BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
College Athletes Should Be Paid

Observation1. I won't be providing defense, otherwise it is unfair because I can when my opponent can't2. I will make my rebuttal's concise, because that is needed in a debate3. My opponent has the BoP4. I apoligize, but in college, I looked at it in the French way. Collegé, in french, is middle school. I am deeply sorry for this, but I can't change my case now, and I will keep calling it middle school, because there was no sign that this debate was based on the U. S. Pro gives a list of her argments"1. College athletes work hard.2. They work longer hours in their sport than the average American does at their job.3. They often do not have time for additional work and struggle financially.4. College athletes have to work hard to keep up in school. "Just because they work hard, they get money? Why not normal school students? They work hard too. "5. Other people (schools, coaches, etc. ) make tremendous profit off athletes. ..6. . .. despite the fact that the athletes are the ones putting their lives and bodies on the line. "At least they get prizes, and the coaches are the ones teaching, without them they can't learn.7. Many college athletes have their career end before it begins; this could be their only chance to profit off their sport. They can be professionals if they work hard, and really want to, college is for fun. They are still young, 6 grade to 8 grade8. Scholarships are not worth as much as some collegiate athlete's talent. I said the teacher's teach them9. Athletes have different skill sets; it's unfair to give them the same amount of scholarship money. Why not? Some people have math skills, but they get the same amount. It matters of if they get a scholarship or not.10. Offering pay would make college sports more competitive. This can go into fighting if they give a goal, and hurt themselves.11. Pro athletes are horrible with money; paying student athletes promotes fiscal responsibility. No reason why they should get payed. They have responsibilty in doing other things, there should not be more.12. Not paying athletes promotes lying and backhanded deals. What? No. That is sh! t. That is nonsense. Bare assertion13. Many schools absolutely have the funds to pay athletes. But some don't.14. A salary cap or other system could be put in place to encourage fairness. In my arguments, I told it was unfair.15. But either way, we can pay athletes without them being paid by the schools themselves. How then? The teacher's don't get much money.16. Success in college sports improves a school's notoriety and brand recognition; it's fair to pay the athletes responsible. Yes, this is true. But it gives no reason to pay middle schoolers17. It would arguably save the schools money to pay athletes in some cases. They pay money. How can this save money?18. It would make the schools money to pay athletes in some cases (see: Manziel example). How can the school earn money when giving money. Clarificatiion: In how much? I asked how much will be give them. We can't give them too much.
College Athletes Should Be Paid

The Burden of Proof is on Pro, because my opponent wants the change in the status quo, and currently college althletes . I am not required to make a constructive case, but I will provide few arguments just in case. But if I rebut my opponent's case, and if she rebuts mine, you have to give me the win because my arguments don't hold much burden than my opponent's. I said the burden of proof is on Pro because she wants a change in the status quo. I want my opponent to write his definitons of the debate in the second round. I accept this debate with a honorable debater. Let's debate this! :D
There is no such thing as an absolute right and wrong when speaking in terms of morality.

As con failed to understand my intended structure I am forced to change it. First round has now become acceptance only apparently so round two will now only be initial arguments from either side. The third round will be arguments and rebuttal, and the fourth round will be rebuttals only. We've all heard of morality and we've all had issues that dealt with what we know as right or wrong. The fundamental problem with morality is that it is solely dependent on the mind. It doesn't exist outside of an intelligent, self awareness. That's because "right" and "wrong" are nothing more than concepts. It's the same thing as beauty, worth, or importance. Understanding of these things changes from each individual person to the next. Now you could argue that large numbers of people share the same values, but that only exists as a part of organized societies. Morality is sociologically understood as more than simply helping or harming others; it encompasses any way that individuals form understandings of what behaviors are better than others, what goals are most laudable, and what "proper" people believe, feel, and do. These things are completely dependent on what societies decide as a whole and are not fundamental truths to be witnessed by all. Morality involves the explicit and implicit sets of rules and shared understandings that keep human social groups intact. Morality includes both the "shoulds" and "should nots" of human activity, its proactive and inhibitive elements. These Ideas are formed, not found, and then learned unto other people. They are spread through human societies as teachings to children and so on and so forth. In conclusion, since concepts are nothing more than formed Idea's, they cannot exist as fundamental truths outside of the mind...
There is no such thing as an absolute right and wrong when speaking in terms of morality.

I will be arguing for the Idea that right and wrong is a product of personal believe and that there is no "universal truth" that actually exists behind the concepts , thus I am pro. Con will be arguing the opposite. That right and wrong is a real tangible thing that is recognized as opposed to produced. First Round: Con may present An argument. Second round: I will present an argument and a rebuttal. Con will do the same. Third round: I will present an argument and a rebuttal. Con will present a rebuttal only. Fourth round: I will present a rebuttal only, con will pass to allow an even structure. The reason I choose to lay out the debate in such a syncopated way is too allow the argument to center more on an opponents ability to understand information given by the other and to effectively refute what is being said. Instead of both presenting initial arguments followed by an exact structure. I want the argument to feel more organic, but extensive as well. good luck to any takers, I'm looking forward too it..
Luxury goods harmful to society and/or individuals

Luxury goods aren't harmful to society but may be harmful to specific individuals. I think most people define luxuries as things that are expensive. What is the difference between a Lamborghini and a Ford F150? Is it the speed or the sleek smooth design maybe, But the first thing that comes to my mind and many others is the price. But if you think about it they do the same job whether it is getting you to school or driving you to work. Same thing with a Rolex. Bottom line is it is just a watch. Also, The uses of luxuries are beneficial to society by reducing the monotony of it so everyone doesn't have the same thing.
Luxury goods harmful to society and/or individuals

Luxury goods are harmful to society and individuals because they lead to the creation of strict social classes. Division of social classes can cause the manifestation of jealousy in society since those who cannot afford these exclusive luxury goods can end up obsessing over them, And this can lead to a loss of self esteem. Many even put themselves in distressing situations because of the appeal and exclusivity of these goods that is created by both sellers and owners. Luxury goods shift the values of a society and can make one materialistic.
Resolved: China is, or will have reached superpower status in the near future.

Round One will only be acceptance. Round 2 will start with debate and rebuttals. Thank you very much. The burden of proof lies on myself to prove that China either is currently, or will become a superpower in the next 5-15 years. On the other hand, my opponent must prove that China is not, or will not become a superpower in the next 5-16 years.
" The Use Of Mobile Phone By Student In School Should Encourage"

I understand what your saying completely. However in addition to the use of the app students would also be rigorously educated about the use of cell phones and cyberbullying and other things like sexting. My policy idea would include the option for teachers to confiscate students cell phones at any requested moment. Also other students could report other class members if they were cyberbullying or sexting and teachers could then issue a search of the pupils phone. However it would only consist of looking at their social media and nothing else on their phone so that its not a complete raid of their privacy. An agreement would also have to be reached with their parents as well. In addition phones would only be permitted in certain lessons throughout the week not all. Maybe 1 or 2. It would also be something of a reward for students as well.
" The Use Of Mobile Phone By Student In School Should Encourage"

I agree with your opinion but bear in mind that every good thing has advantages and disadvantages .At this point I disconcord with you. It brings about Dishonesty"The same technology that makes cell phones distracting also makes cheating much easier for students. They can take pictures of tests, text questions and answers, or even access notes and textbooks through their cell phones. Cell phones are so small these days, and students are so adept at using them surreptitiously that detecting their use is increasingly difficult. Disrespect "The issues of cyber-bullying, sexting, and other forms of serious misconduct are increasingly common and easier to conceal with cell phone technology. Cell phones in the hands of problem students just make the problems harder to discern and harder to handle. Some argue that the teen angst common in that age group is exacerbated with cell phone use: everything from gossip to sexuality becomes a bigger issue when cell phones are involved.
" The Use Of Mobile Phone By Student In School Should Encourage"

I disagree as you would expect with me being pro. I agree with what you are saying that phones are counterproductive when it comes to learning however I believe there is a solution. The school could develop their own app to help students learn and study and even research. Points could be awarded to students virtually and these points could be spent on rewards such as sweets and other miscellaneous items. Music could be selected for students to listen to while doing their studies at home (obviously relaxing music). All that is required for the students would be their signature on a piece of paper which would include policies such as: I you are caught on your phone when its not been instigated by teachers you will have it removed and spend the rest of the day in solitary. You have to register your owning of your phone so the school can keep track of who has one and who does not. You must hand your phone to the teacher at the start of the lesson and if they decide to use the app you will then be able to access it. etc. This app would be designed to motivate students to want to improve and learn.
" The Use Of Mobile Phone By Student In School Should Encourage"

I am very happy to take part in this argument on the topic " THE USE OF MOBILE PHONE IN SCHOOL BY STUDENTS SHOULD ENCOURAGED.I speak against the motion that mobile phone shouldn't be encourage in school by students. A mobile phone is a wireless handheld device that allows users to make calls and send text messages, among other features . To set the ball rolling, I would like to note that I am not arguing against faculty, teachers, or staff having or using cellphones, if the need arises, nor against students possessing cellphones in their lockers for use after hours or in emergencies. All key words are assumed to have their normal meanings. Cellphones distract students from the lessons. Given the the purpose of school is to educate the students, anything that disrupts learning is counterproductive. Most cellphones are capable of sending and receiving text messages; most phones have games on them. Smartphones are mini gaming consoles, with thousands of games available to download. Most cellphones now double as mp3 players, allowing students to take their music into class with them and listen through earbuds. I hope that I don't have to establish the widespread use of cellphones in class, sending texts, playing games, looking up answers, listening to music. It is common knowledge that these practices are ubiquitous. The quality of the education that these students are ignoring is not the question here; the point is that by engaging in these other activities the students are missing out on their main opportunity to gain a good education.
Sticking your chewed gum on the underside of a table should be seen as socially acceptable

Well, like I said, sharing is caring. Right? It kind of makes sense. There are actually approximately 100,000 tons of gum chewed a year [1] That's a lot, and when you start putting that in landfills, it makes a difference. That's why we need to reuse, reduce and recycle. Spread out on the desks of America, that's like one or two per desk. It's not as big of an impact. Now, I offer justification for this resolution in my confidence that my opponent will not be able to adequately negate it. If there's no reason for it to not be seen as socially unacceptable, that 100,000 tons in a landfill suddenly seems like a pretty good reason to support the resolution. I now hand it over to my opponent. Source: [1] http://www.statisticbrain.com...
Same Sex Marraige

I completely agree on that people are wasting time and money on something that shouldn't even cross a smart persons mind, then again, the government is messed up right now and have no common sense. But I disagree on how Same Sex Marriage should have to make their own group when in reality, common sense should show people that, If they don't like Same Sex marriage, than don't marry someone of the same sex... I mean, its ridiculous how Me, a 13 year old, could come up with more common sense in my sleep than the entire government... (Exaggerated a bit) But seriously, I don't like how people care so much about keeping it ban when it would save time, and money, just making it legal.. Cant you agree on that? I mean, Honestly, Who cares enough to waste time and a lot of money, on preparing a case on something that isn't their business (Im referring to the people who want to keep Gay marriage banned)
Same Sex Marraige

MilataryDude01 I love your passion for this subject but you haven't addressed none of my points from round 2 nor respond to my rebuttals. My rebuttal to your statements in round 2: "The reason Marriage was even made was because of Love, Love is happiness" - your quote from round 2 Where did you get that information from? Its logical to think that and in a perfect world many people want to believe that but is that really true? A lot of marriages from hundreds and even thousands of years ago were forced marriages to spouses they barley or not know at all. Even today people are forced/get into marriage for a variety of reasons such as, financial reasons, sexual reasons, status, baby, expectations and etc. Marriage does include love, yes, but that is not always the case. Like I said in round 2, People at the end of the day just want equal rights. Give people that want same sex marriages equal rights and just call it something else. Why? First, the term marriage has been tainted and 50% of all marriages end in divorce anyway. Second, homosexuals are in a great time in history, they have the opportunity to start something entirely new and begin there own traditions that can run parallel to marriage. Why do this? Because it can save a lot of tax payers dollars over useless debates and precious time and efforts that could be used in other areas. The State of Utah is planning on spending 2 million dollars (tax payers money) to fight for gay marriage in 2014 http://www.advocate.com... John Boehner (R) (US Speaker of the House) just spent over 3 million dollars (tax payers money) opposing gay marriage in 2013 http://politix.topix.com... In Pennsylvania taxpayers have to pay a law firm at least $400 an hour just to fight gay marriage. http://www.policymic.com... When will it stop?? Both side have their own reasons and unlimited time, effect and passion to keep this fight on so give the people what they really want and that is just equal rights but just a different name. This will save time and effort and our tax dollars could go to something that is actually worth debating
Same Sex Marraige

The reason Marriage was even made was because of Love, Love is happiness, It is not our jobs to decide that people cant get married because they love the same gender, that's like saying Black people cant marry White people... It makes absolutely no sense as to why people cant marry whom they please, and others just accept it, but I guess politics have to be involved in everything. As a Human Being, we are all born with the same rights, and Marriage is part of that, Why should I get to marry someone who I love, but a homosexual cant marry someone they love, that's disgraceful. Did you know that over 400 species show signs of Homosexuality? but only 1 shows signs of Homophobia, so honestly, humans are worst than animals if they wont allow homosexuals to be happy, I mean, they still are humans, just with a different love.
Same Sex Marraige

Another debate where ill be the underdog. But let me address your points. 1st you say that same sex marriage should be legal. Well it can be legal but to argue that is should be legal, no. When you say should that means that we the people, and the government have some obligation to allow same sex marriage and no. 2nd you bring up happiness , marriage doesn't equate to happiness. Everybody has the right to be happy should have it. Also should 14 year old be allowed to drive if it makes him happy? Should a 15 year old be allowed to watch a rated-R movies that is a parent? I believe all these are thing thats could be okay but to say that we are obligated to do so is another issue. My points People should (obligated) have the right to do things that are naturally given to them at birth and that is freedom and liberty. Marriage is just a word. Marriage can be for a man and a woman, and let same sex be called something else but have the same rights as a couple like most states have in place with a civil partnership/union. People are so wrapped up in the word and the tradition behind it. Let the people keep their tradition and same sex start there own tradition. Give it a different name but with similar rights. From my understanding people just want to have equal rights, blacks, white, heterosexuals, homosexuals, etc. Give them equal rights , with a different name and both sides of this argument might just be happy.
Same Sex Marraige

I believe same sex marriage should be legal in all countries, and shouldn't even be up for debate because everyone has equal rights. My first reason is a little weak, but There is literally no valid reason that same sex marriage should not be allowed, In the Declaration of Independence, it states that, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..." (http://www.ushistory.org... ) which means that everyone was created equal. The reason Same sex marriage should be legal is because we have no right to say who can marry who, or who can be happy, and who cant be happy, its absurd that people will say No to others being happy.
Fantasy Superhero Showdown

After 15 long years of watching, The Beyonder and The Living Tribunal's interest and curiosity grew tired of watching the horrors of the story unfold and used their vast powers to turn back time to the point of Grace and Mike's coming defeat. Their arrival to the scene turned the tide of the war irreversibly to Grace and their advantage. The Big Four used their reality warping powers to destroy the wrongdoers concepts of reality. Made their abilities null and void, restored the Book of Hindsight, and read it in its entirety to learn of the coming events of the war. Having learned of their intentions of impregnating Grace to create an abomination and disrupt the balance of the universe and overthrow the hierarchy laid down by the almighty, they agreed to use their powers to remove Grace's reproductive organs indefinitely. The Beyonder and The Living Tribunal, knowing of Deja's plans in their entirety having both read and watched the events unfold.. The Big Four used their near limitless abilities second only to the One of Above All others, to forcibly bring Medusa from her realm and proceeded to reverse the curse placed on her and defeated Deja Voodoo, Baron Samedi, Medusa, and Incubus. After suffering total defeat by The Big Four, The Living Tribunal placed his judgement upon them supported by the almighty, One Above All, where they were sent to an eternal prison that God built solely for them. Mike and Grace thanked The Beyonder and Living Tribunal for saving the universe from the wickedness of Deja Voodoo. They replied with "you're welcome" and the war was over and Grace and Mike lived peacefully and happily ever after. THE END.
Fantasy Superhero Showdown

Anticipating this, Deja came with a plan B. You see before he invaded, he gave his voodoo doll and book to his trusted companion, the legendary expert voodooman Baron Samedi. So when he and incubus were struggling for dear life, he let out his scream once again, this time summoning Baron. From afar Baron performed some rites and destroyed the Book of Hindsight, with no premonition of this, Grace and Mike were left distraught when they witnessed the book burn right in front of their eyes. Letting out a vindictive and disturbing laugh, Deja died peacefully. Incubus fled the scene. Unbeknownst the Gracey, she had just been impregnated by Deja, once Mike discovered this, he exiled her from his domain. Forced to migrate, Grace suffers a variety of mental health issues. The pregnancy is a long and complex one, but in the end a SUPER BABY is born, she calls it Deja junior, in honour of the one person who finally got inside her head. In a matter seconds, the duo connect spiritually and form an unstoppable allegiance from the get go. Together they are destined to become invincible, eventually returning to Mike's colony, and annihilating them. THIRTEEN YEARS LATER, Have attained great powers, Grace and her son are supreme leaders of many colonies, However Samedi hears word that Grace is still alive, infuriated by this he sets his sights on her for vengeance on his fallen friend. He manages to manipulate Deja junior in to joining him, telling him that Grace killed his dad. Heartbroken, Junior is left at a crossroads. What will he do..... Will he kill his perfect mother? Will he decide to resurrect his dad? Will he forgive her and develop a raw, incest like passion towards her? Find out next time on Fantasy Superhero Showdown... TBC
Fantasy Superhero Showdown

Thanks to Grace having read the Book of Hindsight she knew of the pending attack allowing her to survive the initial onslaught against Deja and Incubus. Prepared for it, Grace gabbed her war armor prior to the attack and used her ability to see and replicate both of their abilities when they arrived. Using her newly acquired powers used them to break Mike from "his" frozen and influenced state. Mike then did the same thing and went to get his war armor. At the same time Mike called upon her old friends The Beyonder and The Living Tribunal to slay the invaders.