BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Puclic Schools Should Require Uniforms

Over time the uniforms would indeed help save money for parents and prove to be lucrative for schools. Over time. Nothing can happen overnight. When kids can get away with wearing the same uniforms for upwards of three years, parents won't have to buy them school clothes. Yes, they'll still have to buy them some regular, expensive clothes, but not as much as they would if the schools permitted students to wear their own clothes. There will of course be an initial price the school must have to pay, but the same can be said for any investment. The uniforms would be an investment that would over time prove to be lucrative. The struggling parents would have to buy their children clothes either way. These uniforms would take care of clothing five days out of the week. Parents are going to have to spend a plethora of money of their children's attire no matter what, but school uniforms would help reduce this cost, for parents wouldn't have to be fishing for money as their children pick of the latest trend of expensive Ugg boots. Children are by nature expressive creatures. Think about how many jobs require a set of standards one can dress by – it's almost the same thing. Men will wear suits. Women will wear dress pants, skirts, etc. There isn't much room for expressing oneself in the future, either. Catholic schools almost always require uniforms, and there have never been reports of those students being less able to make decisions or simply being followers. In fact, maybe uniforms are part of the reason why catholic schools tend to encompass students with higher scores. Children are expressive, no matter what, they can and will be able to find ways to express themselves. There is also a constitutional right of free speech, but that doesn't mean students can run around threatening and cursing off faculty, would you also say that breeches free speech? There will always be repercussions. Because these schools are run by the government, there are limits to what can be allowed and what is appropriate. Nowadays, children are subject to bullying in so many ways (i.e, in person and through the computer). Children are ruthless. Requiring school uniforms can help cut these tragic bullying numbers down for children won't be able to make fun of one another for what they're wearing. It may seem silly, but children can be incredibly sensitive and bullying about their attire can really affect them even later in life. If everyone is wearing the same thing, no one can be bullied for what they wear. Children also won't have to fear being left out because their parents can't afford to shell out hundreds on the newest fashion craze every other month. They won't be teased for wearing out of style clothing as readily as they would if regular clothing was permitted. School uniforms in public schools would help keep students safe.
Puclic Schools Should Require Uniforms

~~Rebuttels~~R1: Does uniforms save money?My opponent states that manditory school uniforms would help the parents financialy by saving them money. However this is simply untrue because in after having to manage things like books, sports, building costs, and utilities. The schools would not have enough money to fund uniforms. As a result taxes would have to be raised, and the parents would still be paying the same (if not more) for clothing. These clothing costs plus extra clothes for after school and weekends would end up costing them more. This would hurt the parents escpecially the parents of multiple children. It would be way better to just leave it the parents to buy regular clothes for their children.R2: Does it help schools? It probably would help schools a little, however if one thinks for a minute (particularly on my first rebuttel) you will see that it would hurt parents. Now for some of the poorest families in this pretty ruff economy they can barely afford books and supplies. How are they to have the money to buy extra sets of clothes? It would just cause problems for the families of America and do more harm then good. ~~My Arguments~~C1: Forcing kids to dress alike will only help create more followers than leaders.My first contention will be about the harm done to students capibilities both during school years and after school years. It really would hurt the students capibilities. I mean think about what it would be like to be told what to do in every aspect of ones life, and then all of the sudden being put into a situation where one has to make ones own discisions. School uniforms set some students up for failure when it comes to making their own decisions about who they are and how they're going to present themselves to the world. It would deminish individual responsability and would foster the attitude that the kids would be drones that would be told what to do in every part of their lives and would ultimately create more followers the leaders.C2: Uniforms are unconstitutional.Since public schools are owned and ran by the government then they are subject to the same laws that govern the governmnet that owns and funds them. The right to free expression is a first amendment right and also a fundemental right that the government can't take away at anytime [1]. By inforcing manditory uniforms the governmnet would be trouncing on the constitutional rights of students everywhere and that would be wrong.I will now await my opponent's response.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Puclic Schools Should Require Uniforms

The debate of whether public schools should require uniforms is forever an ongoing, and often a touchy subject. However, I feel it is vital that public school students be required to wear a school uniform. Especially in this economy, it's important that money be saved wherever and whenever for families struggling to make ends meet. Requiring students to wear uniforms would, in the long run, save parents or guardians a boat load of money. Rather than having to buy their children a plethora of expensive clothing, the parents would simply purchase a few uniforms that the children would wear five days out of the week. The amount of "regular" clothes they would be forced to purchase would significantly decrease, allowing for parents to use that money elsewhere. Children often desire expensive shoes, shirts, and pants (not to mention accessories). Because their children do indeed need clothing to wear to school, parents are often roped into buying their children over priced clothing. Children want to fit in with the latest craze, often prompting parents to have to shell out thousands on Uggs, Abercrombie and Fitch, and Juicy Couture – for example – when that is just not necessary. If uniforms were enforced in public schools, children wouldn't be as fascinated with the latest crazes, for all of the students would be wearing the same things anyway. Money would also be saved in the sense that children and students could get multiple years out of the uniforms. For example, I'm a college freshman and still often wear some articles of clothing I wore in the seventh grade. After puberty, most students won't do much growing and could even get most of their high school careers out of the uniforms. Even at the least, students could get two years out of the uniforms, which would cause parents not to have to keep spending money year after year on clothing because the children's clothing from the last year went out of style. Also to be considered is that if the uniforms don't change for multiple years, parents could save the uniforms and give them to younger siblings of the same gender to wear, which would help them save even more money! The uniforms could also be considered lucrative for the public schools themselves for they can make a small profit from the purchasing of the uniforms and use that money to improve things around the school. Requirng public school students to wear school uniforms is a simple way for public schools to make money, as we all know that is extremely dire in this world today. Requring public school students to wear school uniforms proves to be quite lucrative for all of those involved. Businesses that make school uniforms would prosper as well, which would help in job creation. Those companies and businesses that students currently wear wouldn't suffer too much damage either, for they often make clothing for all ages, and a small decrease shouldn't hurt much.
God exists-joke debate

Here, I will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that god doesn't exist.Arguments1) I am not in hell despite posting opening arguments in the first round. It has been two rounds and I am still on Earth typing this round, so Pro's contention is negated.2) Pro claims that dogs are supreme beings. If there were true, god's wife would be a bitch since female dogs are known as bitches. Unless Pro is ready to claim that god's wife is a bitch and Jesus is a puppy, god does not exist.3) Pro's picture shows a naked guy sitting on a bunch of other naked guys. It looks more like a war crime committed during the Iraq war than "god" which Pro claims it is.4) If god existed, would he have created someone like my opponent whose life's ambition is to catch as many people as he can and give them the Death Penalty? I wonder where Con is going to go after putting so many people to death.5) My opponent's state's motto is: "Kill a Texan, we, as the State of Texas, will kill you back!" [1]. If a god existed, he would have allowed neither my opponent nor the state of Texas to exist. Since Texas exists, as does my opponent, God does not exist.6) The devil exists as shown here, http://bit.ly...;If God really was supreme, he would have killed the devil by now but he hasn't, hence God doesn't exist.These point together prove that there is no god. Vote Con for screwing Pro out of a chance to respond to my arguments as well as proving that there is no god.Sources[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
God exists-joke debate

LOLWUT!Hey guess what everyone, mr heathen here hasn't touched any of my proof so I win, plus like I said before you'll go to hell if you vote con.more evidence:look at this picture:http://cdn.openculture.com... the sistine chapel. If God doesnt exist, and therefore couldn't sit for a portrait, how was this picture drawn, huh? Seriously its so obvious! Look at that picture! You cant have a picture of someone if you dont know what they look like!!!!!!Look at this as well: http://3.bp.blogspot.com... could this picture exist if jesus wasnt real? Game over, I win. Also, chuck norris beleives in God. Vote pro or he'll destroy you, then you'll go to hell. Vote Pro or burn in hell forever you heathen loving filth!!!!!
God exists-joke debate

Wow. First of all, my heathen, satan worshipping opponent is going to hell because he didnt use to opening round for acceptance. Also, if you believe anything any of his arguments say thats satan temtping you and you're going to hell. I would want to thank him for a good round, I would be lying and liars go to hell. I know that God exists because I went back in time via my time machine and met Jesus and watched him die on the cross. I video taped it but God took away my camera, the stupid jerk. I shouldnt have said that. I didnt mean it. Hopefully I wont go to hell. Oh well. Anyway, God took away my camera so as proof I'm going to say that I went back in time and witnessed my Opponents birth in London, England on June 17th 1983. He was born to a mother named josephine who was 24 at the time, and a father named Hanz who was 26. His grandfathers fought on opposite sides in the batttle of the Bulge. If he denies any of this, its because hes a filthy heathen liar. I was there. God exists. I know. Vote pro or go to hell. Also, I am a prophet from God. Heres some more proof of this: As you read this sentence, you will feel an itch somewhere on your body. I used my divine powers given from God to make that happen. Oh, and we know God exists because the bible says so. Now I'll take down the heathens stupid arguments. BTW when did we stop burning these people at the stake? seriously, since when is it ok to question God? Man, I hate secular people. If you disagree, go to hell. There is no proof that God existsyeah well there isnt any proof he doesnt exist either! !God is the reverse of dogdogs are mans best friends. this just supports my side. God loves us so he gave us dogs and named them after him. "Tom" in Tom and Jerry Cartoons always goes to hell no matter how nice he is to JerryTom is a cat. cats hate dogs. dogs ar supreme beings sent from God. Thats why he goes to hell.
God exists-joke debate

Okay, I found this when I was looking at your profile and the challenge just seemed too good to not grab it immediately while it was still out there. I will present my opening arguments here.Opening Arguments:There is no proof that God existsIf there was one supreme being why would people of different religions believe different things? Every religion has their own beliefs which clearly contradict those of other religions. God is the reverse of dogIf god is really supreme, why would he choose a name that is an anagram of "dog". I don't believe that a supreme being would want to be associated with an animal."Tom" in Tom and Jerry Cartoons always goes to hell no matter how nice he is to Jerry If god was supreme, he would have forgiven Tom at least once and let him go to heaven. Instead he sends Tom to a boiling pit in hell every single time.ConclusionThere is no god. period. Now I'm just bracing myself for the ad-hom.
The bible condemns gay sex

the comments issue is off topic and moot as con is yet to use the comments section to post sources. there is no apparent need to debate this. con says that showing a spot where the bible approves of gay sex proves that the bible doesn't condemn gay sex. this is not true. suppose the bible was only three vereses - 1. gay sex is condemned 2. gay sex is approved 3. bananas are yellow the bible would still have condemned gay sex, even though it approved of it one verse later. whether or not the bible approves of gay sex at some point is immaterial to whether or not the bible condemns gay sex. as I said before, even if we accept as true cons contention that the bible approves of a gay relationship, this doesn't mean that the bible didn't condemn gay sex. this would only show an inconsistency. con says that I have to show that the bible "outright" condemns gay sex. this isn't true either. all I have to show is that the bible condemns gay sex. con cites no source in his argument regarding the translation. so, con has either translated the words himself or has plagiarized. if the former, then there is no reason to accept cons translation over the dozens of ones provided in the biblehub.com links. those translations are more credible than cons because many Christian denominations use them and they were done professionally. if con plagiarized, then his argument shouldn't even be considered. con says that this argument is an ad hominem fallacy. it isn't. since con cites no source, the working assumption is that he did the work. his own expertise is relevant when determining whether or not to accept his translation as accurate. he is effectively a witness, and it's not fallacious to determine the credibility of a witness.
The bible condemns gay sex

That's a lot irrelivency in this previous round by my opponent, so I'll spend this round addressing it.Comments ContraversyI really don't care what F16 says. The Mods have come to a conclusion that if it is placed in the rules of the debate then it may be permitted. [1] Which of course I did so. SpecificityI appologize for this "semtantics" issue that is occuring, but I can easily play the same game to show that it is within the 5 Degrees of seperation and thus must still be concidered that in this debate and that it is still relivent. David and JonathanMy opponent completely dropps this argument here and simply reverts back to it's just the Bible being inconsistent. This is still a key part of the debate as I outlined in my wincon if I show that there's places where it is not condemned then I can win via that. Secondly, my opponent's part in this debate is to prove that the Bible outright condemns gay sex and I have shown in this one instant where not only does the Bible shows it, but he actually approves of it as it shows that if God disapproved of it, due to him being all knowing he wouldn't have gifted David. Hold this against my opponent as it is a key part in this debate.LeviticusMy opponent is incorrect here when we look to condemning both of these actions as it was targetting Kedoshim. We can see that the actual case in the translation is that it focuses on this Pagen religion and the actions of Kedoshim not Gay sex. [2] My opponent then uses an Ad Hom attack on me to throw out my argument on the basis that I'm not a reliable source, but of course I can the same thing about him. The issue with the Ad Hom Logical Falacy is that it doesn't refute the argument, but resorts to attacking the one who made the argument. This should not only be concidered a dropped argument, but a conduct deduction based on teh personal attack. Though, in order to refute the claim made by my opponent I would like to redirect your attention to my second source of where I found the translation. Mine should be prefered over most of which you'll find on the internet as the Torah, or the first 5 books of the Old Testiment, was orignially written in Hebrew, then Greek, then Latin, then to English (King James Version). This translation should be prefered as instead of going through all of those translations it goes straight from Hebrew to English.Sources1. (http://www.debate.org...) 2. Strong, J. (1996). The exhaustive concordance of the Bible: Showing every word of the text of the common English version of the canonical books, and every occurrence of each word in regular order. (electronic ed.). Ontario: Woodside Bible Fellowship.
The bible condemns gay sex

Re: Sources in the comments section / voting issues - Con can post whatever he wishes in the comments section, but what's posted in the comments section doesn't count. Voters should only consider what is said in the debate when deciding their votes. This is a general rule on voting that isn't waived by mere silence. Once I voted on a debate and I considered what was in the comments section when casting my vote. One of the debaters protested. So, I spoke with a moderator (F16) about this issue long ago, and his response was this: "You can't use anything outside the debate when casting your vote. In fact, ideally you shouldn't be reading the comments at all before you make your decision. Nothing besides what's in the debate should count." http://i.imgur.com... I subsequently modified my vote to be in compliance with that rule. Re: Specificity Con keeps referring to homosexuality and gay marriage. This debate is not about homosexuality or gay marriage. Rather, this debate about gay sex specifically. Re: Biblical approval of a homosexual romance Con asserts that if he can show a single instance where the bible approves of a gay relationship, then Con has shown that the bible does not condemn gay sex. Con is in error. Even if we accept as true Con's contention that the bible approved of a gay relationship, that doesn't mean that the bible didn't condemn gay sex. It would only mean that the bible is inconsistent. Re: Biblical condemnation of pagans Con asserts that, in the quoted passages from Leviticus, the bible was condemning the rites of pagan priests. Therefore, Con reasons, the bible did not condemn gay sex. Con is in error. Even if we accept as true Con's contention that the bible was condemning the rites of pagan priests in Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13, that doesn't mean that the bible did not condemn gay sex. The bible could easily have been condemning both the pagan rites and gay sex at the same time. In fact, there is no indication from Leviticus that the bible intended to condemn gay sex only as it relates to pagan rites. Re: Translation from Hebrew There is no indication that Con is a qualified expert on Hebrew translations of biblical passages. Additionally, there is an obvious conflict of interest here - If we allow Con to translate the passages then he will likely translate them in a manner which would benefit him. So, I urge the voters to disregard Con's translation and stick to the biblehub.com links I provided in the prior round for alternative translations that have been adopted by other versions of the bible.
The bible condemns gay sex

The bible condemns gay sex twice in the book of Leviticus at 18:22 and 20:13. Leviticus 18:22 - http://biblehub.com... "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable." Leviticus 20:13 - http://biblehub.com... "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." There are, of course, many different translated versions of the passages. Clicking the biblehub.com links will open a page that shows many of the different translations, which aren't substantially different in meaning from the ones I put forth here. I chose the New International Version translation simply because it was at the top of the web pages.
The bible condemns gay sex

Alright time to finish this debate up, but my opponent has broken the structure of it making it a bit hard to flow, so I will do my best to attempt to refute it how he did it point by point. My opponent states that what I have shown is not true, however this is a dropped argument as he has yet to refute it and since it is a dropped argument showing that it is approved in the Bible then I automatically win the debate on that ground alone. My opponent has yet to show and actually been able to defend holding the argument that another verse condemns homosexuality. I have refuted everything he has stated and due to that no verse would then condemn homosexuality which then again flows the debate into my favor as it shows that the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality.My opponent states that I have yet to show a source for this, but that is false since I gave it in my last two rounds. If you missed it here it is again. " Though, in order to refute the claim made by my opponent I would like to redirect your attention to my second source of where I found the translation. Mine should be prefered over most of which you'll find on the internet as the Torah, or the first 5 books of the Old Testiment, was orignially written in Hebrew, then Greek, then Latin, then to English (King James Version). This translation should be prefered as instead of going through all of those translations it goes straight from Hebrew to English." This was refering to source two. In case you missed that I'll post it in the bottom of this debate. [1]With that I have shown that the Bible doesn't condemn gay sex, but approves of it. This was dropped and conceded by my opponent.With that I thank you and please vote Con!Sources1. Strong, J. (1996). The exhaustive concordance of the Bible: Showing every word of the text of the common English version of the canonical books, and every occurrence of each word in regular order. (electronic ed.). Ontario: Woodside Bible Fellowship.
retardation of ddo..

FUUUCK you people are retards... what the FUCCCCK do yo need sources for.. are you that mentally handicapped? that you need some one to tell you what you already well already fuckinggg know you denying self deluding cluster stink blob and whate about votes... what the FUUUCk is up with your mental handicap... AND 5 ROUNDS... DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND IT IS POINTLESS TO ARGUE IF YOU CANT GET TO THE OTHER PERSONS POSITIONS.. GET THE FUUUUUUCK OF THIS WEBISITE AND GO TO FACEBOOK OR TETRIS THE FUUUCK YOU WASTE EVERYONES TIME FOR and what do you think the rules are for... ok first round acceptance.. last round not reallt a point to write anything there.. 3 rounds.. thats it, thats what it takes for you to get on this website and copy paste yourself into proven oblivion.. what the fuckkk it took me a few months to get smarter than all scientists on the planet... how come? why is that? do you just not give a fuuuck? biggest FUUUCk to the person that came to any near vacinity of accepting the idea of 5 rounds... holyshit you are dense