BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should schooling be compulsory

since you made a con argument in your case I'm going to assume that you meant to designate yourself as con. If I'm mistaken then I apologize for accepting. My opponent states that"Compulsory schooling creates a hostile environment as people suited to prison" I'm assuming he meant to finish that with "are mixed in with people who aren't. This is exactly why schooling needs to be compulsory. according to https://eml.berkeley.edu... education is one of the greatest determiners for future incarceration. People who receive no or substandard education are far more likely to find themselves in prison than those who receive a quality education. Moreover, compulsory schooling ensures that we have a well educated population capable of competing in an increasingly information based economy. As the world shifts from the traditional workplace to more intellectually dominated fields producing the greater results for the individual, education has become an integral part to ensuring personal success. Education gives us a knowledge of the world around us and changes it into something better. It develops in us a perspective of looking at life. It helps us build opinions and have points of view on things in life. People debate over the subject of whether education is the only thing that gives knowledge. Some say education is the process of gaining information about the surrounding world while knowledge is something very different. They are right. But then again, information cannot be converted into knowledge without education. Education makes us capable of interpreting things, among other things. It is not just about lessons in textbooks. It is about the lessons of life as much as it's about the lessons in knowledge. Normally my post would be much longer but I don't have anything to attack
Red heads are better than blondes

The opponent has made NO attacks on my case except spelling errors. point one said that you can make fun of blonde's and they don't get the joke making it fun to be around them. my opponent didn't attack this so this holds. point two was blonde's make every thing funnier and better my opponent didn't attack this except 'fyi (refer to your point 2) you spell Blondie with an E at the end. '
Follow your dreams like abdul kalam and kalpana chawla!!

These are the lines we Indians often hear from our motivational speakers. They keep telling kids to dream about the way they want to live or about the profession they wish to choose. These teachers"s outlook about the concept of dreaming is undeniable because we cannot achieve what we cannot dream. However, their perception about following our dreams is something questionable.With examples of kalpana and kalam kids are compelled to set long term goals and work accordingly. But doesn"t this approach restrain their ability to dream? What if a kid grows dreaming to be a pilot and later realizes that is not where he is destined to be? What if kids realize their true (new) dream in the course of life? Should we consider them as "people weak at will"? The answer is big "NO". Let this big No be substantiated with few No"s from real life examples. Did Bill Gates in his childhood ever dreamt of becoming the richest man on earth, or Prince Gowtham Siddhartha ,a Buddha, or rajinikanth ,a superstar? Kalam and Kalpana are lucky people. I mean no disrespect to those aces who still are the best dream initiators we ever had. We should consider them lucky because their dreams remained unaltered through out their life. However everyone"s dreams are not eternal. Everyone are not as lucky as they are. I wonder why these teachers while speaking about dreams never quote examples of chethan bhagath who never dreamt of becoming a writer or about Mahatma Gandhi who never thought of leading Indian independence movement until he returned back from England. These people"s dreams are not eternal; they changed according to their growing passion or changing times. So lets us not inflict kid's mind with wrong notions. Let us stop confusing them with long term goals and examples of kalam and kalpana. Let us stop coercing them to dream. Let kids dream their own dreams. `
Follow your dreams like abdul kalam and kalpana chawla!!

Firstly, I sincerely offer my apology for long delay in posting my argument.... My standpoint on this topic is, "There is nothing wrong when our motivational speakers use the names of Kalpana Chawla and Kalam to inspire kids to follow dreams like them, and it doesn't inflict any wrong notions in the minds of the kids". Friend, it is not about short term or long term goals when someone use the names of Kalpana Chawla and Kalam to inspire kids, but it is the fascination a kid have towards space. In our childhood, our parents and grandparents use lot of folktales about moon or stars or anything in the outer space to put us on focus. Why? because kids normally have a intrinsic fascination towards the celestial objects. It is because of this, the motivational speakers use those two contemporary personalities to inspire kids to follow dreams like them. Both of their work is related to space (and there are also many other things in Kalam which inspires kid). This will leave a positive impact on the kid. And after they grownup, if someone, who set their goals in the lines of Kalpana Chawla and Kalam as a kid, realized that it is not their destiny, they will change their goals according to their changed passions and they shouldn't be called as "people at weak will", on which you agreed. As they are grownup now, there is every chance that they may follow in the lines of Gandhi or Bill Gates or Rajini kanth or Chetan Bhagath or Buddha or any other else because their maturity level has grownup and they can decide upon themselves. And yes, the motivational speakers can also use other personalities to inspire kids to follow their dreams in that lines but there is nothing wrong if they say "follow your dreams like Kalpana Chawla and Kalam".
The Affordable Care Act is Effective Legislation

Unfortunately I will have to forfeit, as something came up. I am sorry Pro for doing this last minute. Although, I would like to just sum up my main thoughts on the A.C.A. The AC.A'.s main issue may not be taxes, as my opponent pointed out in round 2, but the main issue I see is: Socialism. More importantly Socialism in Health Care. This is very important for all Americans because If the Government decides certain medical treatments for diseases/illnesses; then that means people can not decide the best treatment their doctor suggests or provides for them.I see this as a train wreck waiting to happen. Back in 2011, a survey was done to see how many doctors disagreed with Obama-care. Almost 70 percent of all doctors said no. Unknown to the public; the AMA represents only about one fourth of the nation’s doctors. A startling 43 percent said the health care reform itself would likely lead them to retire over the next 5 years, and only 37 percent said that was an unlikely consequence of this law. Now let's think about this for a minute. If these doctors decide to quit practice that means that they'll end up going out of business, and there won't be enough doctors to treat patients, or doctors will quit and start their own firm, and Obama-care will not pay for them because they are a private firm.Look at this passage here below"Perhaps America’s doctors know about the scandalous deficiency of access in centralized systems, countries where government’s officials themselves circumvent restrictions when their own personal care is at stake. Like when England’s NHS spent more than 1.5 million pounds to pay for thousands of its own staff members to leapfrog their own waiting lists in 2009; or when Italy’s Prime Minister Berlusconi chose to have his heart pacemaker surgery at the Cleveland Clinic in 2006, rather than in Italy; or perhaps when the Canadian Prime Minister of Newfoundland and Labrador, Danny Williams, traveled to the US in 2010 to circumvent Canada’s restrictive system for his own heart valve procedure, because, as he explained, “This was my heart, my choice and my health,” and “I did not sign away my right to get the best possible health care for myself when I entered politics.”I mean I think many people see the point here. If we allow the government to start intervening in our health care and select treatments (which they have little knowledge of compared to a doctor), then patients will suffer from malpractice or worse death. America's Medical Systems trumps almost any other nation. We have the some of the most advanced medical equipment, and up-to-date diagnostic testing machines, the most sophisticated surgical techniques, the most innovative medical therapies, the newest drugs, and the best doctors in the world. We are going to jeopardize our Health Care system, and our patients by doing this. The Government has too much intervention in some things. What they are doing is micro-managing our health care system. http://www.forbes.com...
The Affordable Care Act is Effective Legislation

Here, I am going to list some facts for the downside of The Affordable Care Act a.k.a. Obama-care. 1. Employer mandate. Most companies will have to provide and pay for expensive government-determined health insurance for their employees or face federal fines. 2. Anti-conscience mandate. Religious organizations will be required to provide free sterilization, contraceptives, and abortion-inducing drugs to their employees, even if it violates their religious beliefs. 3. New and higher taxes the law contains at least 20 new taxes totaling $500 billion that will hit medical innovators, health insurance, and even the sale of your home. 4. The Independent Payment Advisory Board. IPAB will still stand, with its rationing power over Medicare. 5. State exchanges. States will be compelled to set up vast new bureaucracies to check into our finances and families so they can hand out generous taxpayer subsidies for health insurance to families earning up to $90,000 a year. 6. Medicare payment cuts. $575 billion in payment reductions to Medicare providers and Medicare Advantage plans will cause more and more physicians to stop seeing Medicare patients, exacerbating access problems. 7. Higher health-care costs. The Kaiser Family Foundation says the average price of a family policy has risen by $2,200 during the Obama administration. The president promised premiums would be $2,500 lower by this year. Hospitals, doctors, businesses, and consumers all expect their taxes and health costs to rise under Obamacare. 8. Government control over doctor decisions.Value-based payments, quality reporting requirements, and government comparative-effectiveness boards will dictate how doctors practice medicine. Nearly half of all physicians are seriously considering leaving practice, leading to a severe doctor shortage. 9. Huge deficits. The CBO has raised its cost estimate for the law to $1.76 trillion over ten years, but that is only the opening bid as more and more people lose their job-based coverage and flood into taxpayer-subsidized insurance. At this rate, the cost will be $2 trillion, not the less than $1 trillion the president promised. 10. 159 new boards, agencies, and programs: The Obama administration will work quickly to set up as many of the law"s new bureaucracies as fast as it can so they can take root before the election. http://www.nationalreview.com...
The Affordable Care Act is Effective Legislation

Conditions: I will be arguing for the resolution, Con will be arguing that the Affordable Care Act is NOT good legislation. I had some trouble wording the title of the debate, so any questions make them clear. This is an open challenge, I expect Con to be able to source and put considerable time into their arguments as I have opted for the 10000 character limit.I will be using Standard British English, Con may use American/British. As this is such a contentious issue I hope voters will put personal beliefs aside and make judgement based on the quality of the debate. Finally, good luck to whoever accepts! Looking forward to the first round of points, please remember your round one should NOT be your argument but rather acceptance. Rounds: 1. Acceptance only 2. Opening arguments 3. Rebuttals 4. Closing arguments/rebuttals Definitions: The Affordable Care Act:' The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act' (PPACA),[1] commonly called the Affordable Care Act (ACA) or "Obamacare": United States federal statute signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010. Overhauling the current US healthcare system. [1]http://www.gpo.gov... - .gov record of the Act. Acronyms: PPACA- The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ACA- Affordable Care Act
School should be 4 days long

Schools in the U.S. were private up to 1820, public by 1870. Over time schools crowded out apprenticeships. Kids are unexposed to the real-world. The economy will not collapse with a 4 day week. It did not occur before 1870. My plan: 4 days of school, day 5 will be employer day care. As kids mature they will participate and get real-world experience. School day length will increase to match a business day making it easier on parents. This will address schools current short-comings.
Should girls be allowed to join girl scouts

Accepted. You also appeared to have mad an argument for me, so thanks! "There is, in fact, a reason why boy scouts has the name boy scouts. In what way do girls see the word GIRL in BOY scouts. Boy scouts is meant for BOYS. Listen to me girls, DONT JOIN BOYSCOUTS... JOIN! GIRL SCOUTS AND FIX IT!!!! If girl scouts is boring then FIX IT dont ruin boyscouts." I have nothing against girls joining Boy Scouts, however I do firmly believe that Girls have the right to join Girl Scouts, because there is no reason not too. I am not opposing boys joining, I am just saying Girl Scouts is geared toward Girls, and because of this to even suggest the idea of not allowing them to join an organization MADE FOR THEM is preposterous.
A man should arrange a date at the same place & time with many women he met online

To conclude:Arranging to meet multiple women for a date will save petrol/money and time since the majority of women on online dating sites don't make an effort to turn up after agreeing a time and place o meet, and can't be bothered to say if they'll be late or can't go.If women expect other women to turn up they can't get an ego boost for standing up a man, so less women will lie about theirself and they will generally be more decentBy allowing women to compete in dates, women can share their power which they often abuse and thus feel equal. Feminists are jealous of men and strive to achieve a low goal, it makes sense to help make women feel equal Most men want to be with one woman, dating/talking to many women at the same place and time doesn't change thatDating multiple women at the same time and place does not lower the meaning of a relationship, there is very little chance two or women will turn up anyway, and the expectation someone else will turn up will cause women to ask more questionsMore relationships will form as a result of arranging to meet multiple women for a date
A man should arrange a date at the same place & time with many women he met online

By the sounds of your opening the sole reason for this method is to increase the chances of finding a "good" date in as little attempts, weather it be to save fuel, money, failed attempts or time you seem to be making the point that by organising to meet multiple women at once you will be increasing your chances of a successful date by almost sifting out the "fake" women by having them agree to this method first. OR you are suggesting that if these men employ these tactics more often it will create more REAL women. either way. In response to this I will suggest that by organizing to meet multiple women at the same time you will actually lower your chances of building any sort of meaningful connection with any 1 woman, thereby increasing the attempts it would take to find the "perfect women". - Rapport is well known to be the MOST important aspect of building any kind of relationship. Rapport is defined as "a close and harmonious relationship in which the people or groups concerned understand each other's feelings or ideas and communicate well." and by that very definition alone we can see that an air of competitiveness would hinder the forming of rapport, further more, sharing your attention with multiple people will also hinder the creation of what master hypnotist Igor Ledochowski described calls "wide rapport" which creates a bond that is able to survive in more then 1 situation. So by sharing your attention and date with more then 1 person you are LOWERING your chances of a successful date. - Your source suggests that women standing up dates is a common and problematic phenomenon, i disagree, the source holds no statistical proof and i can use the same source and quote "I think you mean to ask why this particular woman stood you up, since not all woman do this and I would imagine not all women you have ever been in contact with/dated have done this" - I do not think women truly want the power/burden of choice that men have, Weather it be through natural instincts, or upbringing women seem to be more submissive. and of course for most humans we are comfortable in what we know. I await your rebuttal.
A man should arrange a date at the same place & time with many women he met online

It is a waste of time and petrol trying to arrange to meet just one woman at a time from online dating sites. In my experience there is very little chance of women on online dating sites turning up, saying if they can't make it or if they will be late despite having the means to do so. They should therefore expect other women to turn up.I am not the only one who wonders why women say they will turn up yet decide not to. Why do women say they wanna date then stand up the guy?Page 1 of 1 "Ok was talking to a girl on here for a few weeks & we eventually said we were both up for meeting up for a date, so we made arrangements to meet for the date but she ended up standing me up so when she eventually did answer her phone I asked her where she was & what was going on then she just turned round & stated she just wanted to see if id really meet her then said she was busy & not to contact her again fair enough her choice but I guess what im asking is why women say they wanna date then stand the guy up same thing happened to a mate of mine with a girl he met on here ladies whats the game your playing?" source: Plenty of FishWomen boost their ego by not turning up to dates, but if such women expect other women to turn up to dates which they have agreed to attend then those women will not get an ego boost. Thus the number of real women will increase as there is less for women to gain by lying to men. They will put more effort into creating a proper relationship. Many women are fat feminists who don't feel equal to men, if they share their power of choice, they can compete like men do and will be a lot happier and might stop supporting silly feminist movements too.
A man should arrange a date at the same place & time with many women he met online

I will be arguing that single men using online dating sites should arrange to meet multiple women/dates at THE SAME TIME AND LOCATION. My opponent (Con) will argue that single men should not arrange to meet multiple women/dates at the same time and location. In other words Con must give reasons why a man should date one woman at a time rather than multiple women. Con may believe or not believe in flirting with multiple women but must be opposed to the idea of arranging a date with multiple women at the same time and place. I've asked plenty of women why they are opposed to my belief however they don't seem to have or want to give an explaination. If women are to expect other women to turn up on a date, a man cannot be expected to remember each woman's name or anything about them, which is why I believe women are against this idea. I know that it is beneficial for me as a man not having to worry about forgetting or mixing up details, but is it beneficial for both a man and a woman?
Is Hamas Evil? You decide!

I will now refute his final arguments. My opponent tried, and I'm glad he did, to provide a definition of evil which would fit Hamas. His definition, despite missing a source, we will assume is legitimate. So we now must ask, which definition is MORE legitimate? Since we don't have his source, we can't see where his definition is from, which would typically harm legitimacy in an argument. But I'm going to forgive this misstep because I think my opponent is fairly new to this site. (While he is quite skilled, his profile page shows this is his first debate) I think we can assume he came by the definition by a legitimate source. So, I present this argument. His definition is less legitimate than mine, because it is TOO broad. While, yes, Hamas would fit under his definition, so would you or I. I can cause harm. I certainly don't like to do it! But I can. By my opponent's definition, the second I harm something, anything, I am evil. Because of this, the definition of "evil" provided is NOT an accurate one for this round. It gives the Con, myself, no room for argumentation. So I appeal that you use my definition, which allows only people that are immoral to be truly evil. My opponent also brought up two other arguments. The first being that, all beings are justified in their own eyes. This was a good point. However, few beings believe they are perfect. All beings, no matter what religion, accept that some things they do are not moral. If Hamas was committing immoral acts according to Sharia law, then they would be immoral. If my opponent were to debate this in the future, perhaps he should try to argue for a harder definition of morality as well. But as it stands right now, he can not prove that Sharia law isn't, in fact, true morality. Which brings me to. .. His second argument, which stated that most of the world believes sharia law to be immoral, and sharia law is fluid among its believers, does nothing to prove it's immoral or evil. Ad populum (or, to the people) is a common logical fallacy. This fallacy implies that anything believed by the majority of people is true. Obviously, this is not logical, because we can not know what true morality is this round, so we must accept the actions of each group or being based off his beliefs as it stands. As for Sharia law being fluid. .. well. .. again, it's personal beliefs. Does it mean the actions being performed aren't cruel or inhumane? No. But we can't prove they are immoral, so we can't prove they're evil. It doesn't matter if your beliefs change from group to group, so long as each group is acting in what it sees as the confines of its own morality. So, while I'm certainly not a fan of Hamas myself, I have shown why we can not call Hamas "evil" (by definition). For this reason, please vote Con. Thank you to my opponent for a great debate, especially for your first time! Once again, I personally believe in objective morality, and in Hamas actually being evil. I encourage you to remember how crucial defining terms are. They can be tricky. You did great, regardless. I look forward to seeing, and possibly refuting, your work in the future. ;)