BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
does the UK and US education systems need a full review and overhaul

What I meant was that the school system is a representation of future society and democracy for children. The basis's of democracy are as follows: every citizen has certain basic rights that the state cannot take away from them. These rights are internationally recognized and guaranteed. Everyone has the right to have their own beliefs, including their religious beliefs, and to say and write what they think. Everyone has the right to seek different sources of information and ideas. Everyone has the right to associate with other people, and to form and join organizations of their own choice, including trade unions. Everyone has the right to assemble and to protest government actions. However, citizens have an obligation to exercise these rights peacefully, with respect for the law and for the rights of others. https://web.stanford.edu... these are the absolute opposite of the school system, where there are harsh penalties for 'assembling and peacefully protesting' and there are often tight restrictions on 'forming and joining organisations'. this often restricts children from learning about the real world.
does the UK and US education systems need a full review and overhaul

What is a need?In the context of this debate, what is a need? Is it an urge, is it an undeniable warrant? Pro has left this undefined and it is one of the flaws in the resolution itself that makes it near impossible to uphold. Can education itself need something or can the clients of it need it instead? Only a person or being can need something as far as I am aware and Pro has yet to explain how the unconscious, inanimate facility that is education can possibly need something in the first place.What is an overhaul?An overhaul is not simply making slight amendments to the current education system. It would be entirely recalibrating how education is delivered and who is doing the delivering to who as well as when is it all done. Pro has merely suggested sorting out the school dinners (which packed lunch is a viable alternative for) and to essentially make mathematics calculator-based only. The issue is that there is already calculator examinations for mathematics and students do not really find them all that easy as far as I am aware.I await Pro's response.
does the UK and US education systems need a full review and overhaul

my argument is that the education system need a complete overhaul, because it teaches us nearly nothing useful after year 8. (i'm not sure what that is in america but I wouldn't learn it at school) Everything becomes exam based rather than real world based. if you had to do a complex math sum you wouldn't sit for ages doing it on a piece of paper, you would get out your phone or a calculator and do it that way because it takes half as long and there are no errors. Kids are told to put their phones away then told to do research on a hopelessly outdated computer. school food is worse than prison food, and there is more security than you would find in a prison. We are taught mark schemes instead of science, and caused unnecessary stress by being told that a test to determine the teacher's teaching skills is as important to us as a GCSE. in math we are taught the things that a calculator is supposed to do. the system needs to catch up with the technology, we are not in the 1920's.
Abortion within the first 20 weeks of pregnancy is morally acceptable.

Definitions Abortion: The termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus. (Merriam-Webster) Morality: A code of conduct put forward by a society. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) Used to determine right and wrong. Morally acceptable: Permitted by morality. Fetus: A human child at or before week 20 after conception, assuming a normal growth rate. (my own definition) ========================================== Contention 1: Fetuses are not conscious, nor do they have emotions. A child does not become conscious until around week 26 [1] and does not become able to feel pain until week 30 [2]; emotions come even later. No being without consciousness deserves the right to life: unconscious beings have no desires or emotions. Beings capable of suffering are more questionable, but fetuses still are incapable of suffering. This contention can be empirically supported by looking at what beings are socially acceptable to kill: -Plants, which possess no consciousness and yet are more complex than many animals, are never considered to have the right to life. We act as though we own them and have complete domain over them. We even genetically modify [3] and mass produce them, and no one cares about their rights. So according to society, plants have no rights. -Bugs have limited consciousness, and we do not consider their individual rights any more than plants. We kill them all the time [4]. -Birds and mammals have more consciousness, and their rights are questionable. Some believe that birds and mammals deserve more rights [5], while others do not. These animals are capable of emotions and can feel pain; but still, some do not believe that they deserve fundamental rights, such as those that test potentially harmful drugs on rats and guinea pigs. =========================== Contention 2: Fetuses rely on their mother. Fetuses are completely dependent on their mothers for survival until about 5 months after conception [6]. Their mothers provide them with nutrients and even oxygen. They could not survive on their own; in essence, the fetus is part of the mother's body. Body parts have no rights, and a being is domain over its own body. Mothers can do as they choose with non-viable fetuses. ======================== Contention 3: Fetuses are not rational. True human rights are bestowed upon rational and self-aware beings such as humans. Rational beings can logically deduce that they wish to continue living. Rationality allows them to reach beyond previous mental boundaries and consider abstract concepts such as pain and death. But fetuses are incapable of rationality. They cannot contemplate their own mortality. They do not have a rational desire to continue living. They do not deserve the right to life. Sources [1] http://www.religioustolerance.org... [2] http://www.religioustolerance.org... [3] http://bioenergy.asu.edu... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] http://www.peta.org... [6] http://www.ppacca.org...
Abortion within the first 20 weeks of pregnancy is morally acceptable.

My opponent is attempting to make his case based on a semantical argument. He is using an unconventional definition of "society", and I recommend that his definition not be accepted. However, even if we did assume that society refers to my opponent's personal society, I can still make a very strong case with a single point: every person in 'society' has "unlimited freedome [sic]"; therefore, abortion is morally acceptable. Resolution affirmed. However, I will now argue that my opponent's definition of "society" is inadequate. It is highly unconventional; society typically refers to what is sometimes called 'Western society'; that is, the collection of people and ideals throughout most of the western world. Merriam-Webster defines society as "a: an enduring and cooperating social group whose members have developed organized patterns of relationships through interaction with one another b: a community, nation, or broad grouping of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests. " This is a more adequate definition by a widely known dictionary. Thefreedictionary. com, run by the American Heritage Dictionary, defines society as "a. The totality of social relationships among humans. " This definition, while different, is also a good one. Either of these definitions -- by respectable organizations, may I add -- provides a more than adequate basis for my round one contentions.
Abortion within the first 20 weeks of pregnancy is morally acceptable.

Regardless on with the debate :D -->: My opponent defines morality "Morality: A code of conduct put forward by a society. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) Used to determine right and wrong. Morally acceptable: Permitted by morality. ". But unfortuantely my opponent does no make clear which societies this debate will consern it self with. I am a member of a society, one which consists of me and some close friends (hypethetical or not lets consider I have friends), me and my friends beleive in one golden idea: We have unlimited freedome. To us it is morally permissable that one amongst us murders another. Insidentally it is also permissable to any individual to abort a child so long as the child concieved will not be of a certain race (human). In the case that the child to be concieved is human the individual willing to have an abortion must not brush thier theeth after 2 am on thursdays for twenty two days . To us it is morrally unacceptable to persue an abortion of a human child, if the child to be concieved, however is not human it is morraly permisable to abort whenever one pleases. (after 20 weeks for instance).
Barack Obama has been a harmful president

Ok closing statements and final points. Please do not bring up new points in the final round as I will not be able to rebut them. I can deal with your rebuttals on abortion rates and Bin Laden"s death, although again, he didn"t play a huge role. But your comments on Ben Carson are absolutely outrageous. He is the FIRST person ever to separate conjoined twins at the head successfully, and you call him STUPID? Just because he says one offhand remark that is not correct (although in some cases could be right), does that give you the right to label him stupid and discredit his amazing accomplishments? I don"t think so. "Star Parker is a Republican, so of course she's going to try and discredit Obama." Wow. Great rebuttal. Discredit whatever someone says just because of their political affiliation. Those are some quality debating skills there. So back to foreign policy, it all comes down to one question: Do you think the world is a better, safer place now towards the end of Obama"s presidency than before he took office? The easy, and obvious answer is clearly no. He has wrecked our relations with Israel, his blatant disregard for Benjamin Netanyahu is evidence of that. His foolish withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan went against the advice of nearly all military leaders, and were a disaster as I stated in my previous argument. So, at the end of your previous argument you posted: "Huh. I have 3,683 characters remaining. Last argument, I literally used up every single one of my characters. I don't quite know what to do with the rest of them." Let me give you a few ideas: You have still failed to address Obama"s massive debt acclimation and his awful economy. You have repeatedly avoided discussing his Illegal Executive orders. You have failed to address his failed foreign policy actions like the Iraq/Iran pullout. In conclusion, Obama has transformed the nation and the world just like he promised. He has expanded Big Government , doubled the national debt, disregarded the Constitution and let the world dissolve into chaos. Thank you for the debate and once again, I would be happy to debate any of these topics in full with you.
Poachers are the Worst

People say that terrorism is terrible. I completely agree. But poaching is much worse. Why? Well, terrorism kills people. But poaching kills the Earth. We live on the Earth and want it to be clean and safe for life. But that's not happening. We're destroying our Earth without realizing it. WHy? Poaching. Poaching kills animals. WIthout animals, plants don't thrive. Without plants, our farms won't thrive. Without that, every thing that we know on Earth is GONE. G. O. N. E. Gone. That's because of poaching. Ronak S. Comments? www.goanimals.org
cheerleading is a sport

okay.. this will be short because it is very easy to put the point across. CHEERLEADING IS A SPORT. so apparently sports that have balls in it are sports. cause that makes plenty sense. okay first of all we run around like a crazy ex girlfriend around the mat throwing 100 pound girls up in the air. and we take there other leg and put it in an extension coming down screaming at the top of our breaths. and making sure your all going in sync. so say it's not a sport I dare you. AND CHEERLEADING IS NOT SEXIST and stop being so stereotypical, saying that we strut around with nothing on. cause we don't. and we are not dumb for your info.
Instrument jokes

How is lightning like a violist's fingers? Neither one strikes in the same place twice. We all know that a viola is better than a violin because it burns longer. But why does it burn longer? It's usually still in the case. How do you get a viola section to play spiccato? Write a whole note with "solo" above it. How do you get a violist to play a passage pianissimo tremolando? Mark it "solo." What's the difference between a viola and a coffin? The coffin has the dead person on the inside. What do you do with a dead violist? Move him back a desk. What's the difference between a viola and a trampoline? You take your shoes off to jump on a trampoline. What's the difference between a viola and an onion? No one cries when you cut up a viola. A conductor and a violist are standing in the middle of the road. which one do you run over first, and why? The conductor. Business before pleasure. If you're lost in the desert, what do you aim for? A good viola player, a bad viola player or an oasis? The bad viola player. The other two are only figments of your imagination.
Instrument jokes

A double bass player arrived a few minutes late for the first rehearsal of the local choral society's annual performance of Handel's Messiah. He picked up his instrument and bow, and turned his attention to the conductor. The conductor asked, "Would you like a moment to tune?" The bass player replied with some surprise, "Why? Isn't it the same as last year?" Lute players spend half their time tuning their instrument and the other half playing out of tune. Why are harps like elderly parents? Both are unforgiving and hard to get into and out of cars. How long does a harp stay in tune? About 20 minutes, or until someone opens a door. Why should you never try to drive a roof nail with a violin? You might bend the nail. String players' motto: "It's better to be sharp than out of tune." Why are viola jokes so short? So violinists can understand them.
The USA is Europe's greatest ally.

Thank you for debating and for your point of view. The combination of the US and Asia is also powerful, but it's not as successful as the one with Europe. I believe that the US government knows not to favor or attack a European country. However, all, if not most, of European countries are allies with each other. The people may not like one another, but there's a huge difference between not liking them and being allies. The same could also go for Asia and the US, If the US helps Japan for example, North Korea might get mad or something.
The USA is Europe's greatest ally.

The USA is as much as Europe's greatest ally as the US is with Asia. Also, being that Russia is a part of Europe, we have had the Cold War ( and the Cold Threat) happen in the last few decades. European counties:http://en.wikipedia.org... Another point that I need to include is that Europe has a lot of different governments and cultures in it. A democracy could conflict in the future of a monarchy. Also, it would be very hard to make a strong alliance with a continent who has other countries, all different, that might be at war. For example, the Russo-Georgian War, took place in 2008. Another current war in Europe is the "War in Donbass", where the Russians are invading Ukraine. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... If the US were to try and intervene between a war Europe is having, I'm very sure that some European countries are allies with others, and if the US were to help one country invade, other countries might get mad. Also, if the US weren't helping when they needed help invading, that country might get mad at the US. This is my opening statement. Thank You, this is a very good topic.
The USA is Europe's greatest ally.

The USA is Europe's greatest ally, and it will continue to be their greatest ally for a very long period of time. I don't believe this because I'm a proud American, but because many of studies and even some presidents of European countries have said it themselves. For example, Chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel has said "The United States of America is Germany's most important and powerful ally." (http://en.wikipedia.org...) Both Europe and the US has the strongest military in the world. Putting them together as allies, doubling the amount of power and success, leaves them close to impossible to be defeated. Despite their differences in history, culture, language, and politics, they are the greatest allies the world has seen so far.
Human cloning

"while it would be great just to send clones into battle it breaks the meaning of life" So if you send a willing human being into battle then that also breaks the meaning of life, as I said per first paragraph all clones have the option to back out, humans willingly throw themselves in battle, this does not mean we are breaking the meaning of life. " As you said they have rights but if we are just using them to send into battle, or any of the other things you stated, then what rights would they have. They would be used as slaves no less. Its morally wrong and it destroys, the point of a lot of life." As you still understand that we still send our very own brothers and sisters into battle, does that make them slaves? No, they willingly joined, as the clones have the option to do. It is not morally wrong when we send our own into battle is it? Also you may have a different outlook on the meaning of life. As overpopulation happens because we clone, like I stated previously we would have technologically advanced clones who may one day solve our problems, if not, then we can always put a limit on our clones. If human rights are given to clones they will not become slaves, but instead become part of society.
Human cloning

While I agree with you on lot of this subject. It defeats the point of being a individual. And while it would be great just to send clones into battle it breaks the meaning of life then. As you said they have rights but if we are just using them to send into battle, or any of the other things you stated, then what rights would they have. They would be used as slaves no less. Its morally wrong and it destroys, the point of a lot of life. It would lead to people just sending their clone to work, school, whatever it maybe, then that clone would see the privileges that we would have from having them and they would go out and get their own clones. So we would just all eventually over populate the world with clones. So while the idea is great you have to take into play that there a loads of flaws that would happen.
Human cloning

Lets get into it, I wish my fellow debater good luck. Ok going into the debate quickly, I would like to first point out that human cloning is not unmoral, and all ideas that I provide, the clone will have human rights, and per his/her rights they will be provided the freedom to walk out at any time. Pros: Infertility could be eliminated. As we know there are families out there that cannot have a baby, and some of those families don"t have the funds to adopt (as adopting costs money) but do have the funds to keep a family from falling apart. With cloning, a mother or father could raise an exact replica of them and be perfectly happy with the family that they are raising. Hundreds of families would be happy to have a cloned baby to raise and protect and love. http://healthresearchfunding.org... Military- as repulsing as this sounds to others, please refer to my first paragraph on how clones will have human rights, by raising clones to fight safely, we could have an exceptional fighting force, one that could keep us safe from threatening countries. We can also clone humans to replace those who have fallen in battle, keeping our military force at a promising number. http://www.humancloning.org... Technology advances- By cloning humans and raising them as a genius, and in turn they would hopefully raise the next clone, as time goes on our technology would advance triple fold. Questions that are pondered today would be answered tomorrow, and questions pondered tomorrow would be answered the next day, so on and so forth until we as humans are able to search the universe in the blink of an eye in a year. This is seen as we have cloned dogs to become more technically advanced. "replicate exceptional dogs with "high societal value" such as seeing-eye dogs and search-and-rescue dogs in order to increase the chances of producing similar dogs with high intelligence, sensitivity and temperament" http://serendip.brynmawr.edu... As a result cloning is not as repulsive as it sounds, and it can help us if we clone properly. Thank you for reading, I look forward to a great debate.
Human cloning

While I disagree with human cloning I believe there would be upsides. If it would be an exact copy of you then you would be able to possibly use the organs of the clone, being that it is technically your organs also. Though then you get into, would the clones be considered humans also and would they be given rights as a being, or would they be classified as some other species. I actually have read a book that had dealt with the fact that the beings in the different civilizations were all just clones, and when the clones reached the right age they were cloned. So while cloning has its upsides. Just as every kids dream of send their clone to school, using them as a source of replacement organs, or even if you pass away have your memories transferred so you can still be with your family, but then you would be deeming immortality.
Team Debate: Ban Violent Sports

I hope my teammate will help me with this debate as well. Definitions: Ban: to say something cannot be used or done (. http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Violent: using or involving the use of physical force to cause harm or damage to someone or something ( . http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Sports: all forms of usually competitive physical activity or games which,[1] through casual or organised participation, aim to use, maintain or improve physical ability and skills while providing entertainment to participants, and in some cases, spectators. (. https://en.wikipedia.org...)
Team Debate: Ban Violent Sports

The debate will start at Feburary 25th. Remeber, that does not mean that you start to construct your arguments at the 25th, it just means that we start the debate, so you can construct your arguments and proofread them all times.Because someone accepted this, I will make it clear. Debate impossible to accept. If you accept without my permission: You lose the debate, and automatically forfeit the whole debate to me. Wishing to accept, apply in comments. I am not letting someone will forfeit accept this debate. This will be a team debate.Team DebatePro1. yomama122. LostintheEcho1498 Con1. Fire_wings2. Hayd Resolution: Ban Violent Sports (Boxing)Rules1. No forfeiting, automatic loss2. No trolling3. No kritiks4. BoP is on Pro5. Definitons are arguable.6. Over 2500 ELO to voteStructure1. Rules/ Arguments2. Arguments/ Rebuttals3. Rebuttals/ Defense4. Defense/ WaivePro will make the definitons.Comment wanting to be my partner, or wanting to be my opponent.I want 5 judges, who are good at voting to vote on this debate. If you want to judge, tell me, and the people who want to judge, I will choose 5 people out of them to pick who should judge the debate.1. Famousdebater2. ColeTrain3. JOHNCENA17384. dynamicduodebaters5. Probably donald.keller or whiteflame.Thanks. My opponent will be yomama12