BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gun control in the school

If a shooter enters a school, and no one in that school has a gun, it is the recipe for a disaster. Here are some of my arguments for teachers having concealed carry permits. 1. Getting a concealed carry permit does not mean you can get a pistol that day. Those who get these have to go through several steps, including background checks, fingerprinting, and classes on shooting. Someone who has a concealed carry will be able to hit a target rather proficiently. Adding to that, teachers should already be background checked, so there is less of a chance of an unsavory character being in possession of a weapon while being around children. 2. The guns would need to be out of reach of the students, but having a gun in the classroom that the teacher can easily get to means that the chance of survival if a shooter targets the classroom much higher. 3. Criminals historically target those who they think are unarmed and vulnerable. They will not attack a place that is able to easily defend themselves, because many shooters want media attention, which will happen if they create a massacre, not if they are the only casualty. 4. When in a fight or die situation, an example being cornered in a room with a shooter, the better option is to fight, because otherwise you will die anyway. A teacher having a gun is an excellent way of defending yourself.
genetic engineering

Let's say someone has a disease due to faulty genes. With genetic engineering, it may be possible to replace the faulty genes with healthy genes. (1) Also, genetic engineering already allows us to mass produce several types of medicine that help save lives. (2) Although, there may be some side effects when you consider the amount of lives that could be saved from genetic engineering, it becomes worthwhile. Finally, GM crops do produce more. 1-http://bit.ly... 2-http://bit.ly...
If Anti-X = Anti-Y, then X=Y

EQUAL symbol PRO states that the equal sign means "Having the same quantity, measure, or value as another". However, how can one measure, have a quantity or value of Obama? To use a quantitative definition (value) to define one that is qualitative (characteristics) is nonsense. Semantics of the negative: PRO states that because two negatives result in a positive, then anti must be equivalent to a negative. To demonstrate why this is a non-sequiter , a counter-example is needed. Words such as “non” denote a negative. However “non-jewish” does not mean “anti-jewish”. If I am anti-(anti-white) that does not make me white, but against those who are against white people. PRO says that I use a strawman, however I am using Reductio ad absurdum. PRO is using mathematical principles to conclude that the same can be applied to words. I demonstrate why this is illogical. PRO believes that the rules of double negative apply both to math and English. However, just because there are similarities, does not mean that the principles are transferable or the same. The rule of double negative certainly does not apply in mathematics, only in cases in which where multiplication occurs. For example -2 + -5 does not create a positive. English grammar rules are man-made and english grammar changes throughout the years. If, for example, people become accustomed to stating “I didn’t do nothing”, instead of “I didn’t do anything”,this can become gramatticaly correct. Therefore, based on Pro’s own logic “Anti-Obama = Obama” because the rules of grammar changed. This is a contradiction. PRO bases definitions of logical equivalance that do not make sense:. http://tinyurl.com... Logical equivalnce to denote "=" make sense since words can have a logical equivalent, but words can't have a value. PRO would've to demonstrate that using deductive logic, that If Anti-X = Ant-Y then X = Y. However, Pro did not. He failed to use deductive reasoning. Not once did he follow a logical syllogism.
If Anti-X = Anti-Y, then X=Y

The certainty of the EQUAL symbol Equal: "Having the same quantity, measure, or value as another." (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...) If something is equal, then it means that it is same and identical. The 1st premise tells us that Anti-X is the same thing as Anti-Y. Because of the CERTAINTY of the equal sign we know that being against Y is EXACTLY THE SAME as being against X. The corrolation between X and Y is hence that X is the same as Y. My opponent's semantics on the Negative My opponent brought up a dictionary definition to show that I could not use a negative symbol to represent Anti. This is false. The english language AND mathematics BOTH follow the same rules on negatives. English"In Standard English, two negatives are understood to resolve to a positive..." (http://en.wikipedia.org...)Mathnegative times negative is positive. The fact that this is a multiplicative principle does not invalidate it, like my opponent asserts. He is trying to use math symbols for english words, and then attack that as not making sense (classic strawman). One does not need to "multiply words" to see that the rule of double negatives is the same in both math and english. It is therefore valid that Anti-x = Anti-y is the same as -x=-y Being able to apply math to this question, we find that the resolution is correct. X = 16-16 = -Y16 = YX = Y Rebuttal"The symbol equal, means the logical equivalent. So one can state, Anti-Obama is logically equivalent to anti-stupidity"Equal and equivalent are different terms. Equal is direct, exact, and CAUSATIVE. Equivalent is proportional and CORRELATIVE. This goes back to the certainty of the equal symbol. If Anti-Obama is definitely and directly Anti-Stupidity, then there is a definite and direct connection between Obama and stupidity. That lends us the conclusion that Obama = stupidity.
If Anti-X = Anti-Y, then X=Y

So anti-X does not mean negative X. To prove this all on has to do is look at a dictionary:. http://www.merriam-webster.com...anti- one that is opposed. It does not state that anti is negative.2) Words are not quanitative. Words do not have a value system to it. For example, Obama does not have a certain "value" to him. Nor does "Anti-Obama" have any value to him. To use this analogy:If Y = -16then Y - (-16) = 0It would be nonsensical to state "If you add the Obama to the Anti-Obama you get zero". Clearly this is invalid. The symbol equal, means the logical equivalent. So one can state, Anti-Obama is logically equivalent to anti-stupidity:. http://en.wikipedia.org...One can derive logical cocnlusion through this, but one can not add, subtract or multiple words and expect to get an answer. The statement:Obama*pudding = cakeIs nonsensical. I await for his reply.
If Anti-X = Anti-Y, then X=Y

If anti-X = anti-Y, then X=Y This is true because there is an "=" in between. Being Anti-X MEANS that we are also Anti-Y, so X must be equal to Y. Lets say X = 16-16 = -Ynegatives cancel out16 = YX = YLets use words.X = Obama, Y= stupidityAnti-Obama = Anti-Stupiditycancel out the negativesObama = Stupidity My opponent must prove this false.
Salemocracy is a good idea

While it may sound good in theory it's not good in practice. Having no term limits might sound fine because the public would have to keep relecting you and all meaning you'd have to be liked, however there is corruption already in the system (particularly within the democratic party) and adding the whole aspect of unlimited terms would be dreadful. Our election system isn't exactly extremely corrupt but it isn't perfect and so therefore we shouldn't risk possible corruption leading to basically a full on king. Not only that, but murders of presidents would be WAY more common due to the fact that the people who oppose him know that if he's liked enough he can get reelected over and over.
Abortion

yes Her body may be hers However by having unprotected sex she has a responsibility that if she has caused life to be created to allow that life to live, it is a separate person and the killing of any being with DNA that only is HUMAN is murder by definition. abortion simply for birth control is completely wrong. as is blaming a created life for the sins of the father. no one has a right to take a human life just because it is an inconvenience if you do not want a child do not have unprotected sex if you have unprotected sex it is your responsibility to bring that life into the world that you created voluntarily through your act of unprotected sex, to kill an innocent in the womb is an abomination
Abortion

While a woman did have unprotected sex and therefore brought it upon herself to conceive, the fetus is not able to exist without the woman's rights being infringed. This makes the unwanted fetus a parasite. If my life depends on your life being taken over, I am a parasite in the same way. Of course, some have religious views against this because they think the fetus is a person and therefore has individual rights as well. Even if a fetus could be considered a human being, the relationship between the fetus and the mother is not mutual. It is a polar relationship, the woman must sacrifice her own nutrients and time and effort and plans for the fetus's sake. The fetus does not counter this. Therefore, it is infringing on the property rights of the women. This is unless you mean to say that the woman does not have full ownership over her body. Plus, the government does not own anyone's body and cannot tell them what to do unless they are infringing on another person's rights, which a fetus does not have as it is not a person. So it is up to the woman individually to decide what she believes, because as you said: she decided to conceive by having unprotected sex. So it is her responsibility, right? This is not a women's rights issue. I do not support most of modern feminist culture. But I would be pro-choice even if men and women both gave birth. This is about individual rights as opposed to parasite rights.
Abortion

While you are correct that a fetus contains human DNA, that alone does not make it a human being. You overlooked my point that the fetus cannot survive without the woman's time, effort, nutrients, and pain. You overlooked this because it so clearly proves my point, that a human being must exist PHYSICALLY SEPARATE from other human beings, or else it is on the same rank as a tape worm. Besides, if a woman were to wait until she has gone through almost a year of time wasted to go through labor for a baby she doesn't want so she can put it up for adoption, then what is the point? People give birth so that they can raise a baby. If the woman knows she is going to go through all of this effort for a baby she doesn't want so she can give it to someone else, it is wasted time. You also forgot to rebut my point that the government has nothing to do with this issue and should let the parent(s) decide what to do. If society requires that an individual waste their time and effort and money and pain for the sake of another non-individual, what kind of society is that?
Abortion

it doesn't matter if its wanted or not a Fetus is HUMAN I mean when you are pregnant you don't say I"m with fetus do you, no, you are saying I'm with child, Anything who's dna is only HUMAN is HUman it does not matter if it is born or not, it is still a human being with feelings. as for the rapist thing, killing a baby just because of its conception is unfair, I say kill the rapist don't blame an innocent for the way it was created its not the baby's fault. if you don't want the baby give it up for adoption but don't murder it, Murder does not only mean those who are born it means any HUMAN and since anything that consists of HUMAN DNA only and is ALIVE which a baby in the womb is alive, is HUMAN it is Murder
Abortion

A fetus is not, by definition, a human being. This is because a human being must exist physically separate from others, as an individual. A fetus is not a human being, it can only be expected to become one. Like I said before, if unwanted, a fetus is a parasite, not a human being. If the unwanted fetus can only exist by the theft of the time, nutrients, labor, money, and planning of another, it is not an individual. You implied that unprotected sex is the reason for abortion. Let's assume that your other arguments were valid (even though they weren't). Condoms only work around 98% of the time so there's one reason, and rape can happen so that's another. Do you believe a person should sacrifice her own well-being just so that a rapist's baby can be born? Also, what happens when someone uses a condom and it doesn't work? Abortion should be a personal decision, not a collective decision. You shouldn't have to ask a court if you can get an abortion, you should ask yourself.
Death Penalty

The death penalty should not be considered an option when issuing sentences to a criminal. No matter what their crime may be (murder, rape, etc..) no one deserves to die, and more importantly no one has the right to take a life away from someone else. By issuing the death penalty, you are contradicting the claim that murder is wrong. But in all actuality, you are murdering the person that committed the crime. Punishing violence with violence does not solve anything. It is extremely hypocritical. Plus, jail time can either serve as the worst punishment of all, forcing the criminal to sit and ponder over what he/she has done, or it can serve as a time of repentance and change the person as a whole. If you are for the death penalty, please inform me on your reasoning and beliefs. I would really like to see the other side of the argument.
School uniforms should be banned

Decreased time In the morning spent getting dressed Women spend nearly one year of their lives choosing what to wear in the morning[1]. This is way too much. With school uniforms it's simple you put on your skirt and blazer and head out the door. Getting ready in the morning can take up to an hour[2] minutes meaning students have to wake up earlier to get ready. The earlier they get up the more tired they would be meaning they would focus less in class. If their alarm doesn't go off they can be late for school meaning more class time. This may not be completely ended by the use of school uniforms, but it would certainly reduce the numbers. Uniforms are safe When walking home from school students wearing the wrong colour at the wrong time can get injured or killed. People have also been robbed for wearing expensive clothing(Jordan's, Gucci etc.). This wouldn't happen to students in uniforms because these misinterpretations wouldn't occur to someone in a shirt and dress pants[3]. Citation [1]http://www.telegraph.co.uk... [2]https://today.yougov.com... [3]M. Sue Stanley, "School Uniforms and Safety," Education and Urban Society, Aug. 1996
School uniforms should be banned

First of all, school uniforms restricts a student"s right to express themselves. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." [1] Yet, some schools still enforce students to wear clothes that mostly represent their school, but not their students themselves. Also, in several Supreme Court cases such as Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) , the Supreme Court ruled in a 7-2 favor that "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate" [2] which other cases had similar decisions as well. Therefore, uniforms should be considered a boundary to an individual"s personality and identity. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu... [2] http://www.uscourts.gov...
School uniforms should be banned

"Decreased time in the morning getting dressed" Even so, school uniforms deprive students of identification. Adults have the freedom to choose what they want to wear at any time, any wear. The average American lifespan is 79 years (6), and the average American public school offers 6.64 hours of education in the school day and 180 school days in the year (7). If a student spends his learning time from kindergarten to 12th grade, that"s about 15537.6 hours or about 2 years which is approximately 2.5% of their life spent in school. A good chunk of that time is spent during the stages of adolescence. Denying other clothing options from students may make them unprepared for the working world (8)(9). Finding a self-image is crucial during this period, and one of means of identification is clothing choices. (10)(11) With freedom of choice relating to clothing, students can find their individuality and develop it along the way as they reach the adult world, making them better prepared when it comes to dressing. "Uniforms are safe" Actually, uniforms can increase violence in schools. According to Tony Volk, PhD, an Associate Professor at Brock University says "Overall, there is no evidence in bullying literature that supports a reduction in violence due to school uniforms." (12) Also, a 2007 study found out that the average number of assaults that are increased by 14 per year in the most violent schools are caused by school uniforms. (13) Additionally, a 1999 study conducted by Texas Southern University concluded that school discipline incidents rose by 12% after introducing uniforms. (3) A similar situation in Miami-Dade County showed fights in middle school nearly doubled after one year of mandatory school uniforms. (14)(15) This conveys that school uniforms causes more harm than good, as shown by the examples above. Sources: (6) http://data.worldbank.org... (7) https://nces.ed.gov... (8) Grace Chen, "Public School Uniforms: The Pros and Cons for Your Child," publicschoolreview.com, Apr. 24, 2014(12 (9) Beth Asaff, "Pros and Cons of School Uniforms," kids.lovetoknow.com (accessed Aug. 20, 2014) (10) Melinda Swafford, Lee Ann Jolley, and Leigh Southward, "The Student Dress Code Debate," Techniques, Jan. 2011 (11) Erikson Institute, "Erik H. Erikson: Erikson Institute's Namesake," erikson.edu (accessed Aug. 21, 2014) (12) Shawn Jeffords, "Uniforms Won't Stop School Bullies, Experts Say," stcatharinestandard.ca, Mar. 14, 2012 (13) J. Scott Granberg-Rademacker, Jeffrey Bumgarner, and Avra Johnson, "Do School Violence Policies Matter? An Empirical Analysis of Four Approaches to Reduce School Violence," Southwest Journal of Criminal Justice, Spring 2007 (14) Charles Badger, "Report of Standard School Attire: A Look at the Issues," schoenml.org (accessed Aug. 20, 2014) (15) Lois K. Solomon, "9 More Schools to Have Students Wear Uniforms," sun-sentinel.com, May 6, 2000
School uniforms should be banned

Schools are a place of learning Schools are for education. You go there, you learn, you come home. You do not need the newest Jordan's and LAX 2 JFK to be successful in school. Uniforms do not impair on leaning. With the newest trends and how they look out of mind, students can focus on what matters: school. Uniforms are cheaper A new pair of Jordan's are 205 dollars. An LAX 2 JFK shirt is 35 dollars. Research has found that teenagers spend on average 21% of their earning on clothes[1] and $40 a week on clothes[2], most of this money coming from their parents[1]. If these teens had to wear uniforms then the money spent on clothes would be much less and remove a lot of the strain from the pockets of both them and their parents. The $2050 clothes would only be worn on weekends, so they wouldn't need a new outfit for everyday of the month[3]. The average cost for uniforms annually is about $249[4]. This is a significant difference. Though people complain about the price of uniforms, it's not too bad. You can also wear your uniform from the year prior if it still fits which saves you another $249. Uniforms prepare students for the real world Whereas dress codes are pretty relaxed allowing students to wear t-shirts, blue jeans and trainers, school uniforms prepare students for the real world. When you're an adult when you go to work you are wearing very close to how you're dressed in uniforms. It's dress shoes, khakis and dress shirts unless it's Friday. Schools are there to prepare children for the real world, what's a better way then giving them a dose of reality by putting them in monkey suits all day. That way they won't arrive to the office constantly adjusting their collar and scratching their pants. They would have had years of conditioning for it and would automatically know what to wear, what goes with what, how to tie a tie etc.. Uniforms can be individual If you're desperate to be different than you can with creative ways to express your individuality. You can use scarves, lipticks, cool backpacks, hair dyes, hair does and countless other ways to make you stand out and be individual. The thing about school uniforms though is the choice. if you don't want to be different of bullied simply don't. When you choose your own clothes if you don't have an eye for fashion, don't have a bunch of money to put into expensive clothes or you have to wear hand me down there's no way to hide that. With uniforms if you want to blend in simply keep your hair normal and that's it, they have nothing to tease you on. Don't believe appearance is even a factor? Nearly half of girls get bullied because of it[5]. School uniforms encourage unity School uniforms make students feel a sense of school pride being apart of a group of people dressed the same[6]. This feeling of unity can make people feel less excluded if they usually aren't part of a crowd and bring schools together. It's like a pep rally in every class. Citation [1]http://www.businessinsider.com... [2]http://teens.lovetoknow.com... [3]http://www.forbes.com... [4]http://www.statisticbrain.com... [5]http://www.dailymail.co.uk... [6]http://archive.northjersey.com...
School uniforms should be banned

Secondly, school uniforms don"t improve academic behavior. According to a national wide study of 10th graders conducted by the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University discovered that "no effects of uniforms on absenteeism, behavioral problems, or substance use on campus" and "no effects" on "pro-school attitudes, academic preparedness, and peer attitudes toward school." (3)(4) A leader of the study, David L. Brunsma, PhD, found a "negative effect of uniforms on academic achievement" and that there is unchanged performance in children that attend elementary and middle schools. (3) Additionally, a 2009 study concluded that "no significant effects of school uniforms on performance on second grade reading and mathematics examinations, as well as on 10th-grade reading, mathematics, science, and history examinations... [I]n many of the specifications, the results are actually negative." (5) Based on the research, this demonstrates that school uniforms are ineffective towards curriculum activities and can be harmful to the education system. Thus, they are unnecessary to the learning environment. Sources: (3) David L. Brunsma, The School Uniform Movement and What It Tells Us about American Education: A Symbolic Crusade, 2004 (4) David L. Brunsma and Kerry A. Rockquemore, "Effects of Student Uniforms on Attendance, Behavior Problems, Substance Use, and Academic Achievement," Journal of Educational Research, Sep./Oct. 1998 (5) Ryan Yeung, "Are School Uniforms a Good Fit?: Results from the ECLS-K and the NELS," Educational Policy, Nov. 2009
The so called Christians on here have no friends

I mean real friends. People who care for them. Dsjpk5 has had time to vote on 2070 debates. He must be a right loser sat in front of his computer as the dildo in his brain rattles around with nothing better to do. Or look at Kvng_8. Cry baby can do nothing but throw their toys out of the pram rather than admit they lost. Give me one tiny piece of proof that any of them have anything that can be called a real friend. Rules: only people wanting to vote for me may participate in the voting process