BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
the art and music classes should be compulsory in schools

You know that after the subjects, like math, physics or chemistry the children or the pupil is really tired, because these subjects are not so easy to learn. That is why, after having the classes which i mentioned the pupils need to have some diversion. Additionally, i am against that to your point that all children may not like the classes of art and music. Why? In contrast, the majority of children or even adults have a significant curiosity for example when they draw something. As i mentioned, it will be better not only have some basic knowledges of humanity, like math, physics and so on, but even having some knowledges about the other side of our world, which calls "beauty". Also, according to the statistics, having the skill in art and music will be beneficial to child finding a job in the future. Today, a lot of companies are complaining that the employee has a less understanding in art and music. If the children have the obligatory courses of art and music, it will help them to lead their school interests into their future life. I think that if there are only occupations like engineers,mathematician or some other related things, our world will be boring. Because of it, the government should not forget that for child it is important to having basic knowledges which i already wrote, but an individual of 21 century should be multilateral at the same time. That is why, the art and music classes should mandatory in education system.
the art and music classes should be compulsory in schools

As I mentioned earlier,making music and art compulsory subject, may take a considerable amount of time and energy of students which otherwise he or she can devote towards main subjects like, Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics, etc. Devoting time to main subjects is a paramount importance for success in the examinations and future career. Hence and art and music may be optional but not compulsory. Fact of the WORLD and the behavior of it's objects and people may surely be obtained by cultivating Science.Again all children may not like music or art which if treated as compulsory subject may also lead to severe stress and divert them from their main goal of learning.
the art and music classes should be compulsory in schools

No, i think that there are some other important reasons, which will support the idea that art and music classes should be mandatory. Firstly, i already mentioned about that the child who had the lessons of art and music can find their talent. Moreover, according to the international researches, children who attend more art and music class in early years of childhood, have the tendency to hold an positive attitude towards the world. So, as it can be seen, these lessons help create a personality, which calls sustainability to the difficulties which the person may face in his or her whole life. Additionally, there is an another point. That is when the pupil have the classes of art and music in the schools they will know more about the beauty and human beings. As you know, the pupil used to have the classes like math, physics, which will teach only the principles of the world, but art and music classes give them an opportunity to know more about the whole world, not just the rights of human. In conclusion, i want to say that according to these reasons the art and music classes should be obligatory.
the art and music classes should be compulsory in schools

Art and music are very creative and vast subjects. However it is not necessary that everyone shall be a good musician or good at art. Hence music and art as compulsory subjects sound to be wrong. It is nice if schools have infrastructure facilities to teach art and music. Those who have a deep aptitude for art and music can take-up those subjects and even master those for that matter. At the same time making subjects of music and art as compulsory, may take a considerable amount of time and energy of students which otherwise he or she can devote towards main subjects like, Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics, etc. Devoting time to main subjects is a paramount importance for success in the examinations and future career. Hence and art and music may be optional but not compulsory. Music and Art shall be highly beneficial to those who have an aptitude of learning art and music and aspirant musicians and artists. Subject of Art and Music is very creative and one must learn it. Nevertheless the world is not composed of artists and musicians only, apart from this, everyone may not become artist and musician nor art and music form a base or constitute the foundation of academia. In conclusion art and music are purely subjects that must be indulged in for creativity and entertainment to those who opt for and should not be made compulsory for all students
the art and music classes should be compulsory in schools

the art and music classes in the schools should be compulsory. firstly, it will help children to enjoy for some moment, because this lessons are not difficult, which will need some solutions of tasks and so on. secondly, from this classes the child can define their hidden talents. thirdly, some children can lead their abilities like drawing to the professional ways and this will help them to find their roles in the world.
Death penalty

My arguments still stand. But I will press more argument to solidify my view. Others say that states which do have the death penalty have higher crime rates than those that don't, that a more severe punishment only inspires more severe crimes. I must point out that every state in the union is different. These differences include the populations, number of cities, and yes, the crime rates. Strongly urbanized states are more likely to have higher crime rates than states that are more rural, such as those that lack capital punishment. The states that have capital punishment are compelled to have it due to their higher crime rates, not the other way around. Abolitionists also hold the notion that criminals do not fear death because they do not take time to think about the consequences of their acts. If that were true, then I wonder how police officers manage to arrest criminals without killing them. When a policeman holds a criminal at gunpoint and tells him to get on the ground, the criminal will comply fully in the vast majority of of these cases. Why would they do that unless they were afraid of the lethal power of the gun? It is because regardless of what abolitionists claim, criminals are not immune to fear! It is a common misconception to believe that fear is a thought process that has to be worked out with a piece of paper. It's not! It is an instinct that automatically kicks in when one is faced with lethal force! The examples below should confirm that point. During the temporary suspension on capital punishment from 1972-1976, researchers gathered murder statistics across the country. In 1960, there were 56 executions in the USA and 9,140 murders. By 1964, when there were only 15 executions, the number of murders had risen to 9,250. In 1969, there were no executions and 14,590 murders, and 1975, after six more years without executions, 20,510 murders occurred rising to 23,040 in 1980 after only two executions since 1976. In summary, between 1965 and 1980, the number of annual murders in the United States skyrocketed from 9,960 to 23,040, a 131 percent increase. The murder rate -- homicides per 100,000 persons -- doubled from 5.1 to 10.2. So the number of murders grew as the number of executions shrank. Researcher Karl Spence of Texas A&M University said: "While some [death penalty] abolitionists try to face down the results of their disastrous experiment and still argue to the contrary, the...[data] concludes that a substantial deterrent effect has been observed...In six months, more Americans are murdered than have killed by execution in this entire century...Until we begin to fight crime in earnest [by using the death penalty], every person who dies at a criminal's hands is a victim of our inaction." Also, not only this, but if you are religious then this applies too. instead of talking here is one site that is for the Catholics: http://www.roman-catholic.com... ( ignore the abortion stuff ) And for you protestants here is what your leade4rs say: http://pro-dp.appspot.com... So there are not only studies and facts, but also religion if you believe in that.
Death penalty

This debate is to say what your opinion is about the death penalty. In my opinion the death penalty is closure for the people who have gone through these horrific event. Although one of this will make the harmed person alive and/or forget what happened, but I think the death penalty helps the people get their an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth feeling. A death sentence brings finality to a horrible chapter in the lives of these family members. It is a form of crime deterrent. Some people say that this is false because statistics prove otherwise, here's how it still does. There are 18,000 people on death row on average. Only a few ever get the dealing. If most of those people got the punishment then I could guarantee that crime would lower. And most of the people aren't appealed out of the process, they are sitting in jail for 15 years and then getting killed by a fellow inmate. So most of them aren't innocents getting let out. Justice is better served. The most fundamental principle of justice is that the punishment should fit the crime. When someone plans and brutally murders another person, doesn't it make sense that the punishment for the perpetrator also be death? Our justice system shows more sympathy for criminals than it does victims. It's time we put the emphasis of our criminal justice system back on protecting the victim rather than the accused. Remember, a person who's on death row has almost always committed crimes before this. A long line of victims have been waiting for justice. We need justice for current and past victims. There is no alternative. Even if you are in a life sentence without parole you can still be let out. Here's a good example of a crazed baby killer let out of jail at this link: http://www.prodeathpenalty.com... there are multiple people in this listing. "That the death penalty, for murder in the commission of armed robbery, each year saves the lives of scores, if not hundreds of victims of such crimes cannot reasonably be doubted by any judge who has had substantial experience at the trial court level with the handling of such persons." -- The Honorable B. Rey Shauer, Justice of the Supreme Court of California
Death penalty

I believe the death penalty is a punishment worth supporting. Now here's what the supreme court says, "Indeed, the decision that capital punishment may be the appropriate sanction in extreme cases is an expression of the community's belief that certain crimes are themselves so grievous an affront to humanity that the only adequate response may be the penalty of death." ~ Supreme Court of the United States of America I personally agree with them, and also their the leaders in their profession. Also it has religious backing. here are some bible references: The death penalty was first instituted by God Himself in Genesis 9:6: "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man." We Humans didn't invent the death penalty, so why abandon the words of god. Here's another example: Revelation 13:10 says, "He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints." Well if the bible says it multiple times, I think it is valid and important.
The Supreme Court rightly decided that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act violated the Constitution.

I'm just going to go over a few big points of conflict and explain why I'm winning them. 1) Discrimination is still prevalent in the states that were covered My opponent continues making the claim that not every state that was covered is racist. He has legitimately no evidence of this at all. If he can provide an example of a previously covered state that has no racism/discrimination, I can have a more productive debate here. My opponent makes the claim that the 80 laws that have been introduced were in non-section 4 states. However, within 24 hours of the Supreme Court decision, five previously covered states were already advancing discriminatory laws (http://www.pbs.org...). Even so, the 80 laws that were passed throughout 30 states proves that discrimination is widespread, and any check on discrimination of this kind is a good check. 2) Other alternatives are inferior to section 4 First, even if this is true, this does not make section 4 unconstitutional. Sections 2 and 3 still work even if section 4 is enacted, so those two sections hold little relevance. However, sections 2 and 3 are still inferior replacements. With section 2, action can only be taken after a discriminatory action has occurred, meaning that someone can only file a lawsuit after they have been prevented from voting. Additionally, the minorities that are most likely to be discriminated against are typically going to be lower class citizens with less money, and in turn are less likely to have the resources necessary to file a lawsuit successful. Section 3 is actually an excellent reason to prefer our side - section 3 still works even if section 4 is enacted, and in turn we can use section 3 to place states under preclearance. Because of this, section 3 allows us to update the formula and keep the most racist states under preclearance. 3) Section 4 is effective My deterrence argument still stands. My opponent makes the claim that only 5/10,000 cases are objected to - however, he fundamentally misunderstands my original argument. This is an excellent example of why deterrence works. Because of deterrence, states do not even attempt to pass racist legislation because there close to a 100% chance of it being shot down. This is why we see the low number of cases being objected to by the Department of Justice. Additionally, section 2 is not as effective at deterring legislation because lawmakers and legislators are more confident in being able to pass legislation when their only check is lower-class citizens. Vote negative!
The Supreme Court rightly decided that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act violated the Constitution.

So looking at my opponets first point where he states section four is constitutionally justified. I would like to state that in the 15th amendment it states that congress can do this but only under appropriate legislation. This isn't appropriate if nothing wrong is happening. If something wrong is happening, congress can obviously regulate it. But congress can't regulate section 4 specifically considering voter descrimination does not happen in every state section 4 covers. Moreover, if there is a violation section 2 and section 3 can prevent it, and this has actually happend. Look to Texas specifically were the VRA has already prevented it's potentially discriminatory laws. Looking at my opponents second point he states more than 80 discriminatory laws have been put into place. I have two responses to this. First, the example doen't state that these discriminatory laws have been happening in the places section 4 has covered. Thus, we shouldn't take this into consideration because it isn't topical. Second, as I stated earlier, section 2 and 3 have affectivley prevented many laws. Moreover, this analytical rain that Ginsbug states is more like a sprinkle. In the states under section 4 minorties vote more often than whites. Thus, the umbrella that is being thrown away won't have any effect. Looking at my opponents third point he states section 4 acted as a deterrant. However, states never were deterred because they didn't want to discriminate in the first place. Over 10000 cases have been preceared and 5 out of those 10000 have been discriminatory. Moreover, even if these states do pass discriminatory laws they will be stopped by section 2 and 3 as stated earlier. Also they state this is appropriate legislation, however, he has not proven that section 4 is nessecary to prevent discrimnation considering section 2 and 3 are in place. Also, he has not proven that dicscrimination is even abundent enough to justify preclearence, he just provides a bague example which I have proven section 2 and 3 have prevented,Considering my opponent can't prove discrimination is prevelent enough to justify section four and that other legislation can't prevent the miniscule amount of discrimination that is still happening I urge a pro vote.http://www.msnbc.com... http://www.newyorker.com...
The Supreme Court rightly decided that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act violated the Constitution.

I accept your challenge, good luck! Like my opponent, I will be offering three main points. -Point one: Section 4 is permissible under the constitution The constitution explicitly permits the federal government to regulate elections: First, in the elections clause, which reads: "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of choosing Senators." Here, the constitution allows Congress to make regulations and alter regulations upon state election procedures. This clause was later strengthened in the Supreme Court case of Foster V. Love which established that Congress can determine rules for modifying election procedures. (http://www.law.cornell.edu...) Additionally, the prospect of leaving states to regulate their elections purely by themselves is unrealistic. If this were true, states would be allowed to institute incredibly racist election laws and the federal government could do nothing to change this, because that would fall under their supposedly reserved power. Point 2: Section 2 remains relevant The states that were previously covered under section 4 have returned to previously racist policies following the Supreme Court decision. In fact, more than 80 discriminatory laws have been introduced since the Supreme Court decision (http://www.politico.com...). This process is referred to as backsliding, wherein states that made progress under section 4 lose that progress and revert to previously racist policies. In Justice Ginsburg's words, the decision is similar to throwing away your umbrella during a rainstorm because you are not getting wet. Point 3: Under the fifteenth amendment, section 4 is essential The fifteenth amendment is clear in stating that the right to vote shall not be abridged, and that Congress can implement this through appropriate legislation. While the opposition may assert that section 4 is not appropriate legislation, section 4 is the most appropriate legislation to enforce this principle. States are only required to preclear any changes to election procedures with the federal government before they are implemented. This acts as a deterrent, because states are hesitant to even attempt discriminatory voting legislation because they know that any new discriminatory law would be struck down by the DOJ. Such power remains essential today. Even in the 2012 election, "covered states have resurrected a voter suppression campaign reminiscent of late 1960s by using a myriad of methods to suppress minority and poor votes. (http://www.jsonline.com...)
The Supreme Court rightly decided that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act violated the Constitution.

I have never done this before but I'll assume normal puf rulesSection 4 of the VRA was put into place to prevent voter discrimination in the 1970s. It is base off of information from that time frame, thus, I don't believe it is 'appropriate' legislation. Therefore I affirm the resolution for 3 main points: -Point One: Does not Uphold 15th amendThe 15th amendment prohibits the federal and state governments from denying a citizen the right to vote based on that citizen's "race, color, or previous condition of servitude" any is only allowed by congress through "appropriate legislation" as I will prove throughout today's round section 4, or the "legislation", is not "appropriate" thus, it does not uphold the 15th amendment. This leads to myPoint Two Violates 10th amendment.The tenth amendment states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Considering this is not upheld by the 15th amendment it is not a "delegated power", thereby violating the right for states to regulate their own voting. This is an obvious violation of our constitution.Point 3: Section 4 not nessecary.When we look to every state section 4 covers, the idea it is still need is ludicrous. Minority voting actually outnumbers whites in many states. This proves that this discrimination is not relevant enough to justify section 4 constitutional. The only way for section 4 to be justified as "appropriate" is if EVERY STATE UNDER SECTION 4 IS PROVEN TO HAVE DISCRIMINTION. If this is not proven section 4 is unssecary. The reason for this is it restricts areas for doing nothing wrong. It doesn't allow states to regulate their own voting, which is a violation of the 10th amendment.
Jeepers Creepers would Beat Predator (Pick which ever) in a fight

Scenario 1&2: You forget that the Predator determines himself who is worthy,not us. He will fight the Creeper,and because he is a predator(hence the name)he will get the drop on him and the Predator will lay a trap for him. Now even though the Creeper is intelligent,it also has animal instinct in his subconscious. And the Predators always out think it's prey. So the Creeper will get damaged,and the two will fight. Now while the Creeper is stronger and quicker,it has no skill in combat. It rely's on brute strength. The Predator will fight,and get damaged. He will most likely retreat to the woods. And this is the part where you would say he gets scared,but this is not true. Predators have faced more dangerous enemy's and laugh. They can almost never get scared. If you would remember in the first Predator movie,he laughed as he died. So he will retreat to the woods to treat his wounds,as he has high pain tolerance as he got his hand cut off and simply not,waled it off,but fought it off. This also has to do with your counter-argument;you said that a human was able to beat it in combat in the first movie,but the Predator suicides. Now he was injured,but ultimately he killed himself. And in the second movie,the other one had his hand cut off when he was killed. So while he would retreat to the woods,(because the creeper liked the woods and the Predator attacked the Creeper)and the Creeper would fly and scan the sky's looking for him. The Predator would then shoot his wing's off. The Creeper would then throw his shrunkins at the Predator,the Predator throwing one of his own at them,but the other hitting the Predator and finishing off the last of his armor because the Creeper is intelligent and probably has good eyes. So he hit a good spot. The Predator would then hunt the Creeper,lay a trap of human bodies,but the Creeper would semi sneak up on the Predator and they fight. I see two possible endings- Ending 1: The Predator fights him off,and kills him using his skill,his strength,his experience,and his smarts. Instead of shooting him,he challenges to a combat fight. He takes off his gear and he fights him. He uses his skills and strength and fights him. The Creeper dodges each attack and stabs him,but the Predator then activates his explosive device on his forearm and they both die. Ending 2: The two fight and the Predator outwits him and uses his own strength against him and partly crushes him and the Creeper is partly paralyzed and the Predator then uses his explosive knives to dismember his limbs and he would keep shooting him and stabbing him until he is 100% dead. Either way the Predator win's or it's a draw