BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Uniform should not be banned

Well, According to k12directoryofschools.com •Increases academic performances – wearing uniform causes students to focus more •Behavioral Issues reduced – students behave more appropriately •Social outcomes improved – wearing own clothes causes social conflicts. Uniform brings in neutral zone. •Affordability – they are affordable than a large wardrobe of clothing. According to idebate.com •Uniform are comfortable to wear. •Students don't waste time on choosing clothes before school. •Wearing uniforms can't cause crimes. •Uniform are cheaper to afford than other similar clothes. •Students are equal with uniform, who cares of what their background is. •School uniform can satisfy religious and cultural needs. Example – A Muslim girl, who are not allowed to show their legs because it attracts men/boys, can wear long trousers and long sleeved shirt in school colors rather than wearing skirts as regular females do. According to bbc.co/uk •Uniforms show discipline According to Muslim Razi •When a student wears his own clothing, which can make other students laugh, they can be bullied •If personal clothes get dirty with stain marks that can't be removed, it is a big trouble and it might even be expensive. •Reduces talking with other classmates •Increases identity of a person – (why?) Teachers can know who did what and who they are? According to teenink.com •Personal clothing can make you more popular but with school uniform, you are equal as everyone •Uniform can be less expensive than normal clothes •Uniforms prevent alcohol, drugs, and crimes •Uniforms are for us to do well in school According to ths.gardenweb.com •Uniform does not show poor background •Make things in school calm with uniforms According to ezinearticle.com •Wearing uniform can stop activities because of colors •When wearing personal clothes, people can annoy you if they think it is ugly •More time to rest and have breakfast According to greatschools.org •Uniforms encourage discipline •Helps student resist peer pressure to buy trendy clothes •Help identify intruders in school •Increases sense of belonging and school pride •Improve attendance According to mylot.com •Uniform can show identity and what school they are from According to cm.quazen.com •Prevent inappropriate words, materials being worn to school According to isfaq.com •Easier to dress up •Cheaper to buy •Show equality •Adds to overall discipline of school (no bullying, teasing etc.) According to aschooltime.com •Students will not be distracted by word written on classmates shirts or pants •Parents would spend less cash on clothes rather than buying designer pants •Students will have less indication what to wear in the morning to school According to articlesbase.com •Students thinking of uniforms as work clothes can get them more attention to their work instead of thinking of ‘play clothes'. •Distracts students by looking at other students and their own rather than doing homework or class work or tests •Uniforms are less expensive than normal designer clothes •Wearing uniforms can help build the school spirit •
Uniform should not be banned

Refutations:1. Cheap uniformsMost uniforms are ties, expensive sweaters and slacks. These are some of the most expensive clothes.2. Wear a jacket. Some schools have strict dress codes and this isnt an option.3. Some schools require that you buy their uniform.4. DistractionI don't know about you, but I don't find myself awkwardly staring at people during class. If anything, the boring atmosphere of a dull classroom would bore kids more.5. Social statusIt would show if people are poor or rich if they can't afford the clothes or not. Plus, cheap clothes are basically the same as expensive clothes, but made with different materials which would have to be carefuly examined to find out.6. MuslimsExactly. With uniforms, girls might be forced to show their legs due to the type of uniform, and would violate the Muslim law or whatever you're referencing. Freedom of choice allows people to choose appropriate clothing for themselves, or their religion. This point is conceded.I'd like to review my opponents points.1. Refuted2. Refuted3. Refuted4. Refuted5. Refuted6. ConcededThanks.
Uniform should not be banned

Well.... you said they are expensive but most uniforms are actually cheap. Also on difficult weather conditions, you can wear a jacket right???? Those are not part of uniform but i mean outside. Also non-uniforms can cause crimes because of gang colors. Also well, if the uniform can't fit you they give, why not you just buy your own with same colors nothing different (for pants). For shirt well, it will fit for most people or you can arrange special arrangements with the seller to make the uniform fit you. Isn't that simple. Also, it distracts other people such as: When students like other peoples clothes, they just stare at them instead of paying attention to the teacher or doing the test which can ruin your overall grades. And also people are all equal. It doesn't show people that if they are poor (by their poor clothes) or rich (by their expensive clothes including gold, silver, diamonds etc.). Also for religious reasons such as Muslim girls can't show their legs nor they can't see boys legs and stuff. Muslim boys are never allowed to see girl's leg because either it can attract them or cause sexual abusing. I will expand this more later on. Saving more :) I got a bunch
Owning a Hummer H2 is not justified.

God knows there are plenty of people out there. Also, this will b very difficult if I am debating someone who does not believe in global warming, but I am perfectly willing to. The quantity of large trucks that are only used to get around cities, and never see real usage in America is a problem, but in this debate I am focusing on the extreme of this tendency: the hummer. All the time, I see super shiny Hummers driving around. Upon first glance, it is easy to determine that these trucks, most likely, are not regularly used for the serious work they are built for. I find this disgusting. I truly hope not to offend anyone reading this by saying this, but it seems quite obvious to me that the real reason that most people (excluding the small minority that use their hummers well) purchase these trucks, are because they think they look cool. Strangely, we live in a society where people associate themselves personally with their automobile. They think of it as themselves. An inslt to their mode of transport is strangely a personal insult, taken at face value by the owner of the automobile. This is why people buy trucks that they really need; why singles who don't have any kids or any immediate family to which he/she lives with, and hardly ever leave their nicely paved town own H2's. The Hummer H2 is, of course, based on the Humvee, a military vehicle. People, like small children, think that Humvee's and the perceived glamour of war that they represent, are very neat, and purchase one and drive within their tiny activity space, with absolutely no need for it's power, exempt to boast about, and to feel a false boost of self-esteem when they can proudly dump tons of co2 into the air. These people do not use this war machine for work, usually; it is merely used like a regular car, never exploiting its capabilities. It is used as a way to commute within a regular activity space…. get to work…. get to school…get the mail down the street. The Hummer H2 has a weight over 8500 pounds, and so they are not required to meet the fuel efficiency level. ON top of that, they are not even required to release it's fuel economy. It has been estimated at around 10 miles per gallon. Based on General Motor's claim of 13 miles per gallon, ONE H2 will produce 3.4 tons of co2 in one year. That is extremely bad for the environment. This machine dumps loads of gas into our atmosphere, and this, of course, has very negative effects. Also, we are running out of oil. This is not a renewable resource. We are running out of oil, and it does not help when people use such a powerful and inefficient machine for transportation. And finally, it is very dangerous to have a war machine on the road. This machine is built for war. That is simply how it is designed. OS when you implement this into a busy and crowded society it can be very dangerous. To be fair, I believe this might have been an H1, but it is essentially the same deal: . http://www.youtube.com...
I should win this debate

First of all, Pro should win this debate because Pro is, of course, number one. Pro is number one and also, is indeed the best. Pro knows a colleague named Victor, and to the victor goes the spoils. Therefore, unless Con is named victor, Pro shall win this debate. Pro is the smartest person on this website, so that means that Pro should win this debate. There is no reason why Pro will not win. Pro has a dog named Mordecai, so obvious he should win this debate. Pro has a self-cleaning oven, that also leads one to believe that the winner should be Pro. The address of Pro's house is 1, and the street Pro lives on is First, these two factors combines to insure the definite and deserved victory of Pro. In this debate, Pro has chosen the funnier picture to represent him as his avatar, thus proving that Pro should win this debate. Coffee requires three packets of sugar, not two, which means that Pro should win this debate. The Earth goes around the Sun and not the other way around, so of course the winner is Pro. Pro should also win for the simple reason that Frankenstein was THE NAME OF THE SCIENTIST AND NOT THE MONSTER. There is no reason why Con could beat Pro in this debate.
I should win this debate

I, Pro, will be arguing in favor of me winning this debate. You, Con, will be arguing against me winning this debate. To clarify, the debate is about whether or not I SHOULD win this debate, not whether I WILL win this debate. Percentile, odds, probability are not factors to be considered in this debate. In this debate, we will refer to ourselves in the third person (Pro, Con). This round is the acceptance round, do not post your argument upon accepting. The next three rounds are debate, the last is closing argument.
I should win this debate

Con had fun. Pro continues to make assumptions about Con's gender. Con considered physical fitness when choosing to own a car or not. Walking is good exercise. Con most likely walks more thus being more physically fit and healthy. "Conclusion: Prolonged sedentary time was independently associated with deleterious health outcomes regardless of physical activity. " Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(2):123-132. doi:10.7326/M14-1651 Con cites more sources than Pro. Con cites a scholarly peer reviewed source. Pro cites no scholarly peer reviewed sources. Pro makes distasteful statements about more material wealth being grounds for superiority. Con shows consideration to environment and people in other countries. . http://annals.org... . http://annals.org...
I should win this debate

Con concedes his inferiority to the lowly peasants of south America and even his inferiority to the environment. Pro realizes that he is of main importance in his purchasing decisions and because of this higher importance, Pro should win this debate. Con cannot win this debate because he considers the feelings of random foreign workers he does not know to be higher than his own ability to travel. While Con reads Greenpeace to obtain the information needed for consumer decisions, Pro uses his mind to calculate how much it will cost to own a Chevy Suburban rather than say, not to own a car at all. Pro relies on his own judgement and wealth to make personal financial decisions. Con only considers the 0.0000000001% effect on the climate while driving a car, and the "support" for a company that "enslaves" workers in a far away land that was worse off before GM got there. With greater intelligence, as well as a dog named Mordecai, Pro should definitely win this debate.
I should win this debate

Pro shows no consideration for the environment. Despite significant scienfic evidence that the threat of global climate change is real. Pro supports the motor vehicle industry by being a customer. An industry that time after time has resisted regulations that would result in a cleaner environment. Not only that but buys cars from manufacturers who failed to stop slave labor in Brazil. " The good news is today the pig iron industry has committed to changing its ways- all seven pig iron companies in the Brazilian state of Maranho agreed to not source wood charcoal that comes from slave labor, forest destruction or invasions into indigenous lands. For years the industrys progress or efforts to address these issues was ineffective and only symbolic." Greenpeace.org "General Motors owns: Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, and GMC. GM owns a controlling interest in Opel and Vauxhall in Europe and Holden in Australia. (The U.S. Treasury Department is in the process of selling off the remaining GM stock holidngs.)" consumerreports.org "There are still a handful of companies in neighboring Para state who have not signed any commitment and continue selling pig iron (with all its negative impacts) to the U.S. Weve found that the worlds leading auto brands, such as Ford, GM, Nissan, and Mercedes, have been using steel made with this pig iron. " Greenpeace.org Pro buys a SUV from General Motors. Con owns no car. Clearly Con should win the argument because Con holds the moral high ground. http://www.takepart.com... http://www.imdb.com... http://www.greenpeace.org.uk... http://www.greenpeace.org... http://www.consumerreports.org...
I should win this debate

Con owns a desktop, which of course is behind the times as it cannot be transported, unplugged, or adjusted as a laptop can. Con also implies that he does not own an SUV, which means that Con is not as good as Pro. Pro understands that owning an SUV means you cannot swerve as if you were apart of a Fast & Furious movie. Pro also understands that owning an SUV costs more in gasoline, insurance, and maintenance costs. However, Pro is more financially successful than Con and thus is able to afford "$100 more than small-size cars". This means that Pro should definitely win the debate. Pro probably makes more money than Con, thus Pro should win this debate. Con cannot and should not win this debate, because he does not own (A an SUV, (B a laptop, or (C a dog named Mordecai.
I should win this debate

Pro makes assumptions about con's identity. Pro claims to drive a SUV. There are many criticisms of SUVs. "Because SUVs release more emissions than an average car, they are criticized for doing more damage to the environment. " Posted on Autos.com Editor in Car Buying on October 7, 2013 "However, the size of the SUV is a major drawback because it can roll over if the driver takes a sharp turn." auto.com "SUVs are expensive to insure. Insurance companies take into consideration the likelihood of accidents, the higher repair costs, and the fact that an SUV will damage another car greatly if involved in a crash. On average, insuring SUVs will cost owners about $100 US Dollars more than ensuring small-size cars." Wisegeek Pro claims to own an expensive laptop. Despite desktops having greater bang for their buck in terms of processing power versus cost. "However, if you want the most bang for your buck and portability is not necessary, a desktop is likely the best choice especially if price is important" computerhope.com Also a desktop is easier to repair and upgrade than a laptop. Con hereby states he/she owns a desktop. Clearly Con is more savvy in his/her purchasing decisions. http://www.autos.com... http://www.wisegeek.com... http://www.computerhope.com...
I should win this debate

Con does not have any claims to the victory of this debate. Nothing more than three sentences could be posted as his argument. Pro has many claims to victory and none can be disputed. For example, Pro has a Acer Aspire V Nitro which is arguably the best PC on the market.(1) Also, Pro drives a 2014 Chevrolet Suburban, the best value full-size SUV on the market.(2) Pro also likes the color chrome, while Con probably only likes very dark green. Pro also has picked his photo from the movie Idiocracy, one of the best movies.(3) (1) http://www.cnet.com... (2) http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com... (3) http://www.debate.org...
should public schools teach creationism

The concept I am trying to promote is that evolution is the model that is accepted by the vast majority of scientists and therefore that is the model that should be taught in public schools. Opposing view points to the evolution model should be discussed as well but only based on their scientific merit. The religious aspect of creationism could certainly be taught in an elective class on world religion but not in a public school curriculum because where would you stop? There would not be enough time even in a full school year to teach in full detail every religion as not to be discriminating as creationism is only one small aspect of Christianity and the subject would take quite a long time to discuss. also to learn about religion properly you could also go to a church or youth group.The curriculum in schools should not be based on religious beliefs it should be based on science.
The Bible Teaches a pre-Adamic Creation

My opponent's entire case rests on the fact that Genesis 1 & 2 are contradictory if they are talking about the same events, to which I agree. I will be arguing for a very simple explanation known as "JDEP" or the Documentarty Hypothesis. Firstly, we must note that the language is ENTIRELY different. In fact, the name for God has also changed drastically. In the first chapter, the word for God is 'elohiym which can literally be interpreted as "Gods. " [1] However, when we get to the second chapter it become Yĕhovah 'elohiym which literally means "Yahweh of the gods. " [2] I believe that there is a logical explanation for this. We both know that Moses did NOT write the Documentary Hypothesis, which is comonly called, "JDEP" [3]. The fact that the language of chapters 1 & 2 change drastically are proof that they are not of the same author. Here are just some more proofs of the JDEP and what you need to explain without it: Why humans are created twice (Gen. 1:27, 2:7ff. ). Why Noah is commanded to take two of every animal (Gen 6:17) and then seven of every clean and two of every unclean (Gen 7:2). Why the seams between the two creation accounts and the two flood accounts also divide perfectly the similar language that is used in the creation and flood accounts. Why in one text (Num 12:4-15) the tent of meeting is outside the camp, and anyone can go to it, and in an earlier one (Num 2), it is in the center of the camp, and only the priests can enter it. And why these two texts preserve similar language and textual allusions to other similarly divided texts. Why in the flood account it is proclaimed that God limits man’s days to 120 years, but in Genesis 47:9 Jacob says he lived 130 years and Abraham and Isaac lived even longer. | CONCLUSION |The creation accounts are VERY contradictory without JDEP. My opponent needs to prove that Genesis 1 & 2 were written by the same people, despite the blatant contradiction and the overwhelming evidence for JDEP. I believe that both are referring to the same event, but written by TWO people. Bibliography[1] Strong. "Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon. " Blue Letter Bible - Home Page. Web. 14 Sept. 2011. . http://www.blueletterbible.org.... [2] Strong. "Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon. " Blue Letter Bible - Home Page. Web. 14 Sept. 2011. . http://www.blueletterbible.org... [3] "Documentary Hypothesis. " Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Web. 14 Sept. 2011. . http://en.wikipedia.org....
The Bible Teaches a pre-Adamic Creation

I agree to these terms, however, I'm so sure I need to reconcile all contradictions betweens Genesis 1 and 2 to show there was a pre-Adamic race. Proving that there was such a race (according to the Bible) doesn't entail reconciling all possible contraditions. It only entails reconciling those contradictions which would argue against such a face existing. But nevertheless, I'll do my best to reconcile any possible discrepencies Con presents; honestly, I don't know of any...Good luck to Con.
The Bible Teaches a pre-Adamic Creation

Thanks. You impress me too, you make me do a hell of a lot of research. Btw, I read the thing on prophecies at infedels and I actually had both an article on that from Farrell Till himself, as well as a debate on it between him and Norman Geisler (don't think I got the last name right...) So I just want you know its not that I haven't looked into this. I must admit, this is one of the better arguments the skeptics have; its even stronger than the argument from evil.
Can anything with mass time travel( meaning from one point in time to another instantaneously)

When time traveling with cosmic strings, you aren't literally on the string. The most promising idea is to fly in a figure-eight around two cosmic strings, which would not shred the strings. We could theoretically manipulate the strings to be in the ideal position for this (1). It creates a time curve. The speeds needed to benefit from this time loop would not necessarily flatten mass, especially considering this is regarding the future. We will have much more advanced technology. Regardless of the dangers involved with traveling at the speed of light (And who knows, a future civilization might redefine mass in a way that makes this possible, but probably not), you don't have to travel at the speed of light to benefit from time dilation. Cosmic strings can help us achieve time dilation more efficiently than just drifting around in space, but we do not have to be close enough to travel at the speed of light. (1) http://www.andersoninstitute.com...
Can anything with mass time travel( meaning from one point in time to another instantaneously)

Yes it is theorized that cosmic strings could allow time travel, but the theory is that it is because moving along these strings would be the same as moving at the speed of light, it would be impossible for anything with mass to do so (assuming they exist) because the string would be shredded by the force. The reason not only life cannot move at this speed is because ANYTHING with mass would be flattened by air pressure and friction among other things. If we are talking external forces allowing us to time travel then you could also say wormholes would do the same as cosmic strings. To this I would say that for among same reasons wormholes would also fail to succeed in allowing mass to travel in time, an extra reason they would fail is due to the same as black holes all mass would additionally spaghettify all mass.
Can anything with mass time travel( meaning from one point in time to another instantaneously)

I believe that it is theoretically possible for mass to travel through time. To address your first claim, there are many reasons why the current population may not have met time-travelers. The most obvious possibility is that time-travellers are encouraged to dress for the time period, and not make their time-traveller status known. It is also possible that no one in the future cares enough to visit this current time period. Another possibility is that some mass can travel through time, but it is deemed too dangerous for human life. Overall, it is not logical to claim that something is theoretically impossible because there is no interpretable evidence of it. The most promising method of traveling through time is through the use of cosmic strings. These are faults in the flow of the universe, hypothesized to be the result of the big bang. They have not been proven to exist, but it is definitely theoretically possible. These strings could be used to harness time dilation.