BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Students who drop out of high school should be forced to work in factories

Thanks for the debate. "In essence we can debate anything with should, and the debate should focus on the merits of the resolved not necessarily the implementation. We should focus on whether it would have a positive benefit or not, not whether it would be implemented." When we say should, it is true that anything can be debated, but it is not true that it is worth debating. Why would you debate your stance if it cannot legally be implemented? The merits are only important if they can be situated in reality. "This would change things as my opponent misses the fact most high school students work low wage jobs and end up becoming homeless or burdens of taxpayers. That's why by the end of the decade, high school drop-outs will cost America 3 billion dollars. If such a plan were implemented, it would turn the taxpayer's burden into a taxpayer." You have not shown how your plan will reverse the current problem (part of implementing your plan), and you are assuming the very thing you are attempting to argue. "Social isolation? These people wouldn't be isolated out of society, but just forced to work in factories." Many people would become socially isolated if they were forced to work in a factory. Social isolation is significant cause to juvenile delinquency [1]. Pro has the onus to prove that his plan would actually work, and he has failed so far in demonstrating how his plan would work. How would keeping dropouts poor (working in low-paying factories) benefit society and fix the problem? So far, he has only assumed that it would work. I am not disputing the fact that dropouts constitute most the prison population. I am disputing that pro's plan will actually keep kids in school. Kids know this stuff already. They are told every day that they will end up in jail or a low-paying job if they do not graduate. They are essentially forced into these conditions already, so why would forcing them into a situation that they are already forced into make a difference? If they are not scared of prison, then why would they be scared of factory labor? Besides, most prisoners come from the working class [2]. [1] http://books.google.com... [2] http://struggle.ws...
Students who drop out of high school should be forced to work in factories

With this round, I will be rebutting my opponent's arguments. "There is no way pro's plan could be implemented from a legal standpoint. " Though I agree that it probably won't be passed, the resolution states "should. " In essence we can debate anything with should, and the debate should focus on the merits of the resolved not necessarily the implementation. We should focus on whether it would have a positive benefit or not, not whether it would be implemented. "Many people who work in low-paying jobs (factories or retail) are already high school dropouts [1]; therefore, why would forcing them to be what they were already most likely going to be change anything" I agree. Many people who work in low-paying job are already high school dropouts, but most high school dropouts do not live in factories. This would change things as my opponent misses the fact most high school students work low wage jobs and end up becoming homeless or burdens of taxpayers. That's why by the end of the decade, high school drop-outs will cost America 3 billion dollars. If such a plan were implemented, it would turn the taxpayer's burden into a taxpayer. "The social isolation that pro's plan would cause may even negate any benefits made by a decrease in the prison population. Poor people are still imprisoned in the US! " Social isolation? These people wouldn't be isolated out of society, but just forced to work in factories. Also, prisons cost America A TON of money. Americans spend $60 billion a year to imprison 2.2 million people. (. http://www.commondreams.org...) If this would decrease the prison population it would be a good thing. According to my opponent's logic, they would be less likely to go to jail due to the fact they wouldn't commit crimes. This would be a great thing. Also, it would gain tons and tons of money as instead of costing $60 billion, they would now be making money. Overall you need to vote AFF as I present the greatest impacts. Monetary- Factories would save tons of money as instead of drop outs relying on government aid, they would make money by creating goods to sell to other countries or people (helping our GDP and citizen's buying power) with cheap labor. It all makes sense. Education- Our education system has been failing. Kids have no incentive to graduate and learn. Now they will as they will have to work hard manual labor if they don't graduate. Thank you. Vote Affirmative.
Students who drop out of high school should be forced to work in factories

The focus of this debate is not whether dropping out is good or bad, but if these dropouts should be put in factories. This is a tall order for pro because it conflicts with civil liberties. Dropping out is not a criminal offense; therefore, there is no way pro's plan could be implemented from a legal standpoint. Many people who work in low-paying jobs (factories or retail) are already high school dropouts [1]; therefore, why would forcing them to be what they were already most likely going to be change anything? The social isolation that pro's plan would cause may even negate any benefits made by a decrease in the prison population. Poor people are still imprisoned in the US! [1] http://www.enotes.com...
Students who drop out of high school should be forced to work in factories

Hello. Thanks for debating. I affirm the resolution. Currently, the drop out rate is around 8%. There is a problem that needs to be dealt with. These kids would be given multiple chances to graduate, but if they make the conscious decision to drop out, they will be punished by being forced to work in factories for an unset amount of time, presumably not life-long but not short. Drop outs hurt the economy immensely. Unless high schools are able to graduate their students at higher rates, more than 12 million students will drop out during the course of the next decade. The result will be a loss to the nation of $3 trillion. (http://www.all4ed.org...) The way to address the problem is to give kids an immense incentive to graduate. Even though kids earn much less as drop outs, they still continue to drop out. This gives kids a huge reason to graduate, helping our economy and education. But if they do go to these factories, instead of losing our country money, they are now financially productive for the nation, rather than its burden. It wouldn't be inhumane because it's just a factory and it wouldn't be lifelong. It would just be to pay off their future debt. I stand in affirmation.
Morals Come From Evolution

The definition of "morals" requires some more clarity. In my debate arguments, I define morality as "the voice of consciousness which may not extend so far as to prevent us from doing something that is morally wrong, But still is an integral part of our being in general. " Morality, In its broad sense, Requires evolution, Although not the fixed evolution I am debating against. With each generation of more specialized species, One's definition of morals ought to change. At one point, Morality would mean colluding with others to build up a system that works in favor of all. However, The narrow evolution, (evolution theory et al. ) cannot be used to justify morality. Take competition. The idea that species have to progress based on the concept of one species being dominant, Or somehow superior to another is the basis of evolution. However, Our idea of morality cannot allow this - our conscience will not permit us to take a gun and shoot a horse, Or a crippled man, Just because we happen to be superior. Consider my example, Dark as it may seem - the debate can be summarized by this example. Evolution would justify such a killing, Since it constitutes the survival of a healthy individual over one that is in poor health, Or the triumph of the human species over an underdeveloped animal. This is blasphemous if we consider our definition of morality against the evolutionary morality. Our morality will not allow us to take another being's life for no valid reason. This brings out the conflict between conforming to scientific logic and purely technical morals, And believing in the higher, Intrinsic voice of morality. The fact is, More than the debate over whether we should be allowed to kill a horse just for the sake of "progress", This debate will revolve around the definition of the term morality - the debate between evolutionary morals, Which justify such killings as absolutely necessary for evolutionary development, And human morals, Which are borne from our minds, And our conscience. I would refrain from going as far as claiming these morals were "created" by humans - no, This is instinct, Something we find ourselves attached to, Perhaps obliviously. I rest my case - in the conflict between morals, The morals of our heart ought to be invoked far more than those prescribed by nature.
National Health Care & Abortion.

I honestly, swear to you that I did not change it on my profile; that's how it has always been. But that's fine if you read it wrong. I believe the mother does have a choice - the choice to choose not to have sex or to have sex knowing that consequences may occur. She also has the choice to use birth control or the morning after pill. People need to take responsibility for their own actions. It's not the baby's fault. Adoption is a much better answer; there are millions of parents waiting to adopt. I don't understand how someone would be willing to kill their own child, yet they are not willing to give it a life in another home. I'm glad you are not for late term abortion and that you realize national health care would be a problem. I am even more happy that you don't like Hillary :) It's too bad Hillary will most likely win the nomination and then it basically comes down to voting for whoever can beat her since her in office would be such a nightmare.
National Health Care & Abortion.

You sure did a nice job changing your profile. Yesterday when I looked at it it said that you were for abortion. you're making it unfair by changing you're profile so that i look bad. I'm not saying that abortion is good. I'm saying that it's the mothers choice. there's a big difference. I do agree with you about the health care thing. But I like almost everything else that Obama stands for. He is a good canidate and I think that he is the best one out there. I guess I'm not even looking at political parties 100%. If Hillary Clinton wins I'll be upset. the thing is that the country needs a grounded and smart president and I believe that it's Barack Obama.
National Health Care & Abortion.

Well if Obama did become president, nationalized health care is a policy he is for so there's a high chance it would go into effect which would be a disaster for our health care system, which I am assuming you agree with as well. More importantly, I am 100% against abortion as well as late term abortion. I don't know where you got the idea that I am a hypocrite and that I favor abortion. Killing a baby is killing a baby. The fact that they are less developed at certain points is irrelevant. It is still a human life with a beating heart and has many developed parts at early stages. I am not judging you. This is a debate site, expect to get questions on your beliefs.
National Health Care & Abortion.

Just because I'm in favor of Barack Obama doesn't mean that I agree with everything that he is fighting for. Since when do you need to agree completley with the canidate that you support. Also, I am in favor of abortion because I believe that it is the mothers choice. I am against late-term abortion because at that stage the baby is 10x more developed then at the stage when most abortions take place. It's sort of hypocritical for you to tell me I'm inconsistent when you're for abortion and against late term. I think you're just as inconsistent as you are so how is it fair for you to judge me?
Feminism is anti-religious

If you are planning on creating a new debate with the intention of debating me, I'm afraid I'll have to put it off for a bit. I currently have 12 debates that are in the debating period and my hands are completely full. But I'd have no problem debating again, as long as I am aware of the terms and the specifics on what I'd be arguing. As my opponent has forfeited, I put forward that the motion is thus dismissed.
Feminism is anti-religious

To begin, I would like to point out just how absurd the motion put forward is. "Feminism is anti-religious". Currently there are 21 religions classified as "major" world religions, with hundreds upon hundreds more denominations and indegenous religions. To state that feminism is against "religion" boradly is simply absurd. This notion is so absurd in fact, that I only need one example to disprove it. In Sikhism scriptures, it is very clearly state that women are equal to men[1]. I would like to put forward that Sikhism is a religion, and that because it regards women as equal to men, it is not against feminism. Thus, we have clear grounds to reject this motion. . http://www.realsikhism.com...;
Feminism is anti-religious

The push for equality for women in any country in modern times has analogy in history where the rights of a human were placed higher than the law. As this movement grows and women become more empowered, laws will be broken. In the middle east the population is ruled by a religious agenda. When feminism tells these women to stand up for themselves, the women risk persecution for not following the scriptures and in turn feminism promotes anti-religious tendencies.
Game x Game (2)

Crap, I have 6 minutes to write this, so I better just be very brief in my rebuttals.REBUTTALSGraphicsGraphics do not make a good game. Take minecraft for example. Yes, a beautiful game can captivate, but it is not an objective measure of whether one game is better than another.UniqueWind Waker is not so unique. It fits the criteria of being a Zelda game. Progression through the story and dungeon play out exactly as all Zelda games do. GameplayThere is a reason that people continued to play Diablo 2 for a decade after it's release, despite other hack and slash games coming and going throughout that period while people moved onto newer Zelda games; Diablo 2 was replayability personified. That clearly says a lot for it's gameplay. CONCLUSIONI'm sorry I can't say more but I have literally a few minutes to submit something. I will draw a better conclusion in the final round.
Game x Game (2)

All right, time for rebuttals (note: we will be judging these games alone without using social contexts/scores as a criteria of which game is better)C1: Zelda: The Wind Waker is a lot more beautiful than Diablo 2The cartoonish graphics of TLoZ:TWW work totally smooth as you can see in the pictures below.Zelda: The Wind Waker: s://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com...; alt="" /> s://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com...; alt="" /> Diablo 2 graphics, on the other hand, are more dead (see the pictures below). Even if the game atmosphere allows that, they are still less appealing than the Wind Waker graphics.Diablo 2: s://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com...; alt="" /> It is clear that if you are going to choose a game by it's graphics, you are going to choose Zelda: The Wind Waker.C2: Zelda: The Wind Waker is more unique and appealing.I won't deny that Diablo 2 is a great game. However, it doesn't go beyond a role playing game. Zelda: The Wind Waker is innovative by bringing a catchy gameplay involving sailing, which is a bit rare for a sandbox game. But it isn't only about that, because it was greatly explored, as it gives many unique minigames and things I've already mentioned such as treasure charts and beautiful locations. Mentioning the graphics again, they are also more artistic and unique. s://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com...; alt="" /> C3: Zelda: The Wind Waker has a better gameplay.It is clear that TLoZ:TWW has a more comforting and accurate commands. Diablo 2 gameplay is can be a lot of fun too, but not so fun when you realize that it is a repetitive gameplay.Zelda: The Wind Waker gameplay is a lot more varied, it has a great ton of secrets, puzzles and special events.
Game x Game (2)

INTRODUCTIONI played Diablo 2 back in my early teen years and I have fond memories of Doritos, Fanta and Diablo 2 on a Friday night. I chose it over other games I rate higher (Metal Gear Solid, GTA: Vice City…) because I think it has several objective points in favour of its greatness.ARGUMENTSREPLAYABILITY POINT A (Blizzards support)I must thank my opponent here for allowing me to use the Lord of Destruction Expansion Pack as part of my argument. It cannot be argued that Diablo 2 is not replayable; released in 2000 (with LoD released in 2001) people were still playing in large numbers up to and after the release of Diablo 3 last year, with servers still being upgraded and running strong all throughout this 12 year period. The continued interest partially stems from Blizzards continued investment in the game; they continued to release new content up until 2005 [Pandemonium Event, 1] and release patches for it up until 2011 [2].REPLAYABILITY POINT B (Ways to play)With the two playing options (regular, hardcore), 7 classes with 3 skill trees each and a maximum level of 99 as well as so much gear to find, Diablo 2 has so much replayability. Admittedly, even though each class has around 21^30 different possible combinations of skills, only several are of use. Finding and customising those skills though was a challenge and experimenting with your character is a major draw point.REPLAYABILITY POINT C (Randomly generated maps)This is a short point, but very important. Diablo 2 had the art of randomly generated maps down pat. Sure, there were only 4 possible ways to get to The Summoner in the Arcane Sanctuary, but other areas it was impossible to know for certain exactly which way to go. While frustrating to people in a hurry (or those running away from a horde of skeleton) it meant that rushing through the game, especially at lower levels was never too easy.ATMOSPHEREWhile piles of corpses and giant demons may not be everyone’s cup of tea, for those of us who like that sort of thing Diablo 2 was a revelation. The environments were filled with blood, gore and attention to detail. I won’t forget the foreboding nature of the Forgotten Tower when I first came across it. Sure, it looks dated now but the environments (maybe not so much the repeatedly used character models) looked wicked 12 years ago.CONCLUSIONThat’s all I want to add for now, since I’m short on both time and characters.Over to you, sir.SOURCES[1] http://diablo.wikia.com...(Diablo_II)[2] http://diablo.wikia.com...(Diablo_II)
Game x Game (2)

(Note: I've made an exception and allowed my opponent to use the Lord of Destruction DLC on his arguments)Thanks for accepting!Very well, opening statement (3000 characters max)The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker is the tenth title of the Zelda series. It is an open world adventure game, from 2003. Even though there are more recent games from the same franchise, I've chosen The Wind Waker for these 4 main reasons:- Sailing takes a big part in the game; it opens more doors to gameplay, such as featuring treasure charts and looking for them around the sea, having fun battle encounters such as the giant octopuses, or even things such as a ghost ship or minigames that are related to that atmosphere. These things thus many others make the game feel creative, unique and fun to explore.- Gorgeous design: The cartoonish graphics were totally well made, as they represent naturally things such as the wind and they have a nice use of colors, they also feel beautiful and natural on weather conditions and day time. Windfall Island is one most beautiful RPG towns I ever saw.- The world is balanced. I think it is important to mention that many open world games have worlds out of balance; whenever they are too big or too small, or whenever there are parts filled with important locations and others are empty. If you see the map of the world of The Wind Waker, you will see that there is an island on each square. Each of these islands have something in special, whether they will be part of a side quest or have a different NPC, or having monsters and chests with specific loots. The world isn't neither too big or too small either.- Side quests and hidden stuff. Last but not least, the game is filled with many secrets and tasks from NPCs to make the world more alive. There are a nice ton of secrets throughout the game and the side quests are also fun, I won't deny that the amount of side quests that are about gathering items is a bit high, even though, most of the side quests are fun to play just as the game is.I think that's it for my opening statement.
Game x Game (2)

(Open to anyone) I've made a first debate of this topic, and I liked it but at the same time I found it a bit messy, so I will put some more rules to organize it better.In this debate, the con shall choose one of his favorite games and try to convince that his chosen game is better than mine; at the same time, I will be trying to convince that mine is better (please don't choose too simple games such as tetris)My chosen game isThe Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker==Rules=====Rounds===Round 1: Acceptance (and tell the name of the game you've chosen)Round 2: Opening statements (only promoting your game, not mentioning the opponent's game, 3000 characters max)Round 3: RebbutalsRound 4: Closing statements (4000 characters max)===Games to be chosen===Any game can be chosen as long as they aren't too simple (such as tetris) or too old (before 1998)===Comparison===We will be judging the games alone, without any additional content (such as DLCs or MODs), and the chosen games shall not be compared on social contexts.
The god of the bible does not exist

Since you've failed to stipulate a definition for exist, I will. According to Merriam-Webster, The term exist is defined as such: intransitive verb a. To have real being whether material or spiritual. Now I will stipulate the definitions of "being" "spiritual" and "real. " being noun b (1) something that is conceivable and hence capable of existing. spiritual adjective 3. Concerning religious values. real c. (1) occurring or existing in actuality. As a proviso, I must stipulate the acceptance of any description of actuality will not be subject to material constraints. Finally, I will stipulate the definitions of religion and relgious using Oxford: Religion 1. The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, Especially a personal God or gods. Religious 2. Relating to or believing in a religion. I must inform you that I did not create these definitions; I'm merely stipulating them using MW and Oxford citations. And with these stipulated definitions, I have proven the existence of not only God, But also all Gods, Since God(s) meets this criterion, I. E. Having spiritual being. In other words, God by definition exists. The other four rounds are unnecessary. As long as my stipulations are accepted and sustained, I've met my burden of proof without violating your rules.