BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
High schools should not require algebra.

Since my opponent has forfeited the last round, it is not necessary for me to refute his arguments again, so I will get straight to my third point. 3) Algebra is not needed in real life, and students can learn everything they need to know to prepare for life in their other math courses or the rest of their school curriculum. -My opponent makes many claims about the many wonderful real life uses for high school algebra, but these are not supported by any research or evidence, but based on wishful thinking. -John Willis, as cited in my second round argument, states: "A common question in any high school algebra class is, 'when are we going to use this.' Most teachers cannot provide an answer because there is none." -Very few professions actually use algebra. It is required only for certain jobs. A definitive analysis by the Georgetown Center on Education and Workforce finds that a mere 5% of entry-level workers need to be proficient in Algebra or above. -Many educators have found that some math classes are more useful than algebra, and should replace it. For example, Mathematical Statistics class is much more useful because people use statistics all the time in their daily life. I don't think that finding things like the slope of a line on a graph is going to be useful in life.
High schools should not require algebra.

Rebuttal- First off, I would like to point out that my opponent has contradicted himself in his own first argument. In the beginning, he says that algebra is essential for good education and will be needed a lot later in life. But then, in a refutation against my point, he says that not very many jobs need algebra, so the failure rate is okay. Then, during his point, he goes back to making the argument that algebra is needed in real life. Obviously, my opponent needs to figure his arguments out. I would also like to point out that my opponent has not used a single scrap of evidence in his argument. His points are completely moral based, without any data, or even a quote to back them up. To refute his point, I will state what he has already said. Algebra is not that essential in later life. This wil come up again later in the debate, but some of the only jobs that require algebra are jobs that are in the engineering, math, or computer science field. Many of the other jobs don't need an algebra basis. Now on to my own point. 2) Algebra prevents millions of students from getting their high school diploma, achieving their career goals, or getting any job. -All people that see this debate, Imagine yourself as a high school senior with good grades. You're excited to go off to college or to start a job that requires a high school diploma. But then your report card arrives with a failing grade in algebra. Imagine not graduating because you failed one course-Algebra. All your career dreams dashed, and few prospects for your job, because you couldn't pass algebra. This is how 6 million high school students feel every year. -The Wall Street Journal said on October 2012, "You've heard about the high unemployment rate-something like 8%? Well consider the unemployment rate of of high school dropouts - which is more than 50% - If 6 million high school students are experiencing this trauma each year, why throw the baby out with the bath water and put these kids on the street with little hope for a future career or any job, simply because they didn't pass algebra? -John Willis, a professor at the University of Columbia says, "It doesn't serve a student to withhold her diploma for failing an algebra class if she would otherwise receive one. Please vote for this measure and make algebra not required in high schools. It is for the benefit of many more high school students to do so. Also, the kids who want to get a job in engineering, math, or computer science can still do so, because we wouldn't be taking algebra out entirely, just making it not required. Please vote to make high schools not require algebra, for the benefit of everyone. Thank you!
High schools should not require algebra.

Rebuttal: of 1) The purpose of education is to impart knowledge into people not for them to pass a test while learning very little. Algebra is a very important topic to master; (see argument 1 later) we do our children a disservice by not giving them access to this education and make life harder for them. The high failure rate is proof not that algebra shouldn"t be taught but simply that the course is challenging " I think challenging children at school is a good thing. A high failure % may also be down to poor teaching. I feel that it would be better to re-evaluate teacher training or the structure of the course/examinations. Perhaps we could improve pass rates while actually teaching children something? Failing a high school algebra course is not the end of the world " numerous professions do not require a certificate or qualifications to join. So even if people fail algebra which my opponent has shown life isn"t going to pan out terribly " in fact it might be helpful to get them out on their bike instead of in an education system that will never benefit them and that is likely to fail them when they get to a real challenge like college or university. Now on to my substantive argument. Argument 1: Algebra is an important skill to master, as doing so hugely benefits you and society. Algebra classes teach transferable skills such as logical thinking and problem solving. But algebra is useful in and of itself countless jobs from construction workers and carpenters to scientists and engineers. Algebra is the cornerstone of science and further mathematical studies. As algebra is very difficult it needs to be taught and mastered so that students can progress, without algebra we cannot do calculus, graph functions or understand imaginary numbers. These skills are required by scientists and engineers, it"s important to develop these skills for the benefit of society. After all the electricity, cars, computers, internet " just about everything will have required a scientist or engineer at some point doing algebra.
High schools should not require algebra.

Before I begin this debate, I would like to state that each of the three rounds will be for presenting a new argument. One argument per round. You may also refute the other's arguments. Now to begin, 1) Algebra is the primary cause of the huge high school drop out rate in America. -One in four ninth graders drop out of High School, which is 7,000 kids per day. Many Educators such as Andrew Hacker, a professor of education at Queens College, cite algebra cite Algebra as the cause of this. -A national sample of transcripts finds 2 times as many Ds and Fs in algebra compared to other High School subjects. -Edward Silver for the Alliance for Excellent Education finds that 40-50% of High Schoolers fail Algebra. -Shirley Bagwell, a longtime Tennessee teacher warns that to expect all students to master algebra will cause more students to drop out.
The United States Should NOT Mandate Health Insurance among all citizens

Ok, thank you for allowing me to debate this with you. I would like to start out by giving an important definition that the Con missed. Mandate " to officially require (from Merriam-Webster) This is important because it means that the government is only requiring its citizens to purchase healthcare, not giving it to them. Also to clarify things, I am not advocating the current health care system, I am simply showing that we should not mandate healthcare. I will first make my own case, then go on to attack my opponent"s. People should not be required to have healthcare because requiring healthcare violates personal freedom. American society was created on the idea that people should be free to do what they want (within reason), but requiring healthcare would go directly against this. The government has no right to tell people what they have to buy or what they have to own. If a person decides that they do not want healthcare, why should the government be able to deny that? Now, onto my opponent"s case. In his first contention, my opponent claims that the government should mandate healthcare because healthcare is good. I agree that healthcare is good, but Con"s argument does not show why the government should mandate healthcare. The Con has successfully proved that healthcare is good for your health, but has not shown the why this means the government should require it. By Con"s logic, the government should outlaw all alcohol, tobacco, soda, candy, and everything bad for your health. Con"s second contention, which he claims is about the economy and the public, but it really proves nothing. The quote he gives about a grocery shopper does not relate to this debate at all. Even if the quote related, it would work against him because the other shoppers should not have to pay for the groceries of others. The only economic benefit that the Con shows here is the benefit of removing the current healthcare system. Nowhere does he show that mandating health insurance would have a greater economic benefit than simply allowing people to choose whether or not they want health insurance. Next he gives the example of the Netherlands, but this does not support his position either. First, he says that they spend less money on health insurance, but that is because of our current health care system. If we were to allow people to choose if they wanted healthcare, then it would be even lower. The hospital bed occupancy is close enough that it does not impact this debate and can be attributed to other variables. The Con also claims that more people in the US want to change the healthcare system, but once again that is because the current system is bad, not because mandated healthcare is good. I am winning this debate because I have shown that it is a violation of freedom to force people to buy something like healthcare and because the Con has no substantial arguments that support his position.
Video games are good for you.

I am supporting that video games are good for you because of the following reasons. Video games make you more creative. (1) A study conducted by Michigan State University, published online in the journal Computers in Human Behavior, suggests that kids who play video games tend to be more creative. I'm not sure exactly how you measure a person's creativity levels, but maybe video game designers should fine-tune their games to develop even more creativity with users. Fast action video games "help train people to make quick, accurate decisions in all aspects of life, new findings suggest. When you are facing a challenging problem in a video game, you need a fast reaction to solve the problem. Video games can help fine-tune your brain. Studies show that video games can help increase your attention span, improving people's driving skills and abilities to multi-task. When you are in a video game, you cannot be distracted because of the possibility of losing, There are many more reasons that video games are good for you. I will release the rest of my information if the challenger has a good enough debate. (1) http://www.nickcannon.com...
There is no such thing as true free will

Very well. Another definition of true is: "accurate or exact" -https://www.google.com... In that case the statement can also be reworded as follows: "There is no such thing as exactly acting at one's own discretion" The definition of exactly is as follows: "in exact terms; without vagueness." or "without discrepancy" - https://www.google.com... Then you can rewrite the statement again as follows: "There is no such thing as acting at one's own discretion without discrepancy" Therefore you still do not have true free will because one person can want a large number of different things. When faced with a choice the human mind weighs all of the options no matter how briefly. Since it is weighing all of the possibilities there is a discrepancy between the options meaning that no matter what choice you make it is not the exact act of ones own discretion. Therefore my statement remains true.
There is no such thing as true free will

The topic is as follows: "There is no such thing as true free will" My opponent says that he wishes not to use the word true, and would rather use the word absolute. True is defined as follows: "In accordance with fact or reality." Absolute is defined as follows: "Not qualified or diminished in any way; total." -https://www.google.com... I do not dispute that one's freedom of will is not absolute, however the topic which I am Con to deals with true free will, not absolute free will. The BoP is on Pro to show how general acts (such as me accepting this debate, me submitting this debate, and my opponent creating this debate) are not committed using free will. Pro has not met his BoP. I extend him in order to meet it.
There is no such thing as true free will

The human mind is a beautiful and unique thing. Each one is different and it is true that every person is faced with choices every single day of their life. In this regard yes people have free will. And I will admit that I may have misused the word true. A more accurate word would be absolute. Because there are many things in this world that we as humans do not have free will over. Allow me to explain with an example: You as a person decide that you are hungry. Now your brain has to chose what it wants to eat, which admittedly is an example of free will. But what about that initial desire to eat? The human body requires food to survive, if not it will die this is a fact that everyone knows. If humans have real free will then we would be able to ignore this desire to eat and survive. To sum it up while we as humans have basic free will over certain parts of our lives there are many things that we don't have free will over. You as a person can not make the choice to hold your breath and not breathe. You don't have free will over the basic human instincts of living, therefore you don't have absolute free will.
There is no such thing as true free will

The topic is as follows: "There is no such thing as true free will" Free will is defined as follows: "The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion. " -. https://www.google.com... True is defined as follows: "In accordance with fact or reality. " -. https://www.google.com... So, the statement can be reworded as follows: "There exists no ability to act on one's own discretion which is in accordance with fact or reality. "
Legalise All Recreational Drugs

I'd like to point out that Pro has FF'd 2 of his rounds so far and will only briefly add on to my previous argument. One comparison that can be made to legalized drugs and the effects they have is Smoking and Alcohol. The death ratio of smokers is about 600,000 people per year alone. That is a lot of people. Drugs like Ecstasy, heroin and metamphetamine dramatical affect your health in a negative way. We'd have women abusing drugs while pregnant which will cause many more mental retardations and physical deformations. I extend all my previous arguments.
Legalise All Recreational Drugs

Since my opponent has FF I will not put too much effort into this round, in fear that he will FF all the other rounds.All recreational drugs should not be legalized. With legal heroin the increase in addiction will spike, having it readily avaliable will turn the whole nation into a bunch of druggies. this is bad because with increase in addiction we see a rise in other crime and accidents. For example much more DUI will occur with All drugs being legal. Many marriages will also be affected by this with the increase of drug dependancy. People will overdose much more with drug legality because the price of street drugs would dramatically decrease. So we'd have drug addicts buying drugs for 1/5 of the price. Unemployment and Welfare will go through the roof. Many people will become too drug dependant to hold a stable job. Or marriage. This are the reasons I believe all drugs should not be legalized.
Women are treated better than men in American society

It is considered socially acceptable for men to do many things women cannot, a woman has never been the President of the United States as of yet, in the Presidential Election 2016 itself a woman's face was insulted (later claimed to be at attack at her "persona"), women are statistically more likely to be sexually harassed on the internet and to be raped outside of the screen , and are proven to be paid less than men at their jobs, to varying degrees depending on said occupation.
The Prophet Muhammad PBUH is both Light (Noor) and Human

If it DID say that, then Pro would have possibly won this debate. .. . But it doesn't say that. The resolution Pro needs to support is that Muhammad IS noor (God's light). But he hasn't. He hasn't because before he can prove Muhammad is God's anything, he needed to establish there is a God at all. But he hasn't. And it's too late now because this is the last round. BURDEN OF PROOF As I said earlier, my opponent has the full burden of proof. He has never argued otherwise, so we should presume he agrees. With that in mind, I didn't have to offer any affirmative arguments. As Con, I simply had to refute any relevant arguments Pro made. .. But he never made any. Time and time again, he tried to change the topic of this debate, but to do so is disingenuous, and not allowed on debate. org. So basically, Pro never gave me anything to refute, because he never engaged the debate resolution. Not only that, but he forfeited a round and ADMITTED to plagiarizing! The choice is clear.
The Prophet Muhammad PBUH is both Light (Noor) and Human

Debate Resolution My arguments were in no way in conflict with the debate resolution. We are debating whether or not Muhammad is God's light (noor). Pro has the full burden of proof, so I don't have to make an affirmative case. I only have to refute Pro's claims. If anyone is not debating the proper subject, it's my opponent. He seems to be wanting to debate "The Qur'an says Muhammad is noor (God's light)." But that's NOT what the subject of our debate. As anyone can see, we're debating if Muhammad is God's light.... WELL, the only way for Muhammad to be God's anything is if God exists. So, Pro needs to establish that first. The only way the Qur'an can be accepted as evidence in this debate is if it can be established as God's literal Word. Absent that, what it says is irrelevant to this debate resolution. His Scholars vs. My Scholars Pro claims my scholars are heretical, but offers no sources or evidence to back this up. With this in mind, I know my opponent will understand if the voters reject this argument as the baseless claim that it is. Hadiths Pro defines hadiths as "Hadiths are the sayings and narrations from the Prophet Muhammad". Well, just because Muhammad says he is God's light doesn't make it so. I could claim to be President of the United States, but that wouldn't make it so. Again, this is nothing more than a bare assertion that should be rejected as the baseless claim that it is. We're not debating what Muhammad said; we're debating if it's true or not. Pro has basically wasted a round. I encourage him to begin engaging the actual debate resolution he created.
The Prophet Muhammad PBUH is both Light (Noor) and Human

Now that we have gotten your plagiarism out of the way, let's discuss this issue: Definition of noor: "The word "n$3;r'" means "light" in Arabic, Persian and Urdu. It is often used in the Quran, notably in a verse that states "God is the light of the heavens and the earth." [1] "There is controversy over the doctrine of An-N$3;r al-MuM17;ammadī, or the Muhammadan Light, in which Muhammad is thought to have existed before creation." [ibid] BURDEN OF PROOF As the instigator, and the one making the positive claim, my opponent has the full burden of proof. Considering the hole my opponent has dug himself, this is no small matter. First, before Pro can show Muhammad is "God's light" (noor), Pro must show us two other things: 1. God exists. After all, the only way Muhammad can be noor (God's light) is if there's a God in the first place. 2. The Qur'an is the literal Word of God. Just because it claims to be so proves nothing. I could claim to be a talking eggplant, but it wouldn't make it so. The Bible and the Book of Mormon make the same claim, but neither of them even mention Muhammad. Pro can quote the Qur'an all day, but that in no way proves God exists, or that the Qur'an is the literal Word of God. And if it doesn't do either of those, it can't show Muhammad is noor (God's light). If Pro is unable to establish either one of these claims, I automatically win the debate. Scholars Pro has found some scholars who agree with him. I have found some that disagree: For example, Persian scholar, Al-Zamakhshari says the noor is "the truth": "He is the possessor of the light of the heavens and the owner of the light of the heavens. The light of the heavens and the earth is the truth (al-M17;aqq), which can be compared to light in its manifestation and clarification, just as he says, "God is the friend of those who believe; He brings them forth from the shadows to the light (2:257), i.e., from the false to the true"" [2] Another scholar, MuM17;ammad al-Bāqir, says the noor is not Muhammad, but rather his descendants: "And believe in Allah and His Messenger and the n$3;r (light) that We have brought down." [3] So, we can easily see that Pro hasn't even begun to make a compelling case. Appeals to the Qur'an and scholars are premature. Pro must FIRST establish: 1. God exists, and... 2. The Qur'an is the literal Word of God, and as such, is trustworthy. I now turn the debate back over to my opponent. Sources: 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org...(Islam) 2. Sufi Commentaries on the Qur'an in Classical Islam (p. 110) (https://books.google.com...) 3. https://books.google.com...
The Prophet Muhammad PBUH is both Light (Noor) and Human

I believe that the Quran and Hadith and sayings of scholars support that the Prophet Muhammad PBUH is Noor-ul-Bashar, meaning Light and Human and that this is the belief of Ahlus Sunnah wa'l Jamaah, the Sunni Muslims. The Ahlus Sunnah wa'l Jamaah believe that it is indeed permissible to call the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) as 'Nur (light) of Allah'. The Qur'an has itself applied this description to the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) at many places and so have overwhelming ahadith. However, it is often at this point that those who oppose this view believe from some erroneous conviction that we deem the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) as a non-human. This is indeed a strange and gross accusation, as those who claim that he was not a human, have clearly ventured out of the bounds of Islam, and have entered into kufr. The belief of Ahlus Sunnah wa'l Jamaah is that our Noble Prophet Muhammad (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) is both Nur and Human. I will use plenty of evidences to support my belief.