BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
school uniforms should be banned

Not having school uniforms takes away from the learning environment as a whole. As a guy I know this on a personal level. we all know of that one girl or guy across the room who dresses....liberally. In those hormone fueled years of a teenager the brain will be less likely to focus on, say biology, than on the before mentioned person. In order to promote a healthy learning environment it is critical that uniforms are issued in order to ensure that a greater amount of attention is focused on the learning environment, and not on another student. The second reason that school uniforms should not be banned is that they nullify the cracks in between students. Especially in childhood, kids tend to separate into different groups based on shared interests. And while this is perfectly acceptable, the inevitable stereotyping that ensues is not. Appearance is often the first thing people see, so it is logically the first thing that people judge. All too often students go "I would never hang out with her, she's a Goth" because of appearance alone. School uniforms solve that. When everyone is dressed the same, students are forced to evaluate a student on their actions rather than their appearance. Without clique stereotypes a sense of unity can be achieved within a school. A third reason why school uniforms are good is because it promotes order and gives a student a greater self esteem. When a student dresses in a professional and neat manner a student tends to be more focused in class. A student is more likely to be more attentive, as he/she would be less likely to be worrying about his/her appearance and more likely to be worrying about the class itself. Overall school uniforms have too many benefits to be banned. And while they certainly shouldn't exist everywhere (Low income areas for example) a ban would have far more negative affects than positive. Sources: http://school-uniforms.procon.org... As an act of courtesy i have included a source that can be used by my opponent as well
The Bacterial Flagellum, as an example of Irreducible Complexity, proves evolution unlikely.

The bacterial flagellum is an electric outboard motor; a machine with many parts specially fit together to achieve a purpose. It comes complete with stator and rotor, recognizable as a part of any electric motor. This machine, like any machine we have experience with, is only functional when all parts are built and assembled in the final form. This is antithetical to any step-wise undirected process proposed by neo-darwinian evolutionary theory. I challenge my opponent to cite research that has discovered one possible step-by-step pathway by which the flagellum could have been built without intelligent guidance.
The Bacterial Flagellum, as an example of Irreducible Complexity, proves evolution unlikely.

Irreducible Complexity is a term used by microbiologist Michael Behe in his book "Darwin's Black Box". IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY: The bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex because it will not function AS A FLAGELLUM without all of the parts working together. Thus, if a part was removed, or all but one part were present, it would not function AS A FLAGELLUM. My argument: No research has discovered a detailed evolutionary pathway showing how the flagellum could have been assembled in a stepwise, incremental process without the assistance of a designer.
Abortion Should be left up to the mothers

First off let me say thank you for finally referring to me as a female, why you assume I am a male I do not know. .. I looked up to see that you are male though. I define abortion by what is stated in wikepiedia: . http://en.m.wikipedia.org... Which clearly stats the difference between late stage termination and abortion. And Merriam-Webster defines it as abortion : . http://www.merriam-webster.com... Before the fetus can survive outside of the mothers body Examples of such: He states that I stated " I don't always agree with people's decisions, but they should still have a right to make them" I did make this statement, but if you read the paragraph I was talking about their own body's and life not their actions. I never stated anything about people's actions, like murder as he points out. He further misleads you by stating that he received his definition from Merriam-Webster but if you look for yourself he takes it out of context as well. Therefore his entire argument is on a completely different matter entirely. It sates: Intact dilation and extraction procedures may occur in the third trimester; sometimes critically referred to as "partial-birth abortions," they have been very controversial. Critical in this case meaning of high importance. There is a difference. And he himself refers to it as "late term" or "partial birth" abortion and therefore separates the difference himself. He further sates that it is a medical treatment but denies the comparisons that I have stated. He then states that my slippery slope should be disregarded, because he is talking about his definition of abortion from Merriam-Webster, again please see there definition: . http://www.merriam-webster.com... As for giving the mothers time to make the decision because they do not know that they are pregnant at first. I would like to know if any mother out there knew right at the moment of conception? I have 2 children and did not realise I was pregnant until the first missed menstrual cycle like most other mothers. He says that my examples of justified abortion are not explained as to why they are justified, but if you read they justify themselves. Each is a question of what would you do or how do you feel. It is not up to either him or myself on how you would wish to deal with these instances, but up to the reader. And again if you look up the definition in Merriam-Webster it lists those three as 3 of the 4 reasons for abortions, which he used to define abortion! Solely on the fact that he chooses to argue about late term termination instead of abortion alone disqualifies him from this debate as they are two separate issues. This argument is also not about legalising what is already illegal, like late term abortion. It is about the current opinion on making all abortions illegal or leaving it up to the mothers to decide. In which case my example of mother vs fetus death still stands. If one can choose to let the baby live and the mother die then why not go the other way? Should we leave it up to the doctors to choose who has the best chance? Then what happens if they have an equal chance?
Abortion Should be left up to the mothers

First of all I would like to say that I am a female not a male, and I should have worded it better by stating that in my opinion sometimes justifiable. Second (I should have also written it better) is that it is the mothers opinion and ultimate decision. Sorry this is my first debate on here, and I should have spelled it all out for you. We will define abortion as: explosion from the uterus before viability, or before 21 weeks. Everyone has the right to make their own decisions when it comes to ones own body. We have to right to accept or deny medical treatment. Say if I was diagnosed with cancer, and I choose deny medical treatment against the doctors better judgment. Should I be able to deny ,or because they think that they can they can eradicate it ,do the treatment against my wishes? The same should go for abortion. Should they only abort if it will save the mother from certain death, or not at all? This is where I will get into my view of justifiable reasons. I will list three: 1. If it is a choice between the life of the mother and the life of the child,. 2. Rape and related circumstances like molestation. 3. If the child will beyond a doubt live a very short and painful life. If we do make abortion illegal then what is next? What other decisions about are body's and our lives should they control next? I don't always agree with people's decisions, but they should still have the right to make them. I agree that partial birth abortion is in my opinion wrong and murder. I understand that a fetus can feel pain and have a heartbeat extremely early in pregnancy, but some people do not realise they are pregnant at first and should therefore have the proper time to make the decision. I do believe that it needs to be regulated. Which do you feel is worse A. Aborting a fetus at 6 weeks, or B. letting the child possibly live through birth only to live a few days in excruciating pain? If you choose A over B, but still oppose abortion then were do we draw the line?
Abortion Should be left up to the mothers

=Definitions=Abortion - "a medical procedure used to end a pregnancy and cause the death of the fetus." [http://www.merriam-webster.com...]=Framework=We have a normative resolution, and therefore a shared burden of proof. The voters should vote in favor of the person who is more persuasive. However, Pro must carry a higher burden. Pro must be able to show necessarily P, whereas I must only show not necessarily P, or possibly H. =Rebuttals="There is nothing wrong with Abortion. It's ones own opinion," Pro contradicts himself; he first states categorically that there is nothing wrong with abortion, and then goes on to say that this is merely a matter of opinion. His first statement is objective, his second subjective, and thus they completely conflict with one another. He says that abortion is "sometimes justifiable." Note that he is making an "is" instead of "ought" statement, and is thus stating that this as thought it were objective. The problem with this remark is that, if abortion is sometimes justifiable, it is, also, sometimes unjustifiable. =Contentions=CONTENTION ONE: Categorical statements are doomed to failSubpoint A: Timing of the abortionThere are various types of abortion, including third-trimester dilation and extraction, otherwise known as partial-birth abortion. The principle is that, beyond a certain point, the fetus can feel pain and is thus its own entity. As such, the mother loses her discretion over choosing whether or not to abortion the baby. We could take this argument further and ask Pro whether he would argue that a baby should be aborted 10 seconds before it could be born, or when it could be healthily given birth to because it has progressed to such a late stage. If he concedes this, you vote to negate. Subpoint B: MoralityPro makes conflicting statements regarding morality; he asserts that abortion is a matter of personal opinion, but then ridicules people who hold a different view than him -- that being the view that abortion ought to be illegal. If this is a matter of opinion, being that morality is subjective, why shouldn't people be able to decide whether or not abortion is legal, on-demand, at all times? If he concedes this you also vote to negate because I've proved "not necessarily P." =Conclusion= I await Pro's remarks.
Gravity exists.

:: -- << GRAVITY EXISTS 2 (+) >> -- :: >Thanks to wjmelements for his response. I am sorry that he will not make any further responses... >My opponent has not responded to my definitions and thus concedes them. Apply them throughout. >My opponent has not responded to my observation 1a on the Burden of Proof Fallacy and thus it is conceded. THIS MEANS THAT MY BURDEN OF PROOF AD HOC IS: To show that gravity exists WITHOUT ANY REASON TO DOUBT IT >My opponent's rebuttal of my observation 2a on abuse is simply that I accepted a burden of proof. I agree that I did. I, however, clarify that this burden must not be abusive (which it is, thus I clarified). Extend this. >My opponent concedes: "there is a concensus in the scientific community" You can vote PRO right here. My opponent concedes that gravity is scientifically agreed upon. Let's cross-apply to mathematics. Can we PROVE that 1+1=2? Is it absolutely proven in all scenarios? No, it isn't however there is no reason to doubt it, thus we say that it is true. Same goes for gravity. >As a recap, my burden was: To show that gravity exists WITHOUT ANY REASON TO DOUBT IT As my argument shows as such, please vote for PRO. >Thank you.
Gravity exists.

I will begin with his complaint. "b) An absolute burden of proof on the topic of gravity's existence is major CON abuse. If CON does, indeed, assign PRO an absolute burden of proof, CON can spend every round giving such simple responses as "PRO has not fully proved the burden: vote CON" or "As PRO has not fulfilled his burden you cannot vote for him. " This makes the debate futile - it would no longer be a debate at all. " However, clearly he agreed to this in: "By accepting this debate, my opponent agrees that he must prove that gravity exists. " This clearly undoes his statement, "While I accept that I must give some sort of evidence for my argument in order to win this debate fairly, but I cannot logically be bound to an absolute burden of proof. " My opponent still has burden of proof. I am now grounded, and cannot finish this debate. Though there is a concensus in the scientific community, there is no proof that gravity exists. There is no explanation. To this day, no gravitons have been observed, and even if they were, then they cannot be explained. So, we cannot conclude that gravity exists. My opponent's cause and effect logic is faulty. Something falling may just happen. It doesn't need a reason. My opponent is making the unjustified assumption that falling is the result of some natural force. I hope the audience realizes that there is a double standard in the scientific community and if God is to be criticized, then gravity must recieve the same scrutiny. My opponent cannot prove that gravity exists. Thank you. I will forfeit round 3. Forgive me for that and this short response.
Gravity exists.

>Before moving to burdens and arguments, I offer a few definitions: <>Gravity: (physics) the force of attraction between all masses in the universe; especially the attraction of the earth's mass for bodies near its surface <>Exist: to be, especially to be a real, actual, or current thing, not merely something imagined >Next, my opponent has assigned me a burden of proof for this debate. 1. I would like to provide clerical information regarding my burden: While I accept that I must give some sort of evidence for my argument in order to win this debate fairly, but I cannot logically be bound to an absolute burden of proof. a) An absolute burden of proof on the topic of gravity's existence would be classified as a logical fallacy known as the Burden of Proof Fallacy. Essentially, this is an extremely heavy burden as it is impossible to fill - the topic is a meaningless proposition unless addressed from a pragmatic mindset. If I show that gravity exists WITHOUT ANY REASON TO DOUBT IT you must vote PRO as otherwise fulfilling of the burden is impossible. It is impossible for PRO to cover every case in which gravity would apply (an infinite amount) in 5,000 characters per round. Thus this falls under the Burden of Proof Fallacy for an overly heavy burden. b) An absolute burden of proof on the topic of gravity's existence is major CON abuse. If CON does, indeed, assign PRO an absolute burden of proof, CON can spend every round giving such simple responses as "PRO has not fully proved the burden: vote CON" or "As PRO has not fulfilled his burden you cannot vote for him. " This makes the debate futile - it would no longer be a debate at all. *Side note: You can further any abuse as my opponent himself is given no burden while I am given one. 2. I would like to provide clerical information regarding my opponent's burden: Based on the information provided above, I now assign my opponent his own burden so that voters do not default their votes to him for a lack of proof for PRO: my opponent must show that WITHOUT ANY REASONABLE DOUBT gravity does NOT exist. >I will now move on to give my own arguments. Isaac Newton explained, "each particle of matter attracts every other particle with a force which is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. " This is known as gravity. The formula is as follows (. http://www.howstuffworks.com...): Gravitational force = (G * m1 * m2) / (d2) G has the value of 6.67 x 10E-8 dyne * cm2/gm2 Above is the mathematical explanation for gravity. But why are we sure it exists? Think of the old story: Man sits under apple tree. Apple dislodges from the tree. Apple falls through the air and hits man in head. Why? Gravity causes the apple, having mass, to move toward the object of greater mass. Simple. Easy. Shown many, many times. >As a recap, my burden was: To show that gravity exists WITHOUT ANY REASON TO DOUBT IT As my argument shows as such (an example), please vote for PRO. >Good luck to my opponent. Thank you.
Television is harmful

I understand. Time is always a factor. Okay... You're still not saying why television is not harmful. You stated that television is also a factor of this aggression. Thank you for agreeing with me. False. Many kids just let the show become a role model. Many kids think that if something is on TV, it's like a role model and they want to be funny, even if it harms other people. They think that it's on TV, and it's famous, so that they should be like them. False. My cousins, age 7-9, watch "Two-and-a-Half-Men" (for some odd reason), and they get most of the jokes. They laugh and laugh. I will give you an example of suicide because of television. Please read http://www.nejm.org... With fashion models, this causes jealousy, but yes, there has not been a case of suicide yet. "The women's job is to be beautiful." False. They do no have to be "beautiful." Some girls are just ugly and they get through life. I negate the fact that television gives opportunities families to bond. The adults and the kids would just be staring at the TV screen. Television does not increase memory. In the Guinness World Records, someone watched 87 hours! I urge a Pro vote. Merry Christimas!
Television is harmful

I apologize for the last round, it seems that time was an important factor that should have been carefully watched and remembered during this debate. Continuing on, my first paragraph states that obviously violent behaviours in children cannot be measured simply by analyzing their media intake. There are so many other factors that contribute to these acts of aggression. For example, what kind of society/neighborhood they were born into, the mindset of their parents, as well as the education available to them in their hometowns. These television shows do have meaning to them. You say, "Does it have a moral to it? No, at least, not really." Even the slightest moral can be applied to a child's mind. Children would not watch Tom and Jerry and immediately adapt the behaviours seen in the program to their own lives; they see that there is a distinct line between the animated world and the real world. Even something as realistic as a game like Call of Duty has that line. In real life, you cannot re-spawn, hide behind walls and regenerate your health, or leave combat whenever you like. Part of the child's brain sees the connection between the game and real life, but is able to distinguish the two. In the case of these programs that do not include the discretionary warning, the content may be to complex for a young mind to understand. I know that when I was young, I never understood a single one of the more "sophisticated" jokes. I realize that arguments placed in my own perspective, such as, "I watched bad TV shows and I'm not a bad person," are less significant than arguable points, but in this case, I believe it applies to most younger children. You say there are many mental harms, and you will name a few, yet you only name one. Teenage envy. However, you cannot find a single case of depression or suicide that has been the result of only seeing fashion models on television. Again, there are many other factors that play into the mind of a teenager. A teenage girl seeing them would understand that it is their "job" to be beautiful. If any of these teenagers had a sense of what goes on in the world as well, they would know that most of the beauty they see is achieved by heavy doses of makeup and plastic surgery. My simple pros of television include stress relief, understanding of different cultures and social aspects, increases memory, and gives opportunities for family and friends to bond ("Top 10 Benefits of Watching Television n.pag.). "Top 10 Benefits of Watching Television." connectwithyourteens.net. Connect with your Teens through Pop Culture and Technology, 16 Aug. 2009. Web. 12 Dec. 2010.
Television is harmful

Great! This will be a wonderful debate, Con! Okay. Let's begin: 1. Elaborate, please, on your first paragraph. 2. Paragraph 2 Counter Argument Thank you. You have agreed to my point. I agree with the humor and entertainment part, but kids are not mature yet to know about the "wrongs and the rights." They will use the TV show or advertisement as a role model. Example: Tom and Jerry. Does it have a moral to it? No, at least, not really. 3. Paragraph 3 Counter Argument "A short segment is inserted..." False. Have you watched Gossip Girl of like Two and a Half Men? They are like "adult- based" but they do not insert a short segment. Many parents will just let the kids watch TV for a certain amount of time and then lead them back to do other things. Many parents simply do not have the time to watch a cartoon with the child, so, this is not the parent's mishap. The Three Stooges. I've even seen my cousins, after watching the cartoons, tackle each other, slam someone in the face with a sleeping bag, and push someone of the bed and onto the hard, wooden floor. Now, onto my contention: The mental harms of television There are many mental harms on television, so I will just pick a few of the important ones. Television has fashion models, correct? Now, many teenagers will consider themselves ugly, because they think that the fashion models are beautiful and that they are "ugly." This leads to self- hatred. Self- hatred could lead to depression and, sadly, suicide. Conclusion Basically, television is a harm to the youth and the teenagers. I await my opponent's response.
Television is harmful

I would like to put a fact out there - your first web resource has a major flaw. It does not have accurate studies. You claim that television will cause increased violence, increased horror, and a lack of empathy in children and/or adults as mentioned in the online article, but who is the primary target of these studies? There are many - thousands of factors in addition to television watching that contribute to these effects. These television programs, as claimed in the same article, do NOT encourage bad habits or uncivil speech and conduct. "6. Modeling of Uncivil Speech and Conduct...For the sake of supposed humor, the media frequently show children acting naughty. Staged or cartoon-mediated disobedience, bullying, yelling, whining, rowdiness, hyperactivity—all set an example for children in the viewing audience. Research has shown that the more a child watches television, the more likely he will bully his peers (23)." To refute this argument, I will state the obvious. It is meant simply for humor and entertainment. If it is a well-made cartoon, which it most likely will be if it is aired on popular television networks, it will have a moral behind it, thus putting the question of bullying children out of the pile. As far as alcohol and drug use, along with violence and disturbing graphic images go, at the start of a more adult-based television program, a short segment is inserted warning parents that the material that follows may be harmful to their children. It then becomes the parents' mishap of allowing their children to watch these programs. Many kids have played games, watched cartoons, and seen others acting strangely and not repeated the acts of violence portrayed in them. The Three Stooges was one of the most popular television programs of the 1950's, yet you don't see many older folks going around bopping eachother on the head or speaking crudely to their peers. I plan to discuss the positive effects of television in later posts.