BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
School uniforms should be banned.

REFUTATIONS"1st.School uniforms should be banned because children and teens would like creativity in there lives that includes when they dress for school"False. You fail to meet your BoP, you can't prove that children and teens like creativity. In fact, various students despise art class, one of the main classes for creativity. People even write blogs about how they hate art school. [1] This is already rpoof not everyone likes creativity. Also, barely anyone even expresses their creativity through clothing, except for cosplaying of course. If they did express it through clothing, they are ignorant snobs. Some people can't afford "good" clothing, does that mean they can't express themselves? Of course not. Clothing is one of the few ways people express themselves, and people barely even do it through that. There are thousands of other much more effective ways to express oneself.Also, killing people is a way for people to expres their creativity, does that mean we should make it legal? No! Sexual assault and assasination is a creative thing, do we make those things legal? Once again no."Is it illegal for a student to dress freely.I know all about uniforms and yes it preven6ts alot of mishaps but i t restrains individuality."In some cases, it is illegal. For example, you can't go to school in nothing but a bikini. Uniforms do infact prevent mishaps, and innapropriate clothing."Do you want to wear the same thing everyday?"I honestly wouldn't care. Either way, this isn't a valid reason to ban uniforms."Bullies will still call you names regardless of the shirt or pants and the #1 rule is dont care about what they say" A large portion of bullying is due to appearance, this includes clothing. More than half of school girls get bullied due to appearance. [2]. Having uniforms, of course we don't stop bullying, but we diminish it. -------------- So far, there are no valid reasons to which why school uniforms should be banned.
School uniforms should be banned.

Welcome temmo I heavily apologize im a newcomer I dont really know much but I love law and poltics.And I really truly am sorry for the inconvinice with baus. Moving on my first point 1st.School uniforms should be banned because children and teens would like creativity in there lives that includes when they dress for school 2nd.Is it illegal for a student to dress freely.I know all about uniforms and yes it preven6ts alot of mishaps but i t restrains individuality. 3rd.Do you want to wear the same thing everyday? 4th.Bullies will still call you names regardless of the shirt or pants and the #1 rule is dont care about what they say (Note for my opponet I am extremly sorry for what happened)
School uniforms should be banned.

I have seen you debating this with baus and I find it unfair you only gave him 15 minutes. Also, you just copy pasted from your previous round. Because of this injustice, I challenge you to the same debate. You will be arguing that school uniforms should be banned. BoP is on you. Rules: 1. first round you introduce your opening statements, last round you write no more than "no round as agreed upon". This gives us an equal amount of rounds. 2. no plagiarism 3. no using the same argument from other debates, or previous rounds in this debate. When I say this, I mean no copy pasting other arguments you have already done. 4. No profanity Breaking any rules will result in a 7 point deduction. The first rule only applies to pro.
Tobi (Obito Uchiha) vs Six Paths of Pain (Nagato)

Rebuttal 1:"the Deva path pull him towards him"That cannot happen because Tobi is intangible, not tangible; incapable of being perceived by the sense of touch, as incorporeal or immaterial things; impalpable. [1]therefore the Deva path cannot succeed to pull Tobi towards him.We know that the Asura path or the other paths won't be touching him because Tobi has the Six Paths of Obito: http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net...; />Who have tailed beast powers: http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net...; />It is near impossible for Pain to win, because Obito has the tailed beasts, Six paths of Pain, and MS Sharingan.Even if Pain traps Tobi in Chibaku Tensei/Planetary devastation: http://img844.imageshack.us...; />Tobi can escape it with the Izanagi, as I have shown from my previous argument.Pain is a strong opponent, in fact one of the strongest, but he isn't as strong as Obito. [1]http://dictionary.reference.com...
Tobi (Obito Uchiha) vs Six Paths of Pain (Nagato)

While it is true that Tobi can transport himself through space-time, he is vulnerable at the moment of attacking evidenced by Minato wounding his arm. All pain needs to do is have the Deva path pull him towards him http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net... while the Asura path attacks him with a bunch of mechanical weapons https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com... and finally, the king of hell traps him http://www.senpuu.net...
Tobi (Obito Uchiha) vs Six Paths of Pain (Nagato)

Rebuttal I:"Pain has 1. Rinnengan 2. Statute of the outer path 3. Paths 4. King of Hell 5. Absorption soul technique As we know "Pain" is technically immortal. Tobi can only transport objects through space-time, but Pain through the 6 paths can foresee Tobi's power. He also has the absorption soul technique to take Tobi's soul from him. With the King of Hell, Pain can heal himself over and over again, thus attack Tobi again and again."Tobi also has the Rinnegan so he can do EVERY ability that you have listed, therefore you are argument is fallacious.Argument 1 'Kamui' :Tobi's bread and butter Kamui, space-time jutsu, that allows him to teleport himself and other people if touched physically: http://auto.img.v4.skyrock.net...; />As we can see, Minato passes through Tobi, which makes him basically immortal.Teleporting people: http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net...; />Argument 2 'Izanagi' :Izanagi the forbidden jutsu, Obito can use it, as shown from his fight vs Konan:"Tobi finds himself surrounded by Six hundred billion explosives. Konan than detonates them all over a period of ten minutes, longer than the five-minute period that Tobi can remain intangible for. " [1]The explosives: http://s0.uploads.im...; />But Tobi overcomes this shortcoming by using Izanagi: http://shannaro.files.wordpress.com...; />I will use these two effictive arguments and I await Con's response.[1]http://naruto.wikia.com...
Tobi (Obito Uchiha) vs Six Paths of Pain (Nagato)

I will be taking the position that Pain, the six paths can defeat Obito Uchiha. Pain has 1. Rinnengan 2. Statute of the outer path 3. Paths 4. King of Hell 5. Absorption soul technique As we know "Pain" is technically immortal. Tobi can only transport objects through space-time, but Pain through the 6 paths can foresee Tobi's power. He also has the absorption soul technique to take Tobi's soul from him. With the King of Hell, Pain can heal himself over and over again, thus attack Tobi again and again.
Tobi (Obito Uchiha) vs Six Paths of Pain (Nagato)

I will be taking the Tobi's side which is Pro, and Con will take Six Paths of Pain side, who will win between the two we shall know in this debate.We are talking about Tobi:1)Has the Mangekyou Sharingan2)This fight I am presenting is before the supposed "Death" of Obito.3)Has the Rinnegan4) This is not Juubito!!Rules:1)Please choose what your Pain is, as I did above, but do not add something to him which he did not achieve.2)This is pure Naruto fans debate, please if you do not know anything about Naruto, do not accept this debate.3)No trolling, no offending, no insulting, and no using profanities.4)First round is for acceptance.5)Do not go off-topic(talking about anything that is not related to Naruto)6) This is pure fun, so please let us have fun :)7) breaking any rule will result in a conduct vote point loss(meaning all votes should attribute conduct to Pro or Con, whoever broke the rule)I wish good luck to both I & Con.IF YOU HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH THE STRUCTURE OF THIS DEBATE PLEASE TELL ME IN A MESSAGE OR IN THE COMMENTS!!
Tobi (Obito Uchiha) vs Six Paths of Pain (Nagato)

While it is true the 6 paths of pain will be busy fighting the six paths of Obito, pain has the almighty push which defeated Utakata. If any of them turn into a tailed best, Pain could simply use chakra receiver rods to disrupt chakra flow and fire missiles and other projectiles to defeat them while the animal path summons animals to serve as obstacles and distractions to them. Pain also has the ten tails to defeat Obito and his tailed beasts. While it is true Obito can escape with the Izanagi, his eye would go blind. Meanwhile, with the Rinnegan, the six paths of pain can quickly catch up to Obito, being able to counter any incoming attacks. The Deva path can use a chakra receiver blade to slash Obito and as soon as he materializes, the Human path can absorb his soul. If Obito gets out of that, Pain can just use planetary devastation again, causing him to lose his other Izanagi eye. Finally, the king of hell can capture Obito and destroy him.
should street art be allowed in public spaces

Public spaces are owned by the public of any county/state/city etc. Unless the majority of those paying tax money support the particular piece of art, the piece of art thus should be rendered illegal to disgrace the public space with.Street art is about the individual producing whatever art they want, no matter how explicit and is entirely the inverse of left-wing ethos. Right-wing ethos and that of private spaces is that the individual who owns it should be as free as is legally stretchable to permit but left-wing ethos, which is the ethos on which public spaces are based, is that the community's will should supercede that of any passionate individual be they an artist or not.
Uber-challenging (for me): Play Devil's Advocate!

I guess this might be Nye's first victory over me, but I feel it should not. As the civil unrest in my country caused my internet to be cut temporarily I cannot post anything. Even this I write with the greatest of hardship. I believe I still win because Nye was arguing a truism, he broke the law of non-contradiction; never proved his arguments, and argued besides the point. I apologise profusely for this, and while I am dismayed that I cannot post an argument, I hope the voters can sympathise with me.
Uber-challenging (for me): Play Devil's Advocate!

It may be the morphine I was just given for my neuropathic pain syndrome, but your case does make very little sense. You have essentially conceded the entire debate. I should like to start off with some fundamental onus explanation. The burden of proof in this debate lies entirely with the Proposition, that being 9spaceking. It is his duty to show []X where X stands for the motion. One more thing, when a resolution says X, with X not being supposed as a noun, then X is taken as "all X".[1] It is therefore my opponent's burden to show that all morals are absolute. I am extremely cut for time, since as I said, I was in extreme pain, and a bit delusional. I shall thereby not address each point, I can do so in the last round, rather give a summary of my opponent's argument, and then refute it. My opponent's argument rests on these premises: P. 1. There is no fundamental clash between moral relativism, and moral absolutism. 2. Morality is based on what people believe; people can believe in one universal truth. 3. There exists a moral ratio, which can decide moral absolutism. C. With this my opponent has conceded these points (as he never discussed them later): 1. We have an inherent sense of right and wrong. 2. My argument that things can be amoral (hinted in my counters) 3. Determinable from Utilitarianism. I have two things to say right now. Firstly how do any of these premises lead to moral absolutism. Since my opponent dropped C3, P1, and P3 fail. All they (attempt to) show is that moral absolutism, and moral relativism can both be true. In essence without C3, these two points are worthless. They argue besides the point. My second statement asks whether any of you sincerely feel that 9space has justified the above mentioned beliefs. I say that he has lost this debate, because he conceded to moral relativism. He believes that morals can change in relation to opinions of man. Also he asserts relativism himself which defeats his case entirely. As for P1 I think the refutation is self evident. If one is to say "Y is a moral truth regardless of any circumstances", one cannot say "Y is a moral truth because of opinion". These two cannot be resolved. It is useless to argue this point. If 9space says that some morals are absolute then why those morals? What makes those morals moral, and not others? Is there a quantifier to this? Yes, I just gish galloped. My opponent must answer all these questions. As for P2, that supports moral relativism. In any case I find no compelling case for this proposition. Also lets say people agree that K is moral. Therefore K is an absolute moral, people change their opinions? Is K an absolute moral? Lets make a small paradox. Lets say K is a moral which asserts that K is not a moral. If K is not a moral truth, then K is correct and it is a moral truth, if not then K is wrong, which means K is right. Just putting that in there. As for P3 my opponent gave no argument. The resolution then collapses miserably. [1]Introduction to Logic by Harry J. Gensler
Uber-challenging (for me): Play Devil's Advocate!

"Let us say action Z has better productivity than action X, now it would be immoral to chose action X."If Z had more POSITIVE productivity then certainly it would be more moral to choose Z, and in this case, because you did not choose the more moral action, X is now worse off due to Z's awesomeness. Set in Stone:"It seems my opponent agrees that if the ice cream is poisoned then the act is immoral, and if it is tasty it is moral or more moral. This mean moral relativism, therefore my opponent concedes." No no no, me agreeing to moral relativism does not mean absolute morals do not exist. In fact, relative morals and absolute morals can exist at the same exact time. You see, if everyone agrees that action X is relatively moral to action Y, then action X is absolutely moral to action Y because there is no dispute over it. Similarly, if I give the ice cream poisoned to the old man, it is absolutely immoral, but if it's tasty and has no poison in it, then it becomes objectively more moral. It is simply indesputable. My point here is that with the addition of moral and immoral facts, the ice cream becomes more tipped towards most sides. We learn more information about the ice cream, and the absolute objective morality changes over time. It's like how the mathematician learned that 1 is a whole number, now he learns 0 is a whole number. 0 is still objectively 0, none of its properties has changed, we just learned a new thing about it that changed our perspective on it, but that does not make 0 not 0."So while we may believe X is something, that does not make X that way." Some times this is true, however, for morality it isn't. We get to decide what morality is, it is a human measurement. We believe that 100 centimeters make a meter, and that makes 100 centimeters equal one meter. Even if in reality the universe is so warped that 100 centimeters really isn't a meter, our measurements have made it thus that under our "normal circumstances", 100 centimeters equal one meter. Similarly, if most rational people believe something is definitely wrong, then I have managed to prove that there is indeed absolute morality. And of course, most rational people cannot definitely justify killing an innocent person. Therefore, with this proof and absolute morality logic crucial point held up, I proved that absolute morals do indeed exist.
Uber-challenging (for me): Play Devil's Advocate!

Thank you for this debate 9spaceking. The debate motion that I have chosen is: This House Believes In Absolute Morality. I am Con, and 9spaceking is Proposition. This means that 9space has the complete burden of proof to show that morality is absolute, and objective. The debate can be found here, it was one of my first, and worst: . http://www.debate.org... 1. Morality: the set of ideal codes and ethics which directly lead to the summum bonum (highest good). 2. Objective: absolute, transcendent of space, time and number; same for all; categorical. I ALSO ADD ONE RULE: No trolling, or any other intellectual dishonestly like deconstruction semantics allowed.
Uber-challenging (for me): Play Devil's Advocate!

This is the fifth Devil's Advocate I have done within the series.Rules are tweaked a bit from previous times, please read entire round one before acceptingRULES-My opponent must choose a debate he or she has done before (he or she has to cite the debate)-The debate cannot be a one-round debate-The debate my opponent chose cannot be against diarygirl4u2c, neither may it be against izbo10-My opponent must choose the opposing side he has argued-No rap battles, drawing contests, talent shows, or other "Debates" that involve skills other than debating (with the exception of troll debates)-My opponent can't do "I will lose this debate", "I will win this debate", or any debate that refers to breaking rules or contradictions made by either debater (in other words, debates named "my opponent will contradict himself")-My opponent must have either tied the debate with at least 2 votes on the debate, or won the debate with the opponent having only one forfeit or less-My opponent may define terms, however they must be either logical or at the very least arguable -My opponent must state the topic within round one and may post no arguments-My opponent can be super clever and force me to play devil's advocate as well if he or she wishes to :D-My opponent can't choose any debate concerning God/an omnipotent being's existence, or the legalization of gay marriage, or whether or not communism is effective/will work. I already did those three topics.Because I keep on winning I will make this uber-challenging for me. How? To accept this debate you must have a higher elo than 3500, unless you are on the below LIST OF EXCEPTIONS. If you accept without my permission and you have <3500 elo (and you're not on the LIST OF EXCEPTIONS), then you accept an automatic lost. If you are on the LIST OF EXCEPTIONS then you can accept without any consequences, unless of course you break the rules. LIST OF EXCEPTIONS-ArcTimes (Let's duel!)-Ajabi (Good luck bro! :3)-n7 (The nigh-unbeated....bring it on)-DynamicDuoDebaters (You guys are lookin' fine and dandy!) -Debatability (You want me...You get me!)
Do Schools focus more on Grades (Pro) or Intelligence (Con)

You make a very compelling case, but i will fight my side. Schools focus hard on grades for a reason, homework is assigned for a reason, you need to practice what you've learned, if you aren't doing your homework, or your classwork that tells the teachers you aren't learning, or understand what they taught you that day. Imagine if you will, you've just graduated high school, and you can barely remember anything of what you learned, that is a problem. I believe they focus on intelligence more than grades, If you don't have good grades you aren't doing your work which might suggest you don't know how to do the material. How will you get a job if you don't know how to do what they expect you to do? Let the Debate Start!
Do Schools focus more on Grades (Pro) or Intelligence (Con)

I believe that Schools focus too heavily on what your grade is rather than what you are learning. Currently, schools are pressuring student on keeping their grades up. Sure having good grades is good, but in some cases they don't measure your knowledge. You can really understand a subject and know exactly what the material is, but none of that matters because you didn't turn in one homework assignment and that brought your grade down 1%. According to schools, that's the end of the world. Now you'll never be able to get into an Ivy League school all because you didn't turn in a homework assignment. Also going by that mindset, its okay if you don't understand the material because there is always time for you to relearn an entire lesson while everyone rockets ahead. There is no way to win in the American School systems. The stress that teachers put on the students for turning in assignments than they do about how well you understand it. Any student can get answers for their homework off of the Internet but a true intellect would be able to do the work, but occasionally forget to turn it in. I don't think grades should be determined by any sort of participation or homework grades, but instead on the more important things such as quizzes and tests. I believe schools emphasize the importance of Grades more than intelligence. Source: http://www.education.com...
(Pro)Christianity vs (Con)Atheism

"Correct its does take faith to be a christian. I never said it did not." I was responding to your question if I was claiming it faith to believe in a God? "but what would cause the big bang to happen? " A good question. There are hypothesis aplenty, but stating "I don't know" does offer any credence to a claim that a god started the universe. You haven't offered any proof that a god exists, let alone the power to make such creations. "Christianity makes more sense because it goes back farther that evolution or even the big bang theory." Neither of those things is atheism, thus contrasting the sense value of them is not the goal of your debate challenge. My opponent has not met his burden of proof in anyway. I believe I have in my first response. I thank my opponent for the opportunity to practice the forms of debate used in this forum, since I'm new here. Criticisms on how to improve would be welcome.
(Pro)Christianity vs (Con)Atheism

Correct its does take faith to be a christian. I never said it did not. I'm not saying the big band did not happen, but what would cause the big bang to happen? Something has to be behind it. When God spoke those words i would imagine a wonderful blast of light creating what is called the universe. I would love to meet the person who watched evolution happen. http://www.icr.org... Christianity makes more sense because it goes back farther that evolution or even the big bang theory. IF evolution happened, what caused it? IF the big bang theory happened, what caused it? The world is far too perfect for there have not to have been a creator. The way nature works, how the human body works, how everything works together suck as rain and evaporation. If i told you there was a junk yard full of old rusty cars, and a tornado went through the junk yard, and when it left, it left behind a shiny red Lamborghini, you would think i would crazy to believe such a thing because something perfect does not come from nothing. It must have been created.
(Pro)Christianity vs (Con)Atheism

The bible says it takes faith to please that god. Hebrews 11 6 "And without faith it is impossible to please god, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him" It does not take faith to believe in the Big Bang or evolution; all it takes is evidence. There is evidence of evolution being observed. Drug resistant bacteria would be an example. The laws of thermodynamics do not appear to state what you claim. Can you provide the evidence of your claim? Bill O'Reilly notwithstanding, the mechanism of the times is well understood. This ends my rebuttal of your arguments. Pro, you have yet to provide any proof to back up your claim of Christianity making more sense than Atheism.