BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I am a noob.

"Thats pretty much the definition of semantics and it appears that's exactly how your trying to win this debate. " My opponent is clearly wrong. I am simply providing reasoning and facts as to why I do not qualify as a noob. My opponent does not make any argumentation from his statement. First Point: Once again, my opponent does not make a clear argument as to why I would be considered a noob. Just because I have participated in several debates with relatively new members on this site does not mean I am a noob. Once again, my opponent does not provide relevent arguments to the topic at hand. 10 Minutes: My opponent, once again, does not make any argumentation in reference to this point. I made the debate ten minutes to challenge myself and my opponent. My opponent has not provided solid argumentation as to why I would qualify as a noob. I have countered his "contentions" and feel the victor of this debate is pretty clear. Thank you.
I am a noob.

I am not a noob on this site because I have been on it for several months, have participated in over forty debates, and am active in the forums and the debates of others. Thats pretty much the definition of semantics and it appears that's exactly how your trying to win this debate First Point: You brought up the link where i called you a noob but it clearly wasn't under the pretext that i was calling you one because you weren't here long enough it was because you were making beginners mistakes but because the way you phrased your opening statement its not possible for me to defend my remarks, because you've distorted them "Posting a debate with a response time of ten minutes does not qualify me as being a noob. Once again, my opponent does not provide a real argument. " If i had more than 10 mins to respond i assure you that would not have happened.
I am a noob.

My opponent's opening sentence does not provide real evidence as to why I am a noob. I am not a noob on this site because I have been on it for several months, have participated in over forty debates, and am active in the forums and the debates of others. Posting a debate with a response time of ten minutes does not qualify me as being a noob. Once again, my opponent does not provide a real argument. My opponent states most of my debates are won by semantics, but has failed to even make an argument from that. His sources is for a debate in which I did not even participate in. I am not a noob. Resolution negated.
I"m Pro-choice, tell me why you aren"t

"Actually, scientists have not been able to agree on when a fetus is considered a human-being. Something having chromosomes is not equivalent to person hood." The claim that a fetus is a human being is not an opinion, but a fact and one that's backed up by scientific evidence. Person is a legal term. Unfortunately a fetus is not a person, but they should be because they are a scientific human. "You also may be surprised to learn that state and federal taxes contribute to over $4 billion dollars annually on the foster care system" Can you cite this? You said that a woman setting up a child for adoption is hard. How? With few exceptions if any, kids don't get messed up in the system. According to http://www.adopt.org..., it states that over 94% of kids who get set up for adoption get adopted within 4 years. I imagine they all get adopted within 7 years. Not only that, but since adoption costs a lot of money, this may sound like a negative but in reality, it means that only rich people are adopting. In conclusion, over 94% of kids who get set up for adoption get adopted and they get adopted to relatively well off families who want to adopt. How's adoption bad? Any that don't get adopted in that one fiscal year carry over to the next year. My theory on this is that the foster system gets their money from kids being adopted since it costs lots of money to adopt from the foster system. "Some women have disorders and they would have to cease taking medication in order to carry a fetus to term. There are many reasons a woman will choose to have an abortion and it's not the governments job to ban her from doing so." They might be able to live their drug addict lifestyle anyway, but that's a digression. If they planned to set a kid up for adoption and they don't want to anymore, then why would they change their minds? "Another thing I would like to point out on this subject is that over turning Roe vs Wade will not eliminate or likely substantially decrease abortion." Yes it will. When abortion became legal in 1973, the abortion rate skyrocketed. It then fell down due to contraception control, which I support and so do 80% of Republicans. "The countries where abortion is outlawed have a higher rate of abortion than countries where it is legal." It's comparable and due to other factors, like Conception control. In overturning Roe vs Wade, illegal abortions will increase and place women at risk. "There also is the issue on how to criminalize abortion and how to defer a miscarriage from an abortion." Women should get punished for abortions. Once abortion becomes classified as murder, then it should be treated like murder. Anyone who commits an abortion when it is illegal should get punished like a murderer. "Evidence has shown that the answer to greatly reducing abortion rates is access to affordable birth control and adequate sex education, not banning it." I don't want to ban condoms or sex ed classes. I want abstinence to be encouraged but IUDs and condoms to be a last resort. Also, people should pay for their own conception control.
I"m Pro-choice, tell me why you aren"t

Actually, scientists have not been able to agree on when a fetus is considered a human-being. Something having chromosomes is not equivalent to personhood. The arguments on when "life begins" varies greatly depending on who you"re speaking to: some argue that life starts at conception, some argue that even wasting sperm is equivalent to throwing away life, some argue that it is when the fetus develops a heartbeat, some argue it is when a fetus can feel pain, some argue that it is when the fetal brain activity exhibits regular wave patterns (25 weeks), etc. My point being, there is no final consensus on when a fetus is considered a person and therefore a fetus does not carry rights over the woman"s choice if she wants to carry the fetus to term. You also may be surprised to learn that state and federal taxes contribute to over $4 billion dollars annually on the foster care system. There are currently over 400,000 children in and out of the foster care system. You are saying that if a woman doesn"t want to take care of a child she can just set it up for adoption, but in reality it"s not that simple. The first concern is that the US is one of the most expensive places in the world to give birth. It costs an estimated $10,000-15,000 for a childbirth with no complications. Secondly, some women who choose abortion are alcoholics, drug addicts, etc. You think they are going to discontinue their lifestyle in order to nurture a child they do not want? Some women have disorders and they would have to cease taking medication in order to carry a fetus to term. There are many reasons a woman will choose to have an abortion and it"s not the governments job to ban her from doing so. Most women who carry a fetus to term do not give their child up for adoption, even if that was initially the plan. There are many cases where women backed out of an adoption planned 6 months earlier immediately after giving birth. Therefore, adoption is not a reasonable alternative. The majority of women who have abortions are under or near the poverty line and are single mothers, if you don"t encourage paying higher taxes going towards welfare, are you really pro life or are you just pro birth? Another thing I would like to point out on this subject is that over turning Roe vs Wade will not eliminate or likely substantially decrease abortion. The countries where abortion is outlawed have a higher rate of abortion than countries where it is legal. In overturning Roe vs Wade, illegal abortions will increase and place women at risk. There also is the issue on how to criminalize abortion and how to defer a miscarriage from an abortion. For example, there have been multiple women in El Salvador who are serving 15 years in prison over a miscarriage that was falsely deemed an abortion. Evidence has shown that the answer to greatly reducing abortion rates is access to affordable birth control and adequate sex education, not banning it.
I"m Pro-choice, tell me why you aren"t

I'm pro life because science confirms that a fetus is a human being. Science says that a fetus, even a zygote has all the necessary chromosomes to be alive and they meet all the necessary criteria to be alive. This is why I want Roe v Wade overturned. "do you support a higher percentage of our taxes going towards welfare?" No. If a woman does not want to take care of a child, she can set the kid up for adoption. I don't think the foster system uses tax dollars because they get the money by other ways.
I"m Pro-choice, tell me why you aren"t

I"ve been seeing a lot of "pro-life" people on my facebook friends lately. They argue that abortion is murder and tend to post pictures that I would consider propaganda because they do not accurately portray what the fetus looks like in its stages. I can honestly probably list one hundred reasons why I am pro-choice, but I am insterested to debate with someone who feels otherwise, as most people I debate with on this subject have no intention on an open dialogue. I can understand someone being against abortion in the sense that they would never choose one for themselves/partner, however I have a hard time understanding someone wanting to overturn Roe vs Wade and make abortion illegal, I struggle to understand how someone would want to take away a woman"s right to choose, & if you are for that: do you support a higher percentage of our taxes going towards welfare?
One direction is the best boy band

Being good looking doesn't make them good at what they do. Plus you listen to a band that's good at making music, you don't listen because they make bad music. If you like their rip offs, listen to the songs they ripped it off, I can assure you that you would end up liking those more than 1D. I used to like them, but then I started listening to more bands that actually worked hard at their music and it really does make a difference.
One direction is the best boy band

Thanks for your input. I would have to say I agree with you that a lot of their songs are rip offs of other ones but besides that they're still good songs with good beats and rythims and with lyrics that don't degrade or demean women but make us feel good about our selves. They also have amazing voices and don't use any recordings in concert. Along with that they're extremely nice,kind and loving boys who really care about their fans and other people and haven't let their fame affect them negitivley but instead are using it to help others. They've donated almost a million dollars to kids in Ghana with anemia and Malaria and lots to cancer research ecc. They also write a lot of their own music unlike some people who have old men in la write and produce every thing. I would argue that they are the best boy band in the world.
One direction is the best boy band

If you look through the boys just with the media lens that definitely the seem like a bunch of guys that I would possibly hang out with. Here's the thing though you claim that this is the best boy band, not the most nice boy band. If look in terms of just their music, then 1D are far from being even a good boy band. All their songs are just old pop rock songs from the earlier decades with some added beats and synths. For instance, take a look at Best Song Ever. It is a complete rip off from the Who's Baba O'Reily, that of which is possibly their biggest song. Not to mention and Live While We're Young was taken from a song made by The Clash, and What Makes You Beautiful was taken from Summer Nights which is a song from Grease. As a fan you should honestly feel pretty insulted by the constant acts of plagiarism these guys made, even though they're very good looking.
One direction is the best boy band

I agree that they're most popular, as experts say that they might be the first billion dollar boy band (they are not right now). And you're right, the Beatles don't constitute to as a boy band but that still doesn't make 1D the best. A boy band is a group of male vocal singers and if you want to talk about vocals well even 1D don't do so well. The guys can do just fine on their own but together nothing really happens, nothing magical anyway. Boybands that are actually good are like: 1. Jackson 5 (yes they were a boy band) 2. Boys II Men 3. Backstreet Boys Vocally these guys can really harmonize and work together well. 1D simply just sing together. Like one part goes to Niall and the Zayn takes that... It isn't really singing like a real vocal group. Even Little Mix (the girl group that Zayn's fianc" is in) does a better job at singing together than 1D. And to just talk about your argument that 1D are the best boy band because they don't use derogatory language to woman...EVERY BOY BAND DOES THAT! THAT'S HOW THEY MAKE MONEY! They make songs about girls being beautiful to touch those who are insecure and take as much money from your wallet as possible.
Debate.org shouldn't require 3 debates to vote

Why would Debate.org want individuals who are not here to debate? What makes you think you are qualified to judge my debate if you've never debated before on this site. If you aren't willing to put the effort into debating why would I logically expect you to put the effort to reading my debate and judge it unbiasedly? You won't, you'll simply vote on it as if it was an opinion poll and not by the merits of the debate.Debate.org is looking for quality, not quantity. We're happy that individuals who have no interest in debating do not join this site or vote on others debates. These are debates not opinion polls. Those who aren't here to debate and engage in intellectual discussion should not have the ability to vote.Those who create meaningless debates such as this one to bypass this system will be banned and have their votes deleted. I am also reporting this debate so it is permanently deleted. I urge voters not to vote on it and to report it in kind.
Genetically Modified Food Pro

According to the website http://www.csa.com...state that genetically modified foods are able to stand longer time periods ofdroughts or high salt concentrations in the soil. Genetically modified foodshelp stable one diet because on the labels it states that the ingredients thatare used to make the food lack certain ingredients causing them to behealthier. Unexpected frosts can destroy the seeds or crops. The geneticallymodified organisms carry an antifreeze gene allowing the crop to be resistantand tolerate the cold in order to survive (CSA). These crops having the ingredientsin them cause the shelf life to be longer than other foods that are on theshelves at food stores.
Genetically Modified Food Pro

Are these GMO foods safer for the environment? Cross pollination; pollen from GMO plants can spread and affect other plants to make super weeds. (classes.soe.ucsc.edu) Roundup ready soy fields require an average of 3X as much round up. Insects are becoming resistant to the BT gene inserted into corn and cotton in order to kill off pesticides; which is meaning that farmers can still lose their crops.(classes.soe.ucsc.edu)
Genetically Modified Food Pro

The majority of the foods in the United States are genetically modified. 60% to 70%of foods in the US have genetically modified ingredients in them according tothe WebMD. Foods that have modified ingredients in them are soybeans, corn,cotton, and rapeseed oil are the most common foods. All parts of baby food aregenetically modified so you have been eating genetically modified foods eversince you were born. http://www.webmd.com...
Genetically Modified Food Pro

Genetically modified foods are safer than ordinary conventional foods or even organic foods(agbioworld). Research from the following site http://agbioworld.org...states that the foods do not pose a threat or cause any harm to humans oranimals due to the fact that the ingredients in genetically modified foods areable fight off diseases and pesticides causing the foods to be safer. Geneticallymodified foods have also been around for 10,000 years and in these yearsstudies show that there have been no deaths from these types of GMOs.
Genetically Modified Food Pro

New diseases Viruses and bacteria are used in the process of modifying foods can cause new disease. (sympotomfind.com). With the new diseases becoming because of these GMOs then there will be a harder time finding the cure. Unknown effects on human health; a person deserves to know what is being put into their body instead of hiding what is going in them. (csa.com) The least these companies that are making GMOs can do is put it on the nutrition label; which they do not do.
Genetically Modified Food Pro

Genetically modified foods have nutrition benefits which provide greater nutritional valuefor those individuals who eat it. According to the HSF (Health ResearchFunding) genetically modified foods help keep one healthy and able to maintain theirbody health due to the ingredients in the types of foods (HSF). The ingredientsare also able to enhance certain foods such as peppers in making them spicierand corn to come out sweeter. http://healthresearchfunding.org...
Genetically Modified Food Pro

Genetically modified foods are dangerous due to allergic reactions and can cause potential intestain damge. There is no economical value. GMO foods take just as long to mature and just as musch effort to make.(healthresearchfunding.org) The EU (European union) position: organic is better and safer to eat due to no unknown ingriedents.(webmd.com) Allergens and toxins: some genetically modified foods may contain higher levels of allergens and toxins which are very harmful and negitive on the human body.(Sympotomfind.com)
Genetically Modified Food Pro

Genetically modified food provides better resistance. The chemicals in the gentically modified food is resistant to weeds, pests, and diseases that can affect the food. (GMO Benefits) According to GMO Benefits website it states that it creates better use of land and less uses of pesticides. For my point the modified food tastes better and has a longer life span. By having a longer life span this will allow people to have better reliance on the foods because they will not spoil as easily. http://classes.soe.ucsc.edu...;
Education is Development of the person

You previously stated that, "Schools need to stop focusing on development of their students' character and only focus on development of their shared knowledge." This is not true because Freire argues against the banking concept of education, which is what schools actually do. Schools do not necessarily focus on the development of their students, they focus on depositing knowledge into them. What is happening in school systems is a teacher-student dichotomy. The students are viewed as being empty vessels that are in need of being filled with knowledge rather than being active learners, which makes the teacher the oppressor. The student's pre-existing knowledge is ignored because they are passive students who only get knowledge deposited into them, which is considered to be teacher centric learning. Freire states, "Education thus becomes an act of depositing, in which the students are the depositories and the teacher is the depositor. Instead of communicating, the teacher issues communiques and makes deposits which the students patiently receive, memorize, and repeat. This is the "banking concept of education, in which the scope of action allowed to the students extends only as far as receiving, filing, and storing the deposits." (1.5) Indeed schools should focus on students' shared knowledge because that is the basis of literacy and a factor in the development of the person. Being literate and educated is development of the person because it helps people not only understand the world, but also understand themselves and who they are in this world. Understanding one"s self is what development of the person is. With this understanding, people are able to make logical decisions, think rationally, and so on. This is why education is development of the person. For instance, how can one vote and without being knowledgeable about whom they are voting for? In order to have a just society, people need to be literate in order to understand the world and many issues in the world. All of this education that is need is important for change in the world and vastly important for the development of the person.
Education is Development of the person

You say that "Education can profoundly develop one"s character". This desire to use education to develop people"s character is what is weakening the education system and causing there to be a lack of shared knowledge. Many people have decided to make one of education"s goals the development of an individual"s character. This is seen when Hirsch discusses the cafeteria style education. Schools try to tailor their curriculum to each individual"s personality to help stimulate their character development. This has left a disjointed population that no longer has a shared knowledge. The education one individual gets is different from the one another gets. When there is a lack of shared knowledge communication amongst people because impossible and futile. This shared knowledge can only be obtained in school. Schools need to stop focusing on development of their students" character and only focus on development of their shared knowledge. Their character can be developed through other means and do not have to fear that it will be stifled if they do not develop it in school.
Education is Development of the person

You stated that, "The purpose of education is not development of character but the development and expansion of one's knowledge." Education can profoundly develop one's character, however I did not imply that it was the only thing develops one's character. Education is an immense part of a human being"s life. Education is in an individual's life from the age of five or even younger to a grown, young adult, which therefore makes education an immense component to one"s development. Through the education of factual and traditional materials, as Hirsch proposes, individuals are able to run a smooth society, which all factors in to their development. This is solely because in order to run a smooth society, education is the basis to a smoothly run society. One's character development comes from education because when educated and knowledgeable, there is understanding of the world and its complexities and contradictions.
Education is Development of the person

The purpose of education is not development of character but the development and expansion of one"s knowledge. Hirsh has also stated that "the chief function of literacy is to make us masters of this standard instrument of knowledge and communication, thereby enabling us to give and receive complex information orally and writing over time and space" (2.2). You stated that "Hirsch, an American educator, advocates that universal literacy is a necessity in life because it leads to effective communication". Education leads to effective communication not because it has developed people"s character but because it has developed their knowledge and has given them a shared collective group of information. Ones character can be developed by means outside of the classroom and the education system, however the shared knowledge that one needs to effectively communicate with others can not be learned out side the classroom, and therefore the chief goal of education should be to develop this knowledge. A person"s character development should only be secondary.