BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
School Uniforms

Uniforms are worn in most aspects of life e.g. work, sports, recreational groups, etc. Uniforms can be highly stylized e.g. military, religious, team, etc, or socially conventional in appearance e.g. suits. The school uniform allows students to develop a common identity, to develop cohesion as a body, projects a "professional" image onto the community to which it belongs, and removes the appearance of social disparity. Schools aren't there just to fill students full of facts and figures, but also to prepare them for their future working lives and living within the society to which they will eventually contribute. I agree that, "an outfit doesn't help you learn" because, whether the "outfit" is a uniform or non-uniform, it is not a teaching aid. However the benefits of wearing a school uniform contribute to making a more conducive environment for educational purposes.
It is unlikely that any extraterrestrials have ever visited earth.

Con has convinced me that my argument is not very good, so in my judgment, he has won this debate. But just to keep it interesting, I'll give him a little feedback.First, I think his probability assessment is flawed. I've been reading about probability when applied to modus tollens, and it's quite a bit more complicated than simply multiplying the probability of each premise to get the probability of the conclusion. However, he is right that I need better than 51% probability for each premise, and I suspect 71% is close enough.It is true that alien races could use remote probes and such to locate life-permitting planets, but if those probes discovered life or planets with a high probability of having life, they'd have to send that information back to the home planet, and then there would have to be a voyage undertaken. So I don't think this solves any problem for Con as far as time and distance is concerned.Moreover, Con suggests the possibility that advanced aliens might've stopped using radio communication. If so, then it's hard to imagine how they would communicate with their probes. Besides, the mere possibility that some advanced civilization no longer uses radio technology doesn't do much damage to the probability that they still use it. All "possibility" does is remove certainty.While it's true that the life-density of the galaxy is unknown, all we need for my argument to work is for the intelligent-enough-to for-interstellar-travel-life-density of the galaxy within 50 light years or so to be low or non-existent. And we can tell that it probably is from SETI (depending on how thorough SETI's searches are, and Con doesn't seem to think they're very thorough).That's about all I have to say. Thank you, likespeace.
It is unlikely that any extraterrestrials have ever visited earth.

Pro will claim that it is unlikely that any extraterrestrials have ever visited earth using this argument in a nutshell: 1. If any extraterrestrials have ever visited earth, then they probably live within 50 light years of earth.2. It is unlikely that any extraterrestrials capable of traveling to earth live within 50 light of earth.3. Therefore, it is unlikely that any extraterrestrials have ever visited earth.Pro will have the burden of proof in this debate. I only need to debunk his arguments. By "extraterrestrials," I mean living intelligent beings who originate somewhere in the universe other than earth. By "living," i mean living in the biological sense, so I'm not talking about angels, demons, ghosts, spirits, or gods. By "intelligent," I mean conscious, sentient, etc. I do not mean "smart." To simulate the original debate structure (Pro, Con, Pro, Con w/o new evidence)--Round 1: Con (this). Pro states his case. Round 2: Con/Pro debateRound 3: Only Con speaks (but no new evidence) Motivation: While Pro's argument is interesting, I don't believe that Con made the best rebuttal, and look forward to a debate that more closely examines the truth of the matter.
a penny is worth more then a dime

-As I have been ever so diligently been trying to prove, a penny is indeed worth more then a dime.- -It costs .0126 cents US to create a penny [1]- -If this is true then this would mean that in order to make a penny.. it would cost more then the value of a penny to create.- -Moving onward to the dime within the same source.- "Other currency, such as dimes and quarters, costs much less to make. "[1] -Ah, the smell of a rushed debate.- -Anyway I believe that con now owes me 7 internetz and a lifetime supply of cheetos. VOTE for PedRO- [1] http://www.wisegeek.com...
Soccer is the Greatest Sport

<< >> The same is true for soccer. Soccer's popularity is mainly foreign and the more Americans hear about it, the less popular it becomes in America. Not only this, but popularity doesn't make a sport higher in quality. This was my point: That popularity doesn't make quality. You haven't offered a definition of greatest, and therefore mine will have to be accepted as the true definition. Following this logic, your burden of proof is to prove that Soccer is the highest quality sport, which you haven't yet. You have just said: 1. Soccer is the most popular 2. Soccer is more widespread 3. Soccer is played at lower levels more often None of these prove that soccer is the highest quality sport. Therefore, I have won this debate off of this alone. Additionally, you must prove that Soccer is greater than each individual sport. Even assuming you won all the arguments, you haven't yet compared soccer to baseball or basketball or hockey. Bringing up any new arguments or points in your last speech would be highly unorthodox and frowned upon. Therefore I have won the debate. << >> I agree with this. The more people you can play with, the more fun it is. However, I would argue that sports in general don't have a set amount of people required to play them. Most sports you can play with about 6+ people. Soccer doesn't uniquely require more people to play it, if anything football or baseball does. << >> Ah, but to play Soccer, you require goals of some sort. Sure, you can use trees or something, but it's best with goals. With football or baseball, you don't really need anything besides the ball (and bases in baseball, which are easy to get). Therefore, the universal ability to play the sport actually isn't the highest in Soccer. << >> I disagree with this statement. I don't think that Soccer is more social, as sociality depends on the person watching. Any fan of any sport can organize a group to watch said sport, and therefore. .. soccer isn't uniquely more social. Again, this doesn't actually answer the resolution. << >> Again, this has no reflection upon the quality. Popularity doesn't make good quality. In fact, having a lot of upper middle class people liking the other sports kind of argues against you. The richer you are, the higher quality you demand, no? Therefore, sense upper-class people like other sports, it stands to reason that other sports are higher quality. <<> Alright, so the entire "money" point is kind of in my favor. I provided evidence, and you didn't. Therefore, my arguments are more backed up, and I should win the point. I would like to see evidence for your claims. << >> To sum this up: Soccer is played more at lower levels in lesser leagues. This is 100% trues, and is a point in my favor. This leads me to think that on average, if there are lower soccer leagues, the entire quality of soccer is pulled down, because the cream of the crop aren't the only playing. In the NFL, MLB, NBA, and NHL, only the best of the best get in there. Therefore, the overall quality is better, because there aren't as many little leagues taking up the worse players and letting them play for a living.
Soccer is the Greatest Sport

I think the popularity of soccer is what makes it great. The difference between bush and soccer is rather obvious in my mind. Bush's popularity was mostly American and the more foreigners heard about him the less popular he was. While soccer is far more popular. "Popularity doesn't neccesarily coincide with greatness." I agree with that statement. That does not mean the popularity of soccer doesn't make it great. I think we understand that sport's is primarily a social activity. Whether you play or watch it is about having fun with other people. (most of the time) Therefor the more people you can play with, the greater the sport is. You can easily find people to play soccer with in almost any country, unlike other sports. It is far more social which makes it much more fun. You can watch and play soccer almost anywhere, that makes it great. The ability to do that comes from widespread popularity. The commercial success of other sports just shows the relation between size of the audience and the type of audience. Quite a few Upper-middle class people watch the other sports while soccer has people across the economic spectrum, which also shows how widespread it is. The could see the Michael Jordan is the most recognized athlete and I also would agree that ice hockey, basketball and a lot of other sports have well-rounded athletes but the popularity is what makes soccer more successful. The wage is a little lower for soccer's top players but in leagues such as the English Premier league $2 billion was spent on wages for players. That's twenty teams paying $2 Billion. Also soccer teams pay another bill for players. They pay for player transfers. Which is very different from football and other sports where wages are the only cost. When you combine wages and player transfer fees the amount of money spent on top players would be equivelant if not higher then that of other sports. I have no proof but I will say the $54 million, the highest transfer fee every paid, is very high. There is only one NFL, NHL, and a few competitions in other sports but they are mostly monopolized competitions. Few tournaments and leagues over lap, thus making each other appear smaller, but when you combine all the soccer leagues and combine the wages it would be much higher then the total amount paid to any other sport, again no proof but logic says so in my mind.
Soccer is the Greatest Sport

For the sake of clarity NFL Football=Football and FIFA football= Soccer. I will begin my positive arguments now.... The sheer popularity is the primary reason it is the greatest. It is played in every country and watched in every country. Football does not even come close to the same popularity. It is played and watched by all, rich or poor, young or old, Asian, Latino, white or African--It is truly played by everyone. The simple iconic nature of soccer is amazing too. The pro players are heroes to people across the world. The most well known athlete is a soccer player. Beckham. Schumacher and Woods are the closest (if you could call it close). I have lived in 5 countries in 4 continents and wherever I went I played soccer. The Cook Islands and Vanuatu in the South Pacific, Japan in Asia, Africa and the United States of America. I can make friends through soccer almost anywhere. Although I can make friends through any sport the truly international side of soccer makes it the greatest. The most watched sports event? The world cup final. Almost a billion people. That's a billion people united by one sport, one match. It is truly the global sport. The joy of football can not be shared as easily. Commercials break up the game and the equipment costs a lot more if you want to play it. Maybe the fact that poor people can play it makes it great. It doesn't discriminate. Football is team sport, you need 50 players for an NFL team. It is stop and go. There is less fluidity and the team mates just remember the plan and execute it. That is the extent of the team work. In soccer the players have to know with no pre-conceived plan of where to pass the ball, where to support your team mates and how to work as a team. Football is a sport where every man does his thing and they play. Soccer has more depth, spontaneity and variance. Football does not allow for it. Finally the soccer player is more well rounded. He runs for 90 minutes with a max. 15 min break in between but football player plays a 1 hour game over 3-4 hours, then there are defensive, offensive and special teams players. The amount of time spent on the field is significantly less and the fitness required is far less then in soccer. A linesman in football does not need as much speed but all soccer players need strength, speed, balance, intelligence and skill. Football players are not well rounded and that says something about the sport's make up. In soccer every player is always participating in almost all aspects of the game.
evil is the good half, as holy is the cause of evil

Absolutely nothing you just said is true by any definition of any word that you used. Religion is based upon beliefs not doubts. There are no religious doctrines whose tenants include something to the effect of "thou shalt not believe this or thou shalt not consider that." They are all based on "this is what you should believe, and this is how you should act." That would be a belief based argument not a doubt based one. Your second statement makes no sense whatsoever. Atheism is literally the disbelief in a deity, by definition, so where you could possibly get the idea that atheists ever believe in a god, "atheism is belief in god", baffles me to no end. The last part of your second sentence doesn't mean anything. There is nothing in any argument that you have made in this debate that even approaches making any type of legitimate point about anything.
evil is the good half, as holy is the cause of evil

Your first point is absolutely meaningless to this debate. The topic of this debate was never whether or not I believe in religion nor was it about whether or not I find their ideas to be meaningful. It was merely about whether or not atheists will still exist if theist cease to exist, which I have stated my case on and you have offered absolutely no argument to refute this. I do not know where you are obtaining this reference to unicorn heaven. I'm not sure what that is, but it is irrelevant in any case. The correct statement would be to say that Muslims consider, technically based on their religious beliefs, that Christians are heretics, because they believe in the bible. An atheist is defined as someone who rejects all belief in a deity, ergo neither Christians nor Muslims could be considered as atheist by anyone as they fail to meet the criterion that defines an atheist. Your arguments are literally completely without merit.
evil is the good half, as holy is the cause of evil

You aren't making a great deal of sense, yet I will try to decipher this rambling. I believe what you are trying to say is that Muslims would consider Christians to be atheists, and that atheism is defined as rejecting religion rather than simply having no belief. If this is what you mean, then half of this I agree with. Atheism is indeed defined as the disbelieve in a deity whereas someone who did not believe in a deity, because there never was a consideration among man that a deity might exist, would not necessarily be an atheist. This said, I would point out that this is basically the argument that I already made. If religion had never existed, then neither would atheism exist. We have, however, moved beyond that point as religions did come into existence and still exist today. Because religions have existed and will be remember to have existed, atheism will always exist as the counterpoint to religion even if religion ceases to exist. To address your other argument that Christians are atheists to Muslims, this is out right false. Atheism is defined as not believing in any deity. Therefore, since Christians believe in a God which is actually the same God that Muslims believe in, your statement is utterly false. These two groups may have differences in what they believe about their shared God, but they do indeed worship the same God. To boil down your argument to its most basic level, your argument seems to be that if A exists because of B, then without B, A would not exist. This is a fundamentally flawed argument. It is more like A exists as a counterpoint to B, ergo even if no one still agrees with A, B will still exist as the counterpoint to A. To put this in simplest terms, if atheism is the rejection of the idea that there is a deity, as long as people know that once there existed a belief in a deity, atheism will still exist because theism will still be an idea even if no one believes in it anymore. Unless massive pieces of history are lost, ideas do not disappear even if we have come to reject them. This means that if one idea posits one point and another idea is posited as its counterpoint, since ideas do not disappear, the counterpoint still exists even if the original point is considered invalid. This all basically comes down to one main point, and that is that you cannot unmake an idea. If an idea once existed, it still exists now even if no one believes it to be a valid idea.
evil is the good half, as holy is the cause of evil

Atheism is, according to Merriam Webster, "a disbelief in the existence of a deity". As I have said, you could only be correct if there had never been any theists. The fact that there are now, and if they did not continue to exist, there would have been theists at one time, this provides the contrast needed to define the remaining people as atheists. Your argument is completely illogical. This would be akin to someone telling me that I cannot hate Nazism, because Nazism does not exist anymore. The fact that the old ideological belief of Nazism is not around anymore is irrelevant. I can read about and know about Nazism, because it once existed, ergo I can hate it for what I know it to have once been. I suppose you could argue that if all religion ceased to exist, and somehow everyone in the world forgot that their ever was religion, then at that point I suppose you could make the argument that the people still around would not know that they are atheists as there would no longer be the contrast to draw the contradistinction. If we accept, though, that the world is not likely to simply forget several thousand years which includes reference to religions having once existed, the contradistinction exists to allow people to realize and define themselves as atheists. As I said in the first post, the only logical way that you could have presented this argument was to say that if theists had never existed, atheists would also have never existed.
evil is the good half, as holy is the cause of evil

Your argument is fundamentally flawed. First of all I will define the two terms that you used. A theist is someone who believes in or espouses some type of religious view. An atheist is some one who rejects all religious views and holds no religious view. If religion ceased to exist then, by definition, all people would be atheists. If all theists in the world were to disappear it would still be remembered that they once existed. By this contrast alone one could reason that all the remaining people in the world are atheists. If your argument had been that if theists had never existed then atheists would also have never existed, this would be an undeniably true statement. To counter the first part of your argument, why do you assume that one side must be wholly good and the other wholly bad? I have found from my own life that there are both those who espouse religious views and those who don't who are both equally willing to commit horrendous crimes against one another. I would also question how it is that you have come to the conclusion that holiness causes evil? Both of these, in truth, are really points of view. What I may view as a holy and justified act, others might view as unjust based upon their personal ideology.
AOW Debate (Shattered World, Game II)

Kingdom of England (England) Capital: London Constitutional Monarchy Total Population: 64,088,222 Available Manpower: 30,000,000 Fit for Service: 24,040,000 Reaching Military Age Annually: 750,000 Active Frontline Personnel: 150,000 Active Reserve Personnel: 182,000 Tanks: 407 Armored Fighting Vehicles (AFVs): 5,948 Self-Propelled Guns (SPGs): 89 Towed-Artillery: 138 Multiple-Launch Rocket Systems (MLRSs): 42 Total Aircraft: 879 Fighters/Interceptors: 91 Fixed-Wing Attack Aircraft: 168 Transport Aircraft: 337 Trainer Aircraft: 330 Helicopters: 348 Attack Helicopters: 49 Total Naval Strength: 76 Aircraft Carriers: 1 Frigates: 13 Destroyers: 6 Corvettes: 0 Submarines: 10 Coastal Defense Craft: 18 Mine Warfare: 15 Defense Budget: $55,000,000,000 External Debt: $9,219,000,000 Reserves of Foreign Exchange and Gold: $107,700,000,000 Purchasing Power Parity: $2,569,000,000,000
AOW Debate (Shattered World, Game II)

This is a war debate. I was playing another one, but the other person forfeited and the system never updates so I created this one. I will be playing again as the People's Republic of Southern China. These are the rules: 1. If you take this debate, tell the name of your country, and tell the numbers of your armed forces for things like vehicles (aircraft, ships, tanks, armored cars), men, missiles, and hackers (Yes, certain countries have the ability to do cyberwarfare). You can not play as the People's Republic of Southern China. You can play as any country except the ones that are dead (USA, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Nigeria, Argentina, South Africa, Algeria, Ethiopia, Egypt, Italy, Spain, France, Germany, Poland, the UK, Ukraine, Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Saudi Arabia, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Japan, China, Australia and Russia) 2. If you need information on a country tell me in the Comment section. Wikipedia is allowed to be used for military units. 3. You do not have to choose the countries I present, they merely represent the countries that broken up. 4. You do not have to declare war on my nation as soon as possible, for you could conquer any nation. 5. Please listen to the Geneva Convention, if you do not there will be major consequences. Here is a link to the Geneva Convention: http://www.redcross.org......... This also includes nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. 6. If this AOW Debate takes more time then 5 rounds, it will be extended to another debate. Link to new countries: http://mapgame.wikia.com......(Countries) 1) Military Force: Tanks: 3,621 AFVs: 1,954 SPGs: 684 Active Soldiers: 948,000 Reserve Soldiers: 920,000 Manpower: 309,000,000 Reaching Military Age Annually: 8,600,000 Total Aircraft: 1,122 Fighters: 452 Fixed Wing Attack Aircraft: 529 Helicopters: 320 Attack Helicopters: 81 Aircraft Carrier: 1 Frigates: 17 Destroyers: 12 Submarines: 27 Coastal Defense: 55 2) Political State Disputes: South China Sea Alliances: ASEAN (Dialogue Partner) (The UN has collapsed) Wars: None 3) Economy Defense Budget: 60.2 Billion USD Debt: 374.3 Billion USD Reserves of Foreign exchange in Gold: 1.288 Trillion USD GDP nominal: 6.345 Trillion USD Current Account Balance: 321.34 Billion USD
AOW Debate (Shattered World, Game II)

Hey now, I'm not the one who picked a fantasy map, and all my moves where at least theoretically possible - including anti-matter. But yeah I'm not sure how realistic it is to rename every country in the world, disband the United Nations, reconfigure the world economy, and redraw the world map (like you did) without using some sort of dark magic. But anyways: June 1, 2016: Stephen Hawking tells the BBC that reports of the Earth suddenly erupting due to anti-matter testing are grossly exaggerated. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Defense confirms that the entire state of Southern China has been eradicated.
AOW Debate (Shattered World, Game II)

This is too unrealistic. WTF Day could not have happen, it was a global economic and political crash worse then 1929. Also, the 2nd Manhattan Project took months, the other project took years for nuclear energy. And antimatter? Really? That would take decades. It will probably be fusion. I hope next time you will be more realistic. June 1, 2016: The world is suddenly destroyed and time and space is gone forever. Yay!