BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Ahito would win in a fight against Hibiki, if both of them didn't have help from other people

Hi! I'm here to show that Ahito would totally kick Hibiki's cry-baby butt in a fight. These are characters from Hibiki's magic, by the way. I like Hibiki but let's be honest. We know Ahito would win. Contention One: AHITO HAS GUNS This is self explanatory. A shot from a gun can kill you and it is stated many times through out the series that there is no magic that can bring back the dead. Contention 2: Hibiki is no good at magic Hibiki is supposed to specialize in Magic Circles, but more often then not screws them up. The only really useful thing she can do is make tea. And how is that supposed to help you in a fight? I suppose she could pour scalding hot tea on him, but the time it would take to make said tea must be taken into consideration. He'd shoot her in the forhead before she could finish boiling the water. Contention 3: Hibiki is a crybaby Whenever Hibiki screws up said magic circles, she gets frustrated and crys. Then she completely forgets what she was doing. She can rarely ever get anything productive done because she crys so often. I now await my opponents sure to be interesting arguments.
77 cents to a dollar is wrong

Im not debating Feminist bull**** and nobody else should have to either, The pay gap does not exist, There is a reason the darwin awards is mostly men, And why men make up more then 90% of work place fatalitys, Plus feminists can't even keep this number straight, One second its 66 cents to the dollar then 77 then 85 then etc, The wage gap is non existant and women are not oppressed, If anything men have it bad having to deal with women who are walking on easy street complaining about how hard and difficult there lives are, Please just seice your bull****.
Homeschooling is a viable means of education.

I will be arguing that homeschooling is viable means of education. I am for/pro. Round 1: Agreement Round 2: Arguments Round 3: Rebuttals Please do not have rebuttals in round 2. Definitions: Home school: To teach your children at home instead of sending them to a school. [1] I look forward to debating! [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Homeschooling is a viable means of education.

Well 3 out of 5 of them are only-child, so siblings would not really count. Now for my rebuttal: 1. Home Schooled Kids are better at subjects: This is a bit tricky. While it may be a better learning environment, it is all about what the teacher/ computer program teaches. If the teacher can only teach, say math, at a regular level, then that student would be on the same level as a public-schooled student in regular math. The students in the survey would have been on an Advanced Placement level compared to Public Schooled Kids, but not all home-school teachers are at an AP level in the subject. 2. Race does not matter when Home-schooled: While race in this environment does not matter, we have to take in the account of the sad truth about how whites are slightly favored for jobs then any other race. A black home-schooled student might be one of the best students in his collage, but he would sadly loose a job out to a white student (who would probably be public schooled) who was at least equal to him. 3. Homeschooling is cheaper: It may be a cheaper cost, but yet the work needed to home-school a child is a lot more then sending them off to public school. True, programs out there make it easier, but the criteria for the program school might require work by the parent. Now your other facts. 1. I guess that is a good point, got nothing to say for that. 2. This is only for tests. A better study would have been to ask the child if they had an easy time with socialization and collage life along with the test scores. 3. Most of the parents would need a collage degree to even teach their child. 4. Yet when they encounter bullying and peer pressure, they don't know how to respond because they never encountered it before. Thank You for arguing, and may the best man win.
Homeschooling is a viable means of education.

First, before I go, I will say that you could easily be lying about this, but I will take your word for it. Also you are right when saying that public-schooled children generally are around lots more kids, but quality over quantity. "Home-schooled kids only interact with who is teaching them." Siblings? You are only talking about when the parent is actually teaching the child. What you are missing out on is all of the other times when the child learns, sports teams, music lessons, church, homeschool groups, relatives, etc. You are talking about a small fraction of their life. "I am good friends with about 5 home-schooled kids and one of my best friends was home-schooled until the third grade." Are you trying to use 5 children as an example for the 1.5 to 1.7 million children who are homeschooled. [1] That is like me using 20 children as an example for the millions of children in public school. "The other 3 only hang out with other kids who are home-schooled themselves. They do play a part in their church, yet they only stick in their group." Maybe they just like to hang out with those people? Maybe they are that person"s best friends? I only stick to my group of friends, does that mean I don"t have social skills? No. What is the definition of socialize? 2. To make fit for companionship with others; make sociable. [2] The definition of socialization is not being put in a building with hundreds of other people. It is to fit for companionship with others. The children you are talking about, even though they only hang out with a few people, fit the definition. "They are good people, but their social skills are "lacking" compared to public schooled me, and my public-schooled friends. The reason for this is because these kids stay home all day and don't go out and interact with other people." What is "interacting with people"? Well it means: Verb1.interact - act together or towards others or with others; "He should interact more with his colleagues" [3] If that is the definition, than he sure is interacting with people. He is interacting with his parents, relatives, his friends, friends" family, acquaintances, people he sees on the street, etc. Think of this: it is your summer, and you have just gotten out of school. Do you never leave your house, and only see your family for the entire summer? Also I would like to point out that in homeschooling, the people they interacts with people of all ages. Their friends may be their age, but the people they typically meet usually are all ages. Also I would like to point out again that, there are usually homeschool groups where kids and parents can go and meet other children, go on field trips, hang out with friends, etc. [4] [1] http://wiki.answers.com... [2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [3] http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [4] http://www.home-school.com...
Homeschooling is a viable means of education.

Homeschooling may produce better results in collage and secondary schools, but home school kids are less social and less interactive then public school kids. One major difference between homeschooling and public schooling is that in public schools, the students interact with hundreds of other people. Home-schooled kids only interact with who is teaching them. I said I do know some home-schooled kids, and I will be using them as my resources in explaining why public schooling is better. I am good friends with about 5 home-schooled kids and one of my best friends was home-schooled until the third grade. My best friend had a really hard time adjusting to public school then home-schooled. He had a very hard time making friends, and in-fact, I was his first true friend in public-school. Soon I started meeting other kids who were also home-schooled. One of them goes to my church. He never really talks very much. The other 3 only hang out with other kids who are home-schooled themselves. They do play a part in their church, yet they only stick in their group. They are good people, but their social skills are "lacking" compared to public schooled me, and my public-schooled friends. The reason for this is because these kids stay home all day and don't go out and interact with other people. True they may interact with kids in Church groups, or at jobs, but its only to a minimal extent. Public Schooled kids go out and interact with hundreds of other people every day for a max of 13 years. While Homeschooling may produce better grades, the students social life wont be as great as a kid who was Public Schooled.
Homeschooling is a viable means of education.

Homeschooling 1. Homeschooling creates higher test scores. In 1997 a study called "Strengths of Their Own: Homeschoolers across America," was released. One of the things it showed was that, on average, home schooled students out did there public school counterparts by 30 to 37 percentile points on all subjects. [1] Another important finding was that the race of the student does not make any difference. There was not a significant difference between minority and white homeschooled students. For example, in grades K-12, both white and minority students scored, on average, in the 87th percentile. In math, whites scored in the 82nd percentile while minorities scored in the 77th percentile. In the public schools there was a much greater contrast. White public school eighth grade students, scored the 58th percentile in math and the 57th percentile in reading. Black eighth grade students scored, on average, at the 24th percentile in math and the 28th percentile in reading. Hispanics scored at the 29th percentile in math and the 28th percentile in reading. [2] Another finding was that, on average, the cost per homeschooled student was $546 per year. The average cost per a public school student was $5,325. [3] This is my only main argument, but I have included a group of facts about homeschooling that do not fit into categories. 1. The growing number of students being homeschooled is influencing the American Education system and saving taxpayers between $4.4 billion and $9.9 billion in instructional costs per year. [4] 2. In 2004, Dr. Paul Jones and Dr. Gene Gloeckner published an evaluation of first-year college performance of homeschoolers and public school students. It concluded that, on average, homeschooled students did as well, if not better, on college preparatory exams and first-year grade point averages. [5] 3. Homeschooling parents are more likely to have with a college degree than the general population. [6] 4. There are not many other students around so it usually eliminates peer pressure, bullying, violence. [Common Sense] [1] http://www.hslda.org... [2] http://www.hslda.org... [3] http://www.hslda.org... [4] http://www.heritage.org... [5] http://www.heritage.org... [6] http://www.heritage.org... I look forward to your arguments!
It is More Preferable to be an Extrovert Than an Introvert in Modern Western Society

DefinitionsIntrovert - "the state of or tendency toward being wholly or predominantly concerned with and interested in one's own mental lifeExtrovert - "the act, state, or habit of being predominantly concerned with and obtaining gratification from what is outside the selfPreferable - Generally more advantageous in terms of several individual and societal factors. Rules1. No trolling2. 10,000 character limit 3.
The Star Trek mirror universe federation is at least as bad as Star Wars' Empire

It is true that the Terran Empire treats its subjects poorly and is based on a culture of fear and treachery which is morally reprehensible. However, the ability to destroy should also be taken into account as we are to assume that given the chance, each power would do whatever possible to destroy and enslave what is unlike them. The empire that is most able to behave in this way should therefore behave in this way more frequently thereby causing more destruction and enslaving more people. This means that the empire that does this most behaves the least morally of the two as morality pertains not only to a way of thought but also to a way of acting. Therefore, because Palpatine's empire will cause more destruction and slavery than the unstable and ill equipped Terran Empire ever will, Palpatine's empire is the least moral of the two.Also, the resolution provided several options for comparison these being bad, cruel, or evil.My arguments from round one fit well enough under the "bad" comparison option as it would be worse to be attacked by Palpatine's empire than by the Terran Empire, thus my arguments from round one still stand as they are still resolutional and no other arguments have been brought against them.
The Star Trek mirror universe federation is at least as bad as Star Wars' Empire

You have misinterpreted the resolution. It wasn't talking about the threat they represent to other worlds; bad meant moral evils within the empires not the amount of destruction they can cause.Here are the reasons why the Terran Empire is at least as bad as the Empire.1. Officers move up in rank by KILLING their superiors.2. For a minor offense the offender is given an incredibly painful shock from an agonizer.3. For a more serious offense they are set in the agony booth; way worse than anything the Empire has. Here is a technical description of it from memory alpha: The agony booth was capable of stimulating the pain center of virtually any humanoid, a synaptic scan calibrating it for each species. To overcome the limitation of more traditional forms of punishment, in which the nervous system becomes overwhelmed, resulting in the brain becoming desensitized to the pain, the booth's sensors continually shifted the stimulation from one nerve cluster to another, keeping the subject in a constant state of agony.For these reasons; the Terran Empire is at least as bad as the Empire if not worse.
The Star Trek mirror universe federation is at least as bad as Star Wars' Empire

My basic argument for this debate will be based upon the compared threat levels of the two empires. In other words, the threat that each empire would pose to a certain hypothetical world or space-faring nation. Also, I shall assume that the mirror universe empire we are debating is the Terran Empire and not the Klingon-Cardassian Alliance.There are a few reasons that Palpatine's empire is more threatening and thus "more bad" than the Terran Empire. Palpatine has the ability to produce millions upon millions of clones and vessels with which to fight his enemies meaning he has almost inexhaustible resources with which to lay siege to another world. The Terran Empire on the other hand has a limited number of soldiers with which to fight and man ships meaning that they pose less of a threat. Another reason that the Terran Empire is less of a threat is the command structure. The Terran Empire has a very weak and volatile command structure that permeates every corner of its civilization even up to the highest level of government. Productivity, technological advancement, and military conquest are repeatedly impeded by treacherous backstabbing and short sighted attempts to satisfy personal ambition and acquire power. Emperor Palpatine on the other hand has armies of virtually equal and entirely obedient clones at his disposal and a very rigid command structure that is very difficult to compromise. Even if Palpatine's command structure isn't completely solid, it is certainly more stable than that of the Terran Empire's. This is evidenced by the fact that during Star Wars episodes 4-6 only one assassination of an imperial official by another took place and that was when Vader killed Palpatine. Arguably this wasn't even an assassination as it was not planned and appeared to be more like a fit of rage whereas in the Terran Empire episodes from Star Trek there was some form of coup whether it failed or succeeded at least every ten minutes if not more frequently. Weapons are also key here. Palpatine has the Death Star which not only can kill billions of a planet's inhabitants but also strike fear into his enemies. The Terran Empire has phasers, photons, the booth, and agonizers. Overall, it can be seen that while the two empires are morally comparable, it would be far preferable to be attacked by the Terran Empire as they are less dangerous than Palpatine's empire making it the better of the two empires.I await your answers and am looking forward to an entertaining debate.
Lance Armstrong should still be considered as more of an international hero than just a lying jerk

Since you had Prima Facie, you had the right to set the terms and limits of the debate, which you never seemed to. Also, I didn"t make the debate pro- or con- doping, I"m asking why we should praise someone whom everything they done was built on a lie, on cheating, on breaking the rules. You are saying that because he used ill-gotten gains to do good, that we should ignore that the gains are ill-gotten? There is an old adage that applies: The ends do not justify the means. You then bring up Winning at any costs. Is winning the only thing that should matter? Also, is it worth winning if you know that you didn"t do it fairly? It is a moral dilemma that we have a social norm which answers the question: CHEATERS NEVER PROSPER. Next, you say why put all the blame on him? Because for 14 years, he lied at every opportunity. He could have at any time said yes, but he only said yes now because he wants to keep competing and keep making money and is hoping that his punishment will be lessened. He wasn"t told to keep lying, he CHOSE to keep lying. Now, to rebuild my Counter Contentions, quoting your attacks. 1) "All race walkers with no exception break the basic rule of their sport, and the winner still isn't punished." Do you have evidence that EVERY one of them break the rules? I know it"s semantics but saying something like that is just open to attack. Also, has anyone in Race Walking dominated their sport in the same way Lance Armstrong did? Finally, It also doesn"t damage the argument that he should not be praised, so Bring Counter Contention 1 across. 2)"Maybe like Overeem in UFC? Doping really says more about the sport than about the athletes." In this situation, Overeem is not licensed in the state where the testing occurred, and thus cannot be punished until he decides to try to get licensed in Nevada, thus it doesn"t apply. Meanwhile, to further my argument more, Sammy Sosa also did a lot of charitable work during and after his career, but all we remember about him is PED use and corked bats. Bring Counter Contention 2 across. 3)"if Michael Jordan admits doping tomorrow, would he really loose whole of his reputation? I don't know, he would still be a legend to me..." Nice hypothetical, but there"s a difference between a statement and if evidence came out. Also, when someone ADMITS they were wrong, we treat them better than if they were confronted with the evidence before saying anything. Also, Armstrong denied for YEARS that he doped, and only said anything to try to save face. Bring Counter Contention 3 across. The point I"m trying to make is this: He made a choice to cheat, and then chose to keep cheating and keep lying about cheating for so long, that it built up and up until the truth came out. Why should we still praise someone who did this, no matter what he might have done with the fame and fortune? Cross-apply what I said at the beginning: The Ends Do Not Justify The Means, and Cheaters Never Prosper. You have shown nothing why we should ignore these social norms in this case.
Lance Armstrong should still be considered as more of an international hero than just a lying jerk

I'm excited as this is my first debate and I love this site. Please excuse me if I misspell or my poor vocabulary because I am not from English-speaking country. I hope for a good debate, the rules seem legit. Good luck. http://www.youtube.com... Ok, let's get it started! First, let me make it a bit more clear what I am trying to show in this debate. It is the question of public image of Lance Armstrong, which is extremely negative in the past years and especially since he openly admitted doping in all 7 Tour de France races that he had won. He is a liar and he is a cheater to other racers and disappointment to his fans. (Btw. DWolf2k2, sorry for giving your side arguments lol ;) http://www.youtube.com... But, I would say that we don't look a whole story here... In spite of all this show going on, I think that negative picture of Armstrong is purely emotional and not rational, and I will try to prove it by argumenting about his appearance and influence on fans and contribution to the USA and whole world. I remember back in high school we had a text in English book about Armstrong. He actually survived cancer on testicles and than won 7 Tour de France races in row. (And also had children which is weird considering where he had cancer) He was an idol and inspiration for many. Especially for cancer-fighters. Now he is just the opposite. Did he make more good things during his career or bad things? Did he hurt more people than he helped? That brings me to my main argument. So, his story sucks. He is cheater and liar, disgrace for sport (which is also questionable since many bicyclists were also doping...). The condemnation go so far to this point: UCI president Pat McQuaid said "Lance Armstrong has no place in cycling" and that the American "deserves to be forgotten." Well, I suggest we actually imagine he never doped and never won all that races and never even existed. He wouldn't have been an amazing and maybe best ever inspiration to people who suffer cancer. But, more importantly (since today it's all about the money), his foundation raised more than $470 million to support the mission to inspire and empower people affected by cancer. And that's a lot of money. I am sure those people appreciate it and I think that the public image of Lance Armstrong should be more positive due to this. http://www.livestrong.org... That's it for now. I think that I don't need to stay in defence of him in what he did in sports (not that I'm not willing to), but just put his own help to many people who really need it.
Lance Armstrong should still be considered as more of an international hero than just a lying jerk

Let's go straight to the Voters. 1) Counter Contention 1, which has come though defended and otherwise untouched. He tried to attack it in round 3, but I was more then able to defend, rebuild, and strengthen it. 2) Counter Contention 2, Cross-Applying the reasons for Voter 1 3) Counter Contention 3, Cross-Applying again the reasons for Voter 1 4) Lack of Round 4 Argument from my opponent, without rhyme or reason to the lack of an argument. If he had a legit reason, he would not have been online in time for the debate, choosing not to. 5) Lack of Round 5 Argument from my opponent, Cross-Applying the reason for Voter 4. 6) My opponent brought no substantial reason to disregard the actions of Lance Armstrong, thus unable to fulfill the burden of proof expected. He brought forth the proposition, but only gave sympathy comments as to why he's right. 7) Any sourcing he did provide came from an unreliable source, as Wikipedia can not withstand academic scrutiny, and personal interviews are questionable as evidence in a case where the subject is known to have actively lied for a prolonged period of time. It is for these 7 reasons I urge you to vote for the Opposition, and as my opponent forfeited the last two rounds, I urge a max score win for the Opposition. Thank you very much.