BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Homeschooling is the best method of education

I think we first have to define why education is valuable in modern society. It takes a long time for most to become sufficiently economically useful to afford a living, Twenty to thirty years, Even. I think we can agree the high-level goal of education is to bring people to this level where they can intend to support themselves while simultaneously benefiting their wider community. I am fundamentally supportive of the idea of reducing bullying and threats to one's physical safety, I am also a large supporter of individualized and personalized learning powered with technology. People are shaped by their parents, And it's the biological imperative of parents to raise their kids to grow up to be the best they can possibly be. But objectively speaking, I don't think many people would choose their parents over other mentors as they have been successful in areas their parents have not. I don't think that parents are uniquely positioned to teach in general. Maybe if your teacher is a doctor he could teach medicine, But other than basic morals and cultural norms we can't rely on them very much. One-on-one attention seems valuable, But so are social interactions and PLAY. These are fundamental to shaping social boundaries and integrating with society. Currently, We have a system where parents that have the freedom and the expertise to homeschool do, While those who don't, Aren't. There are major flaws in the education system but I don't think to swap to homeschooling, For a majority of students will be beneficial. Problems of accelerated learning, Personalization, Efficient curriculum changes, And preparing students for a high-tech future economy can be solved with major technological advancements.
Should America combat The Islamic State

Let me reiterate. Terrorist groups should be dealt with and swift action should be taken against them. There was no argument from me against that statement. What I was trying to do what correct your inaccurate synopsis of the debate question. The fact that you still have not given a coherent rebuttal means you have not done your research and I am "debating himself, or no one at all." As for the topic of the debate I gave my answer and reasoning for my stance in my first post. The Islamic State is a type of government, in which the primary basis for government is Islamic religious law (sharia). Our government is based on religious freedom, freedom of speech and unalienable rights. Attacking a country because of their religious views would be the ultimate act of hypocrisy. That about summarizes it.
Should America combat The Islamic State

Of course I agree that actions must be taken against ISIS, but yet again you are off topic and ISIS and the other terrorist groups are not the focus of this debate. The question posed was "Should America combat The Islamic State." In my previous post I explained what the Islamic State is. Therefore your argument for or against ISIS and the actions the UN and America should take against them is invalid. Please do some research on what The Islamic State is before your next rebuttal.
Should America combat The Islamic State

In response to my opponent's statement about going to war with ISIS because of it's religious beliefs, that is not why war is being waged. War is being waged because of the actions that ISIS has taken try to create a caliphate. Americans are angry and/or scared because ISIS has killed other innocent Americans. Though some are concerned with the religious principles of ISIS, the majority are just angry because of the malicious actions they've taken. Americans should not send troops into Syria and Iraq to combat ISIS because they simply are not happy with what ISIS has done. Sure, most will agree what ISIS is doing is wrong and irrational, but they are not directly effecting the USFG. We should not combat ISIS because it's simply not necessary. Arming and training troops from other countries and organisations is the most the US should be doing in this war against ISIS.
Should America combat The Islamic State

I feel that my opposition has misunderstood the question but I will post my thoughts anyway. "Should America combat The Islamic Stat?" The answer for any rational person that understands the question should be no. The Islamic State is not a group of terrorists with bombs strapped to their chests trying to blow up a bus station. The Islamic State is a type of government, in which the primary basis for government is Islamic religious law (sharia). Our government is based on religious freedom, freedom of speech and unalienable rights. Attacking a country because of their religious views would be the ultimate act of hypocrisy.
Should America combat The Islamic State

America should not waste their time with another unnecessary war. We would be wasting our time, money, and troops. ISIS is not a huge threat to the American people, maybe to Middle Easterner countries, and too an extent European countries, but not the USFG. We recently got out of a seemingly endless and meaningless war, the last thing we need is to get involved in another war in the Middle East without an exit strategy. NATO should continue with air strikes on ISIS, and the US should continue to supply Syrian Rebels and Kurdish fighters., but we should not involve the US military, whether that be air forces or ground forces. Using airstrikes is similar to the term "gateway drug", when we're just using a small but effective force and not tying to go all in, we'll eventually get sucked in, sending in ground troops. The US should help in this war, but not get directly involved.
The possibily of life existing somewhere else in the universe

Rebuttals: 'Jeffster 184 forfeited this round. ' I would like to point out that the fact that my opponent can type in red doesn't seek to advance his claim one bit. My opponent implicitly claims that he may have been abducted by aliens. If this is true, then why didn't he try to send us one last message in an attempt to prove his case? Really, claiming that you have forfeited in fancy red writing is hardly the way to go about it. Extend all arguments. This was a rather disappointing debate.
The possibily of life existing somewhere else in the universe

I wish to state a resolution: 'Sentient aliens exist.' That is an easily supported claim to give the pro side an advantage, but its evened out by his burden of proof. So this should be an interesting debate. Definitions: Sentience: feeling or sensation as distinguished from perception and thought [1] aliens: extra-terrestrial life forms capable of survival and reproduction. So, let the affirmative state his case. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
The possibily of life existing somewhere else in the universe

Based on the information I have learned about in documentaries and other studies, I think it is very possible that life can exist in other places in the universe other than just Earth. The Kepler telescope, launched into orbit in 2009, has discovered over a thousand Earth like objects just by pointing in one area of space, and identified over 800 planets. Kepler 22b is one of those planes and it looks pretty promising to be very earth like for now. One of the important things to look at is that we only know of life as we know it. Before we discovered the first exo planet, we thought that rocky planets would be in the inner orbit of the star and the gas giants would be in the outer. The first exo planet discovered, 51 Pegesi b, was a huge gas giant that was very close to the star. My point is that even though we are searching for life as we know it, there could also be life as we don't know it.
Comic books & Animation

I will choose Superman as a rival to my opponent's choice.==Rebuttal==As I will show, Superman has almost the same abilities as Flash and more. Therefore, not only are Pro's arguments invalid in an attempt to show why he's the "greatest" (relative to my counter) but Superman's other abilities thoroughly tip the scale in his favor.Time.Superman possesses the ability to use his super-human speed to turn back time as well as the Flash as evinced in 'Superman: The Movie' where he turns back time in order to stop the Hoover Dam from bursting as well as saving the life of Lois Lane.[1]Suffocation.With the ability to move nearly as fast as the Flash, one can presume that Superman also possess this ability.Strength.Superman's' strength likely beats that of the Flash. This is because Superman obtains his energy from the Sun which allows him to strain himself indefinitely (as long as the Sun is there to provide him with energy).==Counter argument==Flight.Superman possesses the ability to fly, meaning he has an advantage over the land based Flash. Not only can he attack from higher ground, but he gains a strong defensive mechanism from Flash's attacks.Vision-based abilities.Superman also possess various vision-based abilities which further heightens the disconnect between their respective powers. Superman has heat, infrared, X-ray, Electro-Magnetic spectrum, telescopic, super-heightened, and microscopic vision[2]. This gives him an added edge in both assessing his surroundings in a superior way while also allowing him to better locate Flash during his high speed runs.Short of a Krypotonium gun. Superman clearly outmatches the Flash, giving him the position of the "greatest hero of all times[sic]".===Sources===[1] http://superman.wikia.com...(Superman:_The_Movie_Continuity)#Adulthood[2] Ibid.
Comic books & Animation

I believe Flash (Barry Allen) is the greatest hero of all times. I know what many of are going to think once you read this, "Is this guy serious? The Flash? A hero?" But seriously, he is the greatest hero. If you know how to use your powers correctly, then you most likely be the strongest hero of all time! With Flash, he has the greatest power. Being the quickest man on Earth! He can fast enough to turn back time; he can run around someone in a continous circle, suffocating them to death, and he beat the living crap out of someone in a flash because of how fast he can go! So what do you think?
Yo mama jokes

Yo mama is so hairy, her waxer started charging by the pound. Yo mama is so fat Barnum & Bailey's use her old dresses as circus tents. Yo mama is so dumb she thinks A.D.D. is a math disease. Yo mama is so ugly the only reason she gets bukkake is so people don't have to see her face. Yo mama is so old she quifes dust. To mama is so stupid she always buys the extended warranty.
Yo mama jokes

Yo mama so dumb, she repeats herself. Yo mama is so fat her doctors are really concerned about her cholesterol. Yo mama is so poor she has sh!t on layaway at the $.99 store. Yo mama is so stupid, in school she had a Polish tutor. Yo mama is so ugly, the elephant man wouldn't bang her. Yo mama is such a slut, she has a "Take a number" machine next to her bed.
Yo mama jokes

Yo mama so dumb she got locked in a grocery store and starved! Yo mama so dumb she got hit by a cup and told the police she got mugged Your mama so dumb she tried to climb mountain dew Yo mama so hairy Bigfoot is taking her picture! Yo mommas chest so hairy her titties look like coconuts. Yo momma so hairy she wears a Nike tag on her weave so now everybody calls her Hair Jordan. Yo mama so hairy, she's a stunt double for Chewbacca and her baby daughter played the leader of the Ewoks (no makeup needed).
Individuals should have the right to own a gun in the United States.

For this debate, both me and my opponent shall argue if everyone in the United States should have the right to own a gun. I, Pro, shall argue that people deserve a right to own a gun; while my opponent will argue the opposite.Rules: No forfeits, unless both sides forfeit the same amount of rounds; then it is fair game. No foul language of any kind, both sides must respect each other. No Trolls please! If you use a source, post its link in a "Source Category". Any rules broken is an automatic disqualification for the individual who broke the rulesStructure:Round 1: Acceptance and any questions for clarification (Please post in the comment section). Round 2: Opening Argument (Please Keep it Short) for both Pro and Con, except Con can Rebuttal this round if they choose.Round 3: Both sides RebuttalRound 4: Pro Rebuttals and states his or her Conclusion and can Rebuttal if they choose to do so, while Con will just have to state his or her Conclusion only.Any breakage of the structure is either a penalty or automatic disqualification. Depends on how serious the breaking of the structure was. Definitions:Individuals: A single human being as distinct from a group, class, or family. Should: Used to indicate what is probable.Have: Possess, own, or hold.Right: Morally good, justified, or acceptable.Own: Have (something) as one's own; possess.Gun: A weapon incorporating a metal tube from which bullets, shells, or other missiles are propelled by explosive force, typically making a characteristic loud, sharp noise.United States: Country located in North America, that has 50 states.Good luck to who ever accepts!
Individuals should have the right to own a gun in the United States.

For the final round, I will do my final rebuttals against my opponent and then state my conclusion. My opponent on the other hand can only state his conclusion, which is stated in the structure section in Round 1.C1: 2nd Amendement Say's SoMy opponent responds with the following: "The Amendement is an out-dated file, yes it gives us certain rights and freedoms". If the amendement is out-dated, then why do a majority of its decisions in the government stay? And why can't guns be allowed to be given a right in the U.S? My opponent has failed to really address why a gun shouldn't be given a right, but just arguing that it does not mean its in the second amendement.C2: Country Found On was Becaue of GunsOpponent states that even if people had guns, they cannot really revolt the government. Apparently my opponent didn't read my last argument, where I stated: "With a gun, they at least had a possible fighting chance". I didn't even mention on them winning, but at least giving them a chance to fight. Also, we must remember that during the American Revolution, it was a small army fighting a whole army and they still won; so the same can be said about this current situation.C3: Criminal CrisisMy opponent makes the claim that gun regulations make states better. However, according to the FBI, "Two sets of data published by the FBI seven months apart show increased gun ownership coinciding with a reduction in violent crime". There are charts to help look at it more in-depth, but the evidence is valid. In conclusion, this debate went like so. My opponent makes many claims, but fails to follow through with them, and attempts to rebuttal my claims; but fails to do so because of my better arguments. For this reason, I urge voters to vote Pro!Source: http://dailycaller.com...
Individuals should have the right to own a gun in the United States.

C1: The Amendement is an out-dated file, yes it gives us certain rights and freedoms, butwhich almost every other western country has C2: Even if they were not able to take guns from the populace, there is no way a civilian revolt would be able to overthrow the US Government, they would be wiped out by air strikes pretty quick C3: And the homicide rate for England did eventually go way down, and the majority of western countries with gun bans or regulations are much safer than the US http://www.businessinsider.com...
Individuals should have the right to own a gun in the United States.

1: Yes, in the constitution it does indeed say that citizens have a "right" to bear arms. But the constitution is shite, it's old and outdated, it was made back when Muskets where the most common weapons. The right to bear arms and have a civilian Militia is incredibly vague, what do they mean by a "militia"? some red-necks out of Texas? Some Paranoid conspiracy theorist sitting on top of a stockpile of assault rifles? War has changed, weapons are more deadly now than they ever have been. 2. "Country Found On was because of Guns" It is indeed true that the USA was founded on violent revolution; but almost all the other countries in the Anglo-sphere were given independence peacefully, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc. The birth of a country should never define said countries existence, Modern day Russia was built by Corruption, internal pressure, extreme poverty, and a military coup d'etat, should those be the things that define Russia? A countries past should not be what defines its future. 3. If a criminal didn't have a gun in the first place than it would put the victim in less danger, countries that have more guns have been proven to have higher homicide and violent crime rates. The top 5 gun-owning western countries have had the most mass shootings per capita (http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...) Guns can be used for self-defence, but they are also normally the main reason why they are self-defence
Individuals should have the right to own a gun in the United States.

C1: 2nd Amendement Say's SoThe obvious first argument is that the United States Constitution says we have the right to bear arms. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" (1). And the Constitution is the lore for our Democracy in the United States; therefore, taking away the right to own a gun from individuals proves to be unjust. C2: Country Found On was because of GunsAs both me and my opponent both know, the way we recieved our democracy in the United States is by overthrowing the higher authority. Throwing down that higher authority was achieved by the use of guns (2), and if they are gotten rid of; then that breaks its true value of helping the United States achieve a democracy. C3: Criminal CrisisI. Criminals Don't Follow LawsAnd even if the idea of getting rid of the right to own a gun is passed, we must ask the common sense question. Do we think that criminals are going to listen to laws? The definition to criminal is: "A person who has committed a crime" (3). A crime is the breakage of a law, and a criminal won't listen to these laws so he will be able to get a gun from the black market and such. II. Gun Control Hurts Law Abiding CitizensBesides the criminal not following the rules, the rules also infringe upon Law Abiding Citizens by harming their chance on getting a gun. How? Well lets see the purpose of a gun. A purpose of a gun is to shoot and possibly kill an individual if necessary. When would they kill the individual? In the form of self-defense if they are at any point threatened. And taking this idea away will lead to a lack of self-defence. In fact, stated under this picture representation: It is clear that people use these weapons for self defence. And hence if we take away these weapons, they cannot protect themselves. Good luck to my opponent! Sources:1. . https://www.law.cornell.edu...2. . http://www.gunsgunsguns.com...3. . https://www.bing.com... q=definition%20of%20criminal&pc=cosp&ptag=ABB11A3B5D3&form=CONBDF&conlogo=CT3210127
It can be proven that Jesus rose from the dead

Thanks again to PhilochristosArgument Con1: “...the resurrection of Jesus is the best explanation for why Jesus' movement survived his death” The fact that Jesus of Nazareth could apparently die was certainly a blow to the credibility of Christianity for followers of biblical tradition. From what Con tells of biblical prophecies, it was only one of many blows. It is a rather interesting use of Occam’s razor to claim that a supernatural occurrence is the simplest way to explain historical events. Unless one begs the question of the existence (or nonexistence) of immortal beings or miracles, this might be a simpler explanation than the physically more probable one that I make. Certainly the story that Jesus rose from the dead is important to the survival of Christianity. However, as Con states there are other explanations for this story.Unfortunately for Con’s case, he actually gives one of the best explanations for the promotion of this story by Jesus’ disciples: “Unless he was alive, he couldn't have been the messiah.” There are a number of non-supernatural explanations for why some people at the time may have believed Jesus was still alive. The more fanciful is that he had a body double or twin. Again, without begging the question of miracles, this is not as simple an answer, but it is physically/medically more plausible than resurrection. Other possible non-supernatural explanations: hallucination by one or more severely stressed follower, passed along to others who convinced themselves of the truth; Lazareth Syndrome: Jesus was not, indeed, dead when taken down from the cross, but only badly wounded. For my skeptical mind, even if we accept the purported eye witness accounts by the relatively few people who could have seen Jesus post-crucifixion, the last explanation is the most plausible. The other non-supernatural explanations cannot be ruled out, either. Most importantly, the passing along of the resurrection story by not only the disciples and early Christians, but by millions who did not witness it themselves is, again, best explained by fact of its necessity to the continued existence of Christianity. The youthful religion being promoted by Paul and others depended for its very survival on the reappearance of Jesus after His humiliating apparent death. Is it so far-fetched to believe that the disciples of early Christianity wanted it to be true so badly that they made it a matter of (almost) historical fact? To say that the Roman guards could not possibly have left Jesus for dead without being certain that his brain and cardiovascular functions had failed, is disingenous at best. I would submit that not only are ther few or no reliable witnesses of Jesus' physical/medical death, but that there almost could not be one, in any sense acceptable to modern medicine.
It can be proven that Jesus rose from the dead

From what I've seen of your debates and comments on forums, I couldn't ask for a better "opponent. " BoP on Pro, as I don't propose to prove that Jesus Christ of Nazareth DID NOT rise from the dead*, just to say that it is a matter of faith as opposed to science, including the science of history. Gish Galloping will be very difficult as the number of characters is only 4000. Pro will argue first and will leave the last argument empty. Usual debate rules: Semantic abuse is discounted as BS No personal attacks Definitions anytime before the last round, if agreed on. Feel free to suggest other rules. Let the arguing begin! :) * To start off with a definition: by "dead" I mean that Jesus of Nazareth was literally brain and body functions zero. I do not mean that the people observing him *thought* that he was dead. This is meant to be a strict definition of dead. For a miraculous resurrection to have occurred, a certifiable brain and heart, lungs etc. death must have occurred.