BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Education Reform

While money cannot buy you happiness, its the only dough that can buy a house, pay your bills, and support a family. My opponent quoted me as saying that life skills are useless in the modern world. This was neither stated nor implied in the pertaining passage [I run a corporation, and life skills aren't worth the oxygen in business. No, respect doesn't even earn you a smile.] I am not averse to the idea of life skills. My revulsion is their over-emphasis. As my opponent stated in contention #1, I am focusing on the financial side of life (intentionally), and will proceed to broaden the scope of my arguments. Perhaps this discussion is to be more fruitful if we speak from a perspective in consideration of a larger picture. You are endowed with elective (optional) and highly specialized classes, which are not the model in the elementary educational environment. However, several fallacies are apparent in the beginning education of children. Without further ado, allow me to certify that I am not an oldie. I experienced electives in my time, and my opponent has thus far crafted a description that runs parallel to the educational environment of the 70s that I was taught in, excepting for segregation. Regarding once again to education, allow me to relate my points by the means of narrating the life of Jill, an aspiring economist. NOTE:fictional From about age 12, Jill knew what she wanted to be: "one of those market people". In the absence of relevant teaching in the curriculum, Jill found books and web sites to instigate a foundation of business knowledge. At age 19, Jill entered Harvard University and was well-prepared for a rigorous course on advanced business science. Let us now take the example of Fred, an unsuccessful ex-economist. Fred, with the same intentions as Jill, yet a more conventional mind, started off fresh with the same course, having gained no prior knowledge, and was ill-prepared. After his failed career, Fred's income was grounded, and he ended up on the streets. Thus, a potentially great mind fails to flourish in the absence of a relevant class at the elementary level. As shown by these examples, the current educational system lacks curriculum ties to the real world. My opponents response to tie off this round should accomplish the following: 1. find flaw in the stories of Jill and Fred 2. illuminate changes in the educational system since the 70s 3. reflect a reason for the over-emphasis of lifeskillsl
Education Reform

Note: I am in High School A lot is said about how children today are taught things that have little to no use in the real world. I think my opponent is looking a a very narrow part of our school system and needs to open his eyes. I will disprove my opponent contentions on the following grounds: Contention #1 Life Skills My opponent had mentioned how life skills were apparently "useless" in the real world. My opponent may be referring to financial side of life, but there's a whole lot to more life then just how far you can get up the corporate latter. Teaching things like respect, friendship, values, and morals. These are the secrets to happiness and these aren't real life skills then what are? Time, time and again it has been proven the money can't buy happiness. . http://www.washingtonpost.com... Contention #2 Life Skill are not the only thing taught at School Believe it or not, now more then ever we are teaching our kids "real life" skills as well as life skills. In my high school for instance you have a wide selection of courses and you can pick whatever interests you and what you'd like to pursue in the real world. For instance I'm interested in pursing Law, and my school offers Law & Justice and Business Law. These classes will be EXTREMELY relevant to what I choose to pursue in the real world and are far more practical then what used to be taught. Before your choice (according to my father) was limited to Spanish or French. Administrators can even set up internships that count towards your required high school credits! My opponent didn't contend a lot of information so that's it for this round; I look forward to my opponents response.
Education Reform

Before any arguments are posed, let me identify the subject utilizing more clarity: As a child, I was disgusted with my education. Well renowned as an above-grade student, I found my education laughably impractical. Posing reforms in areas such as student authority, I found that the steadfast system was so bullheaded as to not budge an inch. Thirty years later, I actively participate in the education of my children (elementary and high school, and am finding it just as distastefully naive as a preparation for the modern world. The children are taught "Life skills" (respect, friendship, etc.), and are rewarded for their exhibition with tickets that can be used to purchase miscellaneous flotsam at a weekly stand. I run a corporation, and life skills aren't worth the oxygen in business. No, respect doesn't even earn you a smile. Ten years from now, my 9 year old son will will be introduced to the real world where generosity leads to bankruptcy. An unorthodox education, fostering more real world skills is required. Children are welcomed in this debate. If willing, please disclose your educational background.
abortion

first the taking of innocent life is called murder, you just need to take a look at the pictures of aborted babies, murdered babies, lying without legs or arms, in a pile of blood with their little fingers and face features in pain, or listen to what an ex-abortionist doctor says about when they were doing the "procedure", and how the baby moved away and tried to hide in the walls of the uterus, or that its head moved when the aborted baby was placed a few seconds still alive in the lab desk. ITS SO WRONG! "my body my choice" how many girs doesnt said that but its not true is someone else body inside of yours ITS NOT YOUR CHOICE THEN. my point is: abortion is basically a murder.
Gay Marriage should be legal

Rebuttal: Joint custody is fine, when you can manage to get the plaintiffs to agree to it; however, since we are talking divorce, they more than likely will not. If everyone could settle for joint custody, then there would be a lot less congestion in family courts. This is no small matter, do not dismiss it as one. The arguments which you are trying to force me into are not my positions. Legal costs that would result from trying to figure proper precedents would require Supreme Court case after Supreme Court case. Also, you failed to rebut anything about properties or financial assets. These are also big issues. I am not arguing this on a moral basis, though that is obviously what you want me to do. My argument is: That court cases resulting from divorce would be too much for the courts to handle. Now, there are some subtopics in this. First, this would be giving the government the role of defining this kind of marriage. That would essentially be the government indoctrinating religion. As current divorce precedents stand, there is no feasible way of being able to split assets, or children. So again, without mandatory pre-nuptial agreements, gay marriage cannot work.
Gay Marriage should be legal

Well, I was looking for someone with a bit stronger stance against gay marriage… But as for the issue of custody is concerned. That's what they have joint custody for. As for the general idea of gay marriage… Ask yourself this: Is marriage an institution of the church or the state? Some will say both, but most if not all will say that is a spiritual union and contract deriving from god and church. The state's contractual involvement is limited to property and children. The two arguments given by anti-gay marriage individuals involve both contracts. Argument 1: God is strictly against Homosexual behavior and marriage, thus gay marriage should be outlawed. Argument 2: The children of homosexual marriages would be confused and suffer. Rebuttal 1: As an institution of the church it is a church's decision weather or not a marriage should be allowed within that church and that church alone. Banning gay marriage at the state or federal level is no different of a situation than legislation being passed that forces churches to marry homosexuals. Both outsource church choice and both further destroy church sovereignty. The state also has a duty to acknowledge any contract made by any two individuals or group of individuals as long as all parties agree to that contract and no party was coerced into that contract. In a truly free society, two individuals could make a contract to fight to the death that would bar the victor of criminal repercussions… But sadly we live in so such society. Also, the bible involves mans relationship with god and not mans influence on man. Christians are supposed to be a shining light for people and not their tyrannical moral enforcement. If a person or a group of people decide to go against god's will and get married or marry homosexuals… They have that god given right to do so… Rebuttal 2: This is possibly the silliest argument ever… First of all, children are much smarter that we give them credit for and often accept situations long before stubborn adults will. Second, you will find that homosexual couples adopt and take care of mentally disabled children more often than heterosexual couples. A solution to a very sad problem? And last there are no studies whatsoever proving that children of homosexual parents end up being somehow scarred. It is simply unproven fear propaganda.
Gay Marriage should be legal

I will agree that churches should stop lobbying their position, I find it very hypocritical of them to be doing so considering part of having church tax exemptions is that you can't contribute to any public official; and I would like to make abundantly clear that I am NOT against gay marriage completely, just against the way that it is currently proposed. I will make this argument on the sole argument that divorce cases in a gay marriage would be a disaster. This is because in a standard divorce case there is a Husband and Wife, clearly labeled 'sides'. Typically, there are certain issues that are meant to help the wife (prenups not included): Physical Assets - House, car, etc. and Liquid Assets - Current monies, and Future monies (alimony, child support); finally there is the issue of children, if applicable. Again, typically the mother gets the children (typically, mind you). In a gay marriage these things are not clear. If a man and a man, with kids (whole 'nother issue, I know),apply for a divorce how do you decide who gets what. Now if it were law that a pre-nuptual agreement must be made before a gay marriage, then this debate is null, because these issues could be readily resolved. However, this is not the case. For the children, if neither side was willing to give up at least partial custody, then one could see the problems that would cause. Again, my sole argument is that Gay Marriages, as proposed currently, should not be allowed because of the havoc it would cause the judicial system in resolving divorce cases.
Gay Marriage should be legal

Wow, you must still be in high school, legalities decide issues, that's how the world works. Marriage is not a civil right. Marriage was created by the church, not the government. And yes, until the LEGALITIES of this issue are worked out, we should not simply say, "Go ahead and get married, we'll sort everything out later." I'm sorry if your little dream gets ruined because it is unfeasible as it stands. And again, you are distorting my argument. Try coming up with an actual response this time instead of being angry you didn't get the argument you wanted. That's the whole point of debating, to argue DIFFERENT points of view. "Seriously sounds like a social issue, not a legal one." REALLY??!! Every social issue IS a matter of legalities. Legalizing marijuana is a social issue that is based on legalities. Abortion is an issue based on legalities. And, yes, GAY MARRIAGE is an issue based on legalities.
Gay Marriage should be legal

"Rebuttal: Joint custody is fine, when you can manage to get the plaintiffs to agree to it; however, since we are talking divorce, they more than likely will not. If everyone could settle for joint custody, then there would be a lot less congestion in family courts. This is no small matter, do not dismiss it as one." "My argument is: That court cases resulting from divorce would be too much for the courts to handle. " So let me get this straight... Gay couples shouldn't be allowed their civil right because the burden on the court system would be too high? Seriously sounds like a social problem, not a legal one.
God must exist.

WOW! I have like 11 minutes to finish this round lol I am simply stating that I am against the notion that God MUST exist (as stated in the title of the debate). One of the many attributes we give God is that He is great. He is all knowing, all powerful, and all loving. As far as being great goes, He is the greatest of all beings that know, love, and have power. I believe that his existence is not a great making characteristic. Being that God is the greatest conceivable being (GCB), most people think that He must exist. Sorry I did not make enough rounds for this kind of argument. I will post another debate with more rounds and longer answering time. I guess I just worded what I was trying to say wrong. Please let me know what you think and I will re-post and restate a debate that you would like to take on about this subject.
God must exist.

To the point where It is unclear exactly the point you're trying to make. .. Are you saying that God CANNOT exist because we can conceive of him? That doesnt make sense in and of itself. Are you saying that God CANNOT exist because he must be (as you say) the GCB, and since we can concieve of him than he must not exist. In which instance I would argue that we only can concieve of his existance, not all the aspects that IS God. .. . since we can't concieve of all the elements that make up God (only a few), I would say by your own definition God COULD exist.
God must exist.

I feel like God cannot possibly exist. I say this because we are able to conceive the concept of "God" and for something to be the only all knowing, all powerful, and all loving, it must be the greatest conceivable being. With that said, I feel like a greatest conceivable being (GCB) cannot possibly exist. I would like to thank my opponent for taking this debate, I would also like to thank the academy, Jesus, and my family, for whom without them, I could not have been where I am today. Except for Jesus, because he doesn't actually directly intervene in our lives because that would just screw up his dad's divine plan.
A Resolution to Better the Lives of Drug Users through Higher Education

Ones again My opponent forfeited the last round so I assume that he has no respond to my last debate. Any way I reaffirm the fact that we should not Better the Lives of Drug Users through Higher Education but by financial support through these reasons. giving the fact that most people face drug abuse due to depression and economical breakdowns in there lives. Drug addiction continues to be a major concern for society and the concern grows with every passing year. Not only do drug and alcohol addiction effect the addict and his or her loved ones, but also society at large with rippling effects. We must act upon this issue before it gets out of control. A Harvard study tells us that adolescent brain is a lot weaker than those of a adult so they are more venerable to drug effects than adults. many of these students knows that the drugs they take are harmful and fetal to there bodies however, they simply cannot stop due to there lack of money to go to a rehab center or visit a counselor. If we were to provide them with economic support, not only will they be busy with there various (New Jobs), but they will have enough money to go to a counselor and visit a rehab center. According to NIDA, drug and alcohol addiction has an economic impact on society of $67 billion per year. with the amount of money that we make from these drugs, we can find a way to provide them with economic care. This includes costs related to crimes and incarceration, drug addiction treatment, medical costs from overdoses and drug related injuries and complications, time lost from work and social welfare programs. Because drug addiction and alcoholism are diseases of the brain, which is the center of judgment and behavioral patterns, drug addicts and alcoholics have a disturbingly high propensity to commit unlawful and immoral acts to obtain these substances. Moreover, once under the influence of drugs and alcohol, the addict's inhibitions are drastically lowered with a sense of indestructibility, which leads to aggressive and irresponsible behavior. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, there were 17,941 alcohol related traffic fatalities in 2006, a 2.4% increase from 2005.(4) NIDA also states that getting treatment can reduce these costs as addiction treatment centers and programs help addicts to learn to live a sober life, freeing them from the behavioral problems associated with drug addiction and alcoholism. my opponent gives an idea that not been educated is the main course for drug abuse however, common sense alone and environmental and social influences can covens them of the use these harmful things. We could see that providing drug abusers with financial aid not only relief's there depression but provides them with an open gate to widrawal. http://www.treatment-centers.net... http://www.caps.ucsf.edu...
A Resolution to Better the Lives of Drug Users through Higher Education

For my first argument, I belief that we Better the Lives of Drug Users through financial aid instead of higher education. the reason been that many of the drug users are already educated and cannot stop so providing them with more money is only a waste of our resources. according to a Harvard survey, 75% of drug users, use drugs to relief their financial needs and problems. it is said that illegal drugs calms ones senses and soul down. another Harvard survey, shows that 85% of drug users are aware of the drugs effect but simply can't stop. you can't expect drug users to stop using drugs unless they want to and 4 out of 5 drug users probably does not want to quit using drugs. my opponent mentions that student are been blocked there access to a full education whereas a student convicted of illegal drug use can still get a full education. we must see that many have changed since 1998 and the citizens of the united states, are more aware of their rights as citizens. The federal government has no right to discriminate these people by providing them with a separate curriculum. it is also unfair to the students who are not convicted of drug usage because it creates an unfair opportunities to the kids who are convicted of drug usage. Enforcing a better education also means giving them a harder standardized text which would increase there stress and prohibit them from coping with life challenges. we could see that enforcing this law will not only be unicycle but will discourage them from getting a good education and quieting drug usage.
A Resolution to Better the Lives of Drug Users through Higher Education

WHEREAS a law passed in 1998 states that anyone convicted of a drug crime is banned from receiving financial aid for college, and WHEREAS blocking access to education does not solve the problem of illegal drug use, and WHEREAS students should not be penalized twice for their mistakes, and WHEREAS withholding financial aid does nothing to help students with drug abuse problems, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Student Congress here assembled to eliminate all prohibitions on federal financial aid for persons convicted of nonviolent drug offenses. You Start!
A Resolution to Better the Lives of Drug Users through Higher Education

ones again, my opponent has forfieted this round so iwill go ahead and give you some facts and soucrses Financial aid: http://www.drug-rehabs.com... http://www.getsmartaboutdrugs.com... http://www.peele.net... www.unodc.org/documents/pakistan//finalversion-mmark.pdf books.google.com/books?id=Ja96v7i_4hAC... www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov www.helpguide.org/.../drug_substance_abuse_addiction_signs_effects_treatment.htm
Evolution is a religion

Thank you to Theist for the challenge. I'll use this round for definitions and acceptance.DefinitionsTheory: A well-supported conceptual framework that encompasses a large body of scientific facts, inferences, observations, and experiments and explains them in a coherent way. [1]Evolution: Genetic change over many generations ultimately results in the emergence of new and different species from a single ancestral species. [2]Religion: A comprehensive worldview or 'metaphysical moral vision' that is accepted as binding because it is held to be in initself basically true and just even if all dimensions of it cannot be either fully confirmed or refuted. [3]ObservationsO1: In order for me to win this debate, I do not have to prove that evolution is true. All I have to do is negate the motion that evolution is a religion. Good luck! __________________________Sources1. Fairbanks, Daniel J. Evolving: The Human Effect and Why It Matters. Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2012. Print 2. Ibid3. Norenzayan, Ara. Big Gods: How Religion Transformed Cooperation and Conflict. Print.
Evolution is a religion

But I did state that I was talking about all but micro evolution. About the Berkeley notes: how does he know that life has changed from it's original status also for life to exist how do you know what started it in the first place? Nothing happens by itself. I don't expect you to write an essay on all but micro evolution you could just write points we had 5 rounds Also if you know how fossils a made it's made by a rapid burial of mud (look it up) if anything it's evidence for the flood not evolution. Sources:http://www.nature.com... http://www.icr.org...
Evolution is a religion

Actually mate if you read the title of the debate it is Evolution is a religion not (biological evolution) and if biological evolution doesn't discuss the origin of life what does biological evolution discuss? Evolution has different types, you can't say micro evolution is the same as stellar evolution I'm just breaking it down. Yes it does macro evolution teaches that one animal can turn into another animal you learn this in school and and it's on educational websites. When you find a fossils in the dirt you can't prove it had any children let alone any children different to it's kind eg dogs produce dogs and cats produce cats ect there are no exceptions you're calling my language equivocate you're being that right now. I did so in the second round and then you digress but I will repeat myself. Religion-A philosophy on how the universe came into existence, without any evidence. Since evolution is a philosophy on how the universe came into existence and it doesn't have any evidence it's technically a religion. I urge you to who vote for who you want to but I'd advise you to vote for the person who actually knows the topic of the debate and what biological and macro evolution really is about. Sources: Kent Hovind 100 reasons why evolution is stupid