BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
January/February LD Debate resolved

I was busy with my schoolwork I got side tracked. My opponent has allowed me to post my case and refute his arguments this round, and so I thank my opponent. Let's begin, shall we? My caseC1: There are alternatives. There are alternatives that exist that are safer and just as effective if not more than using force from domestic violence. The person that is receiving the domestic violence can infom proper authorites of the situation to allow the much more experinced police officer to fix the situation. They victim can inform the law system to fix the situation. The victim can use non-deadly force to prevent the attacker from harming the victim from further harm, and in that time inform authority to resolve the situation. [1]C2: Disproportionate Rights ViolationThe most appropiate retribution is that of which is equalivent to the rights that have been violated or broken to start with. Taking a human life isn't proportional to the rights violation of repeated domestic violence. Perhaps the victim has lost thier liberty and happiness, they still have the ability to regain those rights since they are not yet dead. "A victim’s use of deadly force would therefore be disproportionate and morally impermissible. " [1]RefutationsC1: Society sometimes fails to deliver justice to women who deserve itThe fact that there a certain flaws in the criminal justice system and that those flaws prevent females from getting a fully sastisfactory trial is not a vaild argument for the Pro of the resolution. In fact, society treats females as being more feminie and as such actually focuses more attention on the wrongdoings that have happened to females. C2: Through affirming there would be a reduction of oppression through violence as well as domestic violence. This is incorrect. The resolution states that "Resolved: It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domestic violence". So to affirm the resolution you would not be affimring reduced violence, but, in fact, you would be affirming a equal amount of violence, if not a greater amount of violence. I thank my opponent for this debate and wish him good luck in the next round. Sources [1] . http://shatteringthelens.com...
Parents should have the right to discipline their children(s) physically.

My opponent has chosen to forfeit twice. I really wanted this debate to go on. While I will not argue, I can counter some things I found while looking at my opponent sources. http://www.cyh.com... Her first source itself states everything I been trying to say. Some things to consider from the research - "While an occasional mild smack may not cause harm, the danger is the possibility of accidental injury or loss of control by the parent (a smack may lead to more smacking next time or a serious belting as the parent senses that the first smack did not work).." - "An immediate hit may stop your child's behaviour for the moment, but she probably will repeat it (she doesn't learn what to do instead, only what not to do)." - "Children learn not to do the action in an adult's persence, rather than learn not to do it at all." - "Children's feelings of anger and hurt are often so strong after being hit that they can have difficulty remembering the reasons for the punishment." - "If punishment is frightening, your child can learn ways to deceive (lying, cheating or blaming others) to avoid being hit." "Some children can become fearful, anxious, rebellious or withdrawn." "Children tend to copy what you do and may bully others." - "Physical punishment teaches children that violence is acceptable and that it's okay to use violence when you're angry, to solve problems or to get what you want." - "Most people would agree that settling conflict between adults with physical force is wrong. It is against the law to hit (assault) other people, eg. adults, partners, servants, apprentices." - "There are more effective ways of disciplining children than using physical punishment." Thank you for providing a source that clearly points out everything I been trying to tell you! It adds volume to my argument, and shows why we do not need physical punishment. Her second source itself points out something I been trying to say. http://www.factsforlifeglobal.org... "Children learn how to behave (socially and emotionally) by imitating the behaviour of those closest to them." Again you're your child's best teacher. What he sees you do, is what he's probably going to replicate. My opponent third source is contrary to what she been trying to argue: http://www.dailymail.co.uk... The source itself says: "A recent poll found 71 per cent of parents would support a ban on smacking." "'No good can come from hitting a child,' she said. 'I do not buy this idea that children will learn positive behaviour from being smacked." "'The law says adults hitting adults is wrong and children should be protected in the same way. Children are people too.'" Thanks for providing a source that clearly paints a picture.
Parents should have the right to discipline their children(s) physically.

One has to understand that physical discipline is to be used differently depending on the child's age, abilities and needs. You pointed out that your brother at 13 years old was hit because he stole headphones. Just because he reacted negatively to the physical punishment, doesn't mean that physical discipline in general isn't effective. It was not the correct discipline method for the situation. Given that physical punishment is a discipline method, it too is imperative in a child's development. The first five years of a child's life are the most important because during this time the child's foundation for their health, growth, happiness and brain is being built. Marjorie Gunnoe, professor of Psychology at Calvin College in the U.S. state of Michigan found that children who are smacked before the age of six perform better at school when they are teenagers. Physical discipline proves to be effective in long run. It was also found in several studies that kids whose parents used a balance of love and limits (including spanking) were found to be doing much better 10 years later during adolescence than kids whose parents were overly punitive and did not show love in various ways to the child. It is up to the parents and their trial and error of discipline methods to know when physical discipline works and when they should stop. If physical discipline is proving to be effective in situations why shouldn't it be a right? If it can't be applied to one case but can to another it should not be eliminated completely. Sources: http://www.cyh.com... http://www.factsforlifeglobal.org... http://www.dailymail.co.uk... http://articles.latimes.com...
Parents should have the right to discipline their children(s) physically.

I accept Con. I wish you luck and look forward to debating. The situation concerning the mother and her child seems like her physical actions originated from anger instead of trying to the teach the child a lesson. Now neither you or I know the circumstances of their fight, but if a mother is fighting with her nine year old son and he is physically fighting back, then to me it seems that the problem in this situation is the lack of parenting and communication not the fact that she is using physical force as a way of disciplining. To answer your question though, parents are already allowed to discipline their children using physical force. There is a line between discipline and abuse where when crossed it becomes illegal. But yes, parents do have the right to discipline their children physically and it should stay that way. Discipline is imperative to a child's development. I grew up getting spanked with a wooden spoon, a belt and the traditional hand spanking. I come from a middle class family with two loving parents and two younger sisters. Not that my sisters and I were terrible children growing up but my parents' physical discipline was necessary. Going to the corner for "time out" was in no way effective. Some physical force to a child's butt is going to teach them right from wrong, unlike having a child sit in a corner.
Parents should have the right to discipline their children(s) physically.

Hi debaters. This is my first time about to debate. I'm a future Lawyer, so I wanted to test my debating strength. I'm a university freshman by the way, starting the 25th of this month. As I do with all my debating, I like to give backgrounds in order for my opponents to have an understanding. Background: Anyways, I was on the public bus today on my way home from a long day at my university working out issues, and sadly, a woman was beating her child on the bus. He was a little boy, probably 9, and his mom was big. He had walked on the bus mad and sad down. Than his mom, with his brother(probably the same age) behind her, got on the bus and in a moment, she and her son were fighting. She bend his head down, and constantly hit him with her big hands. And he was fighting back and crying. What seem like a inhumane act, everyone looked on, without saying anything, except for one woman, who had been shut by the mom. I was one of those that looked on. One, I didn't want to get knocked out by this lady in my suit and lose my folder with documents in them, and two, the child was rude (he had said cuss words earlier and said other things and was fighting with her). As much as I don't like it, people who were on the bus actually liked and laughed at the fact she was beating him and talked to each other about how they use to get discipline by their parents. This is a society problem. I don't deem its necessary and I don't stand behind it. So to my opponent... the question is: should parents have the right to discipline their child physically? To the readers, you are the judges. You present the final ruling Also, if you don't mind, please leave comments about where in my debates I was strong, where I lack, and where I can improve. Thanks.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument is sound.

Rules:-Burden of Proof is on Pro-Follow the format-Be civil. -If Con has any problems with the terms I'm willing to tweak them before the debate begins. Terms:Kalam Cosmological argument: A modern formulation of the cosmological argument for the existence of God, stating that the existence of the universe requires a cause and that said cause must be something beyond the universe such as God. (A more elaborate summary of the argument can be found in the video on the side) . http://www.youtube.com...sound: logically valid and premises as true.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument is sound.

In this round I will be giving one final rebuttal alongside my conclusive arguments. R1: Quantum Model In Round 2, Con argues that the relation between the universe and its beginning does not work by a cause and effect relationship at the quantum level, and that therefore the universe would not need a cause. Con’s argument however fails to refute the first premise, as seen in the end of con’s argument “I’m not interested in determining if these theories are plausible. If they are at least possible according to current scientific models, then it follows that science does not necessarily need to make use of causality when explaining the origins of the universe” This in turn, contriadicts Con’s burdens to which he emphasized himself earlier in the debate “As Con, I must merely offer arguments which are equally as convincing as Pro’s in order to win. Pro” In my arguments, I had argued that the cause and effect relationship with the universe was a necessity, that the universe required a cause. In this argument, Con presents the Quantum Model only as a possibility and as seen from the previous excerpt, even that is prone to question. Con fails to meet burdens that he himself adds to the debate, as shown in the end of his argument. In Conclusion: I had argued that the Kalam Cosmological argument was sound in that the premises could scientifically verified, that the Big Bang Theory and Second Law of Thermodynamic clearly showed that the universe was caused. I had established early that Causality was an important principle in recognizing the origins of the universe and that said origins had to be beyond the universe, in turn, the initial cause must be something that is not met by any of the universes restrictions (time, space, et cetera). I had shown in the end of my argument that the conclusion that of the KSA logically consistent. Therefore, I had sufficiently met the burden of proof previously established in the debate. Many thanks to Con for providing a civil and thought provoking debate.
The universe has been concretely proven to be at least 3 billion years old.

"Yeah, that's what happens when you try to play the burden of proof card with me. Using your logic, the burden of proof is on YOU my friend." When you accept my debate, you must abide by the rules that I laid out in the first round. One rule was that you carry the burden of proof, because it is necessary to fit the resolution properly. "Anyway, to prove my arguments, the universe must be older than the objects within it. Since I'm 15, the universe is atleast 15 years old." True. "As for this debate, the Earth is already 4.6 billion years old, so that already proves that the resolution is affirmed." Your source only claims that the Earth was dated to be 4.6 billion years old. However, these tests are not known for their accuracy, and they are not entirely sure of this date. I decided to do some of the dirty work for you in checking the source Wikipedia used for its claim: http://www.sciencemag.org... "A major outstanding question in the Earth sciences is whether the volume of continental crust today represents nearly all that formed over Earth's history or whether its rates of creation and destruction have been approximately balanced since the Archean." Basically, they assumed that Earth has had constant cycles since its creation, which may or may not have been true, so they are going off of assumption when they give the date of 4.6 billion years. "Analysis of neodymium isotopic data from the oldest remnants of Archean crust suggests that crustal recycling is important and that preserved continental crust comprises fragments of crust that escaped recycling. Furthermore, the data suggest that the isotopic evolution of Earth's mantle reflects progressive eradication of primordial heterogeneities related to early differentiation." See the word "suggest"? Not "prove," or "ascertain," but "suggest." This is not "concretely proven," and is thus irrelevant. "That'll do for now." That was then, THIS is now. Thank you for your attempts; now you have to make some more. ":)" (:
The universe has been concretely proven to be at least 3 billion years old.

It's payback time. :) http://www.debate.org... Yeah, that's what happens when you try to play the burden of proof card with me. Using your logic, the burden of proof is on YOU my friend. :) Anyway, to prove my arguments, the universe must be older than the objects within it. Since I'm 15, the universe is atleast 15 years old. As for this debate, the Earth is already 4.6 billion years old, so that already proves that the resolution is affirmed. http://en.wikipedia.org... That'll do for now. :)
The universe has been concretely proven to be at least 3 billion years old.

I negate the resolution that the universe has been concretely proven to be at least 3 billion years old. Universe - 1. the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Concretely proven - This basically is supposed to mean that the statement MUST be true. There is no logical way for it to be false. There is a 100% chance that it is true; there are no other possibilities. A man would be willing to stake his life on the validity of the statement, given that all scientific evidence used is true, over something minor, being absolutely sure of its truth. 3 billion years old - Having existed for at least 3,000,000,000 years old (a year being the length of time it takes for the Earth to revolve around the Sun) My opponent will be the one with the burden of proof, as he or she will have to show some undiscardable evidence to the age of the universe, and be able to defend them from my attacks. Thank you to whoever accepts this debate.
The universe has been concretely proven to be at least 3 billion years old.

http://en.wikipedia.org... http://news.bbc.co.uk... :) First of all, stop copying my smiley face as it's annoying and immature. Second of all, you don't have any evidence to COUNTERACT my arguments, you just keep whining about how we can't be 100% sure. Show me how my evidence is fallable otherwise I out to win this debate.
Given the uncertainty of the survival of anything after death why do we pontificate so much. "

While I am disappointed that there was no response to the second round by my opponent, I will use this time to make another point: Every living being has the right to: "the freedom of thought" and "the freedom of expression" , as listed in the 30 rights of every human being. Through this, anyone is allowed to think about their faith and decide what is their afterlife. Along with this, they have the freedom of expression of their beliefs and thoughts and have the right to share it. That is not exactly a reason why we spread our beliefs so much, or even that assumption is right in the first place, it is that we are allowed as humans to express such a thing. Sources: http://www.youthforhumanrights.org... (Also apologies for not having a full argument, I had to train a lot for an upcoming race and just now are getting my energy back to post a response)
The letter C should be abolished

Since my opponent has forfeited this round I will take the liberty of posting definitions: http://dictionary.reference.com...: 1. the third letter of the English alphabet, a consonant. 2. any spoken sound represented by the letter C or c, as in cat, race, or circle. Arguments: Even though the letter C in some cases may not be quintessential to the English Language the prohibition or act of abolishing of the letter C would be a completely unnecessary set back for the English speaking world. I will assume the resolution means prohibition across the world. The international community would have to expect the world to give up the letter C by decree. This is absurd. So must work, time and money would be lost to simply get rid of a questionably inefficient letter. Keep in mind my opponent has the BOF so my argument is merely supplementary and I win this debate by default unless he/she posts a sound argument I cannot refute. Thanks to my opponent again for the debate.
Resolved: The US should remove its tactical nuclear weapons from Turkey

Answer 1. While conventional forces stationed in Turkey are a deterrent, the wrath of NATO implied through the Nuclear Weapons stationed in Turkey send a much clear message to aggressors that Turkey is not alone. Answer 2. Well according Bilkent University Professor Mustafa Kibaroğlu, he speculates that if the Obama administration presses for the withdrawal of nuclear weapons, which Turkey wishes to maintain, then Turkey-US relations may be strained. So the weapons are not an empty gesture.Answer 3. Yes, it is similar to how the US is pumping billions of US dollars to foreign governments to strengthen US relations with said foreign governments.
Resolved: The US should remove its tactical nuclear weapons from Turkey

Answer 1: Seeing as how there would still be over 250 US nuclear weapons in Europe after America removed its arsenal from Turkey, I don't believe that this would undermine NATO cohesion, and therefor would be a justified action in regards to NATO. Answer 2: Understand that I am not a expert on Foreign Policy but it is my belief that if Turkey was attacked or was in need of American assistance that the US would support that aid. A US Democratic Party delegation group met with Turkish officials in Ankara on 30 May to confirm, "Turkey can always depend on the US, while the US can always rely on its close friendship with Turkey." This statement is what I based my answer on. Answer 3: Removing nuclear weapons from Turkey does not mean that the US would no longer support NATO. It would be more beneficial for the safety of Turkey to put troops there, not unusable nuclear bombs. The current NATO policy would only call for nuclear weapons as a last case scenario so in this case I believe removing the weapons would actually support both NATO and the US in the long run.
Resolved: The US should remove its tactical nuclear weapons from Turkey

Question 1: Which is more of a deterrent, the nuclear weapons stored in Turkey or the conventional forces stationed there? Question 2: Can the weapons be considered an empty gesture seeing how if there was a need for a nuclear strike the weapon would not come from a Turkish airbase? Question 3: Is the "political deterrent" these B61 bombs supposedly provide enough to justify the $10 billion [1] that needs to be spent in order to keep this weapon operational? [1] http://articles.washingtonpost.com...
Resolved: The US should remove its tactical nuclear weapons from Turkey

Under NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, the nuclear weapons serve as a political deterrant from nations and factions from attacking the Turkish nation. In addition the weapons despite currently serving no tactical deterrance, are symbolic and show that the US is still committed to assisting NATO allies. The gesture of the US to loan nuclear weapons to NATO allies is significant since it prevents the US from simply saying to turkey in times of Turkish strife, "yeah, we'll support you." while not even deploying its military. (http://www.defense.gov...)The gesture of keeping nuclear weapons prevent a similar vocal but litte support currently seen with France. Currently France is fighting alone against Mali insurgents who have beaten back Mali government troops. France's allies have expressed vocal support, but in actuallity they have only sent the bare minimum to support the French. In fact the African Union forces who are supposed to take over still haven't mobilized troops, and won't even be in Northern Mali until next week.(http://news.yahoo.com...) Thus inorder to prevent NATO allies from committing acts of minimal support the US should still retain its Nuclear weapons arsenal in Turkey,
Resolved: The US should remove its tactical nuclear weapons from Turkey

Ok, same to you! The first reason I believe that the US should remove its nukes from Turkey is because those nukes serve no tactical purpose. This is true because they no longer are able to be quickly deployed in response to any situation that would require them. When the Cold War was under way, the US strategy at the time called for nuclear weapons in Turkey in order to protect against soviet invasion of Europe. When the weapons were in their prime, the time it would take to deploy them was measured in minutes and hours. Now according to NATO the weapons ready time is measured in weeks and months. In addition there is no American air wing or Turkish air unit currently stationed in Turkey that is rated "nuclear capable"[1]. This shows how little these weapons mean to the US nuclear strategy. The impact of this is that because these weapons serve almost no military value or importance the US should remove them. [1] http://thebulletin.org...