BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Pastafarian creation should be taught in schools.

"Why does this matter at all? The number of bible literalists isn't that high." But it's high enough that it's actually a topic of much debate. There is little-to-no actual debate over whether or not the FSM is real, because it's not intended to be interpreted as real. "Anyway it is not meant to "mock" religions. It I a way of grouping together a people who do not wish creation to be taught in schools." Of course it is meant to mock religions. Or at least, it is meant to mock arguments in favor of religion. "If we're talking about validity of a belief as science, then why do numbers matter?" But we aren't. We are talking about whether it falls under "teach the controversy". Controversy, n. 1. a prolonged public dispute, debate, or contention; disputation concerning a matter of opinion 2. contention, strife, or argument. [1] Pastafarianism is a fairly recent religion, and even compared to creationism not enough people genuinely believe in its truth for it to have become a public dispute or debate. Pastafarianism also discourages arguments or strife over its validity, as the FSM said in the 8 I'd Rather You Didnt's that he's fine if some people don't believe in him[2]. "A controversy in this situation means it has as much validity." Given that you did not provide any definitions in your opening, I am to assume we are discussing using the actual definitions. I have provided the actual definition above-"validity" has nothing to do with it. "Numbers don't affect the truth of evolution, or the falsehoods of creation, so why should they factor in another belief set?" The debate is not "Are creation and Pastafarianism both equally valid?" Numbers don't effect whether or not a belief system is true, but they do effect whether or not it's controversial. [1]http://dictionary.reference.com... [2]http://politics.gather.com...
Pastafarian creation should be taught in schools.

"No. Why? Because there is no "controversy" over Pastafarianism. It is a satire, a comedy meant to mock other religions. Nobody genuinely believes that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists, and if there are people who do then they are not a large enough group for Pastafarianism to be considered a "controversy"." Why does this matter at all? The number of bible literalists isn't that high. Anyway it is not meant to "mock" religions. It I a way of grouping together a people who do not wish creation to be taught in schools. The Flying Spaghetti Monster theory has as much evidence as creation. If we're talking about validity of a belief as science, then why do numbers matter? The theory of creation has a book to back it up. Pastafarianism has the gospel of the flying spaghetti monster to back it up. A controversy in this situation means it has as much validity. Numbers don't affect the truth of evolution, or the falsehoods of creation, so why should they factor in another belief set?
Pastafarian creation should be taught in schools.

"The real question is " If Christian creation was to be taught in schools under the theory of "teach the controversy", should Pastafarianism be included as well?"." No. Why? Because there is no "controversy" over Pastafarianism. It is a satire, a comedy meant to mock other religions. Nobody genuinely believes that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists, and if there are people who do then they are not a large enough group for Pastafarianism to be considered a "controversy". (Note: For the record, I think "teaching the controversy" is a ridiculous idea. However, even if I did accept it, Pastafarianism still would not fall under the category of a "controversy".)
Pastafarian creation should be taught in schools.

There are a couple rules that I would like to state. First round is acceptance. My opponent shall be fighting for the stance that if Cristian Creation was taught in school, Pastafarianism should not be taught as well. Should con have any problems with the rules, or would like to add new rules, he must do so during round one The real question is " If Christian creation was to be taught in schools under the theory of "teach the controversy", should Pastafarianism be included as well?". Neither me, nor my opponent can introduce new arguments during round four. Round four is only for rebuttal, conclusion, overview of previous arguments, and why someone should vote for them. This is not a debate over whether or not Christian creation is true, though we may reference whether or not there is evidence, it cannot be the basis of our arguments. Pastafarianism is the belief that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created everything, that gravity is caused by the Flying Spaghetti Monster pushing down on everyone with his noodle appendages. If you wish to learn more, I have posted a link below. http://www.venganza.org... Good luck!
Pastafarian creation should be taught in schools.

"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." Nonsense. I covered both definitions in my original post. I repeat: "Pastafarianism also discourages arguments or strife over its validity, as the FSM said in the 8 I'd Rather You Didnt's that he's fine if some people don't believe in him."[1] "Prolonged is a relative term and has no application to any setting." Agreed. "The fact that there are many people posing this question and many people pushing Pastafarianism," Examples? I mean something that proclaims Pastafarianism is actually true, not that it is "as valid as creationism" or anything like that. "means that there is a debate, whether or not the other side is actively engaged." A debate needs to have two engaged sides. If one side is not engaged in it then it's just preaching. [1]http://politics.gather.com...
sholud school uniform be given or not

Thanks to Pro for the challenge. I will be arguing that school uniforms should not be required for two main reasons. 1. How we dress is an expression of our personalities. Requiring uniforms stifles a child's creativity, and ability to express himself through his/her wardrobe. 2. Dress codes can be enforced that stop kids from wearing clothing that can be a distraction, in the learning environment, thus there is no need to exert authority over what kids wear to school so long as it meets standards of decency. I look forward to Pro's arguments.
Obama should not get a second term.

Thanks for the debate, broseph.Resolution Analysis The resolution clealy states, "Obama should not get a second term." I am arguing the Pro side that 'Obama should not get a second term'. My opponent is arguing the Con side that 'Obama should get a second term'. So far he has argued for the Pro side of this resolution, and for that I thank him.Obama should not get a second term EconomicsBarack Obama, as my opponent stated, has added $5 Trillion to the debt.* Under this Keynesian fiscal and monetary policy, it is likely that the economy will continue to perform sluggishly. [http://mises.org...]WarfareFrom a mild-mannered, anti-war law professor, Barack Obama has become one of the most internationally hated men in the world. [http://www.washingtontimes.com...]LibertyIn the 2012 NDAA, Obama attempted to pass a section that would allow for the indefinite detention of American civilians, which is in direct contradiction to the Bill of Rights.[http://rt.com...]Rhetorical SkillsNot only is Obama unpersuasive and unattractive (See: video), he is a terrible speaker in general through using many vocal fillers per speech and "according to a communication agency, he speaks in a sing-song kind manner and sounds aloof. His more emphasis is towards script and teleprompter though he never got any professional training for using it. Apart from his behavioral flaws, some of his speeches suffer from minor communication flaws. He often makes gaffes while speaking spontaneously. These are so many communication flaws that a famous political figure must never have." [http://www.smashinglists.com...]I am GodI am God and my will "shall be done!" Obama should not be reelected because it conflicts with my will, and hundreds of newly-made Pakistani orphans were praying for it. K thx bye.Your move, Holy Man.
Obama should not get a second term.

Obama should not get a second term because he has failed to fix the economy. His economic policies have made the economy worse. He added $5 trillion to the deficit. He increased taxes in his health care plan and added thousands of regulations on businesses. He also broke a big promise. Obama said he was going to cut taxes for the middle class which he has not done. He spent a few trillion dollars in four years more than Bush spent in 8 years. The economy is worse now than when Obama first took office. Mitt Romney would be a great president. He would cut taxes across the board. He would also cut spending which would control the deficit and he would cut regulations on businesses. Mitt Romney be a lot better than Obama as president.
Schools should be Stricter

What did you just say about me? I"ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I"ve been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I"m the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fvck out. I have precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my words. You think you can get away with saying that sh1t to me over the Internet? Think again, fvcker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. Youre fvcking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and thats just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable @ss off the face of the continent, you little sh1t. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little "clever" comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fvcking tongue. But you couldn't, and now you're paying the price, you g0d@mn idiot. I will sh1t fury all over you and you will drown in it. Youre fvking dead, kiddo.
Schools should be Stricter

Pertaining to his arguments that if parents were to be liable for their kid's actions during school, they'd be over them at all times, society doesn't function that way. A person is held accountable for the actions of their pet(s), and no one is with their pet 24/7. It is the responsibility of the owner, or in this case, a parent, to teach the pet (kid) how to behave in the world and to keep the pet on the proper leash. If a pet destroys another person's property, it is the responsibility of the owner to repair and restore the property. The legal system is essentially based on children being extensions of their parents. School systems are not the ones with legal authority and responsibility over the kids when other kids are harrassing them or misbehaving. Legal offenses are handled in the criminal justice system.When my opponent says that schools should teach children to behave, he is not entirely in opposition to my case. Yes, schools can have a part in teaching children to behave. However, resolutionally, it is not compliant or relevant. The resolution asks for enforcement of punishment and policy, not just for teaching, which isn't the responsibility of the school. A school's function within society is to teach, and the criminal justice system's responsibility is to punish those committing criminal offenses. And my opponent then talks about the person in my analogy who we did not expect to risk his life to save someone from fire when that was not their function in society. My opponent says the person should call the police, a point I stressed in my initial case, that it is the responsibility of the police to handle criminal offenses, not the school. This strengthens my case, as it shows that the responsibility falls on police to handle situations as severe as my opponent cited.Finally, my opponent provides that there should be more teachers on patrol at recess and more supervision to prevent rapes and fights. Then my opponent goes on to say that in the real world, when you get in a fight, you go to jail. The same thing should happen in a school as well. Just because it happens in a school doesn't make it exempt from societal punishments and standards, and those sorts of things are handled by the police.This is why I conclude this argument with the statement that it is not the responsibility of the schools to enforce severe punishment.
Schools should be Stricter

Parents SHOULD be held liable for controlling their kids, I agree. However, when children are on school property, any actions that the children do should be in the schools` hands. If the parents aren't willing to properly discipline their children, somebody has to, and that's when the school should step in. When parents drop their children off to the school, they expect their teachers to substitute for them as a chaperone. It is the teachers and schools responsibility to watch over children and input disciplinary actions. If it were the parents responsibility for their children (while at school), then I suggest parents should be next to their kid at all times, since nobody is there to care for them. When you say a school is an institute for teaching, think about behavioral issues. The school should "teach" children how to behave. If schools are for learning, let children learn how to act socially and learn manners. In response to your comparison when you gave an example about a bystander and a fire, if the bystander sees the fire and keeps on walking, how will the police or fire department ever know? The bystander should call the police and inform them of the information. Same goes with the school. For fights and rapes, there should be more teachers on patrol watching the children at recess. A school should serve as a future reference to the real world. When you get in a fight, you go to jail. When somebody gets in a fight at school, they should be put in detention, or be suspended.
Schools should be Stricter

The first argument my opponent presents pertains to the manners of students within schools nowadays. In response to his arguments of having witnessed cursing and things being stolen, we have to look at responsibility here. Schools aren't held liable for the behavior of their students in the real world, and schools don't nurture the kids and provide them with moral standards from the beginning of the childrens' growth. These values are given by the parents. No matter what a school thinks of the behavior of a student, they cannot change it unless the behavior is targeted at the root. Parents are held accountable for the actions of their children. It isn't a school's job to be held liable for the behavior of its students, because schools are institutes for teaching. It is not the vocation of the school or its staff to discipline students just as it is not the job of a bystander on the street to attempt to put out a fire in situations of arson or fire. It is the job of another, and in this case, the job is that of the parent. Asking schools to enforce harder punishment upon students is asking too much of them, as their main goal is to teach the students. They can't be held for anything their students do; only the parents can be. As for people fighting and not getting expelled, we cannot know if the school was informed of this. The thing is, many times fights will not be reported to the school and the officials and schoolboard will not know of it. How can a schoolboard handle this? Also, it is sometimes not legal for a school system to actually expell a child. More often than not, that luxury is only available to private schools. Many schools can't even give detention. Any legal issues, like the rapes, stealing, fights, etc, are matters for the police, and not for a school system. In conclusion, we cannot expect schools to be stricter for the following reasons. That: (1) Parents are responsible for the institution of values in their children and for their behavior and conduct, (2) Schools often don't know of problems with students, (3) Many schools can't legally enact punishment for offenses of students like expulsion or detentions, and (4) Issues with questionable legality are the responsibility of the police, not the school. For these reasons, the ballot leans toward the con.
Schools should be Stricter

I believe schools should be stricter because kids nowadays have no manners at all. I recently went to my younger brothers elementary school and heard kids running down the hall way, cussing at each other. My brother has also been in situations when he went to the restroom, and when he came back to the class, his belongings were stolen from his desk. My other brother has been getting bullied numerously with others just laughing at him, to the point where he has to take online school. He has told us about a kid getting in 5 fights already, and he still hasn't been expelled. I've also heard of instances where kids have stolen things from the book fair, rapes, fights, and heavy bullying.
highschool dropouts can succeed as much as graduates

To become a lawyer or doctor, for example, would be nearly impossible without the proper education. That's not to say that a high school dropout is less intelligent or lacks the ability or potential. These professions are defined by attaining certain levels of education and certification. You simply must go through the effort and expense of higher education in order to obtain that type of "success". Talent is a different matter. One can take their God given talent and with passion, practice, and a great deal of effort become the best in their "field". Take your rapping talent for example. There are many rappers out there. Only those that have the drive and the dream to push past the average rapper will even have a shot at fame. Do you need a high school education to be in the entertainment business? Perhaps not if your talent far outweighs your lack of education in a field where education is not required. Even though there are a few places where a high school dropout can excel, I wouldn't agree with your assertion that high school dropouts can succeed "as much as graduates". If you have such a talent, I would encourage you to strive to be the very best in your field. Be original and push beyond the average consistantly. Still, while you're doing that, you need to also focus on education. Soja Boy might be hot now but their fame and fortune will be short lived. There is much more to life that money. Not having an education in this society is like having a handicap. Yes, you can push past it but the effort to do that far outweighs the effort to stay in school and get a good education. This increases your chances of success greatly and doesn't rely on a fluke MySpace hit like Soja Boy experienced. For every Soja Boy out there you will find a million rappers thinking that they are just as good and ought to be able to make it. Obviously that's not the case as only a few with the right talent at the right time and in the right place get "picked" for fame. In short, don't count on it. Staying in school increases your odds of making a good steady living, owning a home, raising children, and getting them educated. Do that and you can call yourself a "success" every time.
highschool dropouts can succeed as much as graduates

yes easily to become a doctor lawyer and etc..because most people don't used the knowledge which they should but using though using their talents such as rapping which the known group today the soja boy which they posted their songs on myspace for fun and later became millionaires or celebrities that have sibling which they can easily be spoil and become something in life without paying out of their own pocket,But things dosn't always happend that way
highschool dropouts can succeed as much as graduates

For the record, I am in complete agreement with you and wish that I was on the pro side. For the sake of the debate I will accept the con side in order to point out reasons why society makes it difficult. Your assertion is that "High school dropouts can succeed as much as graduates". The debate hinges on the definition of "succeed". If you mean that a high school dropout can just as easily become a laywer or a doctor then I might have to disagree. If you mean that one can become successful in the eyes of God then I would completely agree. Please define what "success" is from your perspective.
Debate.org has not changed.

Good morning. In today's case, I shall prove that contrary to my opponent's belief that "debate.org hasn't changed", it has in fact changed since his arrival here. 1) Sadolite may have arrived on the 7th of February, but by the 31st of march, this website started hosting a tournament via facebook. The debate.org tournament is still ongoing and the winner receives a hefty sum of 100 big ones as well as the bragging rights for having come first place in the first tournament of this website. There are also two other tournaments underway as of now; there is a policy and Lincoln Douglas debate tournament going on as of now. 2) Two of the most active users on this website have met their demise recently as both beem0r and Yraelz seem to be 6 feet under as of now. No one knows of the circumstances of their passings, but this is rather big news. 3) A new gang of trolls have arrived on this website recently and they troll through claiming they are from India while posting unintelligible debates which they have no intention of continuing. Okay, so maybe the second and third ones aren't quite as exciting, but the first one is not only big but exciting to (though it should be noted that I only have to prove change). I recommend you sign up for the next tournament, sadolite. OFF TOPIC: As for why the Webmaster hasn't implemented any system changes (other than repairing the character limit glitch), it's because his wife has recently had a child so he hasn't had quite as much time to devote to this website as he had months ago, but in any case, version 3 will be up soon. Just be patient. Oh yeah, and vote CON while you're at it. Thanks for the debate.