BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Mock Presidential Debate

Me and my opponent will be having a mock presidential debate. I am the conservative and you have more liberal ideas. In round 2 (Round one is acceptance) The topic will be Border Control, where each Canidate will present a plan on how to handle this issue. The third round will be discussion of foreign policy similar to round two, and the fourth round we will discuss economics similar to round two. In each round you present your plan and show how it would be a solution to solve the problem. Voters: vote on whoever you think solved the problem in an effective way, and communicated their solution the best.
Prostitution should be legal

Like I said, prostitution would create more burdens for society than anything else. It would lead to more unwanted children, a rise in STDS, and worst of all, more abortions. There are only two reasons I can think of why people like jayvon would want it legal. 1) To generate tax revenue. 2) For the claim "I want to do it." 1. The tax revenue would be dwarfed by the costs to the medical system 2. Simply wanting to do it does not justify legalization. If I said I wanted to do meth, would meth become legal?
Prostitution should be legal

I will be arguing that prostitution should not be legal because I believe it is unethical, that it degrades women, it would lead to a public health crisis and problems with children. First and foremost, the obvious; it is unethical for a woman, or a man, to sell themselves away for money. Even if they consent to it, it is still wrong. I predict my opponent will say something along the lines of "My body, my rights", and that's what I'll get to later. Second off, what kind of society would we be creating for ourselves if we allow prostitution. A society that basically believes that women are good only for sex work? That's not the kind of society I want to live in, or the kind of society I want the next generation to grow up in. And than there are the two downfalls of prostitution; the spread of STDS, and the unwanted children. I have no doubt that no matter how much government regulation there is, the spread of STDS would lead to a public health crisis. And imagine how many children the prostitutes would have. And don't say "Just get abortoins" because abortion is even more unethical than prostitution itself.
Astronomy is the Most Interesting Type of Science

I will go over this step by step. "There are many unexplored areas in it, so we still have much to learn, and it may produce outstanding results when we do make discoveries in that area." pro 1 "The point is not astronomy's production, but fascinating properties. " pro 3 1) I don't see how this is about astronomy's properties when my opponent's first argument was that it has the greatest capacity for learning (an obvious production of knowledge) and that it will have outstanding results. "It is much less mundane, much more mysterious, and is so vast that one exploring it would never be at a loss for things to learn or find out." 2) First of all, we have an almost complete grasp of the universe, and we now know that it is finite, whereas we have made almost no research into stem cells, particle physics, or robotics. And wouldn't particle physics be much less mundane, as the universe is made of mass traveling at a given velocity, and particles are literally points (point n. A dimensionless geometric object having no properties except location.) that can move at nearly infinite speeds. And we have not began to find out about how the brain works. For all we know, de javu is very real. Perhaps we will literally be able to see the future. Doesn't that make neuroscience more mysterious than astronomy? "While physics, biology, etc. are very important, they have been explored very thoroughly and are too close to home to instill any real kind of awe or inspiration to explore-the very basis of science." 3) First of all, many people are inspired by these fields and have caused great advances. Second, physics are a large part of astronomy. Third, it is a pure opinion to say that they are too close to home to instill anybody with the inspiration to do great things in science. "Such a vast area to study cannot produce less unique material than our singular planet." 4) As con it is not my job to prove any other science better than astronomy, just that they are the same or better. In addition, she has not shown what that material is. I will restate my argument: My opponent's first argument was that astronomy will yield outstanding results, and since then she has not presented any evidence that astronomy will give any benefits to humanity. There are many other sciences that are just as, if not more important than astronomy. Take reusable energy production and research. If we can't save our planet for at least another billion years, we won't survive long enough for astronomy to have any benefit on us anyway. And please. Vote for the better argument, not who you agree with.
Astronomy is the Most Interesting Type of Science

My opponent fails to observe the true purpose of this argument. The point is not astronomy's production, but fascinating properties. Astronomy, by a definition from dictionary.com, means the science that deals with the material universe beyond the earth's atmosphere. If you did not know this, I apologize for not keeping you informed. This science, larger than your assessment, includes the entire universe. Such a vast area to study cannot produce less unique material than our singular planet. Thanks for debating.
Astronomy is the Most Interesting Type of Science

What my opponent has not realized is that she has just sealed her fate. What my previous point was is that astronomy is kind of like a resource sponge. It requires the advancement of all other forms of technology, while giving little or nothing of it's own. Since astronomy is the study of stars, what can we gain from that in the here and now. Since my opponent has not given any examples of positive bonuses from studying the stars, we must assume that there are none. Whereas particle physics (while requiring about the same amount of research) can give great things to us. Inter-stellar travel (not a part of astronomy since astronomy is the study of stars, not the actual process of going there and setting up colonies), we could even cure cancer with the proper use of particles. I call upon my opponent to present evidence that astronomy (the study of stars.) Will present anything helpful to society, healthcare, economics, or another science that benefits any of these three.
Astronomy is the Most Interesting Type of Science

My opponent claims that I overuse opinions. To clarify, let me assert: What is the most interesting to someone personally IS their opinion. You may criticize my use of such in my argument, but when you start an argument, it is difficult to decide which facts to prove or disprove. However, I shall now augment with fact. Despite my opponent's claim that astronomy relies on all other sciences, let me input that because it includes all these other sciences (even as all other sciences do) it makes it even more fascinating and variable, not less. The challenges that precede many other discoveries in Astronomy make it a field welcoming to all specialists, and cement its flexibility in appealing to those from all fields and interests. And bringing your own opinion into this (scorned by yourself) while acceptable to me, may be scorned my others. It isn't really relevant. Just a heads up. Thanks for debating.
Astronomy is the Most Interesting Type of Science

This is my first debate, so I will proceed cautiously. The subject at hand is what is the most interesting form of science. She has said that it is astronomy, but has failed to specify what she means by it. Since she hasn't, I will. Astronomy: The branch of science that deals with celestial objects, space, and the universe as a whole. My opponent has neglected using facts and evidence, but instead has decided to simply post opinions. Here's an example "There are many unexplored areas in it, so we still have much to learn, and it may produce outstanding results when we do make discoveries in that area." While I do enjoy astronomy, there are some major problems with it. First of all, we are limited in what we can accomplish by many factors (the atmosphere, backlight from the sun, even it's gravity.) And the only way around this is to make advances in other fields. For example, The voyager 2 spacecraft just recently left the solar system, and for the first time we saw that our solar system is shaped more like a flattened ball than a perfect sphere. But this could have not been found without advances in chemistry, plastics, and optical fibers. But besides Astronomy's reliance on other sciences more than any other, there is another science that is much more open and is very much required for astronomy to progress any further. Particle physics. While astronomy has been growing and improving over the past 500 years, it has been at a cap ever since we learned how to use x-rays for observing the night sky. This cap can only be crossed if we learn how to observe particles as we can atoms and light waves. Not only that, but we can possibly find ways to travel 100 times conventional speeds, (not light. sorry that's still impossible) or cure cancer by using particles to remove the cancer gene. And that is why I think particle physics is the coolest form of science.
Astronomy is the Most Interesting Type of Science

Hello! Please debate. :) Astronomy is, I believe, the most interesting type of science. There are many unexplored areas in it, so we still have much to learn, and it may produce outstanding results when we do make discoveries in that area. It is much less mundane, much more mysterious, and is so vast that one exploring it would never be at a loss for things to learn or find out. While physics, biology, etc. are very important, they have been explored very thoroughly and are too close to home to instill any real kind of awe or inspiration to explore-the very basis of science.
Mandatory Summer Classes for Students Taking AP/Honors Classes

Since this is one of my first debates, I'm not really sure what to do about the whole "forfeiting the round" thing. .. but my arguments against the instigator's proposal for mandatory summer classes still stand. Here are my counterarguments to the instigator's point of view (which are fleshed out in my first argument, along with my sources): The idea of "learning" is subjective. Being stuck in a classroom being taught common core material may, according to most schools, be of more use than being out in the real world doing creative activities (such as, say, designing a trebuchet outside of school, or building and renovating a boat), but in reality students truly need a way to exercise their minds in unconventionally useful ways. While being taught in schools during the school year is structurally important to students' development, they still need a good chunk of the year to engage in free-form, creative activities. Brain drain only occurs when students do not do similar activities to the ones listed above (or much simpler ones, such as debating and simply talking to other people). Anything creatively exercising the mind will prevent such problems. Creating summer classes that are actually available to the people who need them most is financially impossible. While the instigator seems to expect that all students entering A. P. classes have the exact same amount of prior knowledge in the exact same categories, this is not the case. Many students will not learn anything from compressed summer intro classes. This is why we have entrance tests into most A. P. classes. Honestly, this is exactly why we have prerequisite classes. I think that is pretty much it. If I was supposed to forfeit this round. .. I'm sorry. If I was, please disregard everything written above. I look forward to the rest of the debate.
Mandatory Summer Classes for Students Taking AP/Honors Classes

Thank you for accepting this spot quickly, and I look forward to a good argument. Contention: Summer courses will help get students up to speed with their courses in the fall, even if they aren’t taking honors and AP classes. After taking some time to research, I have found in a certain document that proves my claim that summer courses should be mandatory and will definitely be helpful to any student deciding to participate in honors/AP classes. Considering the fact that it helps students by going over topics already covered allows them to strengthen their skills for honors courses in particular, because of how in-depth subjects can go. Being able to pan this school time out over the course of a 2 1/2 month period is the most efficient way to prevent brain decay from happening in students. Not only does it prevent stress on the body, it has been proven to have students learn quickly and easily and is a lot more effective than its fall school counterpart (Page 43, Paragraph 2, Lines 10-31)[1]. As you can tell from these pieces of evidence, it is unequivocal to believe that summer courses can be necessity for the students who are taking these classes, and even for those who are not taking AP/honors courses. It allows students to actually understand the concepts being taught in the latter school year. Contention: Summer courses keep the students learning. It has even been proven in most studies that brain decay happens during the summer, when students aren't doing much. Brain decay can have a serious impact on the student's education if they decide to partake in honors/AP courses. (Page 41-42, Paragraph 3, Lines 23-34). It is even highly encouraged at some schools to take summer classes to prevent this from happening. Brain decay varies among ages, but the average brain decay rate is about 1 month of teaching over the course of summer break. Summer school allows that month of learning to be saved essentially. (Page 1, Paragraph 3, Lines 1-End of Page)[2]. Not only is summer school preparing students for their future classes, they make sure that the students are remembering key subjects learned in the past. I have very limited things to say, because I am at a lack of time currently, and I believe that this evidence will be enough for the first round, I am trying to take it easy for now, so that the Con gets used to DDO. (Sources: [1]http://www.wallacefoundation.org... [2]http://partnerforchildren.org...)
Mandatory Summer Classes for Students Taking AP/Honors Classes

Parameters:72 hours are given to complete your argument with a maximum of 10,000 characters, and a 2 week voting period is given, as to provide ample time for anybody viewing it to vote. There will be 5 rounds to this argument.Structure:Round 1 : Rules and opening statementRound 1 : Opening statement and Pro/Con initiationRound 2 : Reason, Evidence, Elaboration #1Round 2 : Optional Rebuttal, Reason, Evidence, Elaboration #1Round 3 : Rebuttal, Reason, Evidence, Elaboration #2Round 3 : Rebuttal, Reason, Evidence, Elaboration #2Round 4 : RebuttalRound 4 : RebuttalRound 5 : Closing StatementsRound 5 : Closing StatementsRules:1. The scope of this debate will be of the Contiguous United States.2. Kritiks and semantics shall not be allowed or tolerated.3. No forfeits will be permitted in all non-apocalyptic cases.4. Burden of proof is shared. 5. Spelling, grammar, and conduct points should only be granted if it is so bad as to impact the debate.6. Common sense statements and facts do not need to be cited or sourced unless their conformity is called into question.7. All extraneous documents containing your argument outside of this website (Google Docs, Word documents) will be voided and ignored, this does not include your sources. This is to ensure that the opponent stays within the character limit.8. Contradictions or rebuttals in the opponent’s argument can be cited by which paragraph, sentence(s), or line(s) they can be found in, as to ensure a viewer the easiest possible way to view the point(s) given. This can take place of quoting an argument.9. Refrain from insulting opposing parties.Violation to any of these rules will be considered a forfeit.Definitions:Mandatory- required by law or rule. (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)Advanced Placement (AP) Program- the placement of a student in a high school course that offers college credit if successfully completed. (http://www.dictionary.com...)Honors Course- a class in which the most advanced students are offered the same curriculum as regular classes but are tailored for high-achieving students — covering additional topics or some topics in greater depth. (https://professionals.collegeboard.org...)Claim: I think that summer classes should be mandatory for students who are taking AP and/or honors courses.
Mandatory Summer Classes for Students Taking AP/Honors Classes

Prior to giving my concluding argument, I want to respond to some of the points that my opponent made. My responses will be brief, and will essentially just sum up what I have been saying in my prior arguments. My opponent has argued that summer classes are "financially sound" for most of the schools that would be using it. This is incorrect. As I stated previously, the majority of schools in the U.S. are undergoing budget cuts. They are pressed for money as it stands. They will not be able to afford two more months of schooling for multiple classes. My opponent argues that this system will effectively reduce brain drain. He is right, but it is only one (and very, very expensive) solution to the problem. Most sources I have found advocate for much less stress-inducing (and cheaper) activities. My opponent argues that this system will reduce the lack of preparation that students often have prior to taking A.P. classes. While this is true, an effective system of prerequisite classes effectively does the same thing. Our current educational system is structured so that, prior to taking A.P. classes, there are certain qualifying classes and tests that students must take. In an ideal world, my opponent"s idea of mandatory classes would work well. But this world is far from ideal. The economic problems with this idea as well as its lack of necessity, the disruption of student plans, and the harm done by this system makes it problematic for many reasons. I stand by my position that students should be allowed to enjoy their summers without having to go to school.
bible presuppose sense, therfore its false

At the end of this debate, it is clear that the con has won this debate. The pro has not really contested much about the Kritik, rather the pro aims to extend his own arguments rather answering mine. Therefore the Kritik goes uncontested throughout the round. This means the Kritik outweighs the case, thus the con must win. Moreover, the pro has done nothing to answer my case attacks, choosing-- as I said before-- to extend, his case is shredded to pieces. Even if the pro wins that "the bible claims sense are totally false invalidates it", that just gives a link to the Kritik, further strengthening the link that has REPEATEDLY been conceded. On the Kritik debate, the only answer he has on the kritik questions the "warrent" section of the alternative. What makes his (and many Youtube comments) rants-- as I call "unwarrented" is that the authors of such rants did not really look into what Christianity really was. Not only was this largely uncontested, attributes of this argument can clearly be seen throughout the pro's speeches, where he makes blatant, illogical assertions about christianity, like how "every word of the bible you have read you have written with your own mind unaware you are in a dream...".This is basically screaming "LINK!!!!!" Lastly, the pro strangely chose not to respond in the alternative debate, which means he concedes the alternative solves the case. Not only does the Kritik outweigh, it also solves the case. On the case debate, he largely extends. He also claims I "conceded all [his] points" but clearly this is false. Upon examination of my second speech, detailed responses to each and every point will be found, plus observations of concessions of the pro. The negative tries to place a new twist on his argument, adding that "reading the bible only to get the truth is clearly false...". First, this argument was added late into the debate, no new arguments should be made in the final speeches, thus this argument should not be counted. Second, my fourth point from my first speech answers this, that there is no clear statistics or proof this is so (which I might remind you, the pro has conceded this point). My first point also answers this (plus generally kills the entire case) that this case follows no coherent structure (this the pro has also conceded). Aside from these few remarks, the pro does nothing else, literally giving me the ballot (not to be rude). Therefore, the pro's case basically is dead. Whether it be from the case, the Kritik, or both, clearly the con has won this debate.
bible presuppose sense, therfore its false

buy bull presuppose sense belief=Be lie, as i dont know is true what the hell are you talking about.. i dont have a warrent? hmm you are right about the headline, i was just trying to claritfy by what i mean when i say bible presuppose sense.. not make an absolute statement.. i meant to say that the claim that you can only read the bible to get the truth is clearly false when its based on senses being false in the first place.. i think this is christian apologetics or presuppositionalism that makes these claims to claim sense are false totally invalidates the bible you have conceeded all my points therfore i win and the moon is made of cheese becasue i just said it btw