BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
mp3 players should be allowed in public schools

Public schools should not exist. They are propped up inevitably by stolen money, i.e., taxes. Taxation is unacceptable. Now, clearly, the nonexistence of public schools precludes allowing mp3 players in public schools-- it is not possible to allow something "in" something that does not exist. And since the nonexistence of public schools is part of what should be the case, allowing the existence of public schools in them clearly is not part of what should be the case.
Resolved: Abortion is just

1) Here's a list of what I was talking about. - http://www.afterabortion.org... - http://www.leaderu.com... 2) Blastocyst is as defined: A) The 4- to 5-day-old ball of undifferentiated cells from which a prospective embryo develops. In mammals it consists of two distinct parts: the inner cell mass and the trophoblast. B) A stage of embryonic development that occurs about 5 days after fertilization, when the embryo consists of two different cell types (those that will form the placenta and those that will form the fetus) and a central cavity. Following IVF, the embryos are allowed to reach the Blastocyst stage before being transferred into the uterus, rather than being transferred after the second or third day It is to my knowledge that abortions aren't even available yet (someone wouldn't even know if they're pregnant yet) . A fetus is formed around the first 8 weeks. Anything before the first three months is early term abortion (about 21 weeks). So you must support everything that undergoes (abortion-wise) before this time (21 weeks). I ALSO AGREE THE BIBLE CAN BE UNRELIABLE (I dont site the bible at all) 3) But by your criteria, "An abortion subject has not yet developed intelligence. Intelligence drives us to fear death and permits us to feel pain," some mentally handicapped people may also be killed. 4) This contention does not stand because you're never sure about someone's future. People born rich have problems also. They commit suicide due to feelings of resentment and being alone, they become depressed, they are most likely to purchase drugs or alcohol, etc. + You said I didn't factor in abortion[....] - Yes, rape is horrible. But it is not the baby we should be killing in the situation of rape; Maybe the rapist. It is not the baby's fault he was conceived due to rape, so why punish it by taking it's life? "If we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people to not kill each other? Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want." ~Mother Teresa of Calcutta quotes
Resolved: Abortion is just

"I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born."~Ronald Reagan, quoted in New York Times, 22 September 1980 (Thank you for breaking your arguments down into numbers, it makes it easier to find) Con Point 1) Are you forgeting about the psychological problems that come with an abortion? -I'd accept justify to mean more of "show to be reasonable or provide adequate grounds for" And it is not reasonable to take another life because you feel as if you've made a mistake (or depending on how you look at it, it's also not justified to stop life from forming because you feel as if you've made a mistake) Con Point 2-A that talked about the bible not saying when life is) If you believe that life doesn't exist in the fetus, you are wrong. I ask you, Does an abortion kill kill the fetus? Life is defined as: "The condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, or the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally." or "Active or thriving; vigorous..." Seing as how a fetus is growing and is active, wouldn't that (by the very definition) be life? Con Point 2-B) First off since the bible is unreliable and can't be used as a viable source, by your own wording, your entire point 2 then does not hold (simply because of the logical fallacy and hypocricy). Secondly (on the bible not knowing PI), if my grade in debate class was 80.14159, then would you say I had an 80% or that I had an 80.14159? Con Point 3) Would this then justify killing people born with mentally handicaps that either make them not able to fear or have proper working nerve endings, or are in a vegetable state? Con Point 4) Abortion creates depression and a deep since of "wronged" behavior in a lot of cases that have involved to mental problems and even, in etreme cases, suicide. Con Point 2-A&B) The solution to not having a baby born into poverty or an orphanage would simply be NOT DOING WHAT IT TAKES TO GET PREGNANT!!!! Killing the baby isn't how you get rid of the problem you present. Not having sex unless you're ready to suffer the concequences, however, is the right solution to the problem. It is not the baby's fault his/her parents can't support him, so (in essence) don't hold him responsible. Plus, even if the baby is born rich; The future of the baby is still uncertain! The future of EVERYTHING is uncertain. Future itself is uncertain. But I'm curious as to one thing, do you support war? "If it isn't a baby, then you aren't pregnant, so what are you aborting?" ~Author Unknown Thank you and I'm now sitting anxiously waiting for your response.
Resolved: Abortion is just

Thank you, snelld7, for challenging me to this debate. I hope that you enjoy it as much as I'm sure I will. Because you did look at my profile, I am certain that you have noticed that I am *not* pro late term abortion. The abortion for whose justification I will argue will be early term abortion before the formation of nerve cells. 1. Something is justified if it prevents, absolves, or otherwise deflects more damage than it causes. 2. The bible does not unjustify abortion. A. There exists no verse in the bible that indicates that life begins at the instant of conception and not later during the developmental process after the baby has become a blastocyst. B. The bible is unreliable. The bible states that pi is three, but we now know pi to be approximately 3.14159. "And he [Hiram] made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one rim to the other it was round all about, and...a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about....And it was an hand breadth thick...." (First Kings, chapter 7, verses 23 and 26) 3. An abortion subject has not yet developed intelligence. Intelligence drives us to fear death and permits us to feel pain. 4. Abortions prevent harm to the mother. Many mothers who would have abortions are economically unable to raise a child. They would have two options; A. Raise the baby without the financial ability, or B. Give the child to an orphanage, where the future of the child is uncertain, which places great emotional stress on the mother and could lead to psychological complications. I await my opponent's argument anxiously.
What happened to our cultural acceptance with death

Since the Con decided to forfeit the last round, I feel compelled to, try and sum up my original intent. I am a Registered Nurse, with years of experience working with death and dying. At any age when it is your time, it is your time. We do not wish it, help it happen, and need to educate, from an early age that death will happen to everyone. Whether one lives a minute or 100 years it is a lifetime. I would love someone to tell me the age at which it is okay. 10,20,30,40,50,60,70,80,90...years. Most people in our culture today truly say never, based on their actions when it happens to someone close. I continue to observe the most awful decisions made, by unaware family members, that think only of themselves and not one minute spent on the quality of life they sentence their supposed "loved one" to. People remain on life support all over America that are brain dead with 100% no chance of ever having any quality of life. Families visit, cry and refuse to sign the papers to just allow nature to take it"s course. Machines make the chest rise and fall which mimics life to most. Death is a normal conversation at our home. Everyone knows what is right. Quality of life trumps quantity always. As long as their is brain function and communication (like Stephen Hawkins) there are exceptions always. Just be ready. Talk with those that you love, know their and they know your wishes when communication is not possible. When it is a loved one's time give then permission and embrace that you got even a minute with them!
What happened to our cultural acceptance with death

I think the spin of linking basic survival of all living things originating from "fear of Death" misses the point. The only cranial nerve that goes directly to the brain without passing through the spinal cord 1st is the olfactory nerve (sense of smell). This is to alert one of danger in the quickest way. To fight or flight you would smell your predator before seeing it, in most cases. This worked well for the cave people in particular! Now back to letting a loved one go that you may feel that you " cannot live without. Let's it was your Grandmother. Yes she is 100 years old. Once her dying process begins embracing it and helping her process through in the most giving, loving, and selfless way is to thank her, let her know that because of her you will be OK and give her permission to leave, when ever she feels ready. Far worse to have a circle of crying people unwilling to let go screaming "we don't know what we are going to do without you. This leaves the dying feeling guilty that it is their time, in most cases!
What happened to our cultural acceptance with death

Hello, Sure death is natural and must happen but human emotions are vulnerable and easily triggered for a reason. The base fear of every human is death. That fear has given humans survival skills that have helped us become more intelligent and progress for thousands of years. Of course death will be attempted to be prevented or postponed and it will continue to be that way. The significance of life, animal or human, is so great that the more attached you are the more and more you can't let go. Especially if that person was your 100 year old mother or grandmother who made you, took care of you and nurtured you for your life and you may be indebted to that person, not financially but physically, so much that it is hard to leave them and sometimes you may not be able to live without them. Say they have skills and or knowledge that you must know before they die then it will be very hard to accept their death.
What happened to our cultural acceptance with death

The greatest percentage of money spent on medical issues during anyone"s life,in America, is within the last two weeks of that life. Why do we hang on to people that we say we love, like a 98 year old Grandmother, who"s time is here and families fight over agreeing to drastic measures that be done in the ICU that destroy any peace that she may have enjoyed before her end known by all? Doctors feel like failures if someone dies on their watch even at age 100. I have worked with Hospice for over 20 years. I consider myself a midwife for the exit. There is no difference between Life and death other than the way it is understood. Your Thoughts?
Political Parties only spoil the life of the nation

Honestly, there's nothing left for me to say. Pro hasn't understood what I've written making this debate useless, instead wanting to talk about a different topic. To be clear, the Indian government doesn't define government, and as a concept Government doesn't 'spoil the life of the nation'. It would seem my opponent has been shaken by his own experiences of government and wants change, and if that is the case I wish him luck.
Political Parties only spoil the life of the nation

So far as the topic is concerned we are talking about goverment and in today's world almost all countries possess democratic government and democracy means 'the government for the people, of the people, by the people but nowadays it's not like that it's 'far the people, off the people, buy the people' the only reason is that today's government has become corrupt. There is nothing like justice, right, good, etc. These words have vanished from this era. I gave an example of the PM of India Mr. Narendra Modi, He has killed hundreds of innocent lives. Is this what we call justice. Con has added a point about Aust. but it's population is not even 0.4 percent of the world and I have provided the example of the country whose population is equalent to about 20 percent of the whole world. So this simply proves that government is useless.
Political Parties only spoil the life of the nation

Government is not inherently self-serving. Pro has irrelevantly asserted one govt. has behaved poorly (which I cede), but hasn't said anything about government exclusively acting in its own member's interests. I've given proof a government has acted not just in it's own interests, but in those of the people. Thus, governments can and do act in good faith and this one example makes the statement "Political Parties only spoil the life of the nation" false.
Political Parties only spoil the life of the nation

Con. has given the example of that part of the world whose population is not even 23.2 million but there is a corner of the world where the people's count is more than 1.25 billion and is suffering from numerous problems. The biggest example is that of the Prime Minister. He has killed hundreds of muslims. Being an illitrate person, What the hell can he know about handling a nation. Taking another example of Kashmir issue, above hundred people have been killed by indian foces (following the orders of higher athorities) in kashmir region and above 15,000 have lost their eyes because of pellets and many of them are badly injured. So, how can anybody even think of these people as their friends. Now I request con. to go back to WIKIPEDIA and search a better arguement for the next round.
Political Parties only spoil the life of the nation

Pro has obnoxiously set the character limit to 500 so sorry about the brevity. Just take a look at Aust. Govt. spending plan for 2016/17[1]. In a nutshell, you owe everything to the government. Facilitation of industry and commerce that creates jobs that pay for housing and goods is up to government. Protection from hostile countries and people. Infrastructure. Education. Healthcare, often free. We aren't individually autonomous and are lost without higher authority. Government is your friend.
Political Parties only spoil the life of the nation

As you all know that this is a very current topic and i feel proud to say for it. We see in todays world that the word politics just a bloody word. It has no use, but is only used to rule the people. In today's world numerous people are jobless. They are in a hope that the government will give them jobs. But its not like that, government is busy in feeding themselves. So I request that before someone challenges my debate, he or she should think hundred times. Thank you.
Evolution and The Bible are incompatible

This is a debate about whether or not the Bible supports Evolution. This is not a debate on whether the evidence supports Evolution or Creation (or even Intelligent Design). Merely that the Bible does not support a belief in Evolution. As such, I would ask that my opponent be a Christian, supposedly of the Old-Earth/Theistic Evolutionary kind.Also, this is regarding macro-Evolution (i.e. the gradual change of one species into another).No semantic arguments, please.Any other questions, please ask in the comments section.
Andy Dalton needs to be cut if he doesn't make it back to the playoffs

Ok I will admit Andy Dalton got the bengals to the playoffs three straight years and I will admit that he has had winning records for three straight years but he is so inconsistent. He has a great game next game he just bombs and screws everything up and he has still not won one playoff game when you have had 3 try's plus you got a great offense with AJ Green and Marvin Jones plus Jermaine Greshem and Tyler Eifert and gio Bernard with Sanu so he has so many weapons and he got the addition of Jeremy hill so I feel this is a make or break it season cause if the bengals don't make it to the playoffs this year I feel sit him down and either draft a new QB or get your luck with free agency and if you see the they haven't signed him for an extension because they are scared he is going to screw up!!
Students should be allowed to eat lunches during classes.

Con states that 'First things first, the school day lasts for less than 7 hours so my opponent is simply factually wrong here'. Not at all. Research by Nation Household Education proves that half of middle schools start at 8:00. Resulting in 7:30 hours. In which cases older students dont have enough time to eat breakfast. Nor sleep with all of their priorities in school. As i mentioned before, especially older kids need to digest more food as they grow. Another thing con stated was that 'Thirdly, she states that lunch is only available after 5 hours (1:00pm). This is also wrong. Most schools have lunch time start between 11 and 12 o'clock, which is a 2.5-3.5 hour stretch assuming an 8:30 start time' Another opinion suggesting that 'most' schools. Not all. But i just have a question. Did those schools have low obesity rates? Children now are affected by obesity in schools. Con is very wrong with his mathematics. The lunch begins 4 - 4:30 depending on grades. My nephew is already in 7th grade and he starts lunch at 12:30. But next year when he goes to 8th grade, he'll have ONLY 15 minutes to eat and lunch will start at 1:00. Average middle or high schools starts lunch AFTER 12:00. Most grades start roughly at 11:30. But were not really talking about little kids right? Not every school lets kids have breaks in classes. Oh and one thing Con didnt check was that his first source ONLY shows the average hours in school from 2000- 2004. Its almost 2013. Dont you think it changed just a tiny bit? ;) Now, im gonna go leave for school :3 Sources - http://www0.gsb.columbia.edu... My nephew's school ^^
Students should be allowed to eat lunches during classes.

Concentration and Health - Everyone knows breakfast is the most important meal of the day, but when a student is stuck in school for about 8 hours, what is their other choice? Studies shows that the average school is open from 8:30 " 3:30 Resulting in almost 8 hours, right? Lunch is only available after 5 hours. (1:00 pm). Food can help a child's concentration, as well as boost their energy. Schools in general these days open extremely early, so that leaves practically no time for a child to eat breakfast in the morning. Your body is supposed to take in food every few hours. Students, like adults, need to be in charge of their bodily functions - this includes eating, as well as using the restroom. Students are growing and need to eat several times per day IN ADDITION to meals. Not eating puts the body into starvation mode, which increases the production of adrenaline. Increased adrenaline is a causal factor in lack of concentration. Also researched, 20% of high school students fall asleep in class averagely. 99.9% of those students fell asleep because of lack of concentration. Which goes back to increase of adrenaline. Which goes back to not eating enough, right? Sources - . http://www.npr.org... . http://www.jhsph.edu... . http://www.discoveriesinmedicine.com...
Students should be allowed to eat lunches during classes.

I accept.=======Resolved======="Students should be allowed to eat lunches during classes."As con, I will be arguing against this resolution.=======Burden of Proof=======Pro will have the BOP as she is the one arguing against the status quo.=======Definitions=======1. Student: A person who is studying at a school or college2. Lunch: A meal eaten in the middle of the day, typically one that is lighter or less formal than an evening meal.** Obviously pro will be arguing that lunch should be eaten at non-noon times, so this definition is just a guideline.=======Rules=======I accept the rules laid out by pro and I will add a few others.1. No Semantics: Nuff said2. Water bottles: Water bottles don't count as being part of lunch. Most teachers allow and even prefer the use of water bottles, so long as they contain only water.That should be everything, so I wish my opponent luck. I'll see you next round ;)
Jesus is not the Messiah

Resolution Jesus is not the messiah promised in the Old Testament. ClarificationThis debate is NOT about whether or not Jesus existed, rather, we will examine the claime that Jesus is the Messiah under the light of Jewish scriptures.Similar debates have been done here http://www.debate.org......Definitions You may disagree with these definitions and adopt your own, but the following definitions are offered to clarify the resolution as I have expressed it. "Jesus Christ" or "Jesus" is a proposed historical human being whose character began the myth of the character of Jesus in the Christian gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The historical "Jesus" has a biographical profile roughly corresponding to the profile of the character of Jesus in the gospels (i.e. home town of Nazareth, baptism by John the Baptist, traveling preacher, twelve disciples and crucifixion in Jerusalem). [1] A "messiah" is a term used for one who is anointed. The word "messiah" literally means an anointed one. [2] Positions of Opposing ContenderMy contender must show that either my arguments are false, or he may show that Jesus is indeed the Messiah. Rules Round 1 is acceptance only. Absolutely no ad hominem attacks: This will result in an automatic loss. Do not introduce new arguments in the last round. If you wish to forfeit, then please post it; do not let the time run out! Structure Acceptance Opening Arguments Rebuttals/Cross-examination Rebuttals Closing I wish my partner the best of luck. ==References==1. For the definition of Jesus, please see ApostateAbe's unrelated debate here: http://www.debate.org......;2. http://www.aish.com......;
God should be brought into schools more.

I don't think I can summarize my opponent's argument in a better wat than simply quoting it below. //"You have a school, lets say two religions for this example. It's 50/50. Stay with me. You take one completely out. Now its 50/0. That opens it for the remaining 50 or another belief. Now that makes it unfair. One is completely out. Even one is being taught. How is this not favoring one?"// I am not suggesting that only one religion be taken out of school. I am suggesting that ALL religions be taken out of school. Here is a quote of me saying this in R1. "..public schools ought to stay completely secular with no supporting or showing favor to religious ideas" I do not think that just one religion should be taken out while leaving in another. In order to be in accordance with the law, public schools cannot show favor to ANY religions whatsoever. So my opponent is clearly wrong in saying that one religion would be being favored. As my opponent brings no new arguments in the last round I will end here. I have completely and utterly refuted my opponent's argument that public schools shouls show favor to the Christian religion by simply citing the 1st amendment. My opponent has absolutely no argument and therefore I urge a Con vote.
God should be brought into schools more.

Okay...I will break it down as much as possible. You have a school, lets say two religions for this example. It's 50/50. Stay with me. You take one completely out. Now its 50/0. That opens it for the remaining 50 or another belief. Now that makes it unfair. One is completely out. Even one is being taught. How is this not favoring one? Now do you see what I'm saying?