BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Hats should be banned in high schools

AveI will make my arguments this round. Only 3000 characters, very short.There are a quite a lot of reasons to ban hats.ArgumentsFirst of all, taking hats off in schools are a form of respect [1]. That is one of the reasons. If you wear you hat in a building it's rude. So we take off hats when we come in the buildings. Secondly, Sometimes in school, students will knock off each other's hats, and cause fights, and can easily move towards bullying [1]. To prevent fighting a bullying, we should ban hats. There are also theft of hats, when there are around 50$, and the students complain about it to the teachers, when the teachers cannot do anything. The main reason why we ban hats is because some students hide behind their hats to make it difficult or impossible for eye contact [1] ". "[Hats] can block a person's view, hide one's eyes from eye contact, and are often taken off and put back on repeatedly or played with [2]." This will distract the students from listening to the teacher because they play with their hats, and can't listen to what the teacher is talking about, because they are focused on playing with their hats. The teacher's lecture might be very important. If the teachers says for example to Bob which is playing with his hat, "Bob, what is the answer to hgndjfjnggjgj?" Bob will not know the answer, because he was playing with his hat. He will get in trouble. To prevent him to get in trouble, we should ban hats. Also, the students will hide one's eye contact when wearing hats. First of all, the students will not keep eye contact with the teachers, so the teachers will probably not ask a question to him, or the person with the hat, and probably forgot about him, or the one with the hat. Also, the students might cheat by not getting the teacher's eye contact, and looking at other's tests, and copying the other's tests. That is why we should BAN hats in schools. Vote for Pro in the debate.ConclusionI have shown in the debate that we should ban hats in schools because it is rude if we wear hats, it is distracting, they will play with the hats, no eye contact, prevent fighting and stealing. I have successfully shown why we should ban hats, so please vote for Pro in the debate. The resoltuion is affirmed, Thank you. I will make my rebuttals of my opponent's arguments in the next round.Sources[1] https://sites.google.com...[2] http://www.teachnet.com...Vote for PRO!!! Thank you. Off to my opponent in the debate now.Vale
Hats should be banned in high schools

If you're going to ban hats, ban everything else too or else it's not fair. By everything else I'm mean ban religious head wear too. Whatever reason you can think of to ban hats can be applied to religious head wear too. If you're going to argue that hats are a distraction well don't because if you think that then we should ban literally everything that can pose as a distraction, yes this include pencils because they can be distracting. Paper especially because you can make a paper airplane out of it and who knows what. What if my shirt is distracting? Then I should take it off and put it on the teacher's desk, then my abs are distracting then I should sit in the hall. "Ban hats because we want to ready students for the workplace because some places don't allow employees to wear hats". If you're coming from that angle than students should wear suites to school if they're in accounting or some business course. How hard is it to adjust from wearing hats to not as an adult? Let kids live their childhood (teens are still kids) and when they become "adults" and get a job that doesn't allow hats then they won't wear hats.
"Marijuana, Cocaine and even Heroin Should be Legalized." -Ron Paul

I'm going to pull a Ron Paul here: http://www.youtube.com... Structure: R1) Acceptance, Analysis, Structure and Rules R2) Opening arguments R3) Rebuttals and Conclusions Analysis: Let's keep this to only to the philosophical basis for the role of government in people's lives -not about the impact of drug use, why drugs are bad, etc. That drug use is harmful to the body is not in dispute. The issue of contention for this debate is whether the government has a right to restrict what you put in your body. I'll be arguing from a libertarian perspective. Structure: 3 Rounds 72hrs to argue 8k characters Rules: No videos other than the Ron Paul video I posted in this round. No trolling. No semantics. Don't be a jackass.
An Anarchist Society Exist and Function

In light of my opponent's forfeit of the last round, I suppose I should take this time to fortify my position. Anarchist societies are for the most part based around a concept of "voluntary action". Whether that voluntary action take the form of individual pursuit, religious charity, syndicate competition, or communal sharing is left up to the form of anarchy. Anarchy in itself, though seeming blunt and unorganized at a glance, is actually a highly structured doctrine that runs its own sort of spectrum in itself. There is no government people would feel inclined to rebel against, and if you disagree with one system, then you go on about your business in another sect of anarchy. Addressing law, I once again point out the concept that a society working as a singular system can point out a threat, and work towards absolving that threat harmoniously. If not just that, on a lower level vigilante activity (though sometimes discredited) would also be possible. In an anarchist society however, there would also be less of a motive to commit what we would usually consider criminal acts (unless its a more down to human personal matter). For example, the common thief. Rather than resorting to thievery, in the sect of anarchy known simply as communist anarchy would very happily provide them with whatever it was they so desired. Communist Anarchy centers around a united concept of in all essence "sharing". However on a more organized and societal level. Drugs? Prostitution? There would be no laws per say, but rather it would be up to the responsibility of the person whether to delve in such activities. Anarchy actually to some proportion owes its origins to more moral and religious figures as well. In the time when anarchy was beginning to develop an actual doctrine, religious anarchy formed as a proposed way for people to loose secular ties and become closer to God. At an anarchic level, humanity is tested morally and responsibly, and in a way naturally nurtures maturity.
An Anarchist Society Exist and Function

In the case of justice, I would have to assume a sort of self defense of vigilante-esque type of community might develop. Without laws, there are no courts, therefore no official punishments. However, even in primitive societies, which were on occasion anarchist in nature, threats to the community can be identified and dealt with accordingly, as the community would decide or perhaps individual depending on which form of anarchy the community took form of. Currency would lend itself more towards trade, often between goods and other goods or goods to labor notes, particularly a prime property of "Mutualist" Anarchy. Or as with Anarcho-Syndicalism, currency and trade would be dealt among syndicates. Diplomatic relations would have to be dealt similarly, as in older trade it was not uncommon for straight goods to goods trading. Anarchy attains that there is no ruler or government. however it's not out of the question to say that particularly for foreign relations there cant be a representation individual. Foreign relations would not be terribly important to Individualist Anarchic societies, and could probably only work in a communal style anarchist community. The community itself would function, but perhaps either not be interested in foreign relations or could be communal about the relations.
An Anarchist Society Exist and Function

Anarchy is a complicated idea. In an anarchic society, there is no governing force, but rather, people trusted to govern themselves. While in a perfect world, the idea is not inherently bad, human nature is not perfect. In a society of anarchy, a serial killer has just as much power as a humanitarian philanthropist. The courts of law in our society are under the government. Without the government, there would be no courts. On top of that, currency and diplomatic relations become a problem under anarchy. If there is no one official group in charge of currency, its value may fluctuate depending on where it's used or even what kind of currency it is, creating an unstable society. With diplomatic relations, purchases between two countries would be problematic because of the problems I mentioned before, and because there is no one official group to look to, foreign relations would prove to be problematic.
An Anarchist Society Exist and Function

As the Pro of this Debate, I will be trying to prove that an Anarchist Society can both Exist and Function. No specific structure, with short to the point responses and defenses. I believe that one can, because it is open to many structures, and the main factor would be that the societal order would be left up to the people. An anarchist society naturally would incur a self sufficient society, because it would become a matter of survival without any overbearing government. People would work on their own and live much to their own accord, or they might even band together to create a communal structure. The doctrine is actually highly structured, but it focuses on a non-hierarchal structure rather than modern governments which are mostly hierarchies. Non-Hierarchal structures themselves are functional, they just function differently.
Humans are naturally inclined to being evil rather than good

Hello everyone, I'm sorry it took me so long to reply, I haven't been able to find a good time to debate. I'm going to make this short and sweet. We are not good as a whole. We corrupt all that we touch, all that we influence dies, or comes close to us. We are mean to each other, we lie. We cheat. We steal. We don't seem to think this because we just dismiss these things as minor corruptions. Well minor after minor after minor combine, to become major. Unless something is changed soon, like we loose our natural instincts, then we always will be. No one wants to hear this, but it needs to be said by someone. I thank the Con for this great debate and hope to meet him again soon.
Humans are naturally inclined to being evil rather than good

I do apologize, I misread some points on your profile. I must point out that my opponent does not attempt to pose any counter-arguments, he solely seeks to criticize my own. It seems as though my opponent was only focusing on the negative, and was nearing the point of attacking me over this debate. Is this truly how humans would interact if we were naturally inclined to good? In the last argument, my opponent wrote the following: "Pro seems to be experiencing a case of physiological projection in so much as he sees the deceit in the people around him because he is deceitful. " I would like to point out that I am deceitful, but in this debate, not rightfully so. As I stated earlier in this argument, I misread Con's profile, although I do believe that most humans are deceitful. I'm going to create a new argument to support my thinking. Currently, there are 340 million people that suffer from depression in our world[1]. Some of the causes of depression are: Stress, Trauma, Genes, and Mental Illness. [2] Examples of these are: Moving to a new city, starting a new job, suffering the loss of a loved one, a stressful event in one's life, being raped, a serious injury, etc. [2] If you did not notice, all of the points in the second column above are from a direct result from human activity. Every event listed had mainly to do with an interaction from another human. Let's say you're a 15 year-old girl, you've just moved from out of state to a new town and school. You are extremely angry that you've had to move. When you arrive at your new school, no one talks to you. In class, when having to introduce yourself, you accidentally misspeak. The class laughs at you. At lunch, you attempt to sit with another group of girls. They pretend you're not there, and you go away and have to sit and eat alone. I am currently in school, and I see this happen too often. Many of the people that sit alone are simply not accepted by their peers, and some may eventually become depressed. This is all due to the fact that these people were not kind, accepting, or even NICE to this person. In our society, we focus on good things. We love to see a man running into a burning building to save a baby, we love to see a billionaire donate large amounts of money to non-profit organizations, etc. Granted, these things happen. The only reason we think it happens so much is because we publicize it so frequently. We shed very little light on those who cheat on their spouses, steal, lie, etc. I believe that the only reason my opponent is opposed to my view, is because he looks upon the surface of our society. He doesn't dig. Thank you [1]. http://wiki.answers.com... I am aware that my information is not completely backed up, but if my opponent is correct, and humans generally don't lie, then what do you have to worry about? [2]. http://www.allaboutdepression.com...
Humans are naturally inclined to being evil rather than good

I'm going to start off with a few statistics: Current U. S. Population: 6,802,945,098[1] Number of Non-Profit Organizations in the U. S: 1,461,074[2] Is this truly a majority? I think not it's around 1/300th of the U. S. Population. Many others do donate to these organizations, but many don't as well. Recently, I went and took a look at my opponents page on this website, and I looked at what he agrees with and disagrees with compared to me. These are some of the points that I thought was odd or not truly morally right: What he was for: Abortion Death Penalty War in Iran War in Iraq Water Boarding What he was against: PETA How can you be against the Ethical Treatment of animals? How is that morally right? My opponent is also for the Death Penalty, and Water Boarding. Both are considered cruel and unusual. I assume my opponent will change these opinions on his page right after I have posted this argument and then state that the above is false. Well that would just prove my point. He would have to lie. Now look at this: There was a study conducted by CNN news that stated that 69% think that Water Boarding is torture, but then 40% of the same people said the U. S. should be able to use it. [3] What? That essentially states that we condone torture. How does that make the majority of us morally good? I look forward to my opponent's response. Sources: [1]. http://www.census.gov... [2]. http://nccsdataweb.urban.org... [3]. http://www.cnn.com...
Humans are naturally inclined to being evil rather than good

I'm sorry Con i'm not familiar with the method, I'm new to this. When I said "evil" in the title, I didn't necessarily mean evil. I meant selfish, greedy, deceitful, careless, etc. I will start off my debate with some people that are considered "evil," "bad," etc. Adolf Hitler Kim Jong Il Bernie Madoff Stalin Adam Smith Karl Marx Jesse Helms I can go on and on about some of the worst people of our world's history, but that's not the MAIN focus of this debate. It's the common man/woman/child. All of us look out for Number One: Ourselves. Granted, there are good people in our world, but they are greatly overshadowed by the bad. Please watch the video located in the top right-hand corner of the screen. http://www.youtube.com... When I watched this video for the first time, I originally thought: "Humans are naturally inclined to evil rather than good because they spared no money for the man." Then as I watched on, I discovered the man is indeed fake. A "double whammy." You have people not giving spare change to a man who appears to be severely disabled, which is not morally right. You also then have the "beggar" trying to trick bystanders into giving him money. That's just humans for you. There is a study from the Psychologist Paul Ekman that states that the average person lies three times during every ten minutes of conversation[1]. That is a ridiculous amount of lies! Now I'll talk about the Environment, and what we do to it. Currently, the U.S. is in a "Green Movement." Everything we do is based off of the need to justify our consciences by "being green." We are not. We are merely lying to ourselves. According to Scholastic Update, five major sources of ocean pollution are: runoff from land 44%, air pollution 33%, shipping 12%, dumping wastes 10%, offshore oil production 1%.[2] According to this study, in the U.S, humans have been responsible for the extinction of 37 species of animals in the last 50 years. How can we call ourselves good people when we allow acts such as this to go on right under our noses? I will save the rest of my argument for later rounds. Thank You [1] http://kingme.wordpress.com... [2] http://www.biol.andrews.edu...
Resolved: Child's consent should be required for parent's divorce

Some people believe that children should have full participation in the decision-making about with whom they will live when, and how to divide their time. Other people believe children should have no say at all. There also is a full range of perspectives between these two extremes. One question is when children's input is likely to prove helpful. For instance, children can be encouraged to voice their concerns prior to the parents' creating a plan. Alternatively children can offer suggestions regarding what kinds of arrangement they would prefer. Do children want to add their input? The answer seems in most cases to be a resounding yes. In a recent study, 29 children ages 7-17 whose parents were involved in custody disputes had been asked by divorce professionals if they wanted to give input. Some were represented by an attorney, some met with a mental health professional, and some had been interviewed by a judge. The researchers found that "many children want to be heard and want a say in how they are to be involved in the legal process, but few want to make the decisions about their future." You cannot sadly argue with the facts. This is living proof that children SHOULD have a say in this legal process. Another factor is the quality of the relationship between each parent and each child. If the overall family relationships are positive and relatively conflict-free, children's input can be both valuable and unlikely to invite retribution from a parent or loyalty issues from the children. On the other hand, if the relationship between a child and a parent, or between the two parents, has been contentious, the input may be tainted by fears and otherconsiderations that are more about the family"s dynamics than about the best interests of the child. In summary, to not include your child in such a dramatic chapter in a relationship can cause consequences in later life. The child may become depressed, some may turn to drugs, alcohol or other. Some even may commit suicide. I think a child's input is crucial for their mental health and their conscience. Not including a child in this hearing would be sick and intolerable.
A DJ is not a real musician.

Some times musicians also DJ. I am going to assume we are talking (for the sake of this debate) about Dj's who are only DJ's and musicians who are only musicians. In other words we're not talking about people who do both. correct me if I am wrong. ok moving on. Musician- 1. A person who plays a musical instrument, especially as a profession, or is musically talented. 2. A composer, conductor, or performer of music; especially : instrumentalist DJ- 1. a person who introduces and plays recorded popular music on the radio. "he was the only DJ to play our last release on the radio" 2. as a verb- to play recorded music on the radio or at a club or party. A musician creates music. It is his/her creativity being expressed in the song. It is their creation. A DJ expresses their creativity in the way they present a musician's work. They did not create the song. By definition, A DJ is a person who plays a Musicians music. They are two different things. Some DJ's are also Musicians and vice versa but they are not the same thing. One creates the music and the other introduces it.
Drinking, Driving, and shoplifting are cool activities!

First off, I would like to clarify my point I made on the other debate. Drinking and driving were the same activity. I'm sorry if that was not clear. Of course I don't think driving is stupid. But I do think that getting behind the wheel when you are drunk is stupid. There were 16,885 alcohol-related fatalities in 2005 – 39 percent of the total traffic fatalities for the year. The 16,885 fatalities in alcohol-related crashes during 2005 represent an average of one alcohol-related fatality every 31 minutes. Does that sound "cool" to you? As far as regular drinking is concerned, I don't think it is cool. For a college student like myself, I find it a waste of my body, my mind and not to mention, my money. Shoplifting: I don't know much about Grand Theft Auto, but in real life if someone is caught shoplifting, they are arrested. I don't really think that having a criminal record is "cool" Criminal records can become a problem when you are trying to get a real job. I will repeat what I said in that comment. Something being "cool" or "not cool" is completely subjective. What you think is cool, I might not. There is no absolute on what is "cool" or not when it comes to anything. Not just these activities. Well, I just made a very valid argument, so I guess this is not infallible.
Drinking, Driving, and shoplifting are cool activities!

I extend this challenge to the guy who told me otherwise in that other shoddy argument of mine. All three of these activities are cool as they are regularly recognized in movies and lots of people do it. Drinking - Lots of students drink in college and cool is defined as something everyone considers to be hype. Plus, most people start drinking when they go to college, so that's just proof of my argument. Driving - Lots of students always rush to get their permits and drivers license. My son (who wasn't very bright) worked hard enough to pass his test on the first attempt, so that he could drive. Obviously, this is a cool activity. Oh and James Bond always drives a fancy car and people consider him as being one of the coolest fictional characters ever. Psychologist say that many buy extremely fancy cars to cover up for their insecurities below the belt. So since cars do all of that for a person, they must be cool. Shoplifting - Shoplifting is one of the main things you do in the game Grand Theft Auto, and that game is definately one of the most popular games on the market. So there you have it! Drinking, driving, and shoplifting are all cool. The argument is infallible!!!!
We should use half of the US military's budget towards space exploration & technology

The United States is still the largest power, with all others falling g far behind,if we slashed our military budget by 50 percent, it would grant them the opportunity to catch-up. This will eventually happen either way, why speed it up. New weapons like nanoweapons will change the face of warfare. The US needs to stay on top, our allies aren't strong enough, and aren't loyal enough. We don't want a repeat of the world wars...
We should use half of the US military's budget towards space exploration & technology

I'm not saying we should be unarmed of military weapons, I'm saying for the US, we should cut the budget of building new weapons. Our allies will still have weapons, and since we already have a great military power, we can ask allies to help countries in need. I understand that some countries wouldn't want to give up their nuclear warheads, but we can solve it out. One way would be doing diplomacy, and another would be to do a ban. If they accept it, we will send spies to make sure they wouldn't secretly build warheads. If they refuse, we will have to do a treaty where they wouldn't use it against another country. If they do, then it would be like an attack against all of our allies.