BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Do you think it is right to smack your child as a discipline

Ok. What I mean by 'I just think its wrong to smack them when they need to be punished. We have evolved around that' is that we have found different ways to punished children with out smacking them sorry for the confusion. And the other quote "And surely, it would only make the children violent by that I mean that it would make them think it right to hit other, when it clearly isn't. " what I mean by that is, they might think that they know they have annoyed someone because they are getting hit and surely this could teach them tht if someone annoys you, you have the right to hit them that's what I mean. But then surely, if the children grow up and reflect on how they were brought up when they have children then they will hit them when they are being punished because that what they have learnt from their parent when they were children. And the idea of hitting could change and get worse as generations go on. I will explain to my opponent what I mean by 'we have evolved around the smacking of children' what I mean is that we have changed our ways of parenting in which there is no need to hit children due to misbehavior, we have changed to punishing them with talking to them and also placing them in a more softer punishment for example; Time out. I must say to my opponent, that we have way of parenting if you want a QUICKER way of punishment to the child just hit them, I can assure my opponent that a parent who wishes look after their child properly would put the time and effort into changing their ways including disciplines so using, as my opponent would refer to as being a slower punishment which would be time out, rather then a quicker discipline which involves hitting or smacking, which for whatever reason is causing harm to the child no mater what level it is on. 'Smacking never USUALLY leaves a mark'-I must ask my opponent what would the parent or child to if there was a mark then from the discipline? May I also ask the opponent for a definition of padding?
Do you think it is right to smack your child as a discipline

"I just think it is wrong to smack them when they need to be punished. We have evolved around that." Explain. "And surely, it would only make the children violent by that I mean that it would make them think it right to hit other, when it clearly isn't." Prove it. The smacking would make the children understand right from wrong. It would not necessarily make children more violent. Smacking does not encourage children to have violent outbursts; it encourages children to follow discipline and to learn what is correct behabior. ""I think the idea of introducing a plan to ban smacking children as a form of discipline clearly sticks to the children's rights and it also will prevent children from getting hurt, and repeating the baby P. incident." -Firstly, may I say that I however, agree with my opponent on the fact that the idea of smacking a child sticks to the children's rights, but I still however think that it is wrong. As I keep saying we have evolved around the law of no smacking of children, but does this include when your children are grown up? I however, continue with if we were allowed to smack our children then surely we would not need people for incidence Dr Tanya Byron, who is a children's psychologist, to help parents around problems like misbehaving, and how to be firm with them without smacking. And can I also say that smacking of whatever kind should not be allowed, so we DON'T have the same incident as of the Baby P." My opponent believes that I have quoted the first statement that is in this response from his Round Two post. However, he himself quoted this, and I already refuted it. My opponent is quite confused. My opponent still has not discussed how we have "evolved around" smacking children, and why it is necessary for the debate. My opponent really doesn't argue anything; he merely states his opinion on the matter. Once again, Baby P. was one incident. You cannot affirm a general resolution with one specific instance. "I do refer to hitting being part of the resolution, I would love to know from my opponent what do they class as hitting. Surely, smacking is a form of hitting because if it is not then I would love to know what is?" Smacking is discussed in the resolution; not hitting. I have already defined "smacking" and "hitting" in my prior post. Apparently it is another part of my argument that my opponent did not read or comprehend. "Smacking, okay is a more direct way, and plus quicker, however, you are still harming the child is it not as if a parent would hit their child and not leave some sort of mark from the incident." My opponent really doesn't argue much here. Smacking usually never leaves a mark; marks result from hitting or paddling. I have refuted my opponent's comments and argumentation. Thank you.
Do you think it is right to smack your child as a discipline

I must say however that, no, I do not have children. I just think it is wrong to smack them when they need to be punished. We have evolved around that. And surely, it would only make the children violent by that I mean that it would make them think it right to hit other, when it clearly isn't. I have noticed that my opponent has put something including the baby P incident. 'One type of smacking that was taken too far' I for started thought that there was only one type of smacking a child. Within reading through my opponents reply, I come across a quote; "I think the idea of introducing a plan to ban smacking children as a form of discipline clearly sticks to the children's rights and it also will prevent children from getting hurt, and repeating the baby P. incident. " -Firstly, may I say that I however, agree with my opponent on the fact that the idea of smacking a child sticks to the children's rights, but I still however think that it is wrong. As I keep saying we have evolved around the law of no smacking of children, but does this include when your children are grown up? I however, continue with if we were allowed to smack our children then surely we would not need people for incidence Dr Tanya Byron, who is a children's psychologist, to help parents around problems like misbehaving, and how to be firm with them without smacking. And can I also say that smacking of whatever kind should not be allowed, so we DON'T have the same incident as of the Baby P. I do refer to hitting being part of the resolution, I would love to know from my opponent what do they class as hitting. Surely, smacking is a form of hitting because if it is not then I would love to know what is? Smacking, okay is a more direct way, and plus quicker, however, you are still harming the child is it not as if a parent would hit their child and not leave some sort of mark from the incident. I would ask my opponent, when Baby P. incident was realized then of course that was too late. May I ask my opponent when can you tell if your child as been hit or smacked too much? Whether it being a form of discipline or not? I have argued against my opponent on this matter I will be waiting for a reply :)
Do you think it is right to smack your child as a discipline

I do believe it is right to smack a child as a form of discipline. Resolution affirmed ;) I'm just teasing. I shall refute my opponent's arguments. "this smacking may be taken too far by either parents of the child, and therefore none of them will stand against the child's rights upon not being smacked or harmed when needn't to be disciplined. " MAY is the key word. You can't prove that it will be taken too far. It depends on the behavior and parental authority to determine when one has gone "too far. " A child has a right not to be smacked or harmed when he doesn't need discipline? Who is to determine when the discipline takes place? You? You are not clear. "If we think back to the Baby. P. incident then we are able to reflect on how much this smacking can do and whats happens if this is taken too far. " One incident. One type of smacking that was taken too far. Can't negate the general resolution with one specific case. "I think the idea of introducing a plan to ban smacking children as a form of discipline clearly sicks to the children's rights and it also will prevent children from getting hurt, and repeating the baby P. incident. " A child's rights? Clarify. You have not done so. I would like to see some more evidence of children being injured by "smacking. " There is a difference between hitting and smacking: hitting is a form of discipline that involves multiple beatings/hits delivered by the parent to the child while smacking is a form of discipline that involves a single hit delivered by the parent in order to teach the child the difference between right and wrong behavior. You are probably referring to hitting in this case, and hitting is not part of the resolution. "May I also add that we have now made ways around this how you can put your child into time out, which consists of time out for a child when misbehaving. So, why go back to the old way of smacking when we can clearliy deal without it. " Time out? Do you have kids? Kids constantly run from the area where they have to serve the time out and exhibit even more bad behavior in the parental process of trying to teach the child to behave well. Smacking is much more direct, relatively quicker than time outs, more effective, and is more beneficial for enforcing good behavior. I have refuted my opponent's arguments and intertwined some of my own. Thank you.
Do you think it is right to smack your child as a discipline

....In this debate I will be arguing the fact that it is not the right thing to do to smack your child when they have been misbehaving. I am arguing about the fact that this smacking may be taken too far by either parents of the child, and therefore none of them will stand against the child's rights upon not being smacked or harmed when needn't to be disciplined. If we think back to the Baby. P. incident then we are able to reflect on how much this smacking can do and whats happens if this is taken too far. I think the idea of introducing a plan to ban smacking children as a form of discipline clearly sicks to the children's rights and it also will prevent children from getting hurt, and repeating the baby P. incident. May I also add that we have now made ways around this how you can put your child into time out, which consists of time out for a child when misbehaving. So, why go back to the old way of smacking when we can clearliy deal without it.
Everything always ends up being black vs. white.

No, we are not equal, we will never be equal. No matter how much the government tries to prevent racism from happening, its going to happen. Just based that the government can not tell what people have to think. That is why we have freedom and I say racist or not you have a right to say what you want to say. In my opinion Blacks in this country have more rights in the United States than what Whites do. (They certainly whine a lot more)
One can both be an agnostic and an atheist

My opponent evidently ignored the claims I actually presented, preferring to substitute his own in a classic straw man fallacy. My claim "One cannot be an agnostic" is explained to mean "One must have some knowledge about a god's existence". My opponent simplified it to be "everybody must know if there's a god or not". In doing so, he seems to have abandoned his own definition of an agnostic, which is, in fact, what I was operating on. Agnosticism, as defined by the terms of the debate (rather poor terms though they may be), is "One who lacks knowledge of a god's existence". My opponent has, in this round, abandoned his own terms of debate (altering the definition of Agnostic to "one who does not know if there is a god or not"). As I previously showed, my opponent's own use of the term "lack" was crucial in the relation of absolutes and gradients. Evidently, my opponent prefers to operate in such tight semantic bounds that even he cannot maneuver within them. As for the manner in which All Men have knowledge about the existence of a god, it need not be in the absolute sense; they only need have some. My opponent posits a man who has never even heard of a god, as if that would disqualify him from knowing about a god. In his Meditations III, Decartes shows that all of our human concepts--the finite as well as the infinite, the perfect as well as the imperfect--ARE, in fact, conceptions (or "knowledge") of a god. This discussion would have to delve further into the definitions of a god. If we take the common precedent established by Anselm and define god as "that than which no greater can be conceived", it is evident that every man has a conception of a god. Indeed, even if an example could be presented--I do not admit that it can be-- of a man that has none of these concepts which imply a god, his lack of a concept would be an evidence against the existence of a god. Thus, he would still has knowledge about a god, though knowledge inclining toward Atheism. As my opponent appears to be fond of fallacies, and this debate goes without vote or reward, I will indulge in bit of an ad hominem. He claims he wants only true, honest debate, and yet he does not at all appear eager to change the mind of another or himself. His evidences are spare, and unpersuasive. Indeed, they do not even attempt to be so; they settle for being provocative. ("Good luck with that"). He attempts to eliminate even the possibility of argument through poorly contrived definitions; yet when I enter the debate within those terms, and use them to defeat the argument by examining such poor definitions, he breaks the very terms he set. He would do well not to oversimplify, and better still to gain some intellectual honesty.
One can both be an agnostic and an atheist

My opponent said."It may be conceivable for one to hold a belief with no knowledge (agnostic theist), or to have knowledge and yet not believe (Gnostic atheist), but it is obvious that they are not mutually exclusive; they almost imply one another."OK, so what about an agnostic atheist?My opponent claims "One cannot be an agnostic."So that means everybody must know if there's a god or not.I don't know because of the lack of evidence for one. So, that makes me agnostic.I don't believe in a god, also due to the lack of evidence for one. That makes me an atheist.Um...I'm an agnostic atheist.How is that imposable?My opponent claims "there is not a single existent example of one who has no knowledge of god's existence."Where's the proof for that?Chances are, out of the 8 billion+ people on this planet there is at least one who has never even heard of a god. My opponent made the claim that there is not a single existent example of one ...so the burden of proof is on him to provide evidence for that. Good luck with that.
One can both be an agnostic and an atheist

The above argument centres around the agreed upon definitions, which are so contrived to be necessarily overlapping. That is, "lacks knowledge" and "lacks belief" are, if not necessarily interdependent, at least obviously compatible. It may be conceivable for one to hold a belief with no knowledge, or to have knowledge and yet not believe, but it is obvious that they are not mutually exclusive; they almost imply one another. The argument also categorizes the four possible combinations of relation between belief and knowledge. I will not attempt to add to this list, nor dissolve the dichotomy, though it may not be sound. Because the argument opens upon semantic grounds, and relies heavily upon the semantics of the agreed upon definition, it also presents itself for criticism on semantic grounds. Rather than denying the compatibility of the definitions of either term, I deny the practical existence of one of the terms altogether, based upon the definition. The argument title "one can be" implies existence in our world. So.... One cannot be an agnostic. The argument defines the term agnostic as "One that lacks knowledge of a god's existence." However, there is not a single existent example of one who has no knowledge of god's existence. One may have knowledge favouring a god's existence or knowledge opposing a god's existence, but there is none that "lacks" knowledge. The previous argument uses "lack the believe in a God" and "don't believe in God" interchangeably. Thus, "lacks knowledge" and "does not have knowledge" are posed also as interchangeable. Yet everyone has knowledge of some form, whether it compels them toward Theism or Atheism. Just as a true Gnostic has "proof" in the sense of complete evidence (as stated above), an Agnostic lacks evidence in any sense.
One can both be an agnostic and an atheist

Atheist; One that lacks a belief in godAgnostic: One that lacks knowledge of a god's existence.Many people think an Agnostic is the same as being an Atheist. There is a difference and they are not mutually exclusive. You can, in fact, be an Agnostic Atheist.You can also be an Agnostic Theist. The opposite of Agnostic is Gnostic. You can be a Gnostic Atheist or you can be a Gnostic Theist.Agnosticism is based on what you know, while Atheism is based on what you believe.In order to be an Agnostic, you have to admit you don"t know for sure. Sincenobody can prove that there is no God and not enough evidence exists that canprove that there is a God, it would be fair to say that every person who values evidence, is an Agnostic. Sure, there are people who claim they know that there is, or isn't, a God. That would make them Gnostic. If you claim you know for sure,you'd need evidence to back that claim up.Atheism is the lack of the belief in a God. If you believe in a God, you are aTheist. If you lack the belief in a God, you are an Atheist.If you don't believe there is a God and claim you know there isn't a God, youare a Gnostic Atheist. If you don"t believe there is a God, but admit you don"tknow for sure, you are an Agnostic Atheist. If you do believe in a God and admityou aren't sure, you are an Agnostic Theist. If you believe there is a God and youclaim you know for sure, you are a Gnostic Theist.Most Atheists are critical thinkers and rely on evidence. Without evidence, youcan't know for sure. That's why most Atheists are also Agnostic. There are Atheists who actually do claim they know for sure that there is no God, so not all Atheists are Agnostic.Because of the social stigma associated with the word Atheist, many Atheistcall themselves Agnostic.
Positive debate Trump vs Hillary

Round 4 Rebuttals Part 2:Pro: "To? Banks, investment firms, Goldman Sachs..." As a former Bernie supporter, I agree with you that Hillary should release the transcripts. However, you provide no evidence that these paid speeches have made her change her policies in any way, so this claim is negated.Pro: "Everyone I know that had no insurance got fined." Apparently they could afford it, or your own source is false.And no, I do not admit that the Democratic Party is practicing "plantation politics." The economic argument is merely a more practical one; the primary reason for allowing in immigrants is to help them get away from the cycle of poverty and into a better life. Just because I may make practical rather than moral arguments at times does not mean that I do not believe in moral arguments as well.Pro: "Most of the country is Christian, but most liberals get huffy if you say Christianity is 'where we got our American values.'" Let's assume then, for the sake of argument, that our values came from Christianity. It would logically follow that our values would come from the Bible. But the Bible also tells us to be accepting to immigrants and foreign cultures. Leviticus 19:34:The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.Thus you are agreeing with me, as you claim that our values are Christian values, which support my claim.Next you say Obama caused the current chaos in the Middle East. First of all, the modern politics of the Middle East were created when Britain and France made the Sykes-Picot Agreement, which caused most of the underlying roots of conflict today. (https://www.theguardian.com...) To be more specific, ISIS was not caused by Obama but rather George W. Bush, whose war in Iraq caused a power vacuum which allowed the Islamic State and other terrorist groups to take hold.You then say our national debt exceeds our GDP and thus we cannot pay for community college. First of all, the United States' debt-to-GDP ratio is far from being the largest. In fact, we are 9th, being led by countries such as Japan and Italy. Japan's debt-to-GDP ratio is more than twice that of the United States. Just behind us in 10th is Belgium, a country known for its socialized healthcare and higher education services.(http://www.statista.com...) Again, you fail to offer a reason why the United States is uniquely unable to provide these services to the people.In the interest of fairness, I will not respond to your Round 5 arguments. You do not get to respond to my arguments in the last round, so I should not be able to respond to yours.Thank you for a great debate!
Human dominance on Planet Earth, will soon be superseded by sentient, electromechanical devices.

I'm no Luddite. But not device dependant. Approximate evolutionary timeline: First ancestors. 6.5 million years ago. First humans. 250 thousand years ago. First awareness. of electricity. 5000 years ago. First electrical experiments. 2500 years ago. First proper battery. 200 years ago. First radio receiver. 100 years ago. First P.C. 50 years ago. First smartphones. 17 years ago. Just look at how exponentially, technology is evolving. 2015. Scientists suggest we are close to creating the first sentient robot. I think "Soon" will be very soon!
Human dominance on Planet Earth, will soon be superseded by sentient, electromechanical devices.

You may challenge your children to not use their phones, but could you live without devices of your own, like toasters, computers or modern medical machines? This era means great advancements in machinery but in my opinion but for machines to become sentient we would first have to find a way of doing it, up till now all we have some AI that can make sentences, not nearly close enough to be considered sentient. I think S.E.M.D dominance is still a ways away if it even happens and the keyword for me in this debate is the "soon" in the question.
Human dominance on Planet Earth, will soon be superseded by sentient, electromechanical devices.

Hi JP1016. (S.E.M.D)....Sentient Electromechanical Devices. Good first round. I cannot deny anything you've stated. But what I see with my own children (29 & 31 years of age). Is a dependence on modern communication devices. Challenge them to switch their phones off for a day and they regard me as if I'm an idiot. I consider this era, as a major evolutionary step towards self replicating, S.E.M.D dominance. We "The Organic" will provide S.E.M.Ds with this ability. It's probably the only way, our evolved intelligence will ever be able to leave this solar system. Organic life is too fragile.
Human dominance on Planet Earth, will soon be superseded by sentient, electromechanical devices.

ok, 100 words max, no references sounds interesting, I'll make sure that my argument is no more than 100 words and I'll start off with your first point I for one do not believe that younger generations are slaves to electronic devices. Simply put, I think that said electronic devices (e.g. phones) are simply easier to use and understand. Before electronic devices could you say that a little metal box in your hand could act as a means of communication, clock, compass, or even music-playing device? Didn't think so... I think we use devices for the same reason we'd use a Swiss Army knife, it's immense utility and versatility are extremely useful in day to day life