BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Choose the topic

An elephant is an animal [1]. It is IMPOSSIBLE for an elephant to learn English and it is equally difficult for an elephant to learn English [2]. Since it is impossible for an elephant to physically speak or write it is therefore impossible for me to be an elephant. I will now put this into a premise and conclusion based argument:P1: Elephants are unable to speak and typeP2: This has been typed by meC1: It is impossible for me to be physically referred to as an elephant. Assuming that we are referring to the argument in an offensive sense (ie. calling somebody an elephant as an insult), them I am also not an elephant. Since my opponent does not know me, he has no justified reason in which he can refer to me as an elephant. My opponent is a believer in God and of an Abrahamic faith (which I am too), so we can find similarities with eachother (on top of our age). This means that if he calls me an elephant in an insulting way, then he essentially insults my characterists/beliefs and by doing this he insults himself [3]. No sane person insults themself [4]. I will now put this into a premise and conclusion based structure similarly to how I did so previously:P1: My opponent does not know me.P2: Insults are personal.C1: My opponent is not justified in insulting me.P1: Based on our limited knowledge of eachother, we are similar.C1: By insulting me, my opponent insults himself.Apologies for the brevity of my round however at this point there is not much that I can add due to the fact that this debate essentially revolves around a series of truisms that all fall in my favor (sorry about that). I understand that my opponent has argued based on the Republican Party however since this is for my case and arguments I will not refer to this at the current point in this debate. I will do so in my rebuttals.Thank you for initiating this debate. Vote Pro![1] https://www.google.co.uk...;[2] http://www.findingdulcinea.com...;[3] http://gulfnews.com...;[4] http://www.mind.org.uk...;
Choose the topic

P1- the Republican Party"s mascot is the Elephant P2- While part of a group you are called what the mascot of that group is C1- If you are part of the Republican Party, you are an Elephant P3- My opponent is part of the Republican Party C2- He is considered an Elephant P1- This is common knowledge, but here is a history lesson" In a cartoon that appeared in Harper's Weekly in 1874, Nast drew a donkey clothed in lion's skin, scaring away all the animals at the zoo. One of those animals, the elephant, was labeled "The Republican Vote. " That's all it took for the elephant to become associated with the Republican Party. Source: . http://www.factmonster.com... P2- This has no statistics to back it up, however using examples we can show this". Example: Sports Teams If you are a part of a sports team, you are classified by their mascot" For example, if you play for the Anaheim Ducks, you are a duck. While you are each individually recognized by name, you are a duck, your team is called the Ducks. Example: Colleges If your alma mater is a college say, Virginia Tech" Then you are a Hokie. If you went to USC then you are a Trojan while you may not be from Troy and a Hokie is not a real thing" You are considered the mascot because you were a part of a group. C1- So, since the Republican Party are the Elephants, and if you are a member of a group, you are classified as their mascot. .. Then, if you are a member of the republican party, then you are an Elephant P3- My opponent is a member of the Republican Party Saturday, January 03, 2016 10:21 AM Online:Right NowName:- Private - Updated: 1 Week Ago Gender:Prefer not to say Joined:3 Weeks Ago Birthday:- Private - President:Donald Trump (Republican Party) Email:- Private - Ideology:Not Saying Education:Not Saying Party:Republican Party Ethnicity:Middle Eastern Relationship:It's Complicated Income:Other Interested:No Answer Occupation:Not Saying Looking:Friendship, Networking Religion:Jewish From <. http://www.debate.org...; C2- So my opponent is an Elephant Good Luck to my opponent!
The Christian god sends aborted babies to hell.

My opponent will argue that it doesn't. Rules: 1. Assume god exists. 2. Must use NIV Bible when quoting from the Bible. 3. BoP is on Pro. 4. Assume the Bible is 100% truth. Note: This means that if the Bible claims that Joseph can walk on air, we may not argue that he couldn't walk on air. If the Bible says that Joseph said, "I can walk on air" we can argue that Joseph couldn't actually walk on air. 5. Assume the dichotomy of afterlife which are heaven and hell. 6. Assume the afterlives are mutually exclusive. 7. Assume that god sends the "soul" of the person to heaven or hell when they die. 8. No kritiks. 9. Rule breaking results in a loss. This topic usually elicits a lot of responses in the comment section. Please be mature and reasonable. If you begin a comment and start making unsubstantiated claims and being overall disrespectful, expect a very condescending comment back from me. If you are mature, I will treat you with respect.
The Christian god sends aborted babies to hell.

ConclusionAlthough I still think that I'm correct about this topic, I don't think I did a great job at defending my position. I could have done much better, but I didn't really try hard. I underestimated my opponent. He did a great job. Please vote for philochristos. #concedingAlso, if you would like to, I would be willing to debate you on whether or not original sin exists, which was at the heart of this debate.
Did I write this wrong? "It's not your fault when you were born poor but when you died poor""

"It's not your fault when you were born poor but when you died poor" Does this statement says a wrong idea or somehow inappropriately stated or constructed? To my judgement, this can be considered as okay but some of my fellows insist it's wrong and it's should be "It's not your fault when you were born poor but it's when you died poor". My statement here put the omitting into consideration which I believe express the same idea to the other. Let me hear yours.
Schools Should Stay Public, Not Online

To address Cons Statement about me not using sources to verify what I said about the problems with social behavior and negative peer pressure, I do apologize. On the other hand I felt that it was common knowledge to most of the kind of behavior that goes on in public school considering that most of us attended public school. Onward then... As for con making regards to the benefits of dealing with peer pressure, yes I suppose people who resist the tempting of their peers may fare better later on in the same situation, but what of those who fall victim? Should we ignore the fact that many fall into a life of drug use because of their peers despite however many don't? Of course not. This wont be a problem with online schooling. It is likely that because of influence from online health courses the student will resist offers to participate in drug use because of the uncorrupted knowledge they received pertaining to the harms of many types of drugs. My opponent makes a very good case for certain career courses like cooking classes and fashion design. What he ignores is that even though he may have these programs at his educational institution, these programs are not offered in most public schools. When they are not offered they may be available in other ways such as community courses or in private business. You can take apprenticeships with chefs and designers for those who are truly interested. Lastly I would like to express my feeling that the main academic focus hear should hopefully not be culinary arts and fashion design. These careers are not what the majority of students will pursue and therefore a majority will not need. Though, as I have covered before, the academic needs of these students can be found online.
Schools Should Stay Public, Not Online

I will use this round to further back up my previous arguments and provide further information to give another stand point on the topic. In round one, argument stated that students introduced to public school are more susceptible to violence and drug abuse due to peer pressure. " Many students are hurt by their peers because of pressure to participate in drug use or criminal activity" While this may be true, this prepares students for what they will see after school. A student with no experience with peer pressure wont be able to easily say no to this unlike a student who has dealt with the same peer pressure his entire life. I would also like to point out that in round one, Pro did not supply any sources stating the above statements to be true. I again thank him for continuing the debate, and I have some further arguments to add. Entire industries can rely on these high school courses that can only be taught in the classroom. Of these, fashion design, home construction, drivers education and culinary arts classes can only be taught hands on. Taking these courses online wouldn't be able to give you the proper amount of skill and knowledge needed to take this into the real world situation. Having a fashion design class online would be a futile attempt to learn anything. Culinary classes may be taught using recipes on the other hand, but would be difficult to master without the guidance of a supervisor. These are just a few examples of classes that require a hands on education to take out into the real world. I appreciate the responses given here and I await Pros response. . http://school.familyeducation.com...
Schools Should Stay Public, Not Online

Thank you con for the swift response. I will go over some of what Con has said. "In home schooling and online schooling, teachers are not always certified to teach the required material"I would like to affirm the debate topic that, 'Schools should Stay public, not online." That being said we are debating whether or not schooling should be done online. Not by the parent directly or some tutor that comes to the home. Secondly Cons point about teacher qualifications are not backed up with any evidence. His source simply states that home schooling teachers may not be as qualified, " Teachers are not always qualified to teach all subjects" - http://www.educationbug.org... It states nothing about lecturers or instructing that can be found in online institutions. It may even be said that online teachers are more qualified. Online teachers usually require at least a masters degree in their subject and many online institutions ask for some in class experience. They require exceptional review, communication, and computer program skills. Cons statements about college admissions for students are unfounded. He gives no evidence to back up his claim that, "whereas if they were enrolled in a public school, the student would have a better chance at being accepted into college." As I stated in previous arguments the social problems that can derive from public schooling can hold kids back from getting into college or even cause them to drop out. If a student can finish school earlier online and with more focus than in public school there would seem to be no reason to deny them acceptance over a public school student. There are also numerous colleges that offer online classes and programs who may look favorably on a student who received a high school education online. Also, students who receive their education at home online can register for the SAT and take it wherever it is administered. They can use it when applying for college the same as public school students. To address Cons comments on extra curricular activities and their benefits to students: It is entirely possible and more likely to pick up time management, leadership skills, and responsibility working at a job than just an extra curricular. County sports teams are also almost always available to online students who may want to participate in sports. Other than that many communities have social clubs and events that take place outside the public school system. To say any of these opportunities would be unavailable to them anywhere else is silly. I await Cons responseOnline teaching qualificationshttp://education-portal.com...
Schools Should Stay Public, Not Online

I appreciate the arguments posted by Pros, and I will use this next round to further back my earlier statements. As Pros stated in round one, I have not provided any arguments based on academics and test scores for Homeschooling/Online School vs. Public Schools. In many circumstances, homeschooling and online schools are much more expensive than public schools. This drain of money can lead to financial crisis, but this is not the main topic for this argument. My main point for this round will be the education differences. In homeschooling and online schooling, teachers are not always certified to teach the required material. This would cause the teacher to have to learn along with the student, in an effort to be able to teach the right material. If the wrong material is being taught, then the student cannot hope to do well on test scores. In order to be employed at a public school as a teacher, you must be qualified as a teacher in your subject and have at least a bachelors degree. Being able to specialize in one specific topic would be more beneficial than having a teacher who teaches you all topics, not having a specialty in any specific one. This specialty gives students the chance to learn from an expert, instead of learning from a teacher who knows little about the subject besides what the textbook provides. Aside from teacher qualifications, colleges more often than not have stricter admission policies to those that are home schooled. This not only allows the student to not be able to enter the college of their choice, but this also allows for other students taught in a public setting to beat them out for it, whereas if they were enrolled in a public school, the student would have a better chance at being accepted into college. Being home schooled also does not allow for a student to participate in extra-curricular activities, academic or likewise. Studies show that students who participate in these activities not only gain life skills such as time management, leadership skills, and responsibility, but these also show that those students achieve higher SAT and ACT scores. Online and homeschooling does not provide the student with these opportunities. I list my reasons above as to why education in the school cannot be matched by that in the home. The information on teacher qualifications was found here: http://www.educationbug.org... My other main piece of information about extra-curricular activities, was found on this article: http://professionals.collegeboard.com... I again thank the Pros, as he has taken u my offer of debate, and am excited to see what he will come back with.
Schools Should Stay Public, Not Online

Schools moving from a public setting to an online setting will only serve to make students less social. Taking away the environment of learning in a public space with their peers will only lead to hurt the actual learning experience that cannot be achieved anywhere else besides public school. Without the skills that are learned in school, a student cannot possibly hope to lead a life in the real world. The skills learned in school such as teamwork, communication, and team building cannot be taught by a computer. While taking a school system online may take away distractions of the classroom, students will need to learn how to focus in the real world when the office distracts them. Without learning how to handle these distractions early on, the student will not be able to focus at a job until he/she picks up that skill later on in life. Learning online is not nearly as effective as learning from a teacher live and in the flesh. Watching videos may not answer all the questions that a student actually has to ask, therefore leaving that student confused and wondering what to do. If the student can't handle the basic topics taught at the beginning, then they will have an even harder time learning about the topics that build off of that idea. Not only do schools systems teach valuable life building skills, they also allow for students to have a social life outside of technology. Making friends is a necessity for any child through young adult. Without this social interaction, it leads to loneliness, and despair. The social interactions gained at school can be hard to find anywhere else in the world. Despite making friends, schools have one downfall, which is bullying. While this may be a terrible reality, bullying helps students prepare for the real world. It toughens up the students for the workforce. Without bullying, students would grow up to be too sensitive to work. This hardship of bullying builds character and self-esteem in the victims, showing that they can stand up for themselves. The character building made by a bully may be cruel, but it is essential for growth and development. With schools moving to online, none of these topics would be able to be covered by a computer, no matter how powerful the system may be. Public schools contain necessities that can't be obtained anywhere else.
The term "funner" is an appropriate word.

Main Argument 1:The term 'funner' is not appropriate, but it is not inappropriate either, It is just not grammatically correct.Sub argument 1: The word fun can't be comparative or superlative. In this case, you would have to add the word 'more' before the word to make it comparative, and to make it superlative, you would use 'most' before the word. The term is also informal to use in writing and speaking terms, but how you use the word is dependable. For example, if I was writing a business letter to the president or someone else important, that is considered informal and not something to use in formal writing. Instead you would use 'more fun' or 'most fun', but if I was writing a friendly letter, I could use slang in my letter because it is casual. Examples:A incorrect comparative sentence: The girl is funner than the boy. A correct comparative sentence: The girl likes to have more fun than the boyA incorrect superlative sentence: The woman is the funnest person in the room.A correct superlative sentence: The woman is having the most fun in the room.Conclusion: The term 'funner' is informal and considered as slang.
The term "funner" is an appropriate word.

I humble thank you for accepting this argument. I shall lead to my points of argument. 1) Many people use the word fun as an adjective in everyday speech. While I can agree it did start as a noun, it has evolved into becoming acceptably used as an adjective. (ex. This was a fun day. OR This is a fun place to be) . Merriam-Webster Dictionary has written that the term fun is used as an adjective and has been in use as an adjective since 1846. Since fun is an adjective and it has one syllable, it should be grammatically correct that its preceding terms would "funner" and "funnest". http://www.merriam-webster.com... 2) Many words that are very informal, and in some cases not even words, have made it into the dictionary. An example of this would be the word "whatevs". As defined in Oxford Dictionary, it is an adverb and the abbreviation of the words "what ever". I, myself, am a student right now and I see the word as much more informal than funner which if you ask anyone, will say the reason they don't use that word is because it is informal. This leads to my second point which is that the reason funner isn't accepted as a word is that it has a negative connotation of it being informal. This issue is a psychological thing. People were raised thinking that fun is a noun and can be used as a noun modifier. However, language constantly evolves but it seems that people's mentality towards it hasn't. We have words like "whatevs", "totes", "po-po", and others yet we can't accept fun as an adjective which has been used like that for over 160 years. To conclude, the reason most people don't see funner as a word is because they were raised thinking that it really wasn't. However, as said before, if "whatevs" is considered to be an official word than I think that "funner" should also be as well.
The term "funner" is an appropriate word.

I wish to lay down some ground rules for this debate. 1) Since I am not making an argument in this round, the opposition has two choices. He may accept and make his points in this round. If he does so, on the final round, he shall write "This section shall be left blank as stated in the agreement" to ensure each party gets the same number of rounds. The alternative choice is that he may write "I accept" and I shall state my points in the second round. 2) Forfeiting a round will mean that said person has admitted defeat. If one has no points of argument but wishes to continue the debate, they may write "I shall leave no points of argument and allow my opponent to continue. " 3) Failure to comply results in a forfeiture of the debate.
The term "funner" is an appropriate word.

Main Argument 3: "It has been used for hundreds of years... has been in use since 1846" Sub Argument 3: Since you have mentioned it, words used from hundreds of years ago might be in a grammar and word choice back then, but today is different. Some words in the Merriam- Webster dictionary might change, in other words, the text copyright might change each year. This means that the words could change each copyright. The term might have been at use back then, but now, people know the right grammar. That is why people don't say the term anymore. The popularity of the word means people use it a lot. Again, thank you for debating with you. Conclusion: Words back then might not be used now.
The term "funner" is an appropriate word.

Thank you for the quick response and I'm sorry for such a long delay. Now, on with the debate. "Not every one syllable word has to have -er or -est. In fact, some two or more syllable words could have -er or -est. " If you can show me a couple examples of EACH that is used in everyday language, especially on the "not every one syllable word has to have -er or -est" part, and I will acknowledge this point. You did not provide any examples that can validate your point. "You could find the word funner in some dictionaries, but adding more and most make sense. " 1) You have acknowledged that funner is a word thus adding to my argument. 2) I beg to differ that adding more and most makes more sense. While I can admit that it is up to personal preference, when saying funner and funnest, not only is it grammatically correct, that is how people have been saying it for many years as said in my first argument. "Merriam-Webster Dictionary has written that the term fun is used as an adjective and has been in use as an adjective since 1846. " "For example, the word popular has to have more and most. " This is because that is how you are supposed to make adjectives with two or more syllables into their comparative and superlative forms. This does not support your argument. Since this is my final argument, I shall highlight my main points. 1) It has been used for hundreds of years. ". .. has been in use as an adjective since 1846" 2) It is considered a word on many dictionaries. "Merriam-Webster Dictionary has written that the term fun is used as an adjective. .. " 3) While slightly informal due to its history, since it is an adjective as stated above, it is still grammatically correct. "An adjective that is one syllable adds the endings -er and -est respectively. " I thank you for your time and hope to see your last debate.