BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
THP private schools are better

Alight, thanks for starting this debate! To win, I must prove that private schools aren't better, but they are equal because children learn better in different types of environments. "Hotdogs or Hamburgers", everything is a matter of preference, not opinion. Opinions are invalid, unless they are backed with evidence and proof, otherwise they are irrelevant. You cannot be incorrect if you have a preference, because it works best for you. I know I would do better in public schools than in a private school because I have been exposed to a multitude of diversity. My school is incredibly diverse. Also, the options I have placed in front of me is just as diverse. If I want to be a lawyer, I can leave campus and go to a special building where I can learn about law. Private schools, teachers are not required to have degrees. If they know what there teaching, they can teach. In public schools, a teacher must have a degree. Again, this is all reference. If you like this, then that's okay. But you cannot say that one is superior to another. It's ignorant. I will never say private school is worse, simply because I haven't gone to private school as long as I have to public school. Thanks
Altered Quotes Contest

Here's how this works, each side will take a famous quote said by someone, and edit it to a funnier version of itself. For example, instead of "Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish, and you will feed him for a lifetime" You would instead say: "Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day, teach a fish to hunt man, OMG WHY DID YOU DO THAT WE'RE DOOMED EVERYONE RUN THEY ARE TAKING OVER! "
Altered Quotes Contest

" The only difference between me and a madman is that I'm not mad. " Salvador Dali when asked was he an alternative account of RM __________________________________________________________________________________ " The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits " Einsteins last conversation with IZBO before he was banned ___________________________________________________________________________ "If a man does his best, what else is there?" General George S. Patton in response to him performing a bad during a one night stand
Altered Quotes Contest

MEGA ROUND. Post THREE altered quotes instead of just one. (Im feeling spontaneous) . . . "To bee, or not to bee" - Shakespeare, while holding his man-sized bumble-bee costume in his hands, trying to decide what to be for Halloween. . . . "My Kingdom for a whore" - King Richard, after his wife declined yet another attempt at having sex . . . "Frankly my deer, I don't give a damn" - Gone with the Wind character Rhett Butler, when his pet deer told him that it had eaten a whole wheel of cheese. He wasnt even mad, he found it amazing.
Metaphysics Debate

"In a lucid dream he can be" No, because there is no such thing as evil. "Yeah, but you're still playing god, which according to the psalm I just made up is bad." Why is it bad? Why is your psalm correct? "Good and bad are meaningful in that bad things hurt the overall well being of mankind, and good things help the overall well being. Killing munchkins is not for the greater good." What greater good? "Mankind" would just be a figment of your imagination. "Ethics, as I stated are for the greater good of mankind. Even if mankind isn't real, as would be true in a dream, you are harming them. God or no god, ethics is for the betterment of mankind. Causing people to randomly explode at the worst possible moment may be obscenely funny in a dream, but it harms mankind, so it is wrong." To commit an ethical crime in a dream is no more unethical than imagining something unethical. Since it is in your own brain, it is akin to imagining yourself doing something "bad". "Most people aren't super boring. So, my argument stands, don't do evil dream control stuff." EVIL, Moo-Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha! "This isn't Microsoft software, therefore, this application is evil and worships Satan, even though Microsoft does too." I am using Microsoft to type my debates. Well, it's a good thing this debate is over, because this was starting to get a little ridiculous. Vote CON… -Emperor Harlan
Metaphysics Debate

I really should think before I make one-sided topics like this one. Either that or I really suck. Alright, here's my feeble attempt to salvage this debate. "-God, by default, in almost all theological beliefs, can not be evil." In a lucid dream he can be. Especially if you or I are him in the lucid dream. "-In a world that was all in your head, you would kind of be god. And if your not god, then there can't really be a god." Yeah, but you're still playing god, which according to the psalm I just made up is bad. "-The concepts of "good" and "bad" are illusions; meaningless. " Good and bad are meaningful in that bad things hurt the overall well being of mankind, and good things help the overall well being. Killing munchkins is not for the greater good. "My opponent states that living as if it were a dream would mean having heretic powers probably against his religion. He tries to apply ethics to a dream world in which nothing is real, and so any "ethical crimes" would in essence be thought-crime, because it is all in your thoughts. I am aware that most religions to have thought crime (punishable by being eternally chewed by Satan, or dipped in lava, or something like that), but blind faith cannot be evidence in a debate. On a side note, ethics can not be applied to a world without a god." Ethics, as I stated are for the greater good of mankind. Even if mankind isn't real, as would be true in a dream, you are harming them. God or no god, ethics is for the betterment of mankind. Causing people to randomly explode at the worst possible moment may be obscenely funny in a dream, but it harms mankind, so it is wrong. "Also, if you were a super boring person, you could do good things in your dream, like…I don't know, be a superhero and save people or something. Though "sinning" can be a lot more fun." Most people aren't super boring. So, my argument stands, don't do evil dream control stuff. "PS Microsoft is obviously evil and worships Satan, because it just made me capitalize Satan in this sentence, and in the debate above." This isn't Microsoft software, therefore, this application is evil and worships Satan, even though Microsoft does too. Quod erat demonstrandum
Metaphysics Debate

I'll make this brief. -God, by default, in almost all theological beliefs, can not be evil. -In a world that was all in your head, you would kind of be god. And if your not god, then there can't really be a god. -The concepts of "good" and "bad" are illusions; meaningless. My opponent states that living as if it were a dream would mean having heretic powers probably against his religion. He tries to apply ethics to a dream world in which nothing is real, and so any "ethical crimes" would in essence be thought-crime, because it is all in your thoughts. I am aware that most religions to have thought crime (punishable by being eternally chewed by Satan, or dipped in lava, or something like that), but blind faith cannot be evidence in a debate. On a side note, ethics can not be applied to a world without a god. Also, if you were a super boring person, you could do good things in your dream, like…I don't know, be a superhero and save people or something. Though "sinning" can be a lot more fun. PS Microsoft is obviously evil and worships Satan, because it just made me capitalize Satan in this sentence, and in the debate above. -His Imperial Majesty,…me.
Metaphysics Debate

Okay, damn, this sucks. Now, my opponent wants you to think that we should take advantage of this world if it happens to be a dream. This is basically equivalent to be God and deciding to do evil, not nice things to the people in this world. I will show why basically every thing you could do if this were a dream is evil and bad. Flying: It isn't fair that you can fly and others can't Killing Munchkins: Although this would be obscenely hilarious, it is mean, so we shouldn't do that. (Munchkins meaning the little midget dudes in The Wizard of Oz). Okay, I just realized it would be much more efficient to say this: Others can't do this and it isn't nice to be able to do this without letting others. It is also playing God which is evil. People shouldn't do evil things. I drop all my other arguments from R3. This argument nullifies my opponent's point.
Metaphysics Debate

Okay, I wasn't really expecting that, but here goes: Okay, a lucid dream is not life. I don't know about you, but I don't spend all my time in what I perceive to be a dream (lucid or not). Life was defined as the world we are perceiving now, the one with this argument on debate.org. if this is a dream it is certainly not lucid. Watch, I want 72 virgins! Waiting... waiting... waiting... waiting... damn. See no luck. Also, you said you had had a lucid dream, that lucid dream was outside of this perception, so obviously this perception is not a lucid dream. Okay, now my argument. When one is in a dream, they don't normally live like it is this life. In fact, if they become aware of it, they may take advantage of it. (Like the lucid dream my opponent mentioned). If this happens and one fails, they would have to face the consequences, (jail, isolation, death, etc.) and real or not, it would suck. People shouldn't really do things that suck, so people shouldn't live life like a dream.
Metaphysics Debate

My opponent and I have agreed in the comments section to define "dream" as "the realm of existence in our own brain [or mind]". I am arguing CON on the topic: "If life is really but a dream, then we should still live it like it is reality." Here goes… Now, when my opponent thought of this debate topic, he probably was only treating this as theoretical. There is a "real-world" application to this, though… The readers may or may not have heard of the concept of "Lucid Dreaming". This is the concept of being aware that you are dreaming, while dreaming. In other words, you combine your waking, rational thought process with the infinite possibilities of dreams. You are able to do anything. From the standpoint of someone who has had a lucid dream, to waste the opportunity would be silly. My opponent would, with this belief, not act on the sudden epiphany that he was in a dream, but instead keep following the regular scenario of his dream. This would be a monumental shame, considering the ultimate power that can be exercised on will. In fact, with my opponent's definition of "life", your dreams could be considered your life (and I wholeheartedly agree). A Lucid dreamer, can, if he wishes, keep following the course of his dream. Also, if he/she is careless, they may loose the lucidity. I should like to allude to a popular film "The Matrix". The Matrix actually is very significant to metaphysical philosophy. In fact, the best analogy I can find for lucid dreaming is probably the matrix. My opponent, upon realizing that he was not in reality, but in the matrix, would keep acting out his day-to-day life instead of stopping bullets in mid-air and flying around. There was actually a very good analogy for this debate in the movie. Morpheus says thus: "You take the blue pill, the story ends. You wake up in your bed and you believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill, you stay in wonderland. And, I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes." Given the choice of the two pills, can you honestly say that you would take the blue one? Would you slip up the opportunity to live with a higher sense of conscious; to be able to control your surroundings at will; to be able to do anything you could possibly imagine? And so I say that if you discovered that what you thought was "reality" was really a dream, then you should not live like it was reality, you should live like it is a dream. Leave the cave…or at least be aware that you're in it. I have been faced with this scenario (realizing what I thought was reality was actually a dream), and the notion of NOT taking advantage of it never even crossed my mind. I think it would become obvious to you, upon having the slightest taste of this alternate world, that to not use the opportunity would be ludicrous. -Emperor Harlan
Metaphysics Debate

Okay, to clarify the second topic I'll say what I meant about each term. By life, I mean the world we are perceiving, or at least this world that has debate.org in it. By dream I mean any false perception, not necessarily ones we see while we're asleep. (Besides, is there really any good way to distinguish the two?) Reality is a little sticky to define, but I'm tentatively going to say the realm in which we exist. If you agree with this, you can post your argument for CON, if not, tell me what I need to change.
Metaphysics Debate

I'm not sure how this debate will go, but coincidentally I too am very interested in metaphysical things currently. I would like to go CON on idea #2: "If life is really but a dream, then we should still live it like it is reality." In fact, I would like to instigate "If life is really reality, then we should live as if it's a dream", but either will work. PS My current scope of interest is Lucid dreaming; obsessively. That is why I took up this debate. -Harlan
Metaphysics Debate

Okay, I feel like debating metaphysical stuff, but I don't know which, so here are some topics, if you want to go PRO for the topics I list, we can change them to the negative, so as not to confuse anyone. 1. If we accept agnosticism, you can't prove anything. 2. If life is really but a dream, then we should still live it like it is reality. 3. Empirical evidence is not logically sound. 4. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is an unreasonable burden of proof. (The argument I have for this will be metaphysical.) 5. Cogito ergo sum is fundamentally flawed. 6. We should not acknowledge metaphysics. 7. The wise man is the man who knows he knows nothing.
The US Should Lower Its Military Budget and Divert Those Funds to NASA and Education

Okay. I didn't know you were going for K-12 Education. Sorry. Anyways, we still need all of our military budget. The United States has the upper hand in technological advancements against other not-so-friendly countries, such as China and North Korea. We need technological advancement constantly from the military. Again, there are also terrorist organizations and countries trying to get nukes that we need to stop. My opponent never rebuked this, instead saying it just needed to be lowered and put into NASA or education. But diverting funding to NASA is the least of our concerns as a nation, especially when the military benefits it in the first place. And education is hard to fund at the government level. Most funding for public schools are funded locally. One of the lone things that the Dept. of Education can do is No Child Left Behind, which works and needs no further funding. When my opponent was talking about paying others to do work, this has nothing to do with the military. The military is a fully volunteered American force. We are making these advancements ourselves. We are helping NASA as a by product, and helping getting kids post-secondary education, which is crucial to getting a job in this marketplace. This is a better use of taxpayers' money than primary and secondary education, which are very hard to be funded at the federal level.
The US Should Lower Its Military Budget and Divert Those Funds to NASA and Education

I do admit that the renewable energy discussion was an unnecessary tangent, and I apologize for that. However, when I reffered to education, I did not mean at the collegit level. I meant k-12 educational funding, the college debate is a tangent that I do not want to be involved in. However, I in no way said the millitary didn't benefit those two areas in some way, I did say the budget should be lowered from its current roughly 718 billion dollars. I am all for a millitary, and a strong one, because it is a dangerous world, and we do need defense. It is also a world we are falling behind in on the mental front. What I mean by that is we are becoming more a nation that pays other people to invent and do the work, and eventually it will get us. I hope this clarafied my previous argument.
The US Should Lower Its Military Budget and Divert Those Funds to NASA and Education

Contention 1: Military funding is important as ever before. The threats to the United States and its allies are more dangerous than ever before. Iran is trying to get nukes. Right now, our military presence breathing down their spines is the only thing deterring them at all. If they get nukes, it will lead to an arms race in the Middle east and make an extremely volatile area laden with terrorists nuclear. Other threats exist as well, such as ISIS, Boko Haram, and Al-Qaeda. Also, the Military is not the most funded thing. Welfare is, so I would like to see your source for that. Contention 2) NASA gets many benefits from the military. According to SciShow, a show about science, NASA's first ships were based off of rockets that the military created created. If we divert funding from the military and into NASA, we exchanging safety and technological advancement for a teeny bit more of technological advancement. Contention 3) The Military also supports education. The GI Bill gives free college tuition to veterans who served. Again, diverting the funding purely to education would simply lose safety for the military. Since education and NASA are already benefited by it, education or NASA funding should NOT come out of the military's budget, especially in this time of crisis. Also, talking about renewable fuel, that is not in the resolution as is. The military is not something we have to flex our muscles. It provides safety to Americans and innocent civilians abroad. We should not divert funding from the military, especially to two areas that the military itself benefits. With this I list my arguments and await your speech.
The US Should Lower Its Military Budget and Divert Those Funds to NASA and Education

The US spends way to much on its military as is. In fact, roughly 57% of the entire budget goes to military, 6% to education and 0.58% to NASA. It is little wonder then, that our education leaves us 24th in Math, 21st in Science and 31st in reading. Another unsurprising fact is that we now rely on Russia's Souyez program to get astronauts to the ISS. No offense to Russia, they are quite good at space programs, but we need to send our own people to space. This is imperative for not only now, but our future as a species. On the other hand, we have the largest military budget by far, and the only reason we need it is because of the Middle East. I am not bashing any religion or country here, but the only reason the first world is interested in the Middle East in oil. Maybe in adition to NASA and education, we should pit money toward developing renewable fuel sources for our cars that can be made the norm.
I will not break a rule

[$ :) $] Mi opositora dice que mi regla dieciseis es excesivamente difï¿½cil. Pero, por la regla quince, yo puedo determinar el Mi opositora dice que mi regla dieciseis es excesivamente difï¿½cil. Pero, por la regla quince, yo puedo determinar el dificultad de las reglas. Yo puedo mecanografiar en espaï¿½ol; por eso, no es una regla difï¿½cil. Tambiï¿½n, hay Babel Fish[uno]. Ella pudo traducir su discusiï¿½n con Babel Fish. Tambiï¿½n, el definiciï¿½n de "excesivamente" es: excederse cuï¿½l es generalmente, apropiado, necesario, o normal[dos]. Mi regla es normal. Por ejemplo, en este discusiï¿½n[tres], wjmelements requerï¿½ a su opositor mecanografiar en alemï¿½n. Finalmente, mi opositora no puede probar que no sabe espaï¿½ol. Mi opositora Mi opositora dice que mi regla dieciseis es excesivamente difï¿½cil. Pero, por la regla quince, yo puedo determinar el Mi opositora dice que mi regla dieciseis es excesivamente difï¿½cil. Pero, por la regla quince, yo puedo determinar el dificultad de las reglas. Yo puedo mecanografiar en espaï¿½ol; por eso, no es una regla difï¿½cil. Tambiï¿½n, hay Babel Fish[uno]. Ella pudo traducir su discusiï¿½n con Babel Fish. Tambiï¿½n, el definiciï¿½n de "excesivamente" es: excederse cuï¿½l es generalmente, apropiado, necesario, o normal[dos]. Mi regla es normal. Por ejemplo, en este discusiï¿½n[tres], wjmelements requerï¿½ a su opositor mecanografiar en alemï¿½n. Finalmente, mi opositora no puede probar que no sabe espaï¿½ol. Mi opositora rompiï¿½ la regla dieciseis, porque no mecanografiï¿½ su discusiï¿½n en espaï¿½ol. Todo que mi opositora escribiï¿½ es nulo y sin efecto. La regla diecisiete rompe mi regla dieciseis. No puedo usar la gramï¿½tica de inglï¿½s, porque necesito mecanografiar mis reglas en espaï¿½ol, por la regla dieciseis. Mi opositora rompiï¿½ mi regla. Yo gano. veinte. Mi opositora tiene que agregar su dicsuciï¿½n proxima despuï¿½s de las nueve en la maï¿½ana, maï¿½ana. veintiuno. Mi opositora tiene que agregar una poema en la forma de haiku. veintidos. Todos las reglas que mi opositora mecanografia tienen que restringir su capacidad de mecanografiar reglas. Mi traducciï¿½n es en la secciï¿½n de comentarios. uno. http://babelfish.yahoo.com... dos. http://www.merriam-webster.com... tres. http://www.debate.org...
I will not break a rule

PRO maintains that CON has broken one of the rules of PRO. Rule twelve states the following: "CON's rules must not be excessively difficult to follow." CON's rule sixteen clearly violates this rule. PRO does not know Spanish. Writing with perfect grammar in the Spanish language is excessively difficult for PRO. Here is the rules section of PRO's argument. 17. CON must also maintain perfect English grammar. 18. CON may determine if a word is subjective, but PRO has the final say on the definition and application of the definition in context of the aforementioned word. 19. In the next round, CON must present a typed picture of a one dollar bill.
I will not break a rule

This is a copy of one of Nails' debates. 0. By accepting this debate, my opponent agrees to all the rules already posted. 1. Rules created hold power over all rules posted later, and no later rule can contradict an earlier rule. 2. A forfeit results in a loss. 3. A violation of a rule that is not null and void will result in the rule-breaker losing this debate. 4. With the exception of my first round, a player may only do something besides make rules to discuss whether one has broken a rule, or whether a rule is null. 5. Not counting these foundation rules, each player can only create 3 rules per turn. 6. Each player must produce 3 rules per round. 7. Rules cannot result in an auto-win. Breaking a rule cannot result in the victory of the rule-breaker. Each player should have an opportunity to not break each rule. 8. A voter must default all categories to the victor of the debate. The loser is the first person to break a rule. 9. All rules are assumed to only apply to future actions. 10. PRO and CON are titles used to describe either debater--CON is not arguing againstg the topic. PRO and CON are both held responsible to not break any rules. Please don't exploit loopholes in the foundation rules. END OF FOUNDATION RULES 11. PRO must be allowed to point out rules that her opponent has broken, explanations of such rule breaks, and rebuttals to any rules her opponent claims she has broken. 12. CON's rules must not be excessively difficult to follow. 13. CON must write the words for any numbers he/she wishes to use. (e.g instead of 1, one; instead of 7, seven)
All drugs should be legal for adults

"We hold these turths to be self-evident, that all men are equal, and are endowed by their creator with certain unaliable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."- quote from Declaration of Independence I've noticed lately that people take the words in this statement to plainly. People, you should demand that the government acknowledge your right to the pursuit of happiness. You have the right to do almost anything as long as it does not hurt/harm/maim other people. All drugs should be legal as long as taken on own property at the age of 18.