can exercise his permissions, yes. The executive orders he makes can only be in place for 30 days until congress can ratify them. He can also not make laws. The president is no more than a easy decision maker. The controversial matter are left to congress and the senate. But most of all the people of the United States. They just need a person to follow.
The role of the U.S President is just a figure head postion

A commander-in-chief is the person or body exercising supreme operational command and control of a nation's military forces or significant elements of those forces. He/she doesn't have the power to declare war however he/she can create great military conflict by actually sending troops overseas. The president also has the power of executive agreement where the president also has the power to make deals with the head of one country without permission from the senate. Not to forget the power of Executive order: to help officers and agencies of the executive branch manage the operations within the federal government itself
The role of the U.S President is just a figure head postion

I believe that the president is an important figure, not for their 'decisions' but for the American people to look to as a leader. Under 'checks and balances' the United States president leads the executive branch of the government, is commander and chief of the united states military and has control of the nuclear arsenal. While this may seem like a lot of power it is evident that no decision is in complete control of the president. The real power is congress. They are the decision makers. Also, the president's cabinet plays a large roll in the Presidents decision making. They advice almost all decisions the president can make. The president is who the people look to for guidance even though the overall effect of the president is low.