BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Huckleberry Finn should be banned from High Schools.

Thesis: I think that Huck Finn is a classic piece of American literature, and shows the outright ignorance of the pre-Civil War South. When taken in a historical context, and when one understands the mindset of the author, Mark Twain, the book is, cover to cover, a complete satire of bigotry. I'll let my opponent make the first official argument. Please be civil. I look forward to a response.
Skateboarding should be banned

Hello. My name is Keenan Harris. Before I start my debate I would like to thank my opponent for taking time out of his/her day to debate me, and I would like to thank the judges for taking time out of their day to read this debate and make intelligent decisions on who should, or should not be, the winner. It is because of you that Debate.org functions. Now onto my debate. Skateboarding should be banned. After you think about it, this statement couldn't seem any more true. As we all know, Urban Skateboarding, especially on handrails and curbs, causes irreversible damage to the surrounding community. Skateboarders do a thing called "grinding", which involves one scraping the axles of their board against metal, concrete, or wood, causing not only cosmetic scaring, but structural defects as well. Even when a business, or the city for that matter, puts up a "No Skateboarding" sign, or even goes so far as to make their curbs "un-grindable" by fixing pieces of metal at intervals along the curb, skaters still seem to disregard the law and vandalize whatever they see as a good "skate spot". As you can see, Skateboarding causes vandalism in the community. Another Point that further emphasizes that skateboarding should be banned, is that it's just plain dangerous. According to the American Academy of pediatrics < http://aappolicy.aappublications.org... > an estimated 51,000 people get injured enough while skateboarding to get hospitalized. These aren't counting moderately severe scrapes that could be gauzed up at home or pulled muscles that weren't serious enough to be hospitalized for. These are 51,000 severe injuries, such as a broken arm, leg, or neck. According to the AAP a whopping 25% of all the skateboarding injuries involved a collision with a motor vehicle, 31% involved injuries to joints or bones. Like broken arms, dislocated shoulders, or detached ligaments. But what's most shocking, is that 5% of these children got a severe mental injury because of this. 5% might seem like a small number, but thats 2,550 kids. If we continue to allow the youth of America to do this to themselves we could have an even larger number by next year because of increased popularity in the sport. So as you can see. For the reasons I have stated in this short prelude, and the reasons that will come in my 2nd and 3rd construct. It is obvious that you should vote for the proposition and save not only our citys' streets from vandalism, but our children's well being from the atrocity of skateboarding. Thank you.
Single Sex Education is Better than Co-Education

Here are my expansions:Expansions Students at single-sex schools perform better than those at co-ed schools. The Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test tracked the performance of students in co-ed and single-sex classes. Before I read the results it should be noted that these students were learning the same curriculum. Girls in co-ed classes were 59% proficient, while girls in single-sex classes were 75% proficient. Boys in co-ed classes were 37% proficient while boys in single-sex classes were 86% proficient. Again, the co-ed and single-sex classes had the same demographics, the same class size, and the same curriculum. Males and females have different learning styles which must be treated differently. Here I quote Leonard Sax, an advocate of single-sex education who is a an American psychologist and family physician, famous for three books he wrote on gender issues. He speaks of the differences of learning styles between the two genders. “If you don’t understand those differences and you teach boys and girls as if they were the same, the end result is a kindergarten classroom where the boys tell you drawing is for girls and a middle school classroom where girls tell you computers are for boys. ” Kids learn differently depending on whether they are male or female. You can see it for yourself. Boys and girls are different. From an early age until high school and beyond they act differently, so treating their education separately is more effective than not. Single-sex education promotes gender equality. As we all know, gender stereotypes are a big issue in the world today. Many people believe that women are not suited for professions in sports, IT, contractors, electricians, soldiers, and more. Having an all girl school can help promote ideas of gender equality. Girls in single-sex schools are less likely to see subjects like computer, or physics as “boy subjects” if there aren’t boys in the immediate environment to exaggerate these gender differences. Students have a life outside of class. Many students take extra-cirricular activities, summer camp, church, even students that have siblings of opposite genders get to spend time with children of the opposite gender. They are not shut off completely from kids from the opposite gender. Even kids with siblings spend time with the other gender. Please post your expansions and refute my points! I look forward to this debate.
Single Sex Education is Better than Co-Education

Challenge accepted. I would like to thank my opponent for starting such an interesting debate. Here are my points in favor of co-education- (1)Students at co-education schools learn to interact better with the people of opposite gender. (2)Co-education provides a platform for students of one gender to compete with those of the other gender. (3)Co-education helps in exchange of views and opinions between the students of opposite genders. (4)The level of understanding and learning by students depends upon efficiency of teacher and not on specialized methods. (5)Education doesn't mean only academic performance. Involvement of both boys and girls is necessary in many other activities of school life.
Single Sex Education is Better than Co-Education

Hello all! My name is Jack and we will be debating educational methods.ResolutionSingle-Sex Education is better than Co-EducationDefinitions "single-sex" education-Schools where all students are of one gender."co-education"-Schools with both genders"better than"-Benefits outweigh detrimentsConstruct(1) Students at single-sex schools perform better than those at co-ed schools. (2) Males and females have different learning styles which must be treated differently.(3) Single-sex education can promote gender equality.(4) Students still have a life outside of class.FormalitiesIf you accept, post all of your points with no expansions as your round 1 argument. We are not allowed to raise any new points after round 1. Refutations and point expansions will begin in round two.I hope you accept!
Single Sex Education is Better than Co-Education

Thank you so much for such a lively debate! Too bad you missed the last round, though. It's been a pleasure.Things to remember when you vote:1. With the state of out national school system now, we can leave no stone unturned and there is completely conclusive evidence that my opponent has failed to refute that shows how grades are improved in single-sex schools.2. Single-sex schools teach students that they can try new subjects without being judged because those subjects are "boyish" or "girly"3. Girls and boys learn differently. It is in the brain! They must be treated differently for maximum learning efficiency.4. Single sex students can still interact with people outside of class5. My opponent had no sources for his refutations and counter refutations. Vote for single-sex schools and vote for teaching our students better!
Land is Free

May the Peace and Blessings of The Creator be upon you @Franzlee, Allah willing. Land is Free, with all respect due to Allah, truth and its upkeep. When we neglect these duties, land is no longer free for our use. As a result of us neglecting our duties, we set for ourselves and others territories, create states, draw boundaries and build walls to keep it un-free. I am arguing on the intangible reality that land is free, regardless of what people believe a piece of paper can tell them.
jesus never stated one single, not one word about being gay nor transgender.

First of all, Christians should and do not hate homosexuals. Christians are commanded to love our neighbors as our ourselves (Matt. 19:19, 22:39, Mark 12:31, Luke 10:27, Rom. 13:9, Gal. 5:14, James 2:8). All of the textual evidence you have provided is from the Old Testament. We were no longer obligated to follow those laws when Jesus came to Earth. "Many tax collectors and sinners... sat together with Jesus and His disciples; for there were many, and they followed Him. And when the scribes and Pharisees saw Him eating with the tax collectors and sinners, they said to His disciples, 'How is it that He eats and drinks with tax collectors and sinners?'. When Jesus heard it, He said to them, 'Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance'" (New King James Version, Mark 2:15-17). The New Testament also tells us be like Christ, which means we should help those who are sinning get on the right path with God. As for the topic of homosexuality, Paul states in his letter to Timothy that "We... know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, ...for the sexually immoral, [and] for those practicing homosexuality" (New International Version, 1 Timothy 1:9-10). You said "that's... what [C]hristianity and [G]od is", "[G]od is based on hate as [H]e hates children". He most certainly does not hate people, nor does He hate children, as he says "unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of Heaven" (New King James Version, Matt. 18:3). We must repent of our sins to become blameless and innocent like children are to enter His kingdom. John 3:16 states "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life" (New King James Version). God does not hate people, He loves us so much that He sent His Son to be crucified so that we could be saved, which includes homosexuals. We do not deserve His grace; we are all sinners. Despite this, He sent Jesus out of His immense love for us.
jesus never stated one single, not one word about being gay nor transgender.

Rules: Give the "why" christians should hate gays/ homosexuals. In order for you to accept this debate, you MUST be a christian and follow the bible implicitly. (Pro) christ never stated one damn word about being gay nor transgender. Since that is all for the (Pro) side, I will be taking the (Con) side. Yet strangely christians and only christians like packs of wolves and the whooping cough are against being gay/ transgender. And they also have the $$$$$ to back them. Otherwise being gay/ transgender here in this country would fizzle like a used hamburger of pure blackened ash and those who are gay/ transgender would be able to live their lives as they see fit and in peace. And the other thing is, is there's no reason "why" christians hate gays/ transgenders in their greasy hate filled bible"s or in person other than it is what it is. Yeah. Talk about being totally 100% immoral and fickle. But then again, that's exactly what christianity and god is as god is based on hate as he hates children. Ah yes, being gay is an outlet for christians to either hate, or learn to hate and they love it in return, just as their god wants. Another rule: dsjpk5 will not be allowed to vote in the voting process.
Morals is more important than law to an extent

1) Let's say that morals are learned. Not everyone is going to be taught the same when it comes to right and wrong. It all depends on what religion/belief a person subscribes to. If your religion teaches that killing someone because they offended you is the right thing to do, then that's the direction your morals will go. 2) No matter how morals are imbued, there is no basis for the belief that people will always follow these morals. 3) Perhaps morals could be more important in some cases (such as bullying), but where do you draw the line? When do the people step down and let the law take over?
Morals is more important than law to an extent

Morals is more important than laws to an extent. If someone is being bullied for example and teachers are not helping or anyone else someone should have the right to stand up to the bully and confront him without the police convicting him as a felon. However if it goes to far like killing or breaking bones than the police should do something. We have a right to defend our selves and others instead of letting the police handle every little problem we have.
Chris Langan's CTMU theory is genuinely brilliant

My opponent has forfeited again. Vote CON!I mentioned Russell paradox only as an example where, a set of reasonable axioms might lead to a contradiction. This paradox was resolved in the ZFC axiomatic system. So Russell's paradox does not disprove ZFC or SCSPL. It is not so clear to me what the exact axioms of SCSPL are. But since it is an extension ZFC, it could be that there is a contradiction within the SCSPL axioms itself. I was just making a historic comment that it has happened before that a list of suggested axioms for the foundation of mathematics was contradictory. One of my main criticisms is that CTMU lacks the kind of rigor, that mathematical logic has.
Atheist/Secular vs Christian: Rap Battle

Why do I havta stand around waiting for someone to step up All that rappin and my opponent's too scared to say 'I give up' Just kidding, y'all, I'm actually a nice kid But when the atheist quits it's boring and it just flat out sucks I guess I win, it's not like I went to hours of work to write the right spin I flow It's a go But Con only has one show, and if he don't do it I get a automatic free throw I only have one more thing Nobody cares what the website's debaters sing But the voters decide who had better conduct and bling All I can say is Jesus Christ gets the credit, He helped a lot with all the linguistic string! Thank-you for taking the time to read I hope I was an OK influence for all to see What's more important in life, the fruit or the seed? To those who are young: our Creator loves us even while we may bleed. Questions? Comments, or concerns? send me a message and take heed.
Riddles! Riddle me this...

Well I have nothing to go off of, so I therefor I win? If anything answer to riddles then, This is an unusual paragraph. I'm curious how quickly you can find out what is so unusual about it. It looks so plain you would think nothing was wrong with it. In fact, nothing is wrong with it! It is unusual though. Study it, and think about it, but you still may not find anything odd. But if you work at it a bit, you might find out! Try to do so without any coaching! You probably won't, at first, find anything particularly odd or unusual or in any way dissimilar to any ordinary composition. That is not at all surprising, for it is no strain to accomplish in so short a paragraph a stunt similar to that which an author did throughout all of his book, without spoiling a good writing job, and it was no small book at that. By studying this paragraph assiduously, you will shortly, I trust, know what is its distinguishing oddity. Upon locating that "mark of distinction," you will probably doubt my story of this author and his book of similar unusuality throughout. It is commonly known among book-conscious folk and proof of it is still around.
Riddles! Riddle me this...

I have one, you have one.This is stating if you have it, you have it, making it an animate object or something that you can have like a emotion.If you remove the first letter, a bit remains.a_bit litterally meaning you will have the letters a-b-i-t.If you remove the second, bit still remains.Again, the word bit will remain thereAfter much trying, you might be able to remove the third one also, but it remains. Again stating that the word it will remaneIt dies hard! The answer is the word and thing habit. my riddle will be It has a head and a tail, but not any arms nor legs, it is also brown...
Riddles! Riddle me this...

Ok. This is interesting but not obvious. Ill have to examine each line It gather clues.I sink but do not drown,Well this implies that the subject of this riddle seems to sink into something, perhaps water. The fact it doesn't drown could be because it is a non living object.I smile and frown, This line hints at the fact the subject seems to have a face or at least resembles these facial expressions. I cannot gather much from this yet. I will return to it when I gather more information. I spend my days where most cannot, Now it seems that if the subject does submerge in an unspecified medium, it must be somewhere that people cannot be there for a long time. I always have a target to get, Now I get the impression that the subject has been in the medium looking for something. This is indeed very interesting. After thinking over the lines the answer I put forward is .... A FISHING HOOK Here are my reasons: - A Fishing hook, after being cast is left to sink into the water but doesn't drown as it is a inanimate object. This means it can sink without ever drowning- The fishing hook also resembles a smile and a frown at different angles due to it's shape. This is why they smile and frown. - Fishing hooks, being submerged in water are in places where we cannot stay for a long time. - Now the fishing hooks are submerged for one reason, to catch fish. This is a target that they seek. Now I will give you my riddle: I have one, you have one.If you remove the first letter, a bit remains.If you remove the second, bit still remains.After much trying, you might be able to remove the third one also, but it remains.It dies hard!
Home school should be an easy and free option everywhere.

This argument does not address the issue of the college acceptance gap. First, online colleges aren't recognized fondly by employers. Second, Tana Mongeau is a gross example that shows one person that has been successful. Did you include any statistics as to the number of accepted kids? According to a study, 85% of colleges say that they would not accept a homschooled student. This is because of the gap in resources and learning. That 3.8 GPA is because the coursework isn't as difficult as in a physical classroom.You also say that she is in an online college. That proves my point! She is not in a physical college which is where people in high positions have to get their degree.
Home school should be an easy and free option everywhere.

Although they were not accepted into some colleges, if they really wanted to they would have tried a lot hard, and although you do keep pointing out the number of people who were homeschooled that didn't go to college. can I state that the percentage of students who do graduate high school early through homeschool have gone to college is larger than the percentage of students who don't get accepted into college. and can I point out that the famous YouTuber Tana Mongeau graduated one year early with a 3.8 after attending online high school and is now doing online college, and also can afford to live in an apartment with her friend and pay bills, shop and do everything that a normal 17-year-old girl does, except she is in college.
Home school should be an easy and free option everywhere.

Okay, I should have extracted it more. Online homeschooling, and I have never said it was free. But a student who learns better with the online learning should be able to do it for free, whether using a computer loaned to them , or they can afford their own computer. And the usnews.com had stated about 2 million students who take online classes have graduated early, compared to normal public school.
Home school should be an easy and free option everywhere.

The first thing that I would like to point out is that you obviously know nothing about homeschooling. The parent who is teaching the child must be certified for the country to count the schooling as legal and in accordance with the policy that requires all minors to attend school. Second, homeschooling has been proven to be much less effective than a public school with licensed and educated teachers in an scenario. Almost all schools have a special needs program for kids who don't learn the same way as everyone else. Online homeschooling is definitely not free either, and the students do not learn better with homeschooling than they would with a personalized education plan like one that would be established by a 504. Taking into account the sheer amount of colleges that refuse to accept students who have homeschooled, this does not seem like the best option for the student in the long run. I know people who are homeschooled, and they are definitely not up to par with other students at their grade level. Keeping this in mind, I don't see any reason why homeschooling should be encouraged for any student.
In this 21st century, e-learning is far more fun and effective than classroom-learning.

A classroom environment offers students the opportunity to have face-to-face interactions with their peers and instructors. This is an added social benefit as well as an educational aid. Because students see the same peers in class every session, they get a chance to form friendships. In the case of higher learning, pupils can find potential lifelong professional connections. On the educational side, students get a chance to participate in a lecture or class discussion physically. If something is not understood, interrupting to ask for clarification is always an option.
In this 21st century, e-learning is far more fun and effective than classroom-learning.

Online learning is an effective way for organizations to reduce their carbon footprint. A study by the Open University, "Towards Sustainable Higher Education: Environmental Impacts of Campus-Based and Distance Higher Education Systems," found that on average, the production and provision of distance learning courses consumed nearly 90 percent less energy and produced 85 percent fewer CO2 emissions per student than conventional campus-based university courses. The main savings were due to a reduction in the amount of student travel, economies of scale in the use of the campus site, and the elimination of much of the energy consumption of students" housing. In other words, studying from home and using a home computer was far more energy efficient.