BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Aliens

ARGUMENTFor my opening argument I would like to focus on the mathematical side of the debate, and will attempt to prove that mathematics support the idea that aliens could potentially exist in the universe. First I will cite the equation drawn up by American astronomer and astrophysicist Frank Drake [1]. Drake created this formula to attempt to show the likeliness of the human race to find and communicate with an alien race. Note that this formula only applies to the "known universe", or the universe that can be seen by our current technology [2]. In this equation the following variables equal: N is the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which we might hope to be able to communicate R* is the average rate of star formation in our galaxy fp is the fraction of those stars that have planets ne is the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets fl is the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point fi is the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life fc is the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space L is the length of time such civilizations release detectable signals into space While this formula is highly flexible, because their are so many different variables that can be entered, the results always show that N=1 or higher. This means that in the known universe their is bound to be at least one extraterrestrial species that we could make contact with. The next formula that I will cite was devised by Sara Seager, a professor at MIT. The new formula is far more rigid than the Drake equation as their are less variables and less room for interpretation in each of the variables. In this equation the following variables equal: N is the number of planets with detectable biosignature gases N* is the number of stars within the sample FQ is the fraction of quiet stars FHZ is the fraction with rocky planets in the habitable zone FO is the fraction of observable systems FL is the fraction with life FS is the fraction with detectable spectroscopic signatures The important thing to note here is that N in the Seager equation is quite different from the N in the Drake equation. This N is showing the number of planets whose atmospheres are equivalent to our atmosphere and therefore are likely to harbor life. In Seager's equation she plugged in the number of stars in the sample (N*) as 30,000, far less than the number of stars in the known universe. When doing this she came to the conclusion that N=2, or that for every 30,000 stars their are at least 2 planets which have a similar atmosphere to our planet. This is incredibly encouraging to those who believe in extraterrestrial life because if instead of entering 30,000 as N* but enter the actual estimate for the number of stars in the universe, their would be a huge number of planets that could harbor life, therefore implying that at least one of them does harbor life. Back over to you, Con. SOURCES[1] http://www.seti.org...[2] http://io9.com...
Children should be physically punished

Firstly, I do not think that children who are selfish, ignorant and disobedient will improve their behavior because of physical punishment. Probably they will become afraid of their parents, which will result in hatred, as it is not human nature to feel loving toward someone who hurts us. Punishment, even when it appears to work, can produce only superficially good behavior based on fear. Thus, there is a possibility that those children can become bully towards other people in order to express their feelings, until the child is old enough to resist their parents. Later, by reaching definite age feeling the freedom from parents he can Furthermore, many parents never learned in their own childhood that there are positive ways of relating to children. When punishment does not accomplish the desired goals, and if the parent is unaware of alternative methods, punishment can lead to more frequent and dangerous actions against the child. The kid will become socially isolated, insecure and feel different from the surrounding him/her people. Besides, I want to add that by using physical punishment you teach the child to use violence to solve their problems. The job of the parent is to be the responsible, hitting or spanking child is not the best solution. Certainly, it requires patience to talk to children and explain everything in a right way, but being a parent is always difficult and choosing the easiest way to calm child is not reasonable.
Children should be physically punished

Bringing children up and its rules remain different for society. in other words, it is not even proved yet how exactly should children be taught. And of course, children cannot become mature and polite in one moment. It is also a part of bringing up which should begin from child's birth. Otherwise, if parents wait till they are grown up to teach children good manners, they will suddenly realise that it is too late. Not just too late to say them something about behavior, but too late to actually change something. When person is grown-up it is hard and almost impossible to change him. And he reminds the same person - impolite, selfish and rude, just because parents didn't tell him anything in time. And not all children really listen to what their parents say. I think that if words don't make sense to the child it is okay to remind him that they should by spank. This action will show child that he better have respect for the parents and listen to them. Second thing is that proper use of physical force - I don't mean drubbing - will not cause children to hate everybody and bully others. It will better explain children that this is bad and he shouldn't do it again. This is the case when memory works - the child got slapped, it is a bad memory, he doesn't want to have it again and therefore never will do.
Children should be physically punished

Con I deem that this topic is quiet controversial, but still I do not agree with the opinion of my opponent. Children are human beings and as a result have the same human rights as anyone else. They are amongst the most vulnerable members of society, it is society's duty to protect them and their rights. I do not support the motion because of the following reasons. Firstly, parents are powerful figures and they tend to be a lot older than their children. It means they have had plenty of time to mature and become big and strong. They must not use the vulnerable side of children. It is better to start nurturing, talking to children in a proper way from little ages. Besides, physical force teaches children to bully. Laying your hands on your child to make them behave instead of reasoning with them shows that you as a parent have lost control and that you are not intelligent or patient enough to teach them properly. Teaching your children to fear and hate you might make them obey you, but not for the right reasons. The are easily influenced and usually learn things from their parents, thus physical punishment gives the message that hitting is an appropriate way to express feelings and to solve problems.
Children should be physically punished

The motion for this debate is whether children should be punished for their offence. I am taking "For" side. 2 rounds is for arguing and the last one is concluding arguments. All children misbehave as at the beginning they simply don't know what is good and what is bad. Discipline of children is essential part of bringing them up and their health development, it is as important as feeding them or clothing. It has to be both physical and mental. But many parents get confused about physical discipline and I do not get reasons to be afraid of it. 1. First of all, physical punishment implies spanking/slapping and making child do something (eating soup, for example). In my opinion, the misbehavior of children has become a problem of our time. Parents cannot deal with their own children anymore, they get nervous and ashamed of children's awful acting on people. Of course, there is always a possibility of mental discipline - talking and explaining things. But from my own experience, I can surely say that it actually doesn't always work well. Good if child understands you, which happens sometimes. But what about cases when instead of it he gets mad and hits you? Especially, in the public place and he cannot calm down. I think that the child has to realize who his parents are and what respect he should have. Spanking may work in this case. 2. "Once burned, twice shy". Getting hit once, there is a chance that he would understand that it is bad thing and he should avoid doing it. The child tries different things out of curiosity and there is always danger for his life. Talks don't work in this case - it can even provoke bigger interest and desire to try. One little spank can show him that he should never try it again.
capital punishment should be banned

Thank you for your rebuttal. After rereading your opening statements a few times, here is my rebuttal. Morality - In this section of my opponents argument, they mentioned that the murder affected the entire family. The death penalty doesn't cocern the effects the family in question faced. In fact, in the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, one of the families who had an eight year old son killed urged against the death penalty of the bomber in an open letter. [1] Also, a 2008 study suggested that punishing the offender made the victim (or the families) feel worse. [2] Proper Judgment - I would barely classify this as a reason for capital punishment to be accepted. This just shows it's a lengthy process. Yes, the process of a death penalty case is around 6-10 years, but this doesn't mean mistakes can't be made. [3] Like I said in my opening statements, 130 death row inmates have been released. Despite proper judgment, they were wrongly convicted. But imagine what would happen if they were killed: we wouldn't be able to bring them back. Deterrence - One example of the failure of deterrence states that crime in North Carolina has gone down since 2006. Coincidentally, not one person has been executed in NC since then. Similarly, murder rates are lower in states that don't have the death penalty. [4] "In fact, most people on death row committed their crimes in the heat of passion, while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or while suffering from mental illness." [5] In these circumstances, would you think of the future consequences you may face? You wouldn't be able to think rationally. So my opponents argument about would be criminals being put off by the death penalty only represents a marginal group. Kindest from of punishment - My opponent states that inmates lose their right to vote and that they're not considered a citizen. They go on to talk about how keeping them alive would be inhumane. With this argument, you could say that all inmates with a life sentence should be put to death. There are outrageous examples of life sentences like 3,000 cases of life without parole of non-violent crimes. [6, 7] So should someone be sentenced to death for, say, possession of a crack pipe or breaking into a liquor store? In conclusion, I believe that the death penalty shouldn't be used for punishment. Thank you for the debate. Citations [1]http://www.cnn.com... [2]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [3]http://criminal.lawyers.com... [4, 5]http://nccadp.org... [6]http://www.theguardian.com... [7]http://www.motherjones.com...
capital punishment should be banned

Thank you for accepting my topic of debate. I would like to start this argument by giving four points supporting my motion My first argument is based on the grounds of morality. Death penalty is often the only viable option that can be given to a criminal who has not only killed somebody but affected the entire family of the victim. But one might argue that since state cannot give life it has no right to take it. Here I will give the example of the verdict of the Supreme court of my country India regarding the rape of a fourteen year old girl who had appealed to the high court for abortion but was turned down, but Supreme court allowed her to go for it. By the above definition of mortality it is immoral to kill a twenty five week fetus. But why did Sc judges allow it? It is because they didn't want the girl to go through the trauma of being the mother of a child at such a young age. We all agree that it was not inhuman to kill the fetus after twenty five weeks because it was suitable in the given circumstances. In the same way, sometimes it is suitable for the state to give death penalty to those criminals who are beyond rectification. My second argument is based on the grounds of proper judgement Capital punishment is not given abruptly to a person who is just suspected of committing a crime. It is a long process and each case of death penalty comes before the court at least three times and a death row usually lasts averagely for ten years. So it is well planned and is done after a lot of screening. The percentage of making mistakes in this lengthy process is very low. My third argument is based on capital punishment as a deterrent When death penalty is given to one horrendous criminal then the “would be criminals” will think twice before committing murder. And if the fear of death cannot deter a man , then what else can? So in a way capital punishment prevents future crimes. In 1973 Isaac Ehrlich employed a new kind of analysis which produced results showing that for every inmate who was executed seven lives were spared because others were deterred from committing murder. my fourth argument is based on death penalty as the kindest form of punishment If something has to be changed then it is the way capital punishment is given to an individual. We should try to make death as quicker and less painful as possible for a criminal. So my third point is that death penalty is often the kindest form of punishment which can be given to a person. A dreaded criminal who is given a death sentence is often not given the right to vote. He is not even considered as the citizen of the country. So what is the use of keeping him alive and draining the exchequer of government on him. Is it not more inhuman to confined him within the cell of a prison for his entire life, torturing him and making him ill both mentally and physically? I return this debate to my opponent
while homestead exemptions should exist, property taxes should be our primary focus on tax revenue

"This statement indicates that for cheaper lands the homestead exemption would not exist, so for the middle class, they would not have a homestead exemption on their home properties. it doesn't have to be that way. we can protect middle class with the homestead exemption too. that would make most of your arguments moot given your focus is on protecting the middle class and lower. that you try to say i would want to tax the middle class that way, then is more a straw man argument than anything "It is not fair for someone with $1,000,000 to pay $40,000 in tax while someone with $20,000 has to give all his $20,000 in taxes. no one said it would work that way. i have no idea where you got those number. that you even draw that argument is more a straw man, again, than anything. the only way they would have to pay something like this, is if the person with small income had a ton of land compared to what he owned. in reality any schmee i would support wouldn't tax someone who only makes twenty k all their income, unless they owned way too much land. if you gave a more realistic view of what id support, it would probably be progressive and not regressive in nature, for those who want to own land. and we'd be functioning government mostly on those who want to own more than their fair share of land. again, we can have supplemental taxes with income taxes if it wasn't sufficient. in fact, if anything my scheme might work 'too good', and most people would have their own property, and be eligieble for exemptions, and we'd need more sources of revenue. " So my opponent admits that private property such as houses are taxed" i never said that. and in fact, it probably wouldn't be regressive, cause it'd be based only on how much land you have, so if you choose to have a lot, you would be taxed more. and given most rich would own more land, it would tend to be progressive. it would only be an 'out' for people who do not want t oparticipate in the land game. good luck to them. we can still get our revenue from land taxes anyways. "result in higher food prices and higher rent" i showed adam smith the legendary free market economist arguing the opposite. people will rent where it's cheaper and it won't be worth it to try to make high rent, cause it won't happen. hte free market will work against that notion. this is con's best argument,,,, the rest is mostly strawman arguments. but i tend ot think he's wrong. and, he hasn't relaly did a very good job arguing how exactly he thinks the free market will cause rents and costs to go up. i'm arguing free market will cause rents to stay down.
while homestead exemptions should exist, property taxes should be our primary focus on tax revenue

'For the middle 60% of Americans houses make up 60% of people"s financial assets. For the next 19% they only make up 30.1% of assets, and for the top 1% they only make for 9.4% (3). So taxing land disproportionately hurts the middle class which is already in big trouble and many have already slipped into poverty. this is a decent point. but, the top one percent is likely to own much property. that means when it's all said and done, they will be taxed more. they will at least want to live nice and have an expensive home, which means higher taxes. when it's all said and done, property will be distributed much more justly. i would suppose for that reason, it won't be regressive. richer people will still tend to own more of the property and for that reason pay more of the taxes. given the homestead exemption won't tax your home if it's smaller in value, it wouldn't even affect most people. if in the end it ends up being a regressive tax, we can have supplemental income taxes. i'm not against income taxes, just think they are prioritized below property taxes. if not for any other reason than it helps better distribute something as basic as owning a home. perhaps i can see if it is regressive putting a higher emphasis on income tax, but at that point, i could at worst go either way which is better. they each serve a role.
while homestead exemptions should exist, property taxes should be our primary focus on tax revenue

Thanks to my opponent for beginning this debate. Personally I don"t like property taxes. They disproportionately hurt the middle class and they make people pay the government even when they are not earning money. I want to see property taxes removed rather than prioritized above income taxes. If they are prioritized then property taxes with be higher relative to other taxes such as income tax. The income tax is fair because the amount you pay is based on how much you earn. If the income tax is prioritized people with assets focused on land rather than the stock market are not hurt, and people who need to spend a large amount of their income on expenses are not hurt either. To me it is common sense. But lets start with more detailed argument. Taxes when broke Unemployment is a huge problem in this country and it is upsetting that still have to pay taxes when they are out of a job and really in financial bad straits because they have to pay thousands in property taxes every year to the government. Income inequality I will be basing future arguments on the fact that income inequality is high, rising, and a big problem. Income inequality is high. The top 1% earn 22.5% of our nation"s income while the bottom 90% earn 49.6% less than half (1). Income inequality is rising. Between 1979 and 2007 the incomes of the bottom 90% grew by 18.9% while those of the top 1% grew by 200.5% (2). Income inequality is a problem. Between 1979 and 2007 53.9% of economic growth has gone to the top 1%. No wonder incomes for the rest of us have risen so slowly (2). Houses as Assets for Rich and Poor For the middle 60% of Americans houses make up 60% of people"s financial assets. For the next 19% they only make up 30.1% of assets, and for the top 1% they only make for 9.4% (3). So taxing land disproportionately hurts the middle class which is already in big trouble and many have already slipped into poverty. Even if you are not in favor of progressive taxes, it still is not fair to disproportionately tax the middle class. At the very least, rich and poor should pay equal shares of their incomes. 1: http://www.pewresearch.org... 2: http://www.epi.org... 3: http://www.theatlantic.com...
Regarder Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom~2018 Streaming VF Film Complete

Add to My FavoritesReport this DebateShare with My Friends Do you like this debate?NoYes+0 Argument Due Use the link below to post your argument for round #1. Post My Argument Time Remaining 02days23hours59minutes54seconds Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point Started: 6/13/2018 Category: Entertainment Updated: 0 seconds ago Status: Debating Period Viewed: 18 times Debate No: 115526 Debate Rounds (2) Comments (0) Votes (0) Con Jurasic World: Fallen Kingdom comme l'un des s"quelles du film du parc Jurasic, pr"sente toujours la tension de la terreur des dinosaures .. Mais dans Jurasic World: Fallen Kingdom (2018), la terreur
Regarder Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom~2018 Streaming VF Film Complete

Jurasic World: Fallen Kingdom comme l'un des s"quelles du film du parc Jurasic, pr"sente toujours la tension de la terreur des dinosaures .. Mais dans Jurasic World: Fallen Kingdom (2018), la terreur des dinosaures est l"g"rement r"duite par l'amiti" d'un Tyrex avec un homme .... Vous pouvez regarder et t"l"charger sur ...http://bit.ly... Vous pouvez regarder et t"l"charger sur ...http://bit.ly... Vous pouvez regarder et t"l"charger sur ...http://bit.ly... Vous pouvez regarder et t"l"charger sur ...http://bit.ly... Vous pouvez regarder et t"l"charger sur ...http://bit.ly... Vous pouvez regarder et t"l"charger sur ...http://bit.ly... Vous pouvez regarder et t"l"charger sur ...http://bit.ly... Vous pouvez regarder et t"l"charger sur ...http://bit.ly... et regarder en ...https://larousse.filmenstreamingvf.coffee... et regarder en ...https://larousse.filmenstreamingvf.coffee...