BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
it should be compulsory for all school students to participate in a team sport .

to rebut all of your points, 1. exactly, why would they let the person do sports anyway? if they got given an alternative, wouldn't that defeat the whole purpose of participating in a team sport 2. just because people work in a team, does not mean that the relationship can increase. In some team sports, some people hate each other in the team. and also with a club, i also meant the school could go bankrupt. even if the government funded it, they would also have to fund every single school in the area or city 3. If the people that had bad sportsmanship all went to see a therapist then the therapist would be full pretty soon. 4. If the people that wanted to be a star but they were too shy, then wouldn't they be too shy to admit that they are a good player and be too shy to say to the club that they want to play for that I want to play for you 5. yes, sports may be part of the culture, but I don't think that just because of that, it could make a difference t the next generation. 6. yes it may stop people from playing on gadgets, but can't they just do that when they get home from the sport? 7. No. Just no. I know nothing about the history of soccer (or football) even though I have been playing this for more than 8 years. 8. yes but what parts of the sport? you need to be specific so I can rebut you.
it should be compulsory for all school students to participate in a team sport .

Sports should be compulsory but with exception and it is also important. 1. Why would a school allow a person to do sports when he/she have a disability? He should be exempted and would be given an alternative work so that it would be fair for the other students that can do the sports. 2. You don't need a club just so that you could do sports. A lot of people just do it for fun or to get a slimmer body. It is also a good way to become healthier. It will also increase the relationship of the people within the team. 3. We cannot avoid this but we can change the behavior of this person that is a sore loser. Behaviors are just temporary and could be changed anytime by attending a counselor or therapist 4. It would also encourage young people to become the stars they want. Many young kids are watching sports but shy to join the sports club they want. 5. Sports is also part of culture. Not only it would improve cultural awareness but also it would give new generations of idea on how sports in their country actually made who they are today. 6. Sports is also a good way to prevent kids that are addicted to the technology. There are million of kids just staring at their phones at gadgets and doing useless stuff all the time. If some kids prefer to do sports then it could help them overcome their addiction that they don't even notice. 7. It is also part of the history of your/our country. Before going to sports, the teacher would give them a brief history of the sports they are going to play. It would give young kids an information that would make them more interested in sports. 8. There are so many things that are part of sport that it should be compulsory but with a limit and exception
Homeschool vs public school

I beg to differ, because teachers nowadays are not watching every student the whole time the student is in the class. You can easily get sidetracked at public school too because many students are on their phones at school. Whereas when you are doing online school you do not have to worry about waiting on you teacher to finish giving instructions or passing out the assignment, you can go at your own pace and you don't have to worry about wasting time on switching classes or on things that are less important. I have been to both public and have done online schooling..
Far Cry 4: Pagan Min Was Actually The Good Guy

He's got some humane qualities left in him, but even Sabal and Amita at their worst are better options than he is by a landslide. They at least TRY to help people and emphasize not being completely sadistic humans. In allot of Mohan's journals that you can find throughout the game, there are several that explain how Pagan was in fact part of the GP. I agree that Sabal would be the bad choice between him and Amita. I think Amita is yhe lesser of the three evils. She had a bad plan as far as producing illegal drugs around the country, but it's a plan none the less. Pagans plan was to give Ajay the country, then exit stage left. Not a great plan to just give a murdering psychopath the country knowing he has no political skills.
Far Cry 4: Pagan Min Was Actually The Good Guy

Pagan Min is not a nice man, but he is still the better ruler for Kyrat. * Pagan Min didn't help fight the royalists, he fought with them against the rebels. * Amita and Sabal routinely execute prisoners as well, eventually they even try to assassinate each other. * Pagan Min NEVER worked with the golden path, they were formed AFTER Pagan took control. * Amita also wants to completely ban religion while Sabal wants to treat women like property and plunge the country into a dark age. * Sabal wants to make possession of alcohol or narcotics a penalty punishable by death, Amita wants to legalize the sale and manufacture of hardcore drugs like heroin and cocaine. * Amita also plans to melt down the artifacts. * They both also plan to use lethal force against civilians once in power. At the very least both Amita and Sabal are just as bad as Pagan Min, how then can we justify the thousands of deaths necessary to replace him? Letting him rule is the kinder option for the people of Kyrat.
Far Cry 4: Pagan Min Was Actually The Good Guy

Ok so for starters, he used to be part of the GP, he helped them fight the Royalists and then when they were on the cusp of victory he murdered the heir they planned to place on the throne and nominated himself king by divine right. He genuinely likes Ajay and refrains from killing him due to his love of Ishwari, but that doesn't mean he's not a monster that ranks pretty high up there; he even indulges in slavery if the hostage rescue is any indication. * Kills subordinates for minor failures. * Originally worked with the Golden Path but betrayed them. * Banned Kyrat's native religions because they competed with his own glory. * Bans other stuff just for fun (literally). * Melts down priceless ancient artifacts to make various forms of bling. * Condones torture performed by his governors. * Sends people to a battle-to-the-death arena for any reason he likes. * Tells blatant lies in his guidebook. Some people point out that the GP isn't any better due to them murdering his infant child, but I don't buy it. Sure it was horrendous, but reading Mohan's journals indicates it was during a moment of rage and he apologizes to Ajay for having to do it. Contrast Pagan and his soldiers who murder entire families by the truckload and laugh about it with no sense of remorse. Enjoyed shooting his helicopter out of the sky when he thought he could fly away. Even though I didn't know I would've killed him lol.
Far Cry 4: Pagan Min Was Actually The Good Guy

The conflict started in the 1980s. A bitter civil war was ravaging Kyrat after the royal family was killed by rebels, Pagan Min arrived and alongside the royalists established peace. Mohan Gale, the founder of the golden path terrorist group, wanted power for himself and plunged the country of Kyrat back into civil war. Ishwari, his loyal wife, wanted to fight as well, but was repeatedly ignored by Mohan. Eventually, in retaliation for her requests, Mohan sent Ishwari to spy on Pagan, even making her bring their infant son. Ishwari was by all accounts very intelligent, and quickly realized that Pagan wasn't the tyrant that her husband had made him out to be. She and Pagan fell in love, and had a daughter named Lakshama. During this time, she convinced Pagan to send students for medical training and hold real peace talks with the rebels. It was too much for Mohan, who murdered Lakshama, and even tried to murder Ishwari as well. That's the foundation of the golden path. Real Peaceful.
You cannot lose your salvation as a Christian

A. I did not put words in his mouth. The logic continues from what is true and stated in the Bible. If you follow the following: A. God saved us. (WHosoever calls on the name of the Lord SHALL BE SAVED) B. God has our salvation in safekeeping from men (no MAN can pluck you out of my hand) C. We are men. (I think that is obvious) Conclusion: We, as men, cannot revoke our own salvation You did not answer the metaphor in Romans. What of the fact that Paul was speaking by Roman law (at least the Bible says that is what he did. "To the greeks, I become as a Greek, to the Jews, as a Jew, to those with law as under the law, and to those without a law as without law."). Therefore, it is safe to believe that the Bible also meant that "to the Romans, I (Paul) became as a Roman." As I said before, Roman law prohibited either party of an adoption from revoking the birthright of the adopted son or daughter. Also, God has said that He would rather bring a person home (Heaven) before He let them revoke their salvation (Saying that he would let the consequences take effect instead of let a straying Christian fall out). I believe firmly that one will be going home before they do so much their salvation is null and void.
You cannot lose your salvation as a Christian

God gives mankind free-will. If in that free-will, a person walks away from God, God does not still force this person to go to heaven. Your marriage metaphor....there is an exception given to the covenant of marriage in Leviticus, marital unfaithfulness. Using the same logic, anyone who leaves God to worship other gods i.e. Buddha, Allah, or even themselves, is guilty of spiritual unfaithfulness. Therefore the covenant is broken. Not by God, but by us, which is what is meant by scripture. God will not revoke salvation. This doesn't mean that we cannot leave it. You must be careful how you interpret scripture, and do not put words into God's mouth. While it would be nice if anyone who was saved could go on to do whatever they wanted and not suffer for it, this is not scripturally sound. This runs contrary to the whole concept of salvation, which is us choosing Christ and loving Him, and spending eternity with him.
You cannot lose your salvation as a Christian

However, in Romans, Paul makes the statement that were are brought into the "spirit of adoption" by God. He was speaking to Romans as he did the rest of them. He spoke to the Corinthians making athletic metaphors, because there were major athletic events held there. In Romans, he specifically uses the part about adoption for a spefific reason. In Roman law, adoption was impossible to undo. Whatever the adopter or adopted did or wanted to do, the adopted would in no way lose the inheritance as a son of the adopter. Our inheritance through Christ is salvation, and based on Paul's use of that metaphor, there is no way to lose that. We are brought into the family of God in three ways: New birth, adoption, and marriage. We are literally, as Christians, fiance to Christ. We are holding the marriage ceremony at the Marriage Supper of the Lamb, we were adopted through Jesus's death on the cross, and we were born again through His ressurection from the grave, which proved His Deity. Adoption is permanent, we cannot remove that we are born again, and marriage is binding. That is a recipe for surefootedness.
You cannot lose your salvation as a Christian

While it is true that you cannot be "snatched" from Christ's hand.....you can leave it. Christ will not force you to stay, but if you leave the eternal protection of his fold, you have left it. Now, you can easily return. Just like with the prodigal son, he was no longer supported or protected by his father as long as he was away from his father's house. Only as long as he stayed with his father was he under that protection. His father (a personification of God) was waiting eagerly to embrace his son....but he didn't run off after him, or protect him anywhere he went. The son (a metaphor for humanity) was capable of making his own decisions, and he did.
You cannot lose your salvation as a Christian

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have ETERNAL life. John 10 27My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 29My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all[a]; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. (NIV) The key word in the first is ETERNAL. Our Eternal describes life in that phrase. This means that the life will never end. In the second passage, Jesus preaches that nobody can snatch a Christian from His hand. Throughout the Bible, it states many times that we cannot lose our salvation.
Ournamestoolong, Pick Your Own Debate!

OK, well thank you for an enjoyable debate. In this round, I will not bring up any new information, as that would be unfair to my opponent. I will address the essence of the debate. How is this debate applicable to you: the voter? First off, my opponent actually concedes the debate. Please note the following quote: " The police force should protect us and THEY should have guns." My opponent admits that guns should be present in the US. If you read the resolution: Guns should be banned in the US, you will see that he concedes. Even though my opponent has conceded, I will continue. He says that we should not have guns, and that we should trust the police to protect us. (Again, the police have guns) This is unrealistic. Take into account my previous example. A robber/murderer is in your house. You can either shoot him, or call the police, hope they get there in the next millisecond, and hope they will shoot him for you. That is COMPLETELY ridiculous. The police cannot be everywhere, all the time. And they certainly cannot be at your house every hour of the day. Guns are THE ONLY WAY to adequitly protect oneself. I have proven all other options ineffective, leaving guns to be the only viable option. So here is why you should vote con: 1-My opponent conceded 2-You cannot protect yourself were there to be a gun ban. For these reasons, I can only negate the resolution. Thank you.
Ournamestoolong, Pick Your Own Debate!

My opponent countered by saying that home-based military do not need guns. What? Thats ridiculous! How are we to defend ourselves if even the military don't have guns? What happens in the case of a bombing? In a terrorist attack? Also he says that our security is not at risk. Again: ridiculous. Are we not hated by billions of people around the world? What about terrorists? Remember 9/11? Right, our security is not at risk at all, right? " "Home based military SHOULD NOT BE PROTECTING US. I am against the notion of having troops in the US during peace time. The police force should protect us and THEY should have guns. Second, the safety of citizens. Here is the thing, if guns are banned, only criminals will have them. My opponent says we have other ways to defend ourselves, such as martial arts, pepper spray, a dog? OK, lets think about this for a moment. A man with a gun breaks into your house. Do you a) Pepper spray! (From thirty feet away, right? ) b) Karate chop him (again, thirty feet away) c) Tell your dog to sic 'em" Ok these notions are ridiculous, those were just examples. Here is another option. D) TRUST THE POLICE "Obviously, the ONLY viable option is the good old glock. Peg him. What else can you do? Nothing. Now he either steals your stuff, or shoots you and then steals your stuff. What now? " As I said before, ridiculous. "It is unconstitutional" Only if the police don't have guns "It would compromise the safety of our citizens. (Which is, again, unconstitutional)" The police protect the citizens, and the statistics show that gun control makes countries safer.
Ournamestoolong, Pick Your Own Debate!

My opponent and I both make attacks on each other's cases, so I will only address the essence of the debate. So here is what the debate comes down to: -1 Is a gun ban constitutional? -2 Will citizen's safety be compromised in the event of a gun ban. First off, I said that a gun ban would be completely unconstitutional. My opponent countered by saying that home-based military do not need guns. What? Thats ridiculous! How are we to defend ourselves if even the military don't have guns? What happens in the case of a bombing? In a terrorist attack? Also he says that our security is not at risk. Again: ridiculous. Are we not hated by billions of people around the world? What about terrorists? Remember 9/11? Right, our security is not at risk at all, right? Second, the safety of citizens. Here is the thing, if guns are banned, only criminals will have them. My opponent says we have other ways to defend ourselves, such as martial arts, pepper spray, a dog? OK, lets think about this for a moment. A man with a gun breaks into your house. Do you a) Pepper spray! (From thirty feet away, right?) b) Karate chop him (again, thirty feet away) c) Tell your dog to sic 'em Pepper spray- How can you hit him with the spray from thirty feet away? Karate- From thirty feet away? Dog- He shoots the dog. What now? Obviously, the ONLY viable option is the good old glock. Peg him. What else can you do? Nothing. Now he either steals your stuff, or shoots you and then steals your stuff. What now? A gun ban would be unjust because: -It is unconstitutional -It would compromise the safety of our citizens. (Which is, again, unconstitutional) For these reasons, I can only negate the resolution. Thank you.
Ournamestoolong, Pick Your Own Debate!

I will open by addressing my opponent's case, and then go on to show you why the resolution is unjust pertaining to the United States. My opponent opens with a set of statistics. I will counter with my own Italian population 2007: 59.8 million German population 2007: 82.2 million Japanese population 2007: 127.77 million United Kingdom population 2007: 60.7 million United States population 2007: estimated 360 million by 2007 (This is due to the fact that the US Census is taken every ten years. Based on the growth rate, one can assume we would have numbered over 360 million in 2007) Going by these numbers, we can clearly see how my opponent's statistics are completely plausible, and not in a significant way due to gun control laws. These numbers speak for themselves. He also makes the case that by banning guns we would not be violating the constitution. He then says that criminals are not a regular militia. What my opponent fails to realize is that the resolution is not about banning guns for criminals, but about for all United States citizens on US soil. What you now must realize is that criminals are not the only individuals applying to the resolution. Also pertaining to it are regular citizens, as well as military personal. Are they not US citizens? Are they not on US soil? (The ones stationed in the US) Are they not a well-formed militia? We can now clearly see that banning guns WOULD directly contradict the constitution, and even violate our safety. Having torn down my opponent's case, I now present to you the fact that a gun ban in the US is unjust. First, we are guaranteed the right in our constitution. Second, we would endanger our safety. (Again, guaranteed by the Constitution) Lastly, if guns were banned, only criminals would have them. If that were the case, citizens would not be able to defend themselves. (Again, violating the Constitution and their personal safety) For these reasons a gun ban would be unjust. Ending on that note, I conclude round two of the debate. Thank you. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...
Ournamestoolong, Pick Your Own Debate!

I choose "Guns should be banned in the United States" I am Pro. In 2007, 16,929 people ( http://www.fbi.gov... ) were murdered. Now you may say that this is a normal number for international crime rates, But it is not. Looking at the homicide rate of our own country (5.6 murders for every 100,000 people) compared to other developed countries, we see we have a particularly high rate. (United Kingdom 2.1, Japan .5, Germany 1, Italy 1.2) (http://www.photius.com...) So what makes us different from these countries. They are just as developed, and many of the outside influences are the same. So what is the difference? All the countries I listed have some type of gun control. (http://news.bbc.co.uk..., http://www.guncite.com..., http://archives.cnn.com...) So this proves that gun control is effective. Japan has the strictest gun control and the lowest homicide rate. Guns should be banned because it would lower homicide rates until they would be virtually non-existant. Banning guns would not violate the first ammendment as it reads, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...) Unless my opponent argues that criminals are a well regulated militia, this point stands. So in conclusion, banning guns would keep us safe and is Constitutional.
Abortion Should Be Upheld, While The Death Penalty Should Be Outlawed

Do you know what was the biggest mistake in congressional legislature of the 20th century is according to past and present members of Congress? Roe vs Wade A life is a life, plain and simple. It does not matter whether that life is in or beyond the womb. I do not need a government agency to declare that for me or to have "jurisdiction" over a life upon birth. Take the Scott Peterson trial. He has been charged with double murder and is awaiting the death penalty for two murders (mother and unborn child). This contradicts both of your points and the Constitution because the mother was with child. Even though the mother is "in charge" of her own body, she does not have the right to end the life of another living being. Also, why must I pay my tax money to support abortion? Many of the facilities that perform abortions have had some form of government assistance...whether it is with medical supplies or facilities.
Abortion Should Be Upheld, While The Death Penalty Should Be Outlawed

Evenif we accept your definition of life, the intent of the constitution (as found in Roe vs. Wade) does not protect embryonic life. It only protects those in its jurisdiction. The embryonic life is not under the jurisdiction of the government because the a woman's decision to carry her pregnancy to full term is a private one not one decided by the government. You ask "what is the difference between a mother killing her infant son/daughter upon birth and the killing of her son/daughter while in utero?" Well the difference is this: the child's right to life is protected once born because it is now under Government jurisdiction.
Abortion Should Be Upheld, While The Death Penalty Should Be Outlawed

There is no argument here. You answered your own debate with the following statement: "The killing of a person is, at its very nature, an inhumane act." From conception, a person (because you are aren't you?) begins to develop the very inner workings that allow you to be the living, functioning being that you are now. The heartbeat, which proves the development of the brain, can be heard during an external ultrasound as early as 6 weeks. That's the same heartbeat that keeps you sustained to this day. From conception, it has been proven (by science) that a person (again, because you are aren't you?) moves. Movement through it's own physical ability, not devine intervention of motherly prompting. Why the movement? Scientists have began a movement to believe that these movements are a way of daydreaming. Blips of thought that connect the thought process to the ability to physically move. If you support the death penalty, then when is a life not a life and who are you to be the judge of that? More importantly, if you believe what you stated, what is the difference between a mother killing her infant son/daughter upon birth and the killing of her son/daughter while in utero?