BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Large companies should provide on-site daycare for workers or provide higher salaries

My opponent says that I am only allowing her to rebut my analysis of her as a debater. This is not accurate. She was always free to expand on anything she said. There was nothing I could do to prevent that. It was she who chose to type the words we see above. In my defense, the only time she ACTUALLY offered an argument was round three when she told us her story. I was able to refute that argument, and the rest of the time, she was either plagiarizing or was upset with me for pointing it out. The fact that I pointed out her plagiarism is not "mud slinging" nor "degrading". I was pointing out facts. This is no different than the childhood story entitled "The Emporer's New Clothes". Pointing out the Emporer wasn't wearing any clothes was simply stating the facts. FAIRNESS Is it fair for Con to simply refute arguments without making a negative case? Well let's see what the Debate.org tutorial has to say about this: "Answering Arguments A debater can "answer" an argument. What this means is they can tackle the argument directly to try to defeat it and prove it wrong, moot, negligible, or irrelevant. "Answers" specifically refer to rebuttals that undermine the argument or the strength of the argument itself. Under the idea of "answering" an argument comes a variety of different tactics: 1. Exposing logical flaws is one way to answer an argument. For instance, if an argument uses a logical fallacy (see "fallacies" section), pointing this fallacy out undermines the argument." [1] So you see, the rules of this website clearly say that one can answer an argument by pointing out its fallacy (if one exists). Pro's anecdotal evidence argument, and bare assertion argument are perfect examples of such an instance. BURDEN OF PROOF Since my opponent has never denied having the full burden of proof, clearly I have not failed to meet any burden (since I have none). NEGATIVE CASE Despite not being required to provide a negative case, it seems as though I have some characters to spare, so why not? The negative case is easy to make: Businesses, in today's economy, can't afford it. They are having a hard enough time paying for their employees healthcare, so they shouldn't be asked to take on an additional, expensive cost. It's estimated that over the next 10 years, up to 90% of businesses will drop employer provided health coverage. [2] Therefore, requiring them to take on daycare would only result in higher unemployment because they would have to fire people in order to afford to pay for it. This would make the current state of our economy worse, so this idea should be rejected SUMMARY OF THE DEBATE 1. My opponent plagiarized her first round argument. 2. Her only arguments were logical fallacies 3. I refuted all of her arguments, and went beyond what I was required to do and provided a negative case (with sources to support my argument). Sources: 1. https://docs.google.com... 2. http://www.Forbes.com...
Large companies should provide on-site daycare for workers or provide higher salaries

The only thing your allowing me to argue or rebut is YOUR ANALYSIS OF ME AS A DEBATER cause that is ALL YOU HAVE POSTED ! ????? I believe I HAVE presented a case for why I believe on site daycare should be provided at large companies. I could expand on it but I would need input of a opposite side but my opponent has instead elected to keep criticizing me AGAIN AND AGAIN and not presented their side of the agreement. They site they don't feel like it. Maybe in a criminal or civil case it is on the prosecutor to present ALL the evidence and the defense can just poke holes or cast doubt and don't have to present evidence if they choose not to but I don't think or believe that is how a debate should be run. Mud slinging to degrade your opponent or act as a smoke screen to your ignorance of the matters without presenting your views and solutions to such matters is whats happening in the Presidential election and I disagree its use there as well. If you win by using these tactic (shrug) oh well - I'll survive, I am comfortable how I conducted myself, and will keep on trucking - Its the American way lol
Large companies should provide on-site daycare for workers or provide higher salaries

1. My opponent said she is not a professional debater, and that she's going to make mistakes. REBUTTAL I am also not a professional debater. I too make mistakes. This isn't really relevant to the topic at hand, but I'm glad to find out she and I have some things in common. 2. Pro recounts her plagiarism from round one. She doesn't seem to understand the gist of what I said back then. REBUTTAL No one expects any member of this website to conduct their own case studies. All of us rely on the work of others. The problem arises when you attempt to pass off that information as your own thoughts. This is debate.org, not copy and paste.org. Copying and pasting is NOT an argument. If you would have put the argument in your own words, sprinkled in some statistics, used quotation marks, and cited your source, it would have been fine. That's what makes an argument. Without doing that, you didn't really make an argument, and as such, there was nothing for me to argue against. Also, since these debates are voted on, I was fair for me to point this out to the voters, as your plagiarism concerns conduct (one of the voting issues). 3. My opponent defends her use of her personal story. REBUTTAL Although I am compassionate towards your struggle, I have to say that it's not really impactful or relevant to the debate resolution. Remember, we're debating whether or not ALL employers of at least 150 employees should provide daycare for ALL of their employees. With this in mind, before we can begin debating the issue, we're going to need data involving thousands (or millions) of employees. You're one example isn't going to give us a clear enough picture to make any judgment. Remember, your first round offering doesn't count since it wasn't an argument made by you. I'm debating you, not the author of that blog. 4. Pro points out that although I have refuted her arguments, I haven't made a negative case on this issue. REBUTTAL I don't have to. Since you have the full burden of proof, all I have to do to win this debate is to refute your case. I still may produce a negative case concerning the topic (I haven't decided yet), but I am under no obligation to do so. I'm glad we got that out of the way. I will now await my opponent as she certainly will begin to make her own, relevant arguments.
Large companies should provide on-site daycare for workers or provide higher salaries

1st - I am not a professional debater nor have a law degree and thought this site was a open forum for general everyday people to politely go back and forth on issues - Im gonna make mistakes and take a more relaxed attitude in my debating becuae of this 2nd - I started with factual accounts in my first round as a groundwork - I apologized i didn't cite my source but as the research has been done, or I can only assume done by the source, I would infer they produced their numbers and views based on a large sample size. I can not nor can each debater PERSONALLY research and survey 100's or 1000's of varying individuals and groups to present statistics and numbers to support their argument. ( Im a single mother after all lol ) So I must rely on the internet/scientific papers and reports by other individuals or organizations. 3rd - I added my personal account to illustrate WHY I PERSONALLY believe the supporting evidence I presented earlier not as a deciding factor or statistic in support. Though I am sure my situation in not the ONLY one, I am not asserting it as scientific conclusion FOR the necessity of on-site childcare, just as WHY it is a necessity for ME to be a working American, which we need more of in this country for various reasons. 4th - I still contest that you have not put worth a conflicting side to the proposed debate ISSUE except for your conflict with HOW I have debated and therefor have not fulfilled your role as my opponent but has only fulfilled your role as an advisor on how you think I can be a better debater. I appreciate your advice but wanted to debate on the issue, not on the nuances of the debating form.
Large companies should provide on-site daycare for workers or provide higher salaries

I am encouraged to see my opponent finally offering some original content. I feel like this debate has finally begun, and I now have something to rebut. BURDEN OF PROOF Now that we've finally begun, let's take care of some housekeeping. As the instigator, and the one who is advocating for a change in the status quo, my opponent has the full burden of proof. In order to win, I am not required to make a case for why employers shouldn't have on-premise daycare. All I'm required to do is refute Pro's arguments and I automatically win the debate. REBUTTAL Despite the fact that I'm glad to see my opponent has stopped plagiarizing, I have to say I found her arguments less than compelling. The reason I say that is because every argument my opponent offered this round falls under the category of some kind of logical fallacy. It's because of this that her entire third round should be rejected by the voters. Let me explain: Logical Fallacy #1: Anecdotal Evidence My opponent spends the first half of her argument telling us about the difficulties she personally has paying for daycare. Although we all can sympathize with her struggle, this kind of anecdotal evidence is not trustworthy because the sample size is too small. Because of this, we are unable to come to any reliable conclusions. [1] Logical Fallacy #2: Bare Assertion The second half of Pro's argument did properly expand the emphasis of sample size. My opponent tried to make an argument based on the effects of daycare on a large group. Here's the problem: Pro offers zero supporting evidence to support her claims. This is a practice known as a "bare assertion". This type of argument should be rejected because it's an argument made without any support. Because of this, we have no reason to trust the claims of the argument [2] Sources: 1. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com... 2. http://toolkitforthinking.com...
Large companies should provide on-site daycare for workers or provide higher salaries

I apologized for that but you keep harping on it so ( shrug ) " I am a single mother with two kids, one with autism. Because of appointments, medical and behavior problems, I have to pay $12 an hour for babysitting with rates averaging $6-8 in my area for normal babysitting. That $18 an hour for two kids when the average wage around here is $9 minus taxes so about $6-7. I'm already $12 in the hole JUST BY VIRTUE OF WORKINg and spend hours doing menial labor and away from my kids affording them less quality time. And still when I get home I will have to clean, laundry, cook, get the kids ready for bed, and a host of other household tasks. Companies should pay a living wage that covers childcare for working parents or provide childcare on site. Many parents are called away from the office cause many schools nowadays don't have nurses on permanent staff so if a child is coughing or running a fever, instead of giving them medicine and keeping them in school unless their condition worsens, the parent is called and told to pick up the student. Also the child is not suppose to come back to the school till they are well forcing the parents to stay home with the child and losing money by not working or have to scramble to find a sitter that will take sick children, EXCEEDINGLY RARE, and usually hike hourly rates to $10-15hr and the parent ends up working the day to pay for a sitter. Company childcare onsite with a separate sick area would elevate this problem. " Source : ME Is that better ?
Large companies should provide on-site daycare for workers or provide higher salaries

As that one of the questions posed to voter is that the debater provided reliable sources, plagiarism don't not occur if works independent of the debaters are used as a source. I apologized for not citing my references and will make sure I do in future debates. Is it your view that unless the debater has performed the research themselves, they can not use them as a source to form their opinion and basis for their debate view ? Even if that is your opinion, by choosing to be my opponent you choose to present a view opposing the DEBATE QUESTION, which you have not done by the way, instead focusing on my use of source material in my debate and not presenting a opposing dialog.
This house believes Ice Cream is better than Pizza

My opponent forfeited,i'm not sure if he did that on purpose,but he could at least say something. Let's look at the nutritional values again. Pizza can be made without so much fat too. (i eat pizza that has low calorie values) For example pizza can have more veggies than mushrooms and sausages (which lowers the fat content). Secondly, you can make pizzas with less grease and sodium (from salt). Basically the calorie values are close. Apart from the pizza's fat content,it doesn't effect your organism that much. As for ice cream (especially chocolate ones),they can have high sugar content. It can also have very bad effect on your teeth,part from the cold,part from the ice cream itself (it can immediately cause a toothache). It also has milk in it,which has lactose. Some people are lactose intolerant. I guess that's why they switch to fruit ice creams. Pizza is in general very delicious,when you put ketchup or any sauce on it. Ice cream can be very delicious too, so they both can taste very good in their own ways,so when it comes to taste,it's a tie. (Pizza smells better though) Pizza does not fall apart,so you can eat it very smoothly and slowly,while you have to eat ice cream fast,because it will melt. Basically you can change pizza toppings if you like,while you can't change almost anything about ice cream. I think that both pizza and ice cream are very good (i like them both,who doesn't?!). But they are different foods. Pizza speaks for itself,and same for ice cream. I think you cannot choose from them. BUT pizza is slightly better for me.
This house believes Ice Cream is better than Pizza

I would like to start off with the nutritional values, firstly, there is 10 to 18 percent of fat in an average pizza wheras in a normal ice cream there are only 6 to 8 percent of fat. Also pizza is very harmful to someone and can easily lead to obesity if pizza is eaten regularly since there are lots of grease and salt in pizza which means a lot of calories! To be exact, there are 75 more calories in an average pizza than a healthier ice cream. Ice cream is also a very high source of calcium and has a range of healthy fats.
Ban islam

I read Quran many times. Of course it gives advantage to Mohammad and his Lord (Allah), of course Quran limits some woman rights and of course it orders to kill the non-believers. But believe me, it is no worse than Gospel, or any other religious text. It's like a hundred times I've been saying that the crimes committed against human rights in the Muslim World is not all caused because of Islam, but explaining of Islam by some fanatic groups or uncaring governments. However you did nothing but saying that Islam is not a religion but a fear cult. I think this is all about a story about Muslims that your uncle told you when you were little child and you are just a hater. Your argument is that Muslims in your society are just trying to seem normal to get work and get paid. However you never mentioned where Islam should be banned, in only western society or all over the world. So you do not even know about the topic you've been debating on. You want to name someone who lives on the other side of world devil's servant just because of your fear of strangers. Your hateful and intolerant opinions are also against human rights and make you no different from ISIS terrorists. And about the Muslim people in western society, they are probably strangers and immigrants and therefore should be tolerated like any other groups. Of course they are working for money, to feed their families. You say they hide their true faces in society, but what do you except them to do, kneel before you and be your servants? No is going to apologize you because they are born from Muslim parents. So let's stop being childish and accept that the opinion of banning Islam is no use and about the fear of strangers in general. This type of thinking would also cause antisemitism, hate of Gypsy people and any other intolerant against-human-rights opinions.
Ban islam

they are to be killed they can not leave.. and without being forced islam would die. that they are forced is the root of islam muslim females brains are melted away by fear.. the only truth is their fear muslims are terrorists btw, dont buy the mainstream delusions.. thats how your head eventually rolls with a smile on it apostates are to be killed, i see that your like your fantasy version.. just read a little bit of the quran and you will realize you know the rest of it from my equations muslims have to abide by the laws in our socities, and they need money, therfore we dont see the true color of islam.. which is pure terrorism, pure madness, in fact that purest madness that can possibly be imagined, as there is nothing worse than islam. allah is fear
Ban islam

I don't know what kind of imaginary are you in now but Muslims are not victim of Islam. You look at Muslims like elves in the Lord of The Rings look at the orcs. Sorry but this is the real world. Like most believers of religions in general through the world, Muslims just become Muslim because of their parents or society, that's true. However Muslim people choose to protect their ways of living when they grow up and live like how they learned from their parents. They believe that this is the true way of living. Actually they are right. It's easier to live a life which respects the society instead of trying to be different in general. So Muslim people are not victim of Islam, they choose to be Muslim. Because everyone around them is Muslim and that creates the Muslim society in general. Also Muslim parents want their children to have morals to study or work hard. And society generally needs everyone to have purpose of living. Muslims have advantage of Islam. Just like how the Christians do. Claiming that Muslims are victim is nonsense because in the countries like Turkey, Bosnia where the society is Muslim but Islam are not all effective on the government, Muslim people can just convert their religions to another and just go and live at another country. Well, in countries like Saudi Arabia or Iran, government actually commit crimes against human rights. However they are not the only countries who are harsh on their citizens. Also Muslim people trying real hard to soften the religious government effect on the public, and the Sunni Muslims consider Iran government as non-muslim. Religious government and society effect in the Western world should not be unseen by the way. In countries like Germany, Russia or even USA, a big majority of citizens are brainwashed by the religion so they are not tolerant against youth culture, LGBT, the believers of other religions, etc. They could be the actual victims of the God, couldn't they?
Ban islam

muslims are forced.. its not a religion... like eating food dosnt make your religious, yet you have to eat food.. christians can pick and choose banning islam will kill islam.. not banning it means muslims are stuck in islam with no way out, we need to provide them that option as anything bad that comes out of islam is on our hands.. muslims have no moral limit, they can do whatever to enforce islam, as well as you can do whatever to survive islam needs to die, and it needs to die fast.. banning it will kill it, and if not one day we will have to kill them all or submit ourselves to islam.. that is what islam is, convert or die.. and any muslim who dosnt follow that will be slain.. isis is an example of the real unristricted islam, not governed by our laws and need for money as they have to follow in our socities the only moderate muslim is when there isnt enough muslims to radicalize him.. the bigger point is muslims cant escape islam.. they are all victims, we need to ban it so they can escape islam, safely, or they can not unsubmit to the fear of islam, which is what being a muslim is, submitting to the rules of islam
Ban islam

Your argument looks like it came out of a fun-with-words page on Facebook. Anyway here's the deal: Islam is not as harsh as it seems from outside. Actually Muslims have divided their believes into different groups according to their way of explaining the religion. Following the death of Mohammad, two great groups showed up between Muslim scholars: Followers of the Hadis (Words of Mohammad) and Followers of the Opinion. Iraq was a multicultural region and there lived more open-minded people so Muslim scholars in Iraq were to do more than just copy the words of Mohammad when a problem about religion occurs. For example, whenever a social problem appears, Hijazi Scholars (Followers of the Hadis) just followed the words of Mohammad to bring a solution. However Iraqi Scholars had to debate on the problem, not only respecting the words of Mohammad but also respecting the conditions. This way of explaining of the religion later crated the Way of Hanafi. Hanafi Muslims today are considered as non-muslim by some of the followers of other groups. Hanafis explain the religion as pleasant as they can. They do not actually see Allah like a dark king who orders them to kill and die. They see Allah just as a superior being who created all and rejecting all other descriptions. Hanafi Muslims also consider harsh Muslims like ISIS as terrorists and non-believers of Allah. Another argument is that, although there are violent Muslim groups like Harijis, Shia or just like ISIS, not Muslims are the only people who criticize and act violently on the other. No one thinks that Christianity should be banned but Christian people murdered more than the Muslim for the religion. We have lots of examples of genocides committed by the Christian world through the history: Crusaders for example, they murdered thousands of people only during the Siege of Jerusalem (1099). the Inquisition, Teutons, genocides of the Indian people during the discovery of the New World, etc. To sum up, every religion or cult has its fanatic groups which commits crimes against human rights and therefore should be prevented. However banning Islam will bring no peace to world, it's like killing a whole body because it has a disease in the legs.