BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Private Schools Should Have Their Students Wear Uniforms

Thank you for your response. Rebuttals 1. It is irrelevant whether students want to wear uniforms or not, as it is irrelevant whether students want to go to school or not. Private schools have the right to institute school uniforms, and seeing that uniforms provide a plethora of benefits private schools ought to implement them. 2. It is irrelevant whether school, or even classes, are boring or not. Teachers do not have to entertain their students; they’re only job is to teach their students. In addition, you argument does not take away from the fact that regardless of whether the class is boring or not, implementing school uniforms still eliminated a potential distraction. 3. Even if it does not eliminate bullying all together, it does eliminate a factor that may be victim to bullying, thus reduce bullying. If bullying still continues, that is not the fault of school uniforms, rather the problem lies within bullies themselves. If that is the case, the school should work towards eliminating bullying as a whole and not factors that either cause bullying or are victims to bullying. 4. Most schools do not have security guards, or even necessarily security gates to keep strangers off of campus. This argument directly applies to school that do not have these security measures. Implementing uniforms is a security measure in itself in that it helps to identify students from nonstudents. 5. That is an appeal to personal experience, and can therefore not be trusted as a valid argument. The fact stays that clothing may easily represent wealth, wear wealthier kids will be able to keep up with trending fashions or even more expensive clothing whereas less fortunate kids will not, and even have to go as far as to wear old, outdated, or worn clothing. This can easily make them victims to bullying through snide comments about them being poor, ect. 6. I am not arguing that uniforms increase academic performance, because studies have been inconclusive or have found that uniforms do not increase academic performance. Students do not only talk about clothing, there is much more to talk about. They can talk about their social lives, families, social media, clubs, sports, classes, ect. Therefore your argument that they will have nothing to talk about is invalid. 7. I have provided seven sources backing up this argument, whereas you have only concluded through your own opinion that there is no correlation. There this argument can be considered dropped. Over to you.
Private Schools Should Have Their Students Wear Uniforms

Refutation to your arguments: 1. Not wearing a uniform will let the student express who they want to be, thus increasing their self-esteem. I see what you mean by others who cannot afford uniform, but no one wants to wear them. 2. If school wasn't as boring as it is, then teachers shouldn't have to worry about their students being distracted. If faculty does more to help students become hands-on learners, they wouldn't have to worry about wearing uniform. 3. It won't reduce bullying, if a bully wants to bully a kid, he/she is going to do it, with or without uniform. Everyone that goes to that school is apart of the same school. 4. I see where you're coming from that, but for closed schools, it shouldn't be a problem since you have to go through several security guards standing at the gates. 5. Even if you don't have the latest fashion, no one will make fun of you. I wear age-old clothes to school, and people think I'm stylish. 6. By not wearing school uniforms, the students have more opportunities to express themselves, and boost their imagination. Even by not wearing uniforms, their academic standing will stay the same. But if you implement uniforms on them, they will get bored by not having things to do, or talk about. 7. Wearing uniforms have no real correlation with those statistics
Prostitution should be legalized

Prostitution is the oldest profession. It is not exactly the noblest or most favorable occupation but I think that it should be legalized for the sake of making it safer and taxable. One only needs to look back at alcohol prohibition to see the negative implications that the criminalization of prostitution or any other activity of vice can attribute. Because prostitution is criminal, it is controlled by criminals, which gives rise to abuse and human trafficking. If prostitution was mainstreamed, regulated, and had an acceptable quality control, it could be one of the most profitable industries of American economy. Since it is illegal and unregulated, prostitution is extremely risky for all involved parties and criminals are the only people who benefit. Ron Paul once said that if you made heroin legal tomorrow, people wouldn't uncontrollably run out and do heroin. The same is true of prostitution. It wouldn't suddenly become something every girl wants to do as a job and every male indeed will partake. Legalization would reduce communicable disease in this country and increase economic stimulation.
Feminism is a flawed ideology and has made women much more miserable

Well I see that your sexist ideas have finally revealed themselves. I think we now know the real reason why you don't like feminist. You Said "I don't need to go to the Sun to know that it is hot" What a lazy analogy. That is not really a good comparison. That is just one basic observable scientific fact about the sun. The mind of a feminist is not one basic observable fact. It's a web of unobservable facts because you're not a mind reader. So we can just chuck this line of thinking out the window. You Said "Prove to me that all feminists believe in equality" I don't have to. Your topic is about feminism's ideology. Feminist ideology is about equality for woman. Furthermore, The majority of feminists believe in this ideology. You Said "You will find there are thousands of them" Thousands isn't really an impressive number considering there's billions of people on earth. This just further proves that you're lumping them into one category for your own personal agenda. You Said "Men earn the money, " Painful. I think you just shot yourself in the foot here. Did you ever ask yourself why the men earn the money? Maybe it's because women have been forced into gender roles up until recently in history. If you look at numbers after feminism took off, The woman's role in the workplace has sky rocketed. The rest of the statements are just a long list of sexist ideas. I think they speak for themselves, So I don't really need to address them. You said "Women are already equal to men" Yes, You got one right. Good job. The problem is that while they may be equal, They are not treated as such. Your previous monologue is a great example of that. You said "Your frivolous attitude proves that your greatest weapon is dismissing others' argument without a shred of statistics or evidence" Lies. My argument is clearly highlighted in my first statement as it always is. I use that argument until someone can debunk one or more of them (which you haven't) and I revise my points if that happens. My argument is that you're lumping feminists into one specific definition that only applies to a small minority of feminists and that you can't read minds and therefore you cannot make any truth claims about what they're views are. It would be like saying that I was automatically pro choice just because I'm a democrat. There's no logic behind it. If you want to make personal attacks, I don't care. I've already expressed what I think of your irrational ways, So it's fair game. But as fair as the arguments go, You're not living up to your burden of proof. Adios
Feminism is a flawed ideology and has made women much more miserable

Yeah, Wonderful logic you have. Anyone better than you is a noob. At least, I don't blabber around with words picked out of the dictionary and post actual proof. I don't need to read their minds to understand their ideology, Ralph. I don't need to go to the Sun to know that it is hot. I don't need to take out the tire of a car and check its air content to confirm that it is a car, I know it is by looking at it. Would you say that all Democrats are rapists just because Bill Clinton was one? Prove to me that all feminists believe in equality, Nothing more, Nothing less. You can't, That's why you kept on blabbering and being dismissive, While I posted actual proof. There are tons and tons more, You just need to do some actual work and research. I just presented more than 10 videos with scores of examples. With just a little more research, You will find there are thousands of them. Equality of women does not mean that I must not point out the fact that they need my help. Equality of women does not mean that I must not point out the fact that in most families, Men earn the money, Which in turn buys the food which the man, Woman and the kids eat. Equality of women does not mean that I must not point out the fact that in the unlikely event when I and a woman is on a Titanic, The woman gets to leave with the kids on a lifeboat. Equality of women does not mean that I must not point out the fact that if a house is on fire, The woman gets to leave with the kids first. Equality of women does not mean that I must not point out the fact that whenever there is a hostage situation, The first demands are always to let the women and the children go, As if the bullets don't hurt men. Equality of women does not mean that I must not point out the fact that feminists go around praising Bill Clinton, While on the other hand, Calling Harvey Weinstein a pig. Equality of women does not mean that I must pretend to like it when feminists say breastfeeding is not natural to them. Equality of women does not mean that I must pretend that there is a rape culture while there is none. Equality of women does not mean that I should not use the word 'lady' among others because it is offensive to feminists. Equality of women does not mean that I should campaign for equal wages paid to women even if they will choose to get in the professions of their choice and while whisking away on maternity leave. Sometimes for a year. Finally, And most importantly, Equality of women does not mean that I must pretend that I am a male, Chauvinistic pig and have male privilege just because I am male. Women are already equal to men, They just want to be higher up than men. Your frivolous attitude proves that your greatest weapon is dismissing others' argument without a shred of statistics or evidence. You have no evidence or facts to back you up and the only thing you can do is call others a noob if they demolish your argument with facts. The ball's in your court. I SUGGEST to actually put forward some facts instead of being dismissive and thinking that you have a very high knowledge, Which apparently, You do not.
Feminism is a flawed ideology and has made women much more miserable

You know things are bad for you when you have to quote a noob like Ben Shapiro. Who said I was offended? All you've done is shown a handful of youtube videos. Nothing you posted there proves that feminists think the way you say they do. You're not a mind reader, So you don't get to speak for all feminists. All you've done is cherry picked the narrative that you want to convey. You said: "There is no way of proving all feminists are radicals" You know why? Because they're not. If you can't prove your own argument, Then why do you believe in it? Isn't that dishonest? If you could even prove that 80% of them were radicals, You'd have a solid argument. You can't even prove it's the majority. It's really simple, Either you agree with equality for women or you don't. If you do, Then this argument is over. If not, I would like to hear why, But you don't have a leg to stand on here. Your floor. I suggest you make an argument this time instead of trying ignore my critiques and quoting Ben Sadpiro.
Feminism is a flawed ideology and has made women much more miserable

If you have a problem with what I meant, That's not my problem. If people misunderstood what George Ford meant in the presidential debate, Then it's their problem, Not his. So sorry I offended you with my FACTS, But then again FACTS don't care about your FEELINGS. Seriously, Look up Ben Shapiro. Let me give out some FACTS: https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=byn0fBCVeHA https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=mOqWK7qlg18 https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=Ir4Ltgj4o84 https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=kAxUDMy1oUw https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=MNH0bmYT7os https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=jmeTnVywvwU https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=5cIvH-iZZfA&t=906s https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=wSJ6dZBdVvY https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=K6t61UzVg_k https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=z6TBa3ssQNs https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=ngeiKVA3w10 https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=oFdlhiEHHmU&t=307s https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=LdeKryUnZo4 https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=kUGu7UCPT7w&t=3s https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=8GvwYOfHXMM https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=kn9yaNSvsRE https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=dRSKykYgLEs https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=rz3rJxZ2uwg Wanna see more, Ralph? There are tons and tons more, Ralph. These are not isolated incidents. Go watch the Tucker Carlson show, Ben Shapiro's speeches or Milo Yiannopoulos. Go watch the Slut marches and watch how they abuse and spit on conservative journalists like Owen Shroyer. If you would do a little research of your own, You will find whatever I have said is true. Most of the feminists subscribe to this logic and as I said, Want equality for everything fun. Don't start that stupid argument with me, Ralph. There is no way of proving all feminists are radicals just as there is no way of proving that all Bill Clinton supporters are rape sympathizers. You can only talk keeping the majority in mind. My argument is not garbage as much as your action of casually dismissing everything is. The ball's in your court.
Feminism is a flawed ideology and has made women much more miserable

Nice job moving the goalpost. Guess you can't defend your own topic. Once again there are multiple versions of feminism. I wasn't talking about the 1920's. I mean those versions exist today. There is no "modern feminism" You're trying to lump all feminist in with a couple of extreme feminists that you don't like. You claim that modern feminists want to be better than men. That is categorically false. Most feminists want equality and they're quite verbose about it. Where is your proof that ALL feminists want to be better than men. I'm waiting. . . . I'll be the first to agree that there are elements of the modern civil rights movement that I don't like. But you're assessment is not even remotely accurate. There is nothing wrong with wanting equality and you don't get to act like you're a mind reader and say that feminists want something that they don't even say they want. Before you even try to put up some kind of strawman, I'm going to put that to a stop early. Don't even try to quote some individual feminist that you don't like or some tiny group that has an extreme version of feminism. You either prove that all current feminists subscribe the way you say, Or your argument is garbage. Your floor.
Feminism is a flawed ideology and has made women much more miserable

Let me clarify that by feminism, I mean modern day feminism. As I said in the comment section, I am a big fan of the feminist movement of the past which advocated for women suffrage. I am against modern day feminism because its ideology is no longer equality for women. It has the ideology of women are better than men. Feminists want equality for everything fun. Why don't feminists talk about the existing benefits they get over men? Why don't they protest for women's rights in Islamic Sharia run countries which have a greater need of women's rights than America, India or Britain? Why don't feminists fight for equality in construction and sewer disposal jobs which is by far the most male-dominated field of work in the world? Why are feminists against the draft of women for the military? Why do feminists advocate that breastfeeding isn't natural for women? Above all, Why do feminists think that males giving them protection are sexist? If you want equality, Then fight for equality in all fields, Stop being a hypocrite and stop putting tailor-made demands forward. Stop being dismissive and argue with an open mind. The ball's in your court.
Feminism is a flawed ideology and has made women much more miserable

The problem here is you're just making a broad statement about all feminists. There are at least 3 mainstream versions of feminism. Not every feminist subscribes to a specific version. Most feminists have their own views on what their tenants should be. You specifically say that the ideology of feminism is flawed. The ideology behind feminism is equality for woman. Do you have a problem with equality for woman? The tenants of modern feminism are simply drawn from this ideology. Not every feminist applies these ideologies effectively, But many do. Overall, Your argument is far too vague and unless you're in favor of woman being unequal to men, Then your argument won't even get off the ground, Let alone fly. Your floor.
Will the zombie appolap happen in the next 50 years

They are typically depicted as mindless, reanimated corpses with a hunger for human flesh, and particularly for human brains in some depictions. Although they share their name and some superficial similarities with the zombie from Haitian Vodun, their links to such folklore are unclear. Many consider George A. Romero's seminal film The Night of the Living Dead to be the progenitor of these creatures. [1][2]" (1) Apocalypse: "Any universal or widespread destruction or disaster: the apocalypse of nuclear war. " (2) zombie apocalypse:"Intimately tied to the conception of the modern zombie is the "zombie apocalypse"; the breakdown of society as a result of an initial zombie outbreak which spreads. This archetype has emerged as a prolific subgenre of apocalyptic fiction and been portrayed in many zombie-related media post-Night. [26] In a zombie apocalypse, a widespread (usually global) rise of zombies hostile to human life engages in a general assault on civilization. Victims of zombies may become zombies themselves. This causes the outbreak to become an exponentially growing crisis: the spreading "zombie plague/virus" swamps normal military and law enforcement organizations, leading to the panicked collapse of civilian society until only isolated pockets of survivors remain, scavenging for food and supplies in a world reduced to a pre-industrial hostile wilderness. " (3) I think that there is little/no evidence for the existence of zombies. & there is even less evidence (if that's possible) that there will be a zombie apocalypse within the next 50 years. My opponent will have the BOP to show that there will be a zombie apocalypse within the next 50 years. Good luck. (1) . http://en.wikipedia.org...(2) . http://dictionary.reference.com... (3) . http://en.wikipedia.org...
God

I proved using deduction and logic on scientific data and common sense knowledge that there necessarily exists an Initial Cause (Uncaused Cause). It should be noted that the initial causes are causes for coming into being, not just changing of something like events. Therefore, there necessarily exists an Uncaused Cause (Initial Cause) about which I discussed some other issues. We call that Uncaused Cause as the Creator of the universe, i. e. , the God. I hoped this would be a hard and enjoyable debate, but Con didn't participate in succeding rounds. Anyways, I would like to thank the Instigator for giving me this opportunity. I would like the voters to consider the forfeitures of Con in last 2 rounds.
God

God cannot be proved or disproved with 100% certainty but I argue that God does not likely exist. There are several reasons why I believe this. One is that there is no way to measure, see, test, observe God, etc. Second is that it does not make sense why an all powerful god would want to create an imperfect human society whose life isnt even significantly long in the life time of the universe. Also, religion as a whole has mind washed so many people t believe that there is an "invisible man in the sky." Ok not really but I think you know what I am trying to say. Religion causes people to trust in a theic identity when there is no evidence for those made claims. They have a bible, millions of blind followers, and false reasoning. For these reasons, I don't believe in god and it is your job to argue for this so called god.
Jeht fuel cahnt mehlt steal beamz and 9/11 wuz cauzed by da zionists

I would first like to point out that Pro has FULL BOP. So until (s)he puts forth valid evidence their arguments should be concidered null and void. Firstly, Al-Qaeda admitted to doing 9/11. (See video) is obviously a clear motive that they would do such a thing concidering the US's involvedment in the Gulf War due to Osama wanted to protect the "Holy Land" from foreigners, but the Saudis permitted the US and NATO to become involved. (Bergen, Peter (8 August 2006).The Osama bin Laden I Know: An Oral History of al Qaeda's Leader. New York City: Free Press. p.112.) Osama Bin Ladin had spoken out many times against the Iraqi leader and in 1988 even began to increase his military to combat Sadaam. For the Bush motive to go to war is simply rediqious. We can see that since the Reagan administration and even before then that the US government would go to war with anyone to protect their interests. They don't need to have 3000 of their own people killed to do this. This has been seen from the Korean War clear to US foreign involvements in other places from Bosnia to the Middle East. In response to the towers "being demolished" arugment the rebuttal here is simple. The Building here was made of steel support through the exteroir that lead to the core. (Building Plans shown bellow) So this was simple to see that with this structure that we can easily see that one one floor was taken out the core took a hit and was severly damaged causing the floor to collapse. The additionial weight on each floor caused the towers to collapse to the ground. As for WTC 7 being "faked" observe the second video I left you. can see here that it would be impossible to pull it if there was an explosion which already disproves my opponent's points on this. As for peer reviews, there was tons! Everything from reviews from the fire department, construction workers, firefighters, and even the architects who built the building. s://www.metabunk.org......; alt="" />
This website is what is wrong with humanity

This website is most certainly not everything that is wrong with the human condition, in fact it only represents one level of the human condition (intellectual). Further even within that single level, it has not been proven to be a problem. Rather it aids in intellectual pursuits (via fault finding in ideas). To name a part of the human condition this website is not a wrongness to: Physical. It is not a part of the physical condition to be a problem with it.
Pastafarian creation should be taught in schools.

Controversy, n. 1. a prolonged public dispute, debate, or contention; disputation concerning a matter of opinion 2. contention, strife, or argument. [1] I accept this definition as valid, because I'm not an obnoxious person (I tried to swear here, please pretend that I did) who distrusts Wikipedia and Dictionary.com and other sites like that. You have selected the definition most suited to you though. The second definition gives the meaning for any argument or contention. So, any argument counts as a controversy. Prolonged is a relative term and has no application to any setting. Schools have only been fighting this for a while, so relatively Pastafarianism has been around for quite some time. The fact that there are many people posing this question and many people pushing Pastafarianism, means that there is a debate, whether or not the other side is actively engaged.