BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Homeschools are better than public schools

Socializing as a homeschooled kid: I think one of the biggest misconceptions about homeschooling is its debilitating kids' social skills. For some reason lots of anti-homeschoolers seem to think that the only way to socialize is socializing with children on your own age but that"s not necessarily true. Socializing with kids is only one way of socializing. Homeschooling lets kids spend more time in their community to interact with a bigger variety of people outside their age group. Studies have shown that homeschooled children can and often have invested into community participation and socialize with all kinds of people. The thing is that the difference between homeschooled children and children that go to public schools is that homeschooled children are less likely to socialize with children of their age group. This is not the same thing as not socializing with kids of similar age group at all. Homeschoolers also enter the real world earlier than public students, who mostly spend most of their school and childhood life with people who are around their own age group. Homeschoolers do not only learn to interact with people outside their own age group which can be very important later in their later lives, they also ensure to stay out of the bad environments that exists on schools so they for example don"t turn to drugs. Work Environment: What you say about the students working together in public schools is true. It"s assisting their learning and it will definitely help them in the future, but just because children are homeschooled doesn"t mean they can"t work with each other in groups. If you look at this figure (http://www.hslda.org... (figure 9)) you"ll understand that 93.4 percent of the homeschooled kids also have homeschooled siblings who they might be able to co-operate with. Well, I"m going to keep it short this time but regarding the three homeschooled kids that you know, I"ll say that you said it pretty much yourself: they are the finest individuals, multi-time state champions etc. You say that the only problem was they didn"t fit in the society with public school students, but what I hear is that they fit in with all the other people except from public students and they even have success" So maybe it isn"t the homeschoolers who have a problem about socializing with other people but public school students who have a problem about socializing with them. Also you might find these arguments pretty interesting especially argument number 16! http://childrensmd.org...
Islam does not oppress women

I think most people here can agree that this argument is just illogical and a failure. To see if a religion really oppress women or not, you have to look at the religion itself. So, what is going to be used in this debate is the foundations of Islam, which is the Quran and the sayings of prophet Muhammed (Peace be upon him). Rounds1: Acceptance only2: Arguments only3: Rebuttal4: More rebuttal and closing statements. No new arguments. Arguments shall be given only in round 2.
Golf is the hardest sport

Golf is far from the hardest sport. An example of a sport that is harder is wrestling. Wrestling requires a higher level of physical ability than golf, and requires more mental ability as well. In wrestling if you do not pay attention for a second, you could lose the match. In golf if you lose concentration it results in a bad shot, not necessarily losing a tournament. The opposite effect happens on wrestling happens, you could lose instantly. As a wrestler for seven years and a golfer for five, i can promise you i speak the truth. I have won matches and lost matches because of a split second decision, but losing concentration in golf just means a bad shot. Wrestling requires more mental ability by far because you must focus, and react in a very short time.
Drinking Age Change

You forfeited. So I assume you want it to change from 21 to 18. Don’t say you want to change it from 21 to 25, or 21 to 30.. that would be unfair and ridiculous.Arguments1 . 900 Lives Saved Yearly by Keeping the Drinking Age at 21Laws that maintain the legal drinking age at 21 save lives on the road, and protect young people from other hazards of drinking, according to a new review of studies.Researchers examined the evidence from studies conducted since 2006, and found that laws that make it illegal for people under age 21 to drink are linked to lower rates of drunk-driving deaths among young people.Researchers also found that current drinking restrictions have not resulted in more binge drinking among teens, as some have suggested. 12. It would increase the rates of binge drinking and intoxication. Using other countries that have lower drinking ages as a standard, allowing alcohol consumption at the age of 18 would create higher rates of binge drinking and intoxication in the 18-20 age demographic. Kids younger than 13 also begin drinking at higher rates in areas where the drinking age is lower.23. It could affect the final growth stages of people. The human body continue to develop through the rest of the teenage years, especially from a mental standpoint. Drinking affects the frontal lobe of the brain and lowering the drinking age could put the 18-20 age demographic at risk for chronic mental health problems.31 http://www.livescience.com...2 3 http://apecsec.org...
Sept/Oct LD Resolution

Aff constructive Value: governmental legitimacy : The legitimacy of a government in which deserves the right to govern under its own statues it was created by. Criterion: Governmental obligations / The constitution. Key terms : Criminal: A person who has committed a crime. Observation 1 : For the US to maintain a legitimate government, they must uphold the bill of rights along with the rest of the constitution if it infringes on the constitution it is acting in an illegitimate way and acting against their own laws making the government itself illegitimate. Observation 2: Under the Geneva convention POW"s are assured due process along with not being taken at all. It is not allowed to take POW"s in the Geneva Convention. Observation 3: The US is not under any state of war with any country. Observation 4: terrorists are criminals. Contention 1: For criminals of the US the constitution gives due process for, terrorist are pretty much criminals and criminals under that jurisdiction therefore should be allowed due process. Under the own statues of the US the constitution must be upheld if not they break their own laws. As long as the US acts in a manner not allowing terrorist due process they are acting as an illegitimate government. Contention 2: Some people captured are innocent and never given a trial, such examples are events at Guantanamo bay; however now we just shoot missiles at them. http://rense.com... (Worth looking up for you guys). Contentions 3: If contention 1 and 2 are true 3 must be true, The US as of now is no longer a legitimate government , until they affirm the resolution. Therefore the judge must flow my side. I didn"t flesh for a reason, I do not want people taking this and just copying and pasting. Use what you can out of it but do the work yourself.
Sept/Oct LD Resolution

September/October resolution for Lincoln Douglas Debate.Resolved: "The United States ought to extend to non-citizens accused of terrorism the same constitutional due process protections it grants to citizens."Rules:(1) Rounds structured in typical LD format.a. First round is aff constructive; it is not an acceptance round.b. Second round is neg constructive and rebuttal as well as aff rebuttal.c. Third round is for rebuttals. No new arguments may be submitted in the final round.(2) Forfeit counts as an automatic loss, as does trolling. Gratia adversario meo!
Abortion

Source:http://www.huffingtonpost.com... "Those who seek to limit or prohibit safe, legal abortion need to understand the damaging consequences for the unwanted children, their mothers, and society. Denying abortion is linked to social maladjustment, delinquency, crime, alcoholism, under-employment, and poverty. Motherhood should be a choice." If you don't understand these big, fancy words, look them up.
Global warming in not a ridiculous theory

There is a large amount of evidence to suggest that global warming not just a ridiculous theory. Certainly there are a good many people who choose not to believe it because of their politics, because it's not in their economic interest to do so, or because they'd rather not have to change anything. Unfortunately, nature doesn't care about our petty affairs. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to show that global warming is a ridiculous theory, perhaps just a figment of someone's imagination.
Global warming in not a ridiculous theory

Ok look at your sources! Wikipedia? It's not a credible source seeing as any average joe can post anything they want on there. Imdb can be edited too therefore neither are credible sources. However, you were right in saying that Al Gore was not the first, but he *is* the one who it's revolving around *now*. As for the .6 degree warming... of course it's warming! That's what the earth does- goes through warming and cooling cycles. How do you think the earth got out of the ice age? The earth warmed up. Did human carbon emmissions cause that period of warming too? Besides there are thousands more credible scientists who disagree with the global warming theory than those who agree with it. Just look at this newspaper article. CHICAGO — Some 31,072 American scientists have signed a petition rejecting the assertion that global warming has reached a crisis stage and is caused by human activity. "No such consensus or settled science exists," said Arthur Robinson, founder and president of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine in the July issue of "Environment & Climate News." "As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject" the hypothesis of global warming. The institute, a nonprofit research organization, first published the names and credentials of about 17,000 scientists in 2001. The current list of 31,072 Americans with college degrees in science includes 9,021 with Ph.D. degrees in various scientific fields, according to an article published by the Heartland Institute, a nonprofit environmental organization that has challenged global warming theories. Signers include more than 40 members of the National Academy of Sciences. Theoretical physicist Freeman Dyson and atmospheric physicist Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology are among the prestigious scientists who have signed the petition. Frederick Seitz, the first president of the National Academy of Sciences, signed before his death in early March. Joseph Bast, president of The Heartland Institute and publisher of Environment & Climate News, said "claims by partisan and extremist organizations such as Greenpeace, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Union of Concerned Scientists that their views represent the ‘consensus' never should have been taken seriously." "They are not scientific organizations, and in fact they have long records of misrepresenting science to achieve political objectives," Bast said. "This should go down as yet another case in which they were caught lying about science." P.S. I just love Joseph Bast!
Global warming in not a ridiculous theory

Global warming was not first noticed by Al Gore. http://www.imdb.com... (2005/6) People like James Lovelock (ex NASA), James Hansen (NASA) were first talking about global warming in the 1980's. Two of the world's most eminent scientists in my opinion, and they are still talking about it today, though with a greater sense of urgency. The best global temperature measuring mechanism there is, produced this graph: http://en.wikipedia.org... The upward nature of the graph indicates global warming. The average screen temperature of the world at sea-level has increased more than 0.6 degrees C in the last one hundred years. This is not a theory. This is a measurement. I hold that global warming is neither ridiculous nor a theory.
Global warming in not a ridiculous theory

It *is* a ridiculous theory made up by a ridiculous, washed up vice president who is wanting nothing more than the public's ridiculous fear of it because it gives him a face in a society that had almost let him fade out of their memories (heaven forbid that should happen!). Economic interests have nothing to do with that. The public is believing the lie of an old, hypocritical man. His own home emits 10 times the carbon emmissions as your average household. That's all overlooked though as soon as he says, " I planted 10 trees so that makes up for it." There is no sciece backing him up- none. The only scientists agreeing with him are biologists and zoologists who study what? ANIMALS! Not the atmosphere or even the enviroment for that matter, but A-N-I-M-A-L-S! They can't offer any sort of credibility to the subject other than saying,"Oh, the animal I'm studying has been sweating a lot more within the past 2 years." OMG Let us all panic and scream that the end is nigh because an animal is sweating more than usual! Don't get me wrong- I think it's absolutely wonderful the public has become more enviromentally aware than ever. It's a great thing to be taking better care of what makes our lives on earth possible. Also, becoming more energy efficient is doing wonders for the economy and saving people tons of money as well as bettering the enviroment in which we make our homes. However, a washed up politian shouldn't be scaring the public into doing it so that he can have more power and more money. By believing his lie the American public has Al Gore and his cohorts on a pedastal of fame they never deserved. Someone who can't even recognize who his past presidents are should never be allowed to be awarded a Nobel Peace Prize and yet we handed it to him on a silver platter and said, "Thank you for showing us the light Almighty One." Like I said- RIDICULOUS.
Stop complaining about rape

Being a rapist is harder than being raped? May I remind you that in cases of rape, It is the aggressor that derives pleasure while the victim the sufferer. Please get some education before attempting to begin an intellectual debate that you know you have no chance in winning. Individuals like you are irrelevant to the advancement of society; despite your lack of brain cells, You have further intensified your irrelevance by serving as a negative psychological factor through your uneducated points. Once again, Get some education!
Stop complaining about rape

Stop complaining about rape I get it, You were raped A penis entered your hole and you didn't want it But I was circumcised when I didn't want it I find that to be more damaging If I was raped, I wouldn't report it I wouldn't even complain about it But I guess you are not me You keep talking about it Even when you will never get sympathy from me At best, You will give me a boner I wouldn't punish rape I get hard when thinking about rape But I wouldn't rape an adult I prefer to rape children I feel sympathy towards the rapist Rape actually takes a lot of effort You have to walk for hours around the town You have to find a victim being alone With no one around You have to hope that she won't scream You have to hold her down and undress her Which can be really hard Being a rapist is really hard It's harder to rape than to be raped But some people don't understand this Being a rapist can ruin your life
The Earth is flat

Thank You debate-master1 for your participation here.I wil leave the second last word to Jonbonbon Posted by Jonbonbon 2 days ago Just argue that what we see isn't necessarily true because perceptions can trick us (like at night when part of the road looks like it doesn't exist, or when it's hot and the same effect occurs). None of our senses are truly reliable, therefore there is not way for us to prove that the earth is round, and since it makes sense that when we walk it doesn't feel like we're walking around a big ball, the earth is probably flat with portals on all sides to send us to the opposite side so we don't fall off and die.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------WaiverThe Earth is flat because we experience our existence as such. There is a vertical plumb-line suspended over every point on the earth and there is a perpendicular flat line to match at its base. There is 'flat' everywhere and it has parallels that are flat at every elevation. Our perceptions and our understandings require this and that is why our attempts at self-reference require this zero/negative/plus diagram of surface that gravitates us towards safety and ease. All life on this earth uses this. We are tactical when we deal with situations that are 'off-flat'. It is often a matter of survival to accurately access the variation.I will leave you , debate-master1, to consider the origins of words such as the ones you chose for this debate, ie flat, bump, etc and I will add a couple to the mix, ie variation, level. We can both share the word ' smooth'.zeromeansnothing: I will reply in comments to anyone with a query.
The Earth is flat

Again, you did not support your argument. Also if you don't inform the voters about your side you will lose. If you don't inform= you lose. Do you think master debaters can win debates by no supporting there side?Why I won this debateI won this debate because many reasons. I had good arguments and rebutted well. Pro did not have any information and supported his side which means he loses. You have to inform the voters and convince them to win a debate, not just tell the voters to make their own argments and vote for you.Please vote for me!!!
The Earth is flat

My Conclusion:The Debate Title is The Earth is flatYour position is supposed to proceed along the line....the Earth is not Flat. You insist on emphasising the 'spherical' nature of the Earth. You should start a new debate topic on this subject. You would probably find it hard to attach a 'spherical' label to the earth in any real way. That is another debate. Personally, I wish to conclude the debate in hand. I will again use your definitions for this purpose.Your DefinitionsEarth:the planet on which we liveFlat:having a smooth, level, or even surface : not having curves or bumps---------------------------------I have repeatedly requested information regarding your tolerances with regard to the adjectival notion of 'flat'. Unfortunately the exercise offered to you in this regard was spurned. You now want to change the subject. Look at your definition above ..........smooth, level, even , curves, bumps. These are subjective notions at best and simple in the extreme. Let me attempt to help you in this regard.'Imagine the subjective notion of tall'A six foot man is regarded as tall in most demographics but if he plays for a professional basketball team he would be regarded as small. The average height in the NBA is 6'7'. s://kingdaughter.files.wordpress.com...; alt="" />This is what a piece of paper looks like under a microscope.Is it flat? Is it smooth? Has it bumps? You can see for yourself. Flat, as defined by you is what the world is. All our perceptions require 'flatness' we work off 'flatness' to describe anomalies. There is much more that could be said about this, ie the distortion within human sight along the vertical axis. etc etc.I am not here to inform. I am here to win this debate with you.A sheet of paper on a horizontal table is 'flat'. I assume that you agree, yet, it's surface contains more variation than Estonia or indeed our Earth. They are therefore 'flat' by reference to your definitions of same. I will allow you to conclude and then waive graciously to adhere to your protocol. Thanks
The Earth is flat

We are both speaking about the same entity, ie the Earth. Your use of language, ie adjective and noun is subjective and relative. You state: Flat: having a smooth, level, or even surface : not having curves or bumps. I have inquired as to the nature of these relatives. Examples: bump: protuberance on a level surface. curve: a line or outline which gradually deviates from being straight for some or all of its length. It is obvious that your relatives are 'just that' ie relatives. Without flatness they do not exist. I conclude that the earth is therefore 'essentially' flat for all descriptive purpose. We can accept a deviation from this norm as an anomaly but not as a descriptive declaration of being. Therefore the earth is flat, by default.
The Earth is flat

This debate is impossible to accept please apply in comments. If you accept you forfeit all points to me. The topic is that the earth is flat. I think that Earth is not flat.Structure1. Con acceptance, Pro writes Contentions2. Con writes Contentions, Pro rebuts3. Con rebuts, Pro makes conclusion4. Con makes conclusion, Pro waivesDefinitionsEarth: the planet on which we liveFlat: having a smooth, level, or even surface : not having curves or bumpsI will be waiting for the response
Unions are not an economically efficient institution in the US anymore

While unions were once very productive associations in American society, I argue they no longer deserve a relevant role in labor economics. Unions once provided a way for under-represented workers to voice opposition against employers with strength in numbers. They propagated the institution of many important employment laws, which are pillars of labor rights today. These include safety, hiring, firing, and wage conditions that were direly needed. While the progress was highly useful in the past, these organizations are no longer economically productive in the American economy. It is essential to note that unions MAY still have positive impacts for members, almost exclusively in the form of job security and representation. The core of the argument suggests that unions are counterproductive to capitalism, and serve to limit individual success and benefits. Thus, I will argue that unions are not a productive institution when applied to the economy, and some decentivize members and create higher inefficiency in our economy.