BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Are Boarding school better than day school.

I will argue that Boarding schools are better than day schools. I prefer Day schools but I will advocate for satan this once.Terms:Day School: The system where students go to school monday to friday, going home for weekends and evenings.Boarding School: The system where students travel to a faraway school and spent their whole terms there, monday to sunday, except for half-terms, holidays and sometimes exiats( did not know how to spell it).Better: Very vague and subjective term for one thing having more quality than another.1. Boarding schools offer a wider range of independance from parents. Starting off, I bring up point of independance. Children go to a school where they are not dependant on their parents for organising their tools for education. This is useful as it is better to learn this early before they are whisked off to University where they are entirely independant. Yes, boarding school doesn't offer absolute freedom and independance for example catering services but it is still a transition between depending entirely on something else to organise you and being someone who has complete control of the reigns2.Boarding schools offer discipline. Ironically, the next point is something quite different. At boarding schools, one must sleep in a dorm room of 4-8 people and have to have lights out at a certain time and have breakfast at a certain time. There has to be a good balance between discipline and freedom, while you are at the school, you have to respect the school. Military training regrettably is good at straigtening people out, see switzerland with a conscription for all young abled people and this leads to a lower crime rate with healthier attitudes and civil people. A step down from conscription for everyone is discipline at school, and boarding school offers it better than day school.3.Focus on studying. At boarding school, you aren't free to play on your computer of just watch TV. This restriction of freedom increases the alternative of studying and doing homework, which eliminates the need for punishments. 4. Granted Freedom. Like many schools, freedoms open up as you progress through the school and leave for university. Of course, with these freedoms comes the responsibilty and to cope with it you need to be experienced with independance and discipline but also need to know how to balance your freedom with the responsibilty of studying.I have no sources except my brother who went to a boarding school. Of course it is anecdotal but that doesn't diminisht these arguments.
Industrial Hemp could save our Economy

< > Do I need to repaste my last argument? I showed several reasons why Hemp "Could" save the economy, not "would" save the economy. So based on my premise you have failed to refute any of my claims as to why Hemp "could" save the economy. Simply telling me I didn't convince you, doesn't count. You have to actually debate each of my points that I brought up in R1 in order for me to respond to you. But for the audience's sake I will refute your small apples to oranges comparison. Let's see Germany, small country, the size of say what maybe Texas, and thats being generous. And The US, the size of wow well it's bigger. so now how can we compare the two? Your not taking into account any of my arguments. What this tells me is that you don't disagree with me enough to debate the topic, and judging from your R1 argument this is probably the case. Or you simply dont have time to debate the issue Which is it? The US has (as I already stated in my argument) the most productive crop fields in the world, the best equipment, the most skilled farmers. You have yet to prove that this crop would not be the key ingredient at the very least that could turn the economy around. Agriculture is in a bubble right now as we debate this topic, becasue of the rising energy costs and the drive to grow corn (food) for energy. The benefits of growing hemp to replace corn for fuels, food ingredients, textiles, hygiene products are immense. Germany has several other contributing factors causing the counrty to be less productive. I would argue that growing hemp isn't exactly hurting thier economy. I mean the Euro isn't exactly going down right now. Matter of fact this only strengthens my case that we need to grow industrial hemp to bring our dollar back to pre iraq war levels, through the use of hemp. Please come up with a better argument than this, or maybe you should just forfeit
Industrial Hemp could save our Economy

You show no proof that Industrial hemp could "Save" our economy. GDP per capita of pre-industrial countries tends to be under 10,000 dollars, whereas post industrial capitlaist countries have GDP per capitas of more than three times as much, generally. So, an industrial revolution would have to raise the average money per person by at least three times. Comparing the US which has made hemp illegal to Germany, Germany actually makes, on average, less where hemp is actually legal. explain this.
Industrial Hemp could save our Economy

I do not disagree that Industrial Hemp would be good for the economy, and I am for in full favor of allowing production of Hemp. However, the problem with your proposition is not that you believe hemp is good, rather that you believe hemp could "save" our economy. I have issues with a few things, but I can't bring up full arguments until you answer one question. That is what do you believe problems in our economy come from? I will propose my own problem, as we know we are in a recession and costs are going up. What is causing this? Well, certainly not the lack of the hemp industry. Government intervention in the economy is the cause of this. The government inflates the economy, causing prices to rise. This hurts people who have money in savings, and is an overall bad move for the economy. Adding a single industry will have little to no effect on our economy, otherwise countries with hemp would be prosperous, and countries without it would not. Prosperity can be achieved only through the free market, and while the lack of hemp is indeed hurting our economy somewhat, the main issues come with the governments policy to regulate many industries, inflate our economy, and try to control our monetary supply, as well as our ways of life.
Industrial Hemp could save our Economy

The problem: Our economy is in crisis. The US government over the span of the last 100 years has perverted the purpose and responsibility of the United States to meet their own selfish and greedy desires. It all started with the criminalization of Industrial Hemp i.e.: Reefer Madness, DuPont family, and corrupt elected officials. Because of decisions that were made 100 years ago, events have been set in motion which have led to the biggest crisis of Capitalism in our nations history. I submit to you that the legalization of Industrial Hemp solely for the purpose of energy, infrastructure, clothing/textiles, and food additives will not only save our economy, but improve our way of life, reinvigorate our farmers, and bridge our nation into an Energy Independent country eliminating the need for Middle East Oil and the like. 1. What is Industrial Hemp? A: Industrial Hemp is a number of varieties of Cannabis sativa L. that are intended for agricultural and industrial purposes. They are grown for their seed and fiber content as well as the resulting byproducts such as oil, seed cake, hurds, etc. Industrial Hemp is characterized by being low in THC (delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol) and high in CBD (cannabidiol). THC is less than 1% and in Canada and Europe the current legal level for cultivation is 0.3%. The ratio of CBD to THC is greater than one. I will make my case for this issue, I invite my opponent to prove that the track that we are currently on can be maintained without the destructions of our economy and our infrastructure.
Quran has indeed - changed, and/or altered.

Glad I could help Pro! Hope you find the truth in your search and I wish you luck in your future endeavors.Here are the sources once again because some did not work.Sources for Round 2:[1a] - (https://www.birmingham.ac.uk...)[1b] - (http://ilmfeed.com...) [2] - Sahih Bukhari, Kitabul Tafir, Hadith 4603 [3] - Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 6, Book 61, Hadith 537[4] - (http://www.historyofinformation.com...)[5] - (https://www.uni-tuebingen.de...)[6] - (http://www.worldlibrary.org...)[7] - (http://topkapisarayi.gov.tr...)[8] - Sahih Bukhari, 3047; Sahih Muslim, 819[9] - (http://www.nbcnews.com...)Pro you can forfeit a round by clicking the button "forfeit this round" or just click the button "Post my argument" and write in your round "extend" or "forfeit"
Quran has indeed - changed, and/or altered.

Thank you very much Con for the explanation of Birmingham manuscript and about the seven 'aruf. Besides the part of the diacritical marks, I guess all your points were valid and I don't have anything to say against those. This was more kind of like a question and not an actual debate, just something to clear my mind out of just because I feel uneasy without knowing the actual answer. How do I forfeit?
Quran has indeed - changed, and/or altered.

Alright, let's go back in time, way back in time. As most of us know that the Quran is the word of God, or revelation from God (Allah). It was verbally revealed to Muhammad through Gibrael or Jibril. Remember the keyword, verbally. definition of verbally is by means of words, orally, or spoken. Now, I wouldn't even question if the Quran has ever been changed when it was revealed from God, through the angels. They're perfect beings. However, mans are not. Quran was first verbally revealed to Muhammad on 609CE, and the Quran was concluded on 632CE, which is the year of Muhammad's death. The oldest Quran that is currently known, and (could) still exist up until now would be the Sana'a palimpsest, which radio carbon dating shows that it was written before 671CE with 99% accuracy. Now, that's a 39 years difference, and in that 39 years, Quran has been "VERBALLY" passed on and on and on for 39 years. 39 years, which makes up to 468 months, which is 1872 weeks, which is 56160 days, which is 1347840 hours, which is 80870400 minutes, which is 4852224000 seconds. It has been verbally passed on DURING that time. Mans aren't perfect, and what are the probabilities that no verse would be changed somewhere along the way? 10% - in my sense of logic perspective. That's speaking off based on probabilities, Now, remember Sana'a manuscript? Take a look at any picture of any page on it. You'd notice the lack of diacritical marks. That makes it possible that one single word - can mean up to 5 to 20+ different meanings. For example, let's take the very first verse of Al - Fatihah. "Alhamdulillah irrabil 'alamin". How the hell do you know that it's pronounced THAT way? Is there anyone that was alive since the "verbally passed on quran over and over" who can confirm the pronounciation? For example, "الحمد". Everywhere you go, you'd see people would pronounce that as "Alhamdu". What if, it's "ilhamdu", "alhumad", "alhimud", "alhamad", and anything you could possibly pronounce WITHOUT the diacritical marks. Exactly, that was our Quran a looooooooong time ago. Does this still means that Quran has the "probability" of never being changed? . https://en.wikipedia.org... . https://en.wikipedia.org... . https://en.wikipedia.org... . https://www.quora.com...
Should there be 4 day school weeks

You are defeated by Lord Megatron the great. Anyways here's the token argument I need for the votes- 1) 4 day school weeks will provide students with more time or extra curricular activities such as sports and arts. 2) It will be more balanced and less overwhelming. 3) Teachers can give the big tasks on Thursday which can be finished by Monday or Tuesday, while in the 5-day system it gets dragged to a 1 week long assignment. 4) School will have justification to reduce holidays on festivals, which result in unproductivity and a big gap that makes the student forget all about school. I am not saying to eradicate festival holidays, I am telling to reduce them, which will result in a small gap that is rejuvenating enough yet allows the memory to not fade away completely. 5) WHO DOESN'T LIKE HOLIDAYS!!!???
Progressives Should Support Hillary Clinton

Seeing as the pro has waived the final round, I shall extend all my arguments and proceed to the conclusion. In this debate, I have shown that Hllary Clinton is not a progressiv by any stretch of the imagination. I have shown that progressives should vote for the principles they support and that the dangers of the spoiler effect stated by the pro are marginal at best and that the possibility of a Trump presidency is low. Because of this progressives should not vote for Hillary Clinton and the resolution is rejected.
Progressives Should Support Hillary Clinton

Since we were forced to tie our last debate (http://www.debate.org...;) we have agreed to tie it and restart. We have further agreed to simply copy and paste our arguments up until the time of the forfeit. No new arguments or rebuttals can be added until the fourth round. Resolved: This house believes that progressives shoud support Hillary ClintonThis debate is whether progressives/liberals should support Hillary Clinton in the upcoming U.S. presidential election rather than support a third party candidate such as Jill Stein. Supporting Donald Trump for President is not an option. The right of third party candidates to run for office and of voters to vote for them is not questioned. The debate presumes that progressives/liberals want to have progressive/liberal views, as generally espoused by Bernie Sanders, Jill Stein, Senator Warren and others to prevail in American politics. The resolution is affirmed if supporting Clinton is more likely to ultimately lead to that end than supporting a third party candidate. The resolution is negated if supporting Stein or another third party candidate is more likely to lead to progressive/liberal beliefs prevailing.The debate is not about whether progressive positions are correct or incorrect. The debate is about whether progressives working inside of the traditional two-Party structure is more likely to succeed in the long run than following a third party strategy now. Everyone is encouraged to vote on the debate. DEBATE STRUCTURE1. Acceptance2. Opening statements (no rebuttals)3. Rebuttals4. Rebuttals5. Closing arguments RULES1. The burden of proof is shared2. Forfeiting will results in a full 7-point loss3. No images or videos are permitted4. The character limit is 10,0005. All arguments must be made in the debate and so any arguments that are mentioned in the comments should be ignored.
Keeping Animals In Zoos Is Cruel

It's odd that you're arguing that my dog is not an animal. I can tell you, When he plays with the terrier down the road, Especially after a rain when it's all muddy, They most certainly act like animals! But, Going with your choice of animals, It would be cruel to keep lions and cheetahs and animals like that in zoos. I mean, I get the need to constrain animals to their natural habitats to ensure they don't become invasive species. The harm some animals have done by being introduced to foreign lands is huge. But a zoo is no animal's natural habitat. And without lions and cheetahs, The savanna would be completely changed forever. Prey animals like gazelle and zebras would grow unchecked, And would eventually get to a population size that would completely decimate all the vegetation in the land. Then would come battles for territory and mass starvation as the ever increasing herd sizes could not find enough food to eat. Further, With the vegetation gone, The land would lose the ability to hold any moisture, And deserts would spread. This cycle would continue until there was nothing but desert and carcasses of dead animals. In summary, Keeping the hunters such as lions and cheetahs in zoos would completely uproot the balance of their natural ecosystem, Resulting in mass plant loss and death. That would certainly be cruel.
Congress needs to devolve all funding and authority for building roads to the states.

Our roads and bridges are crumbling. It's only a matter of time before we have another disaster of the type that befell the Twin Cities. The problem is that the desperately needed funds to rebuild and maintain our infrastructure are few and far between; the Highway Trust Fund is woefully short, and are increasingly incapable of funding our infrastructure needs. The gas tax just doesn't cut it anymore, and there is never going to be the political will to increase it. The problem is that we've allowed the federal system to occupy the entire field of road-building. States send their gas tax money there, only to get it redistributed back to them via a system that is painfully inefficient and unduly restrictive. Federal funds are tied to tons of restrictions and environmental hurdles, resulting in painful delays and escalating the costs of every project that needs to get done. It would be much better to get the federal government out of the business of building our roads and bridges, and let the states keep the money and do it themselves. Let the states come up with their own ways of raising money, and let them unleash the power of the private sector to help build the critical infrastructure we so desperately need, through public-private partnerships, etc.. (Historical note: the legislation that authorized the Federal Highway System was only supposed to last 10 years, and most roads in the early days were built as tolled facilities.)
Liberalism is a mental disorder

Well Obummer still sucks! You are a freaking choir boy! LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR
Liberalism is a mental disorder

"Yahoo Answers thinks it is so it is." This is an appeal to authority and an appeal to popularity (it might only be one of those, but they both kinda fit). Either way, it is a logical fallacy. My opponent makes a claim regarding the prison populations. Whether or not more liberals are in jail, has no baring on whether liberalism is a mental disorder or not. The definitions were given, and my opponent did not challenge those definitions, so they shall stand for the rest of the debate. My opponent has also not refuted any of my points, merely attempted some counterpoints (which have already been dealt with). Normally, I'd end here, but it will be more fun to go down the rabbit hole. My opponent says that Blacks make up 87% of the prison population. This is completely false. Blacks make up about 35% of the prison population as of 2008 [1]. My opponent also falsely assumes that all blacks are liberals. While only 9% identified as republican [2] 26% identified as conservatives [2] and only 38% identified as liberal [2]. Now non-blacks, identifed as 36% conservative and 26% liberal [2]. So if we apply these ratios to the prison population, we'll find that 32.5% of the prison population is conservative, 30.2% is liberal and 37.3% is moderate. So even if my opponent's logic was related to this topic, he'd still be wrong. Thank you, [1] http://abcnews.go.com... [2] http://sda.berkeley.edu...
Liberalism is a mental disorder

First and foremost, I'd like to say that I was challenged this directly. This is not something that I took from the open challenges, though I probably would have. We really need to define our terms, so allow me to do that. Liberalism [1] - "a political orientation that favors social progress by reform and by changing laws rather than by revolution." Mental Disorder [2] - "a psychological syndrome or behavioral pattern that is associated with subjective distress and/or objective impairment." In order for something to be a "mental disorder" it must meet several conditions. 1) Be a psychological syndrome or behavioral pattern. 2) Associated with subjective distress or objective impairment. Both of those must be true, let us address each one individually. 1a) Be a psychological syndrome. A psychological syndrome is a group of symptoms that originates from the psyche. In order for this to be true, a person must be subconsciously a liberal, meaning that they can never become a conservative or libertarian or any other philosophy. They may be able to mask it by consciously acking like a different political belief, but they ultimately cannot change, or it is extremely difficult and mentally straneous to change. We can see that this is not true, based on who people change from liberal to conservative all the time at elections. While there are some individuals that are die hard supporters, many are not, and so any mental disorders that they have cannot be attributed to liberalism. 1b) Behavioral Pattern This, again, suggests a subconscious act as opposed to a conscious decision to engage in such behaviors. This fails for the same line of reasoning mentioned in 1a. 2a) subjective distress This means that the individual experencing liberalism must be under apparent distress because of the liberalism. This is often not the case, while a poll done in 2006 seemed to suggest that conservatives were happier (and indeed they were in 2006), it is not due to them being conservative, but due to the conservatives holding all of congress at the time, while liberals were sad that they held none. Swing that around to Feb 2009, and liberals were far happier (until Obama went limp on everyone). This shows that the distress is not attributed to liberalism, but to the political process. 2b) objective impairment This means that someone is objectively impaired in a measurable way. Some objective impairments are the loss of senses (blind, deaf, mute, numb, etc) or limitation of senses (colorblind, near-sightedness, etc). There is no objective impairment caused by liberalism. There are some subjective impairments that conservatives will claim, but those are not object. So I've shown that liberalism does not meet the definition of mental disorder and so the resolution is negated. I pass this on to my opponent to see what he makes of it. [1] Princeton Dictionary [2] WebMD http://dictionary.webmd.com... which cites a 2006 medical dictionary