BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Kindergaten was better than High School.

It's true that what we learn in kindergarten is just as essential as what we learn in high school. That's not the issue. The issue is that kindergarten is extremely inefficient in teaching children. First, it teaches many children things they already know. Many come into kindergarten with a good understanding of colors, numbers, and or letters. Yet kindergarten still wastes the time of these kids, rather than having them be able to test out and take classes with new information. Also, kindergarten includes nap time. My opponent stated that nap time is necessary because some students are hoodlums and would be too rowdy without it. This is ridiculous - these same hoodlums don't simply disappear after kindergarten, and they don't suddenly need less sleep come first grade. There is plenty of time to sleep outside of school, and kindergarteners would be able to sleep during this time if they needed more sleep. Also, the soultion to kids being rowdy is not to make them sleep. It's like putting a man with pent up rage into a room all by himself for a few hours. If the kids were rowdy before the nap, they'll only be more rowdy afterwards, their lethargy having been taken from them. Also, let us not forget that High School gives students a choice of what to take, where Kindergarten does not. A choice is almost always better than none at all. So, in summation, kindergarten wastes students' time, high school doesn't. Kindergarten makes kids take classes with material they already know, high school doesn't. Kindergarten wastes time that could be better spent making the students take a nap. High school doesn't. Personally I wasn't usually even tired during nap time, and I doubt most of us were. It's completely unnecessary. There is nothing better about kindergarten. There is stuff better about high school. High school is therefore better. Keep in mind that even if you think I've only shown them to be equal, I still have won, as I simply have to show that Kindergarten was not better. Though I don't see how one could think that I've only shown them to be equal. Anyway, thanks for the debate, Pryor.
Kindergaten was better than High School.

But yo think about it!!!! You learned the basics in kindergarten!!!!! You learned how to interact with others You learned like I said earlier #'s, colors, the fundamentals that if you didn't have you wouldn't have been able to advance to high school in the first place... And dude this isn't a debate on how much you learned in the grade it's which is better!!!! And naps were a necessity because there were some hoodlum kids in the class that went crazy if they didn't have their naps!!!!!So naps were basically mandatory!!!!!
Kindergaten was better than High School.

Perhaps I was quick to call Kindergarten a "complete" waste of time. Perhaps there was something learned, perhaps there was some progress made on the road of education. However, the time used in Kindergarten is used very ineffectively. First, since it's so early in the schooling process, different kids know completely different things. Some people already know their letters, some people can already do some basic math, some people already know which colors are which. It just depends on what their parents have managed to teach them. The unfortunate consequence here is that some students have to waste time learning things they already know. On top of that, there's NAP time! This time is a waste for ALL students. They could sleep at home if they need more sleep in a day, and I'm sure their parents would appreciate that as well. High Schoolers don't need nap time, why do Kindergarteners? They don't. The time could be much better spent teaching the kids. On a side note, I was almost held back in Kindergarten. Not because I had not learned what I was supposed to; no, I was one of the kids they were boring through the whole year with information I already knew. They wanted to hold me back because I was behaviorally 'not ready' for the first grade. Luckily, not only were they wrong, but my parents knew they were wrong and refused. Just think though, there must be some kids who actually do have to sit through kindergarten twice because of such ill-founded reasons. This is an even greater waste of time, since the kid will already know everything. Also, consider if a child is actually struggling learning one of the main concepts of kindergarten. They might have to retake kindergarten because of this... ALL of kindergarten. High school is much more efficient here: students only retake classes they failed. They do not have to redo the entire year. Also, in high school, students have a choice of what to learn. This is another thing that makes high school better. Kindergarten is mandatory first because it has to even out the knowledge base of the kids. It does this an altogether ineffective way, though. Instead of letting students test out of classes, they force even the most knowledgeable students to sit in on classes they already have the knowledge from. This is a horrible system, as it makes very poor use of students' time. Perhaps they can do something I recall from third grade: if a student already knows, say, the basic math they teach, then that student can go to a special class that teaches something either more advanced or some nonvital information (in 3rd grade, we learned about architecture). That would make it a lot more effective, and, not surprisingly, a lot more like high school. High school and kindergarten both have the same goal - to educate studnets and prepare them for what lies ahead. Kindergarten does so wastefully, with nap time, redundant teaching, etc. High school does not. High school also allows choice of classes, another bonus. High school is better than Kindergarten.
Kindergaten was better than High School.

WHEN I STARTED THIS DEBATE i WASN'T EXPECTING TO GET TECHNICAL AS YOU HAVE; I'M KINDA NEW TO THIS WHOLE WEBSITE AND DEBATE PERIOD, BUT i'LL DO MY BEST. How was kindergarten a complete waste of time?!?! When you did in fact learn all of your basics in Kindergarten; such as your numbers, colors, and you learned how to interact with others in the right way. Being in High School is just a more complicated, more refined version of what you learned in Kindergarten. And if kindergarten is such a waste of time, why is it a mandatory stepping stone in your schooling life that comes FIRST before High School!?!?! Thanks for excepting this debate yo!!!!!!
Homosexuality should be discussed in sex ed

Your first citation is out to lunch. The study claiming that over half of teenagers are something other than purely heterosexual is flawed, read this article https://www.lifesitenews.com... You're describing things already taught. Teaching safe sex doesn't change depending on orientation, It simply involves condoms, other forms of protection, STD tests or not doing it at all. Schools already teach safe sex and why you should use a condom, it doesn't matter where the penis is going. Schools already do teach about barrier protection for both men and women, orientation doesn't change that. Schools don't teach the specifics of sex, the most mentioned is how a baby is made. Student's are already aware of gay sex, schools arn't going to teach the specifics of what goes where. The fact is kids are already to taught to use a condom to protect themselves from unwanted pregnancy and STD's, everyone is informed of the risk created whenever there is an exchange of bodily fluids or penetration. It's not that gay men arn't informed, it's that they're simply not using them and that's their decision after being informed of the risks just like everyone else. The solution to your problem isn't in changing the Sex Ed curriculum. Whether straight or gay, teenagers don't figure out how to "have sex" in what ever way they do from Sex Ed., they learn the specifics from the internet or each other. The only difference is the biological instinct for a man to mate with a woman and create successful offspring meaning that straight sex is generally more straight forward, this however still doesn't mean that schools should teach the specifics of gay sex to students, it's simply not their job and it shouldn't be their job. Parents should be teaching their kids to practice self control over their sexual urges, not having this can lead to bad situations in life. Teaching your kids how to have sex isn't going to get them anywhere good, this will simply encourage kids and makes kids more comfortable with sex at a young age (which isn't a good thing). The most a parent should teach their kid is to at least be responsible and practice safe sex if they do it, which once again doesn't change based on your orientation. You're thinking of something else. As I mentioned before, Sex Ed. already teaches kids what they need to know about sex, whether straight or gay. It teaches them safe sex, responsibility, consent, basic human reproduction etc. Sex Ed classes are often open to questions and discussion, if a question or discussion happens to be centered around gay sex it will happen and teachers will answer questions to the best of their ability. Teachers generally won't talk about the specifics of gay sex or straight sex like what goes where in what scenario or position, that's why kids experiment. Your argument talks about schools not teaching gay sex in their Sex Ed. curriculum, which is pointless as I have shown. Things simply don't change between straight and gay sex in terms of safety and protection until you get into the specifics, which schools simply don't teach for straight or gay sex.
Homosexuality should be discussed in sex ed

Homosexuality is a fact of life Less than 50% of teenagers identify as heterosexual meaning that gay, pan, bi etc.[1] youth are the majority are LGB+ youth. For us to not teach safe sex for these kids would be depriving them of the knowledge they'd need to make good choices. Consequences of not telling children about homosexuality 1 in 4 teens contract sexual transmitted diseases every year[2]. Teens are clearly sexually active. The least that we can do for them is teach them abstinence and how to have safe sex. The fact that gay men have the highest infection rate among people with HIV and AIDS[3] means that they need to be even more informed on why this is true and how to prevent it. It's the anal sex that causes AIDS. No the act of anal it's self but the tearing in the rectum. Someone infected with AIDS would pass on the infection to the partner because of the blood. That's why lesbians have the lowest rate for AIDS infection. Students need to know that and they need to know that wearing a condom can be all the difference between life and death. Homosexual teens are still teens Well this is a fact. Even if they have a different sexual preference they they are sexually active. Most lesbians don't even use dental dams most likely because they were never taught how to use one. Homosexual sex is still sex Sex education is defined as "instruction on issues relating to human sexuality, including emotional relations and responsibilities, human sexual anatomy, sexual activity, sexual reproduction, age of consent, reproductive health, reproductive rights, safe sex, birth control and sexual abstinence." Meaning that gay sex falls in that spectrum thus it should be taught. Parents likely cannot teach them what to do A majority of parents are straight. That's a fact. Only 6% of women even experiment in college[4] so it's unlikely that the parents would know too much about gay sex or the protections needed or even how to perform it. That's under the assumption that the parents even accept the child's sexuality or even know about it. A good percentage of teens are "in the closet" so there only place to turn is the internet which can be full of misinformation and unreachable expectations. It's far for a teen to learn from an experienced, educated individual in which they could trust. Citation [1]http://www.out.com... [2]https://www.dosomething.org... [3]http://www.cdnaids.ca... [4]http://www.medicalnewstoday.com...
Ronald Regan was a good president

1. Under Reagan unemployment went from 7.5 to 10.8 2. You have given no sources that that is true 3. Reaganomics DESTROYED family income for the middle class and the poor. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... 4. No we are not experiencing peace. ISIS? Al-Quedia? Turmoil between Iran and Saudi-Arabia? This might be the most dangerous time in US history after the World Wars and the Cold War. 5. We aren't experiencing peace with the soviet union! The Soviet Union DOESNT EXIST ANYMORE! The Soviets retracted from Afghanistan because Al-Qaida funded by US drove them back. But we now created one of the deadliest terrorists organizations now! How is that good? 6. Thanks to dictatorships. We literally placed dictators to screw the people living there. 7. I don't like the military being big. Your opinion doesn't really change anything. 8. Again this is a opinion. It doesn't show how anything was good. 9. No sources. No nothing for your statement 10. What? Source? No sources? 11. Yes except for the fact we instilled dictatorships in Central America......... Yay! Sources: http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Ronald Regan was a good president

1. President Reagan"s economic policies stimulated the economy, creating 17 million new jobs. One-fourth of the new jobs were created in 68 consecutive months. Black unemployment was cut in half. 2. We were given incentives to save our money, to work, and to invest because of Reagan"s tax reforms. 3. The inflation rate decreased to less than 4.4%. Family income rose 12%. 4. We are now experiencing the longest and strongest peacetime prosperity in the history of the nation. 5. We are experiencing the best peacetime relationship with the Soviet Union in our history. We have also seen the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan. 6. We are now keeping the peace. We drew the line in Grenada, Libya, Afghanistan, and the Persian Gulf, and no countries have fallen to communism during the Reagan era. 7. The U. S. military was refurbished and strengthened. 8. There is now a call for prayer in schools. The Republican adminstration has been lobbying to give this deserved religious freedom. 9. We have seen a return to traditional values. Under Reagan, we have seen a cut in federal funding of abortions; emphasis on a strong family unit; and the development of family-oriented public policy. 10. Educational leaders are now working to sustain moral values and reestablish a clear understanding of right and wrong. The need for values in the curriculum has been trumpeted by the Reagan administration. 11. People from other nations are flocking to America to follow our example. Our principles of civil and economic freedom are now being copied all over the world.
Ronald Regan was a good president

Uh I didn't mention Carter except when it came to the failure of Trickle-Down which needed a comparison. Ronald Reagan did not control inflation. He did the opposite http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com... And again Reaganomics only helped the rich https://www.bing.com... Because he lowered the federal income tax he did not have a bank to pull out money from to spend therefore he just spent money TRIPLING our deficit The escalation of the War on Drugs led to millions more incarnations which led to trillions of dollars going to jail facilitation http://www.cnn.com... Increasing military spending ripped away spending on welfare and social programs in general. Thousands of people went hungry and slept on the streets because of this Voting rights act? Seriously? If Reagan didn't do that he would be shunned and like I said before he said he wanted to veto the bill in the first place. His own words "The Bill would humiliate the South" http://www.ontheissues.org... Firing workers who want to have a better quality of life is literally the opposite of a accomplishment Appointing the first female supreme court justice. Actually this one is very funny. Reagan was actually opposed to women being in the supreme court but his ADVISERS told him it would be popular with the women so he did it http://www.ontheissues.org... Foreign policy Yes Reagan removed Democratically elected communist government and supplanted dictatorships in their place. Yay! No wait. Your actually condoning giving weapons to Al-Qaeda and the Contras.... okay. The invasion of Grenada was actually used to detract attention from soldiers getting killed in Beruit. Yes the president of the United States started a war just to detract attention from his failures. http://www.examiner.com... The suggestion of reducing arms in the world is liberal so I'm okay with that. Yes president Reagan funded both the dictatorship theocracy or Iran and the terrorist groups of Nicaragua. So smart right? Source: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com... http://www.truth-out.org... http://www.cnn.com... http://www.ontheissues.org... http://www.examiner.com...
Ronald Regan was a good president

This is not about Carter. This is about Regan, please stay on topic. You say that he was a bad president, but look at some of his accomplishments: Domestic accomplishments of President Reagan: Developed "Reagonomics" (supply-side economic policies) as a means of controlling inflation and spurring economic growth through tax cuts, reduced business regulation, and reduced growth in government spending Lowered the federal income tax rate significantly with the signing of the bipartisan Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 Escalated the War on Drugs campaign and specified a mandatory minimum penalty for drug offenses Increased spending on national defense and diplomacy and ushered in a close to the Cold War Reauthorized the Voting Rights Act of 1965 for another 25 years Signed the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, which compensated victims of the Japanese-American internment during World War II Fired 11,345 striking air traffic controllers who illegally went on strike in 1981 Appointed Sandra Day O'Connor as the first female Supreme Court justice Foreign policy accomplishments of President Reagan: Reversed the US policy of detente with the USSR and developed the Reagan Doctrine in support for anti-communist rebel movements in Afghanistan, Angola, Cambodia, Nicaragua and elsewhere Provided arms and other support to anti-communist groups such as the Contras and the mujahideen, and sold arms to foreign allies such as Taiwan, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq Invaded Grenada after a 1979 coup d'etat established an independent non-aligned Marxist-Leninist government Launched a series of air strikes in Libya in 1986 in retaliation for a bomb explosion in a Berlin discotheque that resulted in American casualties Negotiated with Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev to initiate a substantial reduction in armaments levels worldwide Negotiated the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) to substantially reduce nuclear arms and initiated negotiations with the Soviet Union for the treaty that would later be known as START I Presided over the Iran-Contra Affair of selling weapons to Iran and using the proceeds to fund right-wing Contra forces in Nicaragua
Death Penalty

Not going to add much, since my opponent forfeited the round. But here's a link to this relevant page: Death Penalty kills the innocent as well as guilty. DNA tests tell us half of all deathrow inmates are innocent. (sic.) http://officeofstrategicinfluence.com... And here's a paragraph from there: "Frank Basil McFarland was executed for a rape/murder despite multiple inconsistencies in the state's case, altered evidence, purchased and coerced testimony, and suppressed evidence of guilt. After execcution, he was found innocent by DNA testing." (sic.)
Death Penalty

I have no philosophical/theoretical/moral objection to the death penalty. I'm not familiar with Leal Garcia, but I'm happy to assume for the sake of this argument that he's a bad person, that we'd be better off with him dead. My objection to the death penalty is practical. I was a lawyer. I have seen much injustice in the courts. Routine injustice. Lying cops, lying prosecutors, lying judges. Ignorance of the law you wouldn't believe. I once had a judge reject a speedy trial argument on this ground: "We don't do Constitutional law in this court." I saw a county judge tell the state court of appeals that they didn't have jurisdiction over him. I saw a judge say that he has "general policy" of refusing to set bond. A friend saw a judge tell a defendant, "Now, don't you go crawling off to some higher court!" Ask any lawyer you know: he'll tell you that he knows judges who, for lack of sense or judicial attitude, should not be judges. Every trial is a coin flip. The only way I expect justice from the court system is on average. That is, a guilty person may be acquitted this time, but he'll probably be arrested again, and he may be convicted that time; an innocent person may be convicted this time, but, if he's really a law-abiding type, he may not ever get prosecuted again. The court system is so unreliable that it shouldn't have the big gun. One study used DNA evidence to test the guilt of executed people. In _most_ of the cases it tested, the executed person was innocent. Irretrievably dead, but innocent. That's our court system at work, when it has the death penalty. We don't need the death penalty for deterrence; life imprisonment probably works as well. We shouldn't use the death penalty.
Death Penalty

(http://www.npr.org...) I wanted to say that we have to clear our planet from them. Leal Garcia's execution was absolutely right decision. People like him mustn't live in our world.. He kidnapped and raped 16-year-old girl! I know what parents of this girl felt at that time and I think that they wished to revenge him for spoiled future of their daughter. This really important and right decision helped them to calm down for a little bit. In my point of view, this kind of crime is disgusting and terrible. It is really horrible that we can't catch some of these violators and execute them. On the other hand, every year quantity of people, such as Leal Garcia, are increasing, but the places in jails and colonies are decreasing day by day. The question of their providing is forever, and I think that it is absolutely not beneficial to the government. That is why I think that execution of these people is really important for our future! If you do not want this story with the girl has occurred in your family, vote for execution!