BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
All first time parents should be required to take a safety class for the emergency care of infant

How is insuring the safety of infants insane, Steve? I agree that all people should be educated about these things before they have a baby. Although, there are many people who simply do not take the time. What is wrong with insuring that they do? You making a point about classes already being available does not in any way disprove my point of every parent needing to take one. < > Laws are everywhere, Steve. People aren't allowed to abuse they're children. Why? Because of laws, put in place by our government. Why? For the safety of our citizens. Laws are there, to protect people. What better enforcement, than a law that secures safety? There's no privacy needed! You don't know how to handle an emergency? Fix it! Don't be embarrassed, get educated. Get informed. Also Steve, I wouldn't consider EVERY American woman smart. There are some IDIOTS that have offspring. Shouldn't those babies be given every little chance of health and happiness possible?
All first time parents should be required to take a safety class for the emergency care of infant

Candice are you on another insane tyrant?? 1st. "Why not give first time parents the knowledge they SHOULD have, upon bringing home they're new babies? You can't fix a problem you don't have any idea about fixing." - As far as I am concerned anyone who is even considering producing offspring should make sure that this information is already known. 2nd. "First time parents need to take a course giving them knowledgeable and up to date first aid techniques, and safety information on how to handle emergency situations." - Sure, there already are many courses you can choose to take. http://pregnancy.about.com... http://www.mayoclinic.com... http://sonce1.nursing.sunysb.edu... http://www.babycenter.com... 3rd. "Why not sit through a couple of hours for the safety of your new offspring? It's responsible, already recommended, and wouldn't hurt anything." - Your 100% correct it should be recommended and responsible parents who are un-factuated about the topic probably should take a course or something to that extent. However, I am afraid that you made a vital mistake, "All first time parents should be required to take a safety class" I don't think so to me this is a wolf in sheep's clothing. This would be something you see in China or Russia not the United States of America. This would be infringing on citizen privacy. The last group of people on this planet who need to be telling American citizens to mandate something like a baby course would be the government. Government needs to stay out of American homes. I put my trust in the smart American women to figure out what they need to do with their child not government officials.
All first time parents should be required to take a safety class for the emergency care of infant

Why not give first time parents the knowledge they SHOULD have, upon bringing home they're new babies? You can't fix a problem you don't have any idea about fixing. What if your baby starts choking? Get's burned? Or has a seizure? First time parents need to take a course giving them knowledgeable and up to date first aid techniques, and safety information on how to handle emergency situations. This is a simple remedy to help babies that would otherwise be mishandled not because of lack of care, but lack of education. Why not sit through a couple of hours for the safety of your new offspring? It's responsible, already recommended, and wouldn't hurt anything.
All Pastafarians should be allowed to take a day off on International Talk like a Pirate Day

I accept the challenge and welcome Pro to DDO as I see that he is new. I am assuming that we are debating that people should be able to take those days off without fear of negative consequences from their employers or schools, as they already can take those days off, they just have to worry about being fired or suspended for cutting work or school. With that clarifying statement, I'll turn it back over to Pro, so that he can present his argument as to why they should be allowed to take these days off. I am most interested in his proof for his statement, "the incredible importance of International Talk Like a Pirate Day." And wish for him to explain how "incrediby important" that day is.
All Pastafarians should be allowed to take a day off on International Talk like a Pirate Day

I believe that all members of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, should be allowed to take a day off of work or school, on the 19th of September, due to the incredible importance of International Talk Like a Pirate Day. This day is like the Pasatafarian equivalent to Christmas or Eid. We should also be given the 1st of June off, as this is the birthday of Robert Newton, who portrayed Long John Silver twice, and he is also the patron saint of International Talk Like a Pirate Day.
On balance, quotas should be created to ensure an equal number of women as men on executive boards

My opponent has stated in the comments he wishes to forfeit the debate. As I can't be bothered to write out my arguments, I make the assertion that I am the physical manifestation of god and as such I declare that quotas make turtles cry, and would steal everyones KFC (I have atleast one vote now). Heeble dee weeble bee, muppetry.
On balance, quotas should be created to ensure an equal number of women as men on executive boards

Definitions Quota: the number or percentage of persons of a specified kind permitted to enroll in a college, join a club, immigrate to a country. The quota's for the sake of the debate would be enforced in law. Executive Boards: a body of elected or appointed members who jointly oversee the activities of a company or organization. Should: must; ought (used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency): BOP will be shared. 1st round is for accepting and setting out definitions. Rounds 2 and 3 will be used for arguments, and round 4 for summaries.
there should be no homework in schools

Homework may be annoying and use up time, but overall it helps students learn. If you just learn in school with maybe a 15-minute break for lunch the knowledge you learned won't sink into your brain as much as it would if you learned the knowledge over time. Homework is important because it helps the students wrap up what they learned in school and see if they truly learned it. If they did the homework wrong they'll know they have to study more for an upcoming test. On the other hand, if they just learn all day and then do whatever they want at home, the knowledge wouldn't sink into their minds as much as it would if they did homework. Overall homework helps the knowledge you learned in school sink into your brain so you can fully understand it and not fail on your next test.
It is most probable that a god exists.

I would like to point to the spelling errors from my opponent, and call for a point in my favor based on the following list. Pro, Round #2unverse Sufficent someting exists. The (no space)imples realtivism Pro, Round #3argue[s] (grammar)singularit contignency the the (unnecessary repetition)regardlessof misundersanding alterantive ***************************On to the debate. I have responded to the fatal flaws in my opponent's argument. Please see the context of my previous statements. There is emotional arguments that might distract from the central issues. Please review my previous argument, which stands even in the face of the rhetoric in Round #3***************************I will rephrase a closing argument from my opponent, replacing the word "time traveler" with God. "The idea of God causing the universe to exist is just absurd. Why think that God would be capable of such an event? Furthermore, time has to exist for God to exist. Yet, God would have to exist sans time in order to cause the universe. But this means that God must exist without time, even though time is part of his essence! It is logically contradictory to posit a god that exists before time.
It is most probable that a god exists.

Ave! I've sent this challenge to Nimbus because (s)he agreed to debate the existence of god with me. I'll lay down some basic definitions. God is a maximally great being, and by definition, you cannot conceive of anything greater than god. 'Most probable' simply means that it is more possible than its negation.Exists means to be a part of reality.For rules, I think we should just follow general ideas of DDO conduct. Sources are not needed for this debate, but they can be included. Burden of proof is on myself.Vale!
This house believes that the wire tapping of journalists is justified.

Full resolution:This house believes that the wire tapping of journalists is justified.Rules:6000 chars3 days per round3 rounds to make your caseOpening round is for acceptanceNormal parliamentry debate rules apply insofar as DDO will accommodate themVoting rules:Please don't spam votePlease don't award points for sources unless sources are specifically requested by either debaterPlease don't award points because you think one of us is right or wrongPlease only vote based on our persuasiveness in this debateGood luck con!
"Profit is inherently dishonest." -- Mindjob

"courts that you value would have to be paid for by "government holding a gun to peoples' heads" by instituting taxes" I've told you repeatedly that I am not an anarchist. I believe government should be stripped down to the most basic services-- namely national defense, courts and law enforcement. That would result in lower taxes and fewer infringements, leaving more money in the pockets of citizens who will be free to spend as they choose on products, services and causes they deem most worthy. Anything society values will flourish. Anything it does not will whither away. Talk about true freedom and pure democracy. Now you understand why some equate capitalism with freedom. Anyway back to the debate. You can't be serious, spouting that the motives of a few corrupt companies or individuals can be used to condemn the entire private sector. You say that companies will screw each other and their customers "without some entity omnipresent to ensure the rules are followed." A companies job is to be the best it can be and to win over the dollars of it's prospective customers. By doing so, it will incidentally force INFERIOR competitors out of business. But that is a good thing and a result of mediocrity on the part of that competitor. A company's pursuit of excellence is not an attack on or the "screwing" of his competitor. That's like saying the athlete who trained harder and won the 100 yard dash "screwed" his fellow competitors? As far as screwing customers, I can't think of one company that can survive for long by biting the hand that feeds it. Despite bad press, even those evil insurance companies pay almost all of their claims. When a company does a disservice to its customers with any regularity, no "omnipresent entity" needs to step in. Consumers vote with their wallets. It's called freedom.
"Profit is inherently dishonest." -- Mindjob

It's nice that you admit that government can do something useful and well, even though you have repeatedly said things to the contrary. What's funny is that those courts that you value would have to be paid for by "government holding a gun to peoples' heads" by instituting taxes. Clearly, you must not be against all taxes then. In keeping with your style of thinking, why can't businesses fund courts to regulate themselves? I'd answer it for you, but I'd like to see how you answer it. Inherently is a strong word, but it accurately denotes the mindset behind it. It's like the difference between lying and B.S. that can be found in the essay "On B.S.". With lying, the liar knows he is being dishonest and is intentionally trying to evade the truth. The fact that the liar actually knows the truth and is trying to evade it denotes at least some respect for the truth. The B.S.er doesn't give a damn what the truth is and instead says whatever he wants to serve his purposes. Such is the essence of the profit motive. Good and bad only have meaning in terms of more or less profit. Nothing else outside of that matters. The pursuit of profit makes people put all else aside that might get in the way of it. Profit might work out to be honest at times, but it is incidental. Much more often than not, however, screwing another profiteer or the customer to enhance your profit is just part of the game without some entity omnipresent to ensure the rules are followed. There is a reason why "buyer beware" has been part of the capitalist lexicon practically forever.
"Profit is inherently dishonest." -- Mindjob

In instances where profit is made dishonestly, it is wrong and should punishable by law, simply because someone's rights have been violated. But that is why we have the civil and criminal justice systems, which I believe to be the one the only good products of government. "Inherently" is a pretty strong word. It denotes inseparability and implies that profit cannot be gotten in the absence of dishonesty. Just because profit is occasionally gotten by use of nefarious methods in no way validates my opponents premise that profit is inseparable from dishonesty. Do I really have to give examples of honest businesses making an honest profit? My opponent will likely continue citing the opinions of others and pointing to anecdotal examples that in no way prove profit is inherently dishonest. I'm pretty certain I can rest my case for now.
"Profit is inherently dishonest." -- Mindjob

I'll apologize in advance if it takes me a while to get to arguments, or if I am unable to continue this debate into the later rounds. I'm currently very busy, so I might have to prioritize other things in front of this. The profit motive is often times inherently dishonest. By only caring about your bottom line and how much profit you make over it, all other considerations, such as honesty and not harming the public good, fall by the wayside. Enron, Tyco, Worldcom and the savings and loan scandals of the 1980s are all perfect examples of this. Over utilization of oil and under utilization of other resources, use of CFCs that lead to the hole in the ozone, and depletion of rain forests for their land and the exotic wood they yield, are also examples of how the profit motive unchecked works against the public good. Therefore, the profit motive must be regulated to ensure that the general public is benefited, not hurt, by it. Adam Smith himself, the purported father of laissez-faire, believed that corporations could not be trusted. The market can be left to figure things out for itself, but there are few, if any, assurances that they will figures things to the benefit of society as a whole. This is the heart of the classic "tragedy of the commons", and demonstrates the need for government regulation. The contention that profit is inherently dishonest isn't all that absurd when you bring up numerous examples to back it up. Not only is it not absurd, it also makes the most logical sense considering what is valued in the profit motive. if all you care about is your wallet, who gives a damn about anyone or anything else if it is going to cost you? Ok. I think that's a good start. Your turn.
Twilight is better than Harry Potter

Apparently my opponent has forfeited.....I suppose I will just keep it simple, and list more reasons why HP is better than TW.21. The main characters in Harry Potter have flaws.22. The characters are not entirely evil or entirely good 23. There are clues put in the first books that will eventually have a great significance later on. (ex: in SS, Harry talked to a snake at the zoo. we always thought it was just part of being a wizard, but it reveals itself to be parseltongue which was very useful for Harry later on)24. The villains are villains for a reason. They're not just bad without explanation. J K Rowling explained Voldemort and other Death Eaters and showed why they went bad.25. These books initiate young people to read. I've heard of many people who didn't like reading before, but thanks to hp, they now read a lot.26. All the details that J.K. ROWLING bothered to throw in even though a lot of people probably wouldn't notice, like the fact that the combination used to get into the ministry of magic (62442) can spell out magic on a phone.27. The characters are lovable not because they are hot, or cool, but because of their personalities.28. JKR has made the plot and characters so deep that when something significant happens, emotions can really be felt. Like Dobby's or Fred's death or when Harry was walking to the forest, understanding that he must die.29. JKR doesn't repeat herself 500 times, using the same comparison EVERY SINGLE TIME. We get it Edward is hard and cold like granite; you don't need to use that analogy every time his name is mentioned. 30. you can see the characters in HP fall in love and watch as their feelings for each other grow. In Twilight Bella falls "unconditionally and irrevocably in love" with Edward in just a few weeks, without knowing anything at all about him, other than he's a hot vampire (that's like granite of course *rolls eyes*) if 2 people really were to fell "in love" that fast they would probably fall out of love even faster.
Twilight is better than Harry Potter

First off, I want to examine what makes a book "good." The book has to make the reader think. If you're just staring at the words on the paper, how can you possibly comprehend the book for what it is, or compare books and their meanings? How can you judge and critique a book if you haven't delved into its deeper meaning and the psyche of the characters? To put it quite simply, you can't. The book must be as original as possible. I know that in today's world, it is seemingly impossible to be 100% original in the arts. However, that doesn't mean that you shouldn't try. Originality, therefore, should also be measured in the artist's ability to take old ideas and make them knew, or as knew as possible. The characters in the novel must struggle in an original way or have an original conflict. I think that one's self-explanatory. Twilight betters Potter in each of these ways. The story of Harry Potter, the boy who lived and must defeat the Dark Lord, is one that doesn't require must deep thought. And, I am going to acknowledge the fact the the Potter series was written for a younger age than the Twilight series. However, the fact of the low intellect of the series still remains. The nicest word that can be used to describe the book's themes is stereotypical. They are the same theme's in every middle grade fantasy novel/series. Twilight, on the other hand, presents very complex characters. And, although it is a love story, it is a love story that makes you think of the possibilities of the character developments and psyches. While it is not an original love, it is original in that Bella's struggle is with her humanity. For her, being human is a weakness. For Harry, his struggle is to defeat the evil dark lord. That is not original. Underlying argument- Twilight is better because it is more original.
Using the word "Silly" is Silly

Given statement s "using the word silly is silly" implies that if person p uses a word w1 with a certain definition d1 the definition d1 has to define p PROOF BY CONTRADICTION Given word w2 with definition d2 so that d2 is the opposite to d1 Person p uses w1 and w2 in the same sentence. According to s it means => p is: (d1 AND d2) = (d1 AND NOTd1) => contradiction since d1 and d2 are opposite and p cant be d1 and d2 at the same time => statement s is wrong => using the word silly is not silly
Animal cruelty and abuse should be held equal to human cruelty and abuse

Rationally, we would see the possibilities from embracing Animal cruelty. There are handy animals who are of benefit through the subjection of cruelty. For one, we can whip a horse to our own self Interest, being apathetic to its emotions, so that it can move or go beyond its current pace. Will such whipping be seen as an act of cruelty ? We could go on, whipping the horse, caring less for its feeling, using it to REACH OUR DESTINATION. When dealing with lower animals (animals that lack specialisation), We must be "Cruel". They don't think like we do, and we don't expect them to comply with our demands. If you approach a goat, and it runs, what would you do to bring it back ? Benevolence ? Sure, that would be if it were so.
Animal cruelty and abuse should be held equal to human cruelty and abuse

You are saying that as animals are unable to comprehend cruelty then it is okay that they face it. The animals that are unable to comprehend it should be used for our beneficial purposes. Then, by your reasoning, humans that are unable to comprehend cruelty and discrimination towards them might as well be used for our beneficial purposes. For example, someone who suffers from a mental illness or severe brain damage, someone who is unable to comprehend cruelty aimed at them, should be 'used to requirement'. Surely to someone or some other living creature who cannot comprehend cruelty should be helped and protected by those who do. Just because they cannot comprehend cruelty doesn't mean that they should still have to face it.
Animal cruelty and abuse should be held equal to human cruelty and abuse

To start with, what would we call animal cruelty ? Animals are classified according to their species. If I am cruel to a specie, does it generalize to others. To remove obscurity, I will stick to the Conventional Lower and Higher animals. For lower animals.... How can I be cruel to an animal that cannot even comprehend cruelty. For instance, if I happen to chase away my Dog for no reason , would it justify itself by barking / sticking around or simply move to any convenient place. If it stays, then we would affirm that it comprehended unfairness, and was trying to make a point. If it goes, then it was oblivious. Animals without clue of cruelty should be used to requirement, even up to Lengths deemed cruel by humans.
Animal cruelty and abuse should be held equal to human cruelty and abuse

Humans are animals. The only difference between us and a dog is that we have a slightly higher brain capacity. In the UK pets are considered to be property of the owner, if the owner of a pet decided to abuse it then they would receive a fine and possibly time in jail, if very severe. However if this owner decided to abuse their child they would be jailed and the child would be protected, never to see the parent again. Both are living sentient creatures yet one is given more rights than another just because it wasn't bought. The law should be changed so that all creatures should be treated equally, no being should face abuse and cruelty, especially the ones who cannot fend for themselves.
Free Will Is Quite Illusory

Are you expecting a big bang? Nah, here have a whimper. I already climaxed enough throughout this debate, I'll just give you one simple thing to think about, to explain why there is a "reality" for our "self". Dreams - evidence is here. Nothing can be argued. Dreams are evidence that we have an inner reality based on ourselves which is shaped through a conglomeration of information, like cosmic clay, but with water and images. Our dreams are there to "reflect" on our daily matters and daily concerns. There's nothing you can do to argue this except deflect it as per usual. Dreams are all the evidence you need, since you want to piss on everything else that is just as true and profound towards an inter-reality. We emotionally bond with ourselves and can feel ourselves separate from the rest of the world. There was no such thing as only oneness - and no such thing as only individuality. It's all about perception, like a movie. I can see everything at once - or, I could see that sexy girl bending over in the background, to completely miss the entire point of the movie's message later on. Therefore we do have our own reality - just like computers have their own matrix. Information is what makes them different - how we manage them is what makes them original or unoriginal.