BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: Year Round School Is Good

It is hard to rebut a round forfeit but I will at least state that I stand by my arguments. I will also provide a few more arguments to support my position. As I previously stated, studies lack rigorous methodology but that does not mean they should all get ignored. In one study, Alexander, Entwisle, and Olson (2007) found that low-income students made greater achievement gains in comparison to other students during the school year because the widening of the achievement gap between the two groups occurs over the summer. Another study found that summer learning loss is more pronounced for math facts, spelling, and other academic material that is concrete rather than conceptual (Cooper, Nye, Charlton, Lindsay & Greathouse, 1996). Research indicates that summer learning loss is a real problem for students"especially for economically disadvantaged students. In one study, Alexander, Entwisle, and Olson (2007) found that low-income students made similar achievement gains to other students during the school year; the widening of the achievement gap between the two groups occurred over the summer. Another study found that summer learning loss is more pronounced for math facts, spelling, and other academic material that is concrete rather than conceptual (Cooper, Nye, Charlton, Lindsay & Greathouse, 1996). Unfortunately, research is inconclusive on whether year-round schooling is an effective solution to this problem. Two major meta-analyses of studies on year-round schooling have shown that the findings are mixed and that many studies suffer from weak research designs or methodology"for example, failing to account for family socioeconomic level or parental education. However, both of these meta-analyse, Worthen and Zsiray (1994) and Cooper, Valentine, Charlton, and Melson (2003, did find support for the following conclusions: 1) Students in year-round schools do as well or slightly better in terms of academic achievement than students in traditional schools. 2) Year-round education may be particularly beneficial for students from low-income families. Students, parents, and teachers who participate in a year-round school tend to have positive attitudes about the experience. The research also indicates that when year-round schooling has resulted in higher academic achievement, the schools in question are usually doing more than just rearranging the school calendar. These schools are also providing remediation and enrichment for students during the breaks so that students have opportunities to re-learn material, practice skills, catch up, or experience nonacademic enrichment activities continuously throughout the year (McMillen, 2001). This may well be because of the districts desire to "try anything" to improve the educational opportunities of students. As common core, increased immigration into some school districts and an increase of ESL students in many districts, make more demands on students, teachers and districts....it may well be that more districts will try year round school.
In North America, the taboo associated with the consumption of dog meat is logically unreasonable

Sadly pro was unable to join us for round 2.Extend all arguments.Additional thought:Within North America the taboo against consumption of dog meat is logically reasonable, for a pretty simple reason that most means of attaining the meat in question would violate local laws; not to mention be unsightly to the neighbors (where the taboo comes into play). Doing the same to a cow within urban areas (as most of the population resides), would be equally taboo and illegal. In North America there's a nice removal from death. That we farm our meat away from where we live, is an intrinsic part of our society and therefore culture.
In North America, the taboo associated with the consumption of dog meat is logically unreasonable

I will start this debate by first stating that I do not personally eat dog meat and that I live in North America. However, I do find North American society's negative stigma and expectations towards the consumption of dog meat, especially in Asian culture, to be unreasonable and culturally myopic. My first point is in the form of a question. Why are dogs different? Let me answer with a few possible and likely conclusions which you may respond with. Possible answers may include: they are loyal, they are mankind's best friend, they are friendly, they understand you, they "just" different from other animals, and it would be just "wrong". Although I do not refute any of the aforementioned qualities of dogs, I would like to point out to voters that all of these qualities are not intrinsic of the dog but rather, merely qualities that are defined by our perception and relationship towards dogs. Dogs are loyal. Sure. However, so are many other animals. There is no loyal "gene" that is unique to dogs and no other animals. They are mankind's best friend. Sure. However, they are only defined as mankind's best friend through their popularity as a family pet in North American culture. Why can't a cow be mankind's best friend? The simple answer is "no reason at all". A cow could be held in the exact same social prestige as a dog if it underwent the specific cultural and social relationships with humans throughout history that the dog did. Thus, I can veritably conclude that dogs, specifically the societal esteem that dogs are held in as opposed to other animals which we slaughter in the millions every day, is not an intrinsic quality of the species itself but rather, a direct result of cultural and social relationships that we have had with them throughout history. Therefore, I find it logically incorrect to declaim those we eat dog meat as "monsters" or "moral abominations" or even "gross". They are doing nothing wrong save infringing on your dear North American cultural expectations. Is it fair for them to suffer for not conforming to your ways?
Abortion

I'll just finish this up since I don't have much else to say and my points really weren't addressed that well.My opponents points were essentially as follows:1) "a fetus is a human being because it is developing"Again, why? What I tried to say before, but will reiterate, is that many other organisms are alive and develop, but they aren't human beings with personhood rights that override those of the mother.2) The Bible says so...First, I showed that Exodus shows YHWH commanded that a murder must be responded to with execution... and yet YHWH commands that the death of a fetus is punished with... a fine? Not execution? This clearly shows the Exodus law, supposedly given by God, values a fetus as less than life. Second, Genesis 2:7 is specifically talking about just Adam and adults. My opponent gave me no reason for why this origins myth is grounds for overriding autonomy rights of the mother, or why it proves a peanut sized piece of protein is human.Overall, my opponent thinks you can force a 11-year-old girl raped consistently by her uncle must bear his child. Sickening. Why? Because a peanut sized organism could possibly, maybe, be a person... but he provided no good philosophical evidence of it.******************************************************************************************************Woof* lemme get out of character. Despite my arguments, lemme say I've been Devil's Advocate the whole time. I've been a Pro-Life activist for years in pretty harsh and occasionally dangerous environments.I'd encourage my opponent to improve his arguments. If you really want to be a pro-life activist, work on it. If another pro-lifer can tear apart your arguments, think of what a real Pro-Choice advocate could do.
Abortion

It would seem to that my opponent has missed my arguments:Instead of providing a reasoned philosophical defense of the humanity and personhood of a fetus, he simply quoted the language one of my sources used, which happened to be a parenting website. If a parent wants to call its offspring a "child," good for them, that's their choice, and a parenting website would reflect that.Until my opponent gives a reason response to why a kidney bean sized piece of tissue has rights overriding the right to a female's autonomy, my argument stand.The same goes for my rebuttal of his Bible argument. My point in Exodus was that YHWH apparently values the unborn fetus as less than human. Instead of life for life, there is fetus for money. As for Genesis 2, this passage states that ADULT humans are made in the image of God, say nothing of a zygote. And beyond that, the Bible is not evidence for much by itself.Until my opponent resolves these issues, my arguments stand.
Abortion

Hello, and welcome to this debate. I will be going through a rebuttal of his points, providing my own position along the way1. Living vs. PersonMy opponent states, as is obviously correct from a basic understanding of biology, that a fetus is, in fact, alive. However, an organism that is simply living is not a human being. This is a distinction that needs to be made. My opponent assumes that life is the sole indicator of moral and human rights. It is from this that he tries to apply the Declaration of Independence to the fetus. He also calls Planned Parenthood "murderous" for killing life yet does not give the basis that the loss of life in a fetus is any more important than that of an animal. He needs to define why a fetus is a person before making claims of "murder"So, let's look at abortion when it actually occurs. 89% of abortions occur before the 12th week of pregnancy. So what does a fetus look like at 7 weeks, about halfway between conception and the twelfth week? 1. The fetus is about 1/2 an inch long, about the size of a small blueberry.2. The skin is barely formed, making it translucent. 3. The brain and other organs are not yet formed.4. There is no consciousness or other signs of humanity in the child at this point or any point in the near future. I think it is plain to see my opponent has some explaining to do before saying that this blob of flesh has the same rights as everyone else.2. Abortion in the Bible. My opponent seems to think that the Bible supports an anti-choice stance, and yet neglects ALL the verses in the Bible that mention the death of a fetus in the womb. He also uses Genesis 2:7 out of the context of the rest of the passage, being creation, to try to make it apply as a standard to abortion. Poor exegesis.Here is verse on accidental with an explanation: Exodus 21:22-23"Now when men struggle with each other and hurt a woman who has conceived, and her child goes out of her, but no harm continues on the woman, the man who hit her will give to the husband, and the judges will impose on him what to pay, but any harm follows her, then you shall give life for life"In this passage, the baby's life is worth... a fine. It's not life for life. It's fetus for money, but if the mother dies... then there is execution. The Bible clearly says that the fetus is not human or worth the equivalent of a human life.I look forward to my opponent' response Sources:http://www.babycentre.co.uk...http://www.guttmacher.org...Exodus 21 was my own translation from the Masoretic Text
Abortion

Abortion is the ending of pregnancy by removing a fetus or embryo before it can survive outside the uterus. This definition contains the word "survive". This suggests that a fetus or embryo is living while inside the uterus. By taking out this fetus or embryo before it can survive outside the uterus, it ends the babies life. We are the United States of America. Why are we allowing murderous organizations, such as Planned Parenthood, to kill our next generation without giving them a chance. The Declaration of Independence states, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." We are entitled life in the United States. That means anything that is living, including a fetus or embryo, is also entitled life. We as a country need to realize that we are murdering our next generation without giving them a chance. The question then arises, how can you tell if the babies life begins at conception (or as a fetus or embryo)? The answer is simple, how can you tell that it is or is not? Why are we gambling with innocent lives. Why are we turning our heads as organizations kill innocent babies who will never see the light of God's earth. In the Bible, life is given when the Lord breathes the breath of life into our body."So breath is life, and when life is breathed into the earthen vessel that is a human body, it comes alive." -Genesis 2:7Just to be clear, I do believe life begins at conception as well as when God breathes the breath of life into our bodies. So how can we prove or disprove that life begins at conception? I think we should stop gambling with the life of innocent babies, and stop abortion all together. Abortion, not matter what circumstance, is murder. I have attached a link below that gives evidence that life does begin at conception. https://www.princeton.edu...... I look forward to my opponent's response, and can not wait for a good debate. Thank you.
Resolved: Gay marriage ought be legalized in the United States.

With that said, I will move on toward my rebuttals:Sub-point 1a: My opponent explains the logic of a book used as part of the research, but not the actual study itself. This is a borderline strawman argument considering that he's arguing against the wrong thing. What the study itself is saying is that an increased tolerance for homosexuals will lead to a decrease in AIDS rates in direct correlation, and while my opponent states that this entire study relies heavily on the book, he fails to explain in what segments of the study itself the quote was book as research material, so there's no real way to evaluate that he's saying that this study is heavily reliant on this book. Furthermore, he fails to respond to the rest of my evidence pointing to the same conclusion(s). Sub-point 1b: Demand for certain things would not be good. Meth is an example. My opponent is absolutely right in every way when it comes to saying that, but when it comes to actually proving that gay marriage would be negative in any way, shape, or form, that's where the flaw begins, and he substantiates this flaw with another one in the next argument:John Adams argument: First, John Adams wasn't the only Founding Father of the United States. In order to prove to us that all of the Founding Fathers were set on this idea, he needs to prove that an overwhelming majority of them were in support of having religion as a foundation for this country, and as other Founding Fathers, including Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin have explained. .. they didn't want religion in any way being part of government. Second, even if he is right, he's making the assumption that the Founding Fathers were 100% correct in how they built the country and that this is the king of America we should always strive for. What about slavery, which had been a part of the 3/5 Compromise within the original Constitution directly discriminating against black people. He states that legalizing gay marriage would jeopardize all essential freedoms, but he doesn't explain how, and I explained my case that just the opposite would occur.
Christianity is false

Hello to my Opposition as well as any viewers of this debate! Please, only accept this debate if you are Christian. This is because Christianity is the religion I know most about, and therefore will be able to debate most effectively about. My beginning argument consists of the lack of evidence, let alone proof of god or biblical creation. As such, I humbly suggest that my Opposition present evidence of the existence of god, of biblical creation, or of any Christian concept of their choice in order to begin their argument. Of course, you can say whatever you like on the topic if you think it'll convince our viewers in your favor! I excitedly anticipate the start of this debate.
Failing is more Important

I would like to start out with a quote from my opponent’s second argument. Daquanny said, “Saying that Nikola Teslon was completely successful is an overstatement, as he did fail before in his lifetime, the failure was his lack of forethought in presenting a free energy distributuion system.” Before I start, I would like to point out that I did not mention a Nikola Teslon. I don’t know if that was simply a spelling error, or if my opponent did not read my argument very carefully. Now the only reason why we don’t get free energy today is not because Mr. Nikola Tesla failed or was unsuccessful, it is because no one wanted to invest in his Tesla-coils because they didn’t think they could get any money out of it. So why would they invest in it? My point is that Mr. Tesla did not fail, he created something great, but people couldn’t make money of of it, which is why we don’t have that today. Here is another quote from my opponent’s second argument, “Everyone fails in life from time to time, but you can choose to learn from it and succeed, there is a reason why failures have the best success stories, it is because they are tired of failing so much that they want to get back up and try again until they succeed. “ Yes people could choose to learn from their mistakes, but in this time there are so many more ways for people to deal with their failure, such as alcohol or drugs. These are very addictive things. So when the people who fail turn to these things they become addicted to the thing or things they decided to medicate with. Then they become so dependant on these things that, that is their life, and they don’t want to change. These happens a lot these days. Yes it happened a long time ago, but not as much. It happens more today because every time you turn on the T.V or the radio you see all of these successful people, and that makes the sad depressed person who did not succeed feel even worse about themselves. Where along time ago there were no TVs and radios, so people didn’t hear about other people’s success as much. I am looking forward to hearing my opponent’s next argument. Until then, also Daquanny, you can use spell-check, unless you are embracing the fact you are a bad speller in the spirit of this debate. Good luck.
Failing is more Important

http://www.success.com... http://www.smithsonianmag.com... It is the mans job to get back up on his feet, even if he failed numerous times, "it does not matter where you come from, all that matter is where you are going." Saying that Nikola Teslon was completely successful is an overstatement, as he did fail before in his lifetime, the failure was his lack of forethought in presenting a free energy distributuion system. Everyone fails in life from time to time, but you can choose to learn from it and succeed, there is a reason why failures have the best success stories, it is because they are tired of failing so much that they want to get back up and try again until they succeed. " I am tired of failing, no one believes in me, but I will show them all, I will learn from my failure and succeed, this also happens in real life. Even if the man drinks until he is 10 feet under he can build a ladder tall enough to get himself back on his feet and succeed.
Failing is more Important

During my first argument I will be making rebuttals. In my rebuttals I will be using a quote or quotes from my opponent’s first argument. Next, at the end on my first argument I will explain why I feel the way I feel on the topic of, failing is more important than success, (the title does not say, “than success,” but it was implied.) Just to clarify, I am against the statement that failing is more important than success. Okay, now I will begin my first argument. My First Argument This will be my only rebuttal in this argument, because my opponent didn’t really write a lot. So, I will be using a quote from my opponent’s first argument. Daquanny said, “Thomas Edison; the inventor of the light bulb, failed 1,000 times before building a successful invention.” That’s nice for Thomas Edison, but Nikola Tesla created his own light bulb on his first try. He didn’t need to learn from his failure, because he was smart and knew what he was doing to first time he tried. s://lh5.googleusercontent.com...; alt="" width="329px;" height="293px;" /> s://lh5.googleusercontent.com...; alt="" width="232px;" height="296px;" /> s://lh6.googleusercontent.com...; alt="" width="362px;" height="241px;" /> I do not think that failure is more important than success. For example, you have a man who works on a project for a year. The project in the end doesn’t work, he keeps trying and trying and the project never works. Then the man says to himself, “Wow, I am really bad at this, this is awful. I am just going to stop trying, because I can’t do anything.” Soon the man slips into a very intense depression, he starts drinking to try and make himself feel better, and well you know how that turns out. Now this is a made up example, but this happens to people in real life. Now here is an example of success, you have a man who works on a project. He finishes his project, and it works. He tries to sell his project to a big company. The company loves. The man gets a lot of money and lives a rather fulfilling life. So, which life is better, the one where failing is good, or the one where there is success? I am looking forward to reading my opponent’s next argument. Until then Daquanny.
Failing is more Important

People often think that being successful has nothing to do with failing, but in order to achieve something right you must fail until it is a success. Being mindful, a handful of inventions that we use in today's society failed before they were a success. Thomas Edison; the inventor of the light bulb, failed 1,000 times before building a successful invention. Henry Ford went bankruptcy five times until he built a successful company called Ford Motor. These are just two out of the famous people who failed before they became a success. Although failing may come before success, it is not good to fail all the time. Failing without even trying to succeed will surely make it harder for you later on. Failing numerous of times before succeeding can often help you view things differently, leading up to success. Winston Churchill once said "Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts." what this quote means to me is that, no matter how many times we fail, we should not be afraid of failing, it can lead to our greatest success. With that being said failing is more important.
Plastic surgery in Islam

I first want to say, I couldn't tell if this was meant to be a debate or a more general question. In any case, I am happy to provide my perspective and I wish my opponent good luck on his/her assignment! My opponent is correct in saying that Islam, plastic surgery(for purely cosmetic reasons), drinking and smoking are forbidden. However, I think there is a more cultural aspect that my opponent has brought up, the males getting less stigma for the same things women do. And I think that that would be a greatly interesting thing to mention in your assignment. The cultural views of religious taboo changes depending on gender, whereas the religion itself gives no preferential treatment. I hope this perspective helped! Also by all means ask more questions if you have them.