BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Airport security is too extensive

I hope we will bring up some good points that are worth to be considered. I consider the great amount of security at airports to be rather redundant. One of the few purposes for the increased amount of security is the seemingly looming terrorist threats caused by few events that could maybe have been prevented, had the places they happened at more security measures. However, while those security measures might have prevented great events such as 9/11 or London's bombings, the vast amount of public places and other transportation systems that are crucial to local infrastructure makes it impossible keep high standard of security up in general. Such attacks are by definition caused by civilians who intend to disturb the public with horrible actions. They have no intention of saving themselves and are therefore devoted with their lives to harm others for whatever purpose they might follow. The next horrible attack might happen at a concert or a public demonstration. Increasing security after such an attack is a sign of desperation and all it does is limit the freedom of the people. I also see no point in prohibiting items such as small knives from airplanes. While it surely is possible to harm someone with them, it hardly is possible to threaten the lives of many with them. We can bring knives to other places such as trains, I see no reason why a plane should be treated any different than a train in that regard. One could argue that a terrorist could hijack a plane by threatening to harm someone with that small pocket knife. If one really wants to make a plane secure against hijacking one way of achieving that would be making the doors to the cockpit cabin impossible to open during flight by plating them and whatnot. That would surely be more efficient and less expensive and annoying. All in all the high standard of security might prevent some attacks that will just happen elsewhere instead. I see it as a reaction of fear.
Airport security is too extensive

Airport security seems to be very important and media follow any security breaches very carefully. What's up for debate: It seems somewhat redundant to me that airports have such a great security while other public places where masses of people tend to be have little to no security at all. Considering how many people have access to planes and how it's very possible to abuse certain weaknesses and so forth it seems rather redundant to me to have such a great security at all. I realize that airports can be lucrative points of distribution for illegal substances and other criminal activities and I don't want to debate security issues that concern those kind of things. This debate is about the extensive search for items that can be harmful in any way, flight black lists, background checks and other checks that as expensive as they are annoying. I feel as though planes are overrated when it comes to terrorism. I personally am not sure what position I have on this matter, which is why I started this debate in the first place. Rules: 1. Polemic tricks are to be avoided. Be nice as taught by Sesame Street. 2. All factual statements must be supported by sources. 3. Sources must be credible and easily accessible. No, wikipedia is no credible source. 4. The first round is about the rules and position of each side. Save specific arguements for later. I hope someone is willing to take the position as my opponent and I hope he'll be able to shape my opinion on this matter.
Religious/Ethical Circumcision is not Male Genital Mutilation

Amputation refers to removing a limb, and when a baby is born, they cut the ambelic cord do they not? Maybe we should let them decide to have this cord removed at s later date, in the mean time we will leave an unhygienic price of flesh that serves no purpose but to hold bacteria on it, until it rotts off. If you take this logic to it's ends, it is thoroughly absurd.
Religious/Ethical Circumcision is not Male Genital Mutilation

I can argue the 6th finger analogy; don't chop off any body part unless it is affecting the health of the child. Just don't. It's not hurting them, so why bother? If he or she wants it removed at a later date, let them. That's not a hard concept to grasp. Same goes for the foreskin. Not issues, no need for amputation.
Religious/Ethical Circumcision is not Male Genital Mutilation

My opponent claims that there is no other reason for circumcision other than that "G-d hates foreskin," then that it somehow denies people the right of bodily autonomy. First of all I never heard that G-d hates foreskin, that's not a thing. Second of all there are many reasons for circumcision, first of all it reduces STDs by 60% {1}, it is also easier to clean. Circumcision does not deny boys bodily autonomy, if a baby was born with a 6th finger that was only skin and was subject to infection, looked gross, and served no purpose, they would most likely cut it off. {1}.https://www.theguardian.com...
Driving age should be lowered

Are you talking specifically about the USA? If so, could you define what you mean by immature and how that affects driving abilities? The majority of states allow an option of a permit at the age of 15, this gives the ability for those under the driving age, to drive as long as they have an adult over the age of 21 with a valid license. Would receiving a permit at 15, also be considered an age that's immature? Also you use the phrase "most people", so would you consider that for some people, meaning the people not included in most, are mature enough to drive?
It's perfectly acceptable and normal for 4 year-old girls to date adult men

Acceptable, I don't have a choice there. Normal, ABSOLUTELY NOT. How many times have you seen 4-year-olds dating old men? "Girls of age 4 should be encouraged to make their own choices about life and be encouraged to spend time with people they like. " The parents have the authority to make choices. "explore herself and others in a safe way, " Exploring random 60-year-olds doesn't sound safe. "4-year-old girls are already mentally developed for a relationship and perfectly capable of dating adult men. It is within their rights to date adult men if they want to. " The girls brain is not fully developed till age 20ish. That is when they should be mature enough to decide for themselves. But not at age 4.
It's perfectly acceptable and normal for 4 year-old girls to date adult men

4 year-old girls are already mentally developed for a relationship and perfectly capable of dating adult men. It is within their rights to date adult men if they want to. Girls of age 4 should be encouraged to make their own choices about life and be encouraged to spend time with people they like. This sometimes includes spending time with adult men, Which can be a lot of fun and beneficial for both. What if a 4 year-old girl wants to play with a 60 year-old man, But her family disapproves and forbids such a relationship? That family is clearly toxic and bad influence on the 4 year-old girl. 4 year-old girl is perfectly capable of choosing who to play with, And as such should be given the opportunity to explore herself and others in a safe way, The way in benefits both her and the adults she is spending time with.
Wealth and laziness

Well i can say in my personal opinion - I have experienced the opposite - i have met a plethora of underprivileged people utilise the fact they have had a horrible or poor upbringing to dodge their responsibilities and instead "be themselves" - which until that point, "themselves" had been smart, athletic and high in potential. This site is filled with people who have their own personal opinion. One of the first lessons i had joining this site is the following : 1. Disassociate yourself from the subject - your perception is not always to be trusted. 2. Find the point that you have, and build on it with facts and knowledge. At the moment you have the first part of 2 down pact - you have vision of this issue. Branch your vision out to check your validity, and you may have stumbled on the fact i found - PEOPLE are lazy. Rich, poor - religious or atheist. People are people regardless of their titles, and it is US who are lazy. On the whole, good debate here friend, your points were good, but blinkered - otherwise give it some time :-)
Wealth and laziness

I will say in my personal opinion people who live on welfare are rich in s sense. I believe it was my lead then wealthy up bringing that made me a better worker. I've had a job since I was 14 worked 32hrs a week by the time I was 16. (Not trying to brag) I worked hard because of I wanted anything including good I had to. Where as a wealthier parent can simply but their kids what that want. I also think wealthier kids to better in school because they don't have to work but that's a different debate.
Wealth and laziness

Okay, I understand where you are coming from. I had not intended Criminal in my definition, but i can see where you read that - Sorry, I will be clearer in the future. I can put that back at you by saying many children who come from low to medium level income households are in the same boat, and yet they use the "Dole" - or public welfare money - to achieve their aims (Usually to stay at home, playing CoD and smoking bongs! haha). The fact that the wealthier people do this too, does not mean that they are more likely to stay at home mooching of whoever they can - People do that in whatever way they can - we are inherently selfish in that regard. I will actually use that point, to show you that people who are wealthy and stay at home - Are less of a problem to society, as the money they use to fuel this, is their parents money - as opposed to Tax Payers money. From that, I would maintain that Children from Wealthy family do not mean they will be lazy - Lazy people will be lazy, they just happened to be rich in that scenario.
Wealth and laziness

Due to the large range of open remarks here - i will place some clarrifications - Pro, please verify your next round if you accept. My interperetation : Children who were raised in 'successful' (i. e. High income households) family, grow up to be a detrement to society, they use their inherited wealth to not step up and contribute to society. My stance on the matter : Agreed, this CAN happen, but the statistics show a different resolution than my opponents. Pro, can you please confirm if you wish this to be a debate with Sources, or will we just use our minds and information we have found elsewhere (If you want comments at that point, we can shoot each other the sites through comments) - How does that sound?
If war is murder, than it should be legal for anyone to murder anyone.

I would like to deeply express my thanks to lovelife for excepting this debate. I hope this is both a fun and educational experience for both of us. Full resolution: Assuming war is murder, then it should be legal for anyone to murder anyone. ==================== Definitions: WAR: A conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air. (1) MURDER: According to this debate, the act of killing another human being and any scenario. (2) LEGAL: Permitted by the law. (3) ==================== My opponent lovelife has said in another thread that war is Murder. I replied that if war is in fact murder, than murder is necessary. She responded with: "Then it should be legal for anyone to murder anyone, not just because they live in a certain place or dressed a certain way." (4) Lovelife also agreed that she would be willing to debate this topic for me. Obviously this debate is more focused on the question "is war a necessity." We are simply using the example lovelife brought up 'anyone to murder anyone.' I ask that my opponent simply says 'I accepts this debate' for round one. I will start the actual debate in round two. Again, I would like to thank my opponent lovelife for accepting, and would also like to thank the audience for reading. I look forward to the rounds to come. Sources: (1). http://dictionary.reference.com... (2). Lovelife's philosophy. (3). http://dictionary.reference.com... (4). http://www.debate.org...
If war is murder, than it should be legal for anyone to murder anyone.

I want to start by once again thanking my opponent for this debate, its been interesting. I will keep this plain and simple as I can. If war is legal, so should murder on a smaller scale for the same reasons. I don't think a country would go to war because someone stole a bunch of bicycles, and certainly not children. If it is justified to fight a war for religious reasons, it would also be proper to kill someone for religious differences. Just because the number is larger, and its somewhere else, and someone else's problem, does not mean it is less wrong. I agree war is needed sometimes, so is murder. If you have someone come on your property and try and kill you, you have a right to kill that person, no different then a government. Lets say something happened such as the attacker killed himself and the victim. The family of the victim does not have the right to find the attackers house and treat the people there the same way, or worse. Government should in turn not have that right. My opponent t claims I contradicted myself, my point was not what a terrorist is, but what people consider terrorists. People can now say that anyone they don't like are terrorists and in the war against terrorists, they will fail to see the REAL threat and find a reason to attack, torture, and kill gay atheists opposed to the war. I never meant for it to be a definition, just a case. My copy and paste links were meant to show what happens in war. You can't just say "well that happens sometimes but not always. .. " It happened then, it happens now, and the only way to end it is to end war, not just a specific war but violating a country's right to live. War is not any more justified then vigilantism. If it is okay for the government to attack another government, then a person should be able to attack another person for the same reason.
Is food supplements are unnecessary to health

To begin, Please clarify what you mean by general health. People with different diets, Diseases, And cultural backgrounds require different nutrients. Diet: Strict vegetarians cannot get B12 from plant based products. You could choose not to be vegetarian, But this doesn't disprove the need for supplements if the person remained vegetarian. Disease: Pellagra, Rickets, Beriberi, And Scurvy are all nutrient deficiencies. Some quantities so low, They cannot be made up with diet alone. Culture: Access to food matters. Since people have a range of available options in the USA, People are less likely to be malnourished. In other places in the world, They are not as fortunate. They may have a smaller variety of food which decreases lifespan (https://health. Clevelandclinic. Org/eating-the-same-thing-every-day-4-reasons-to-increase-variety/). They may or may not have access to these supplements, But that does not disprove the need for them. However, I will concede one point: In the United States on average, People are having problems with too many vitamins as opposed to too few. Supplements combined with food can cause vitamin overdose (hypervitaminosis) and this can be harmful to health. That doesn't make them less necessary to those who need it. I look forward to your clarification on what you mean by general health.
TheLwerd is a decent human being with a good head on her shoulders.

On theLwerd's profile, it says "I'd like to think that I'm a decent human being with a good head on my shoulders. Feel free to debate me on it if you disagree." I take that challenge. I am going to be taking multiple routes of argumentation. Definitions (from Merriam-Webster) Decent: conforming to standards of propriety, good taste, or morality. Conform: to be similar or identical. Good: of a favorable character or tendency. On: used as a function word to indicate position in contact with and supported by the top surface of . Head: the upper or anterior division of the animal body that contains the brain, the chief sense organs, and the mouth. (see http://kottkegae.appspot.com...) Neck: the part of an animal that connects the head with the body. (see http://www.wunderkabinett.co.uk...) Shoulder: the laterally projecting part of the human body formed of the bones and joints with their covering tissue by which the arm is connected with the trunk. (see http://tell.fll.purdue.edu...) Contention 1: theLwerd is not decent, since she does not conform to traditional standards of morality. For example, she believes that gay marriage should be legalized even though only 33% of Americans agree with this position (http://www.pollingreport.com...). She also supports abortion, and if you search "abortion" on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com...), you will find far more anti-abortion groups than pro-abortion groups. It seems clear that the conventional sense of morality is that both gay marriage and abortion are wrong, and yet theLwerd supports them, so how could she be conforming to moral standards? These are only two examples. Contention 2: theLwerd's head is not good. Even though "good" is subjective, just look at her profile picture. Its all warpy. Does that look good to you? Contention 3: theLwerd's head is not on her shoulders. In fact, her head and her shoulders are separated by her neck, and therefore her head cannot be considered "on" her shoulders. Note: If any of these three contentions remain standing, then I will have won since all three points are included in the resolution and all three must be affirmed.
TheLwerd is a decent human being with a good head on her shoulders.

1. Decency Many folks, such as these people (http://nefworldwide.files.wordpress.com...) would not agree that my opponent is respectable. They believe that "God hates [her]". This is a widespread and well-respected movement. I agree that morality is not measured by a majority opinion, nor do I believe that the majority is always correct. But let us revisit the definition of "decent": "conforming to standards of propriety, good taste, or morality." To conform is to be similar or identical to majority ideals or opinions. My opponent therefore does not conform to moral standards. It is true that the majority is not the only standard, but it is the strongest and most noteworthy standard, and which must be conformed to. 2. Good Head (sicko :P ) No rigorous proof as to the goodness of a head can be created. However, it can still be widely agreed upon that a warpy head is not a good head. For example, facial expressions are difficult. It is hard to fit through doorways, and conform to the conventional idea of beauty. But my opponent has brilliantly found the only small flaw in my argument: that the head on her profile is not actually her head. You can see an actual picture of her head right here: http://www.debate.org... However, I still contend that it is not a good head. Notice that, since my opponent is Pro, she is the one making the assertion that her head is good, and it is up to her to prove the very thing that she declared subjective. But I will point out various problems with her head. Notice that her eyes are exposed (besides her glasses, which are not part of her head). If she had a protective film over her eyes, they would not be so easily blinded. And look at her ears. They are underneath a thick layer of hair, inhibiting her hearing ability. Her head is not good. 3. Head and Shoulders I can indeed prove that my opponent's head is on her neck. See photo (http://www.debate.org...). Additionally, said condition is very rare, so it is unlikely that she has it. My opponent tries to modify the definition of "on", which, remember, she accepted. She admits that her head is not in contact with her shoulders, and is therefore not "on" them, therefore conceding this contention and the resolution. Resolution negated. I look forward to my opponent's surely intriguing response.
It's Irrational to Believe Evolution and Creationism Simultaneously

I believe it is possible to believe in both. Here is my argument: Creationism does not always have to be related with the Christianity's perspective of something created something and ta da, We are here with no change. Just perfect (I. E. , God manufactored Adam and Even to reproduce humans). Creationism can also mean that perhaps aliens put us here, Perhaps our cells orginate from asteroids that crashed Earth long ago, Etc. By that logic, Something "create" life here. And life existed on Earth. Evolution also said we all have a common ancestor so it is safe to say, That common ancestor, In a sense, Can be "god" because it is the original. Now "creationism" is a starting point for us. Evolution is something that changes life over long period of time. For example, Based on the environmemt, Such as brown bears, When living in a cold, Snowy environment, Over time by reproducing, Eventually a mutation happened that change the skin or fur color to white, Thus creating polar bear. To recap: you can believe both simultaneously because creationism= a start, Evolution = the result of what was created being changed over a long period of time.
It's Irrational to Believe Evolution and Creationism Simultaneously

I will be arguing that it is irrational for a person to believe both evolution and Creationism simultaneously. I will be using the common definition of irrational: not logical or reasonable. 1) Creationism is based around God manufacturing Adam and Eve from raw materials using magic. 2) Evolution clearly demonstrates we evolved from ancestral species and there were never only two humans. 3) One cannot believe both 1 and 2 simultaneously and be considered rational; they are conflicting views. Round 1) Acceptance/Opening argumentsRound 2) RebuttalsRound 3) Rebuttals/Conclusions
free will without metaphysical

I challenge any one to support the existence of free will without the existence of metaphysical. Burden of evidence, is primarily on me on me. It is my job to show that it cannot exist without Metaphysical last response is not for new arguments but rather for response, clarification and summarization. I obviously cannot prove it 100%, but rather that it is more likely that my position is true. My argument is that without anything metaphysical the human is as far as we know made up of atoms. Logically any result has a cause. logically any cause will always have the same result. now, assuming there are 2 choices of decision "a" and "b". These decisions are results. as every occurrence/happening is a result. In a purely physical world, a decision would be a certain arrangement of atoms, most probably in the brain. Lets call the cause, "c". now if "a" or "b" is to occur "c" must have preceded it if "c" the cause preceded it then the result is dependent on "c". "c" as a cause will always have the same result if so there is no room for free will.