BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gum Chewing in school

----Counterargument---- My opponent says "Gum chewing prevents bad breath." Bad breath is extremely easy to fix. Nowadays, most kids brush their teeth before going to school, so there isn't that problem. Also, kids can chew gum BEFORE school or on their way to school to get rid of bad breath. There is no way kids need to chew gum in school to get rid of bad breath. Besides, within 5 minutes of the school day if the kids were allowed to chew gum, the bad breath would already be gone. "Gum chewing has been proven to help kids focus." This is NOT true, though many people wrongly think so. First of all, not enough research has been done to fully prove this is true. Secondly, it does not help you get higher test scores, actually it will distract you from taking the test because you'll be so worried on if it'll help you or not. Knowing the information will get you higher test scores. If gum does anything at all, it is solely based on the placebo effect. Also, when kids chew gum, it distracts the kids next to them that may not be chewing gum. "People pick up trash after themselves." So, some people may be respectful to pick up trash. But let me tell you, in school, kids do not pick up their trash. I have plenty of proof since I am in school. Schools that allow gum chewing have gum in the carpet, under desks and chairs, and all over the walls. It is gross. Kids are getting sick because of all the germs from chewed gum all around them. Janitors don't want to clean up all the gum more then anyone else does, yet they are the ones who have to do it. "People are respectful and can be told to stop if "smacking"" First of all, teachers don't always notice that a student is smacking because they are at the front of the room and less likely to hear it. But the other students next to the smacking student are sure to hear it and it is very annoying. Also, if the teacher does notice, the student may stop smacking but then start again a few minutes later. Sadly, students love to play games like this with the teacher. Thirdly, an older student may entirely stop smacking in that class, but since older students switch classes, they will just start again in their next class. This will distract even more kids next to them until the teacher, at the front of the room, hears them. All these distractions and annoyances lower the grades of students that are next to smacking students. ----Conclusion---- I thank my opponent for taking this debate and wait for my opponent's rebuttal. References 1. http://www.teach-nology.com...
Gum Chewing in school

Why gum chewing should not be allowed in school. Okay, so most kids like chewing gum. Some kids think we should be allowed to chew it in school. I disagree with these claims. I think chewing gum would be a bad idea to have in school. If gum chewing was allowed, not all kids would be chewing every second of the day. Say a class was taking a test and a particular girl was not chewing gum but the person beside of her was. The girl taking the test becomes distracted. This is because many times people are not only chewing their gum, but also smacking. A gum smacker is not only distractive, but is annoying. The test taker is now distracted and annoyed, so her test score will be much lower. Gum chewing is extremely unsanitary. The wrappers will pile up in classrooms and hallways. Also, when kids are done with their gum, they don't want to get up in the middle of class and go throw their gum away, so they simply stick it under their chair or desk and leave it there. If you have ever felt sticky, hardened, ABC gum, you already know how gross it is. That is just like asking for kids to get sick! Viruses spread when a kid touches some gum that has already been in another kid's mouth! When kids get sick, they may miss school, thus making their grades even lower. Some people claim that gum chewing will boost your test scores. The fact is, not enough research has been done to prove this is true. What gum chewing does do is distract you. You blow bubbles, play with your gum, and the gum accidentally falls out of your mouth. These are all examples of distractions that happen when kids are chewing gum. Finally, there is no reason that kids need to chew gum in school. There is plenty of time outside of school to chew gum. If kids really like chewing gum, they can choose to spend all of their extra time outside school chewing away. So, why spend money on stuff you chew for a little while and throw out? Why spend even more money on it so you can chew in school too?
God doesn't exist.

God doesn't exist! Never has, never will. So how did humans and dinosaur fossils get onto planet earth? Well, I'll tell you how they didn't: no god put them there. Before I say any more, I would like to give the definition of "god." Definition: "a spirit or being that has great power, strength, knowledge, etc., and that can affect nature and the lives of people: one of various spirits or beings worshipped in some religions." [1] Many figures can be applied to this definition. In the 1930's and 1940's for example, Stalin could have been considered a god. In the 1950's and 1960's, Mao Zedong was a god to the Chinese people. [2] Kim Jong-un is a modern example of a god. Allah is an example of a god that is centuries old. However I believe that the god we are talking about in this debate is the Christian god who is just as false as all the other gods that I listed above. First of all, what proof is there that god exists? A piece of literature called the Bible. And what proof is there that the bible is the words of god? NONE! So is there a god? NO! God is a myth. "The exact way in which the biblical authors were transmitting God's word remained debated..." [3] In other words, there is no proof that god wrote all of the garbage written in the Bible. Facts that support god's nonexistence: -Christianity is a religious beliefs that requires you to "dumb down" your mind in order to have faith. -The "devil" was not present in religious texts until the nomadic monotheists ran into polytheists and borrowed the idea. -Throughout history, Christianity has been used to control the masses, rather than enlighten them. -"In the case of the Bible, often entire verses, stories, and anecdotes were falsified for the sake of making a point. Even the concept of the "holy trinity" is a fabrication created not by any god, but for political reasons by a zealot named Theophilus of of Antioch in 412 AD." [4] In order to prove that there is no god, one must simply look for proof that there is a god. I await my opponents replies. Sources: http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.wikihow.com...
God doesn't exist.

"How does evolution somehow negate the belief that God created people? I think it is entirely consistent to believe that God created people through the means of evolution, and this certainly doesn't mean God didn't create people."However evolution contradicted the beliefs of the Church who always thought the God created people."I would also like to point out that whether God created people or not has nothing to do with whether God exists!"The Church and the Bible teach that God created people. If God did not create people then either god is a liar, or the Bible is simply not the words of god."Pro has now given himself a huge burden of proof here, and one which is entirely unprovable. He has shown no evidence to support this claim, and who's to say that God doesn't act through natural processes?"Perhaps I cannot prove that this is true, however Con has not proven that it is false."Yes, I am! Because free-will is an essential doctrine in the center of the beliefs of Christianity! God created us as free creatures, so we can chose between what is right and what is wrong. So yes, I am using free-will as an excuse, because it is a vital property in any religion."So god GAVE humans free will, they were not born with it. That's new to me."Still, Pro has not responded to my arguments, so they can only be assumed to be true, meaning God exists. I have explained that even if evolution were true, it would not negate the fact that God created human kind. I have explained about prayer, and he merely dismisses the central doctrine of free-will. Pro also does not respond to my explanations of Biblical accuracy and why there are different religions, so I can only assume that he concedes these points. I think that I should also point out that none of Pro's points are supporting the notion 'God does not exist' - rather, they are minor objections to the existence of the Judeo-Christian God. Even if Pro's points were true (which I have shown that they are not), they do not mean that a 'general God', or a deistic God does not exist."This conclusion refutes my arguments however it does not support yours.If god existed then people would know it. Just like the grass is green and people KNOW it. It is as simple as that. Free will refutes my arguments however it does not support Con'sConclusion: although I understand that I have failed to prove that god does not exist, Con has failed to prove that he does exist. Con is a good debater however in my point of view he did not win this debate. Anyway, it was a pleasure debating with you.Sources:http://en.wikipedia.org......http://en.wikipedia.org......http://en.wikipedia.org......http://www.washingtontimes.com......http://en.wikipedia.org......http://www.reasonablefaith.org......
God doesn't exist.

"So Con admits that god did not create people. " "Con is basically admitting that god did not create people. " How do I admit that God did not create people, Pro? How does evolution somehow negate the belief that God created people? I think it is entirely consistent to believe that God created people through the means of evolution, and this certainly doesn't mean God didn't create people. I would also like to point out that whether God created people or not has nothing to do with whether God exists! PRAYER Pro asks if somebody prays to God for a good grade and ends up getting a good grade, whether God then answered the prayer. And the simple answer is, I don't know! And neither does anyone else - no-one is omniscient apart from God. But it is entirely possible that through the means of prayer, it gives someone the confidence and encouragement to study and do well on a test - in which case, it is entirely possible that God helped the person on a test. "Prayers are answered when something or somebody on this earth makes them happen. God doesn't answer them. " Pro has now given himself a huge burden of proof here, and one which is entirely unprovable. He has shown no evidence to support this claim, and who's to say that God doesn't act through natural processes? FREE-WILL Pro says: "You seem to be using free will as an excuse often. " Yes, I am! Because free-will is an essential doctrine in the center of the beliefs of Christianity! God created us as free creatures, so we can chose between what is right and what is wrong. So yes, I am using free-will as an excuse, because it is a vital property in any religion. CONCLUSION Still, Pro has not responded to my arguments, so they can only be assumed to be true, meaning God exists. I have explained that even if evolution were true, it would not negate the fact that God created human kind. I have explained about prayer, and he merely dismisses the central doctrine of free-will. Pro also does not respond to my explainations of Biblical accuracy and why there are different religions, so i can only assume that he concedes these points. I think that I should also point out that none of Pro's points are supporting the notion 'God does not exist' - rather, they are minor objections to the existence of the Judeo-Christian God. Even if Pro's points were true (which I have shown that they are not), they do not mean that a 'general God', or a deistic God does not exist. Sources: . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://www.theisticevolution.org...
God doesn't exist.

"I have given 2 proofs that God exists. So in order for Pro to back up the statement "There simply is no proof that God exists", he has to refute my two arguments, and there has not been any attempt so far. My opponent then claims that Evolution proves that people were not created by God (or something like that). But in no way does evolution disprove the existence of God! In fact, there are many Christians and theists that assert that evolution and theism can easily coexist." So Con admits that god did not create people. "There are many, many theists that believe that the earth is old and that dinosaurs existed, and Pro does not take into account these considerations." Con is basically admitting that god did not create people. "My opponent says that 'Prayer does nothing'. But in order to prove this is literally impossible - there is a huge burden of proof on Pro to show that during 2000 years of prayer, not 1 of them did anything." So if one stays up all night studying for a test and prays to god that he will receive a good grade before taking the test, then receives a good grade then god answered the prayer right? "In addition, it is very important to remember that God is NOT going to answer every single prayer everyone asks. " Prayers are answered when something or somebody on this earth makes them happen. God doesn't answer them. "Here, Pro cites the atrocities committed by Stalin, Hitler and Mao, and if God exists, then he would intervene. But again, the concept of free-will certainly comes into practice here. God has given all human the choice to sin. Stalin, Hitler an Mao chose to sin. For God to intervene would mean stripping humans of free-will, and this is entirely against God's Nature." You seem to be using free will as an excuse often. Con simply failed to prove that god exists. He talks about free will and prayer. However god did not give people free will if he created sins. Free will doesn't exist for Christians. Christians live their lives by the bible. Anyway, Con failed to prove that god exists.
The Las Vegas shooting was a hoax

I accept your challenge and thank you for the opportunity to debate. The events of October 1st were truly tragic, with a breathtaking loss of life. After such events, most people have trouble finding the words to describe such event. But there is at least one word that should not, and cannot be used to summarize the bloodshed; a hoax. The truth of this massacre is so undeniable that to say the contrary is to delve to the level of lunatics and psychopaths. Some of us do indeed wish that the shooting never took place. However, we don't indulge in wishful thinking and pretend that it was a hoax. To win this debate, the affirmative must prove that the shooting was, in fact, a hoax. They can not merely assert it, for whatever is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. More specifically, they can not merely say we have reason to doubt, since the resolution is not, "The Las Vegas Shooting MIGHT have been a hoax" The burden of proof is on them as the affirmative, and they need to provide evidence for their claims. With that out of the way, it is now the affirmative turn to speak. I hope for a good debate. Thank you.
pro choice

Your comment about not being able to feel almost had me agree. But you didn't take into account that the person whos unconscious from drugs are already living outside of a womb. In that case, Your morality is saying that as soon as the sperm makes contact with the egg, It is now a human being. Which is just factually incorrect, It's not even a mass of flesh yet at that point, It's just small cells the size of blood cells trying to congregate, And it's not a 100% shot on this you know, It's about a 20% chance. (https://www. Self. Com/story/best-chances-of-getting-pregnant-how-often-you-should-have-sex) Understanding that at the stage of such an early version of a baby. It can not Think, See, Hear, Or Even has a brain or a heart. If you are removing, A small mass of flesh which it is in between the start and about 3 weeks. It is the same as removing an egg from a woman or some sperm from a man. Also, You're talking about being poor and alive keep in mind. You have been birthed already and have been alive for some time to live on your own in an apartment with your girlfriend of a year or so, As the Average American couple does. No one's saying that you should off yourself because you're poor. There's welfare for that, But why bring 3 kids into a place where you can barely even feed the two of you together. Never mind the tons and tons of money you'll have to spend on children with baby products and the bills of children. It's just not a smart move financially if you can't afford it. Now if you can and you're just getting pregnant and you're just dumping 12 embryos out every month then yeah that's abusing it and shouldn't happen because then it's not a money issue. As well as a level of maturity is important, Two 16-year-olds who accidentally get pregnant which is a large issue around the world. Are not going to be able to take care of that baby efficiently at all, It's torturous to even force someone to do that, We made that mistake by letting those in the 60s and 70s do that. The boomers came out emotionally unstable and either was in a massively poor area or they got everything they wanted because dad would go out and work for 12 hours and then come back drunk. It's just not a healthy environment to raise a kid in until you're safely in a good position. As well as a woman seeing her child every day and seeing her rapists face in it is a nightmare I would never wish on anyone. Not everyone's dads are "messed up" the dad raped her. And you can't just let the state take care of it because its a drain on taxes and the kid will end up broken just like his household. Injecting yourself into another's life is strange for me, It's not my place. I'm right leaning and I believe in no illegals in my country, Why pay for their kids when they're not mine. The kids down the street aren't mine why pay.
pro choice

Someone's feelings aren't what make them human. If someone is buzzed off a drug or asleep and can't currently feel that doesn't make them less of a person. What the laws are meant to protect is people and if you're only defense is that they don't feel yet then you're not taking into account individuals rights. The parents aren't dying. The parents aren't saving the child from the woe's of the earth. The parents are terminating an individual. If being poor is so bad then there are a strange amount of people still choosing to live. No one truly believes being poor is so bad that it would be better to be dead; how dare you make that decision for someone. The reason people feel guilty about abortion is because the know sex is a responsibility they weren't able to handle it. That doesn't mean that their aren't plenty of other alternatives available to them. If a couple isn't able to take care of a child believe me the state will take over. Rape is obviously bad. It's important to remember that that zygote isn't their dad and shouldn't be held responsible for it's fathers crimes. Pretty much everybody's dad is messed up; that doesn't mean we shouldn't be here.
pro choice

Why put a life into existence that will grow up poor and sad. It isn't like the 60s, You can't just fire up a new job while the mom stays at home with the kids. We're in a recession right now. Abortion might be emotionally devastating to certain people but to others, It's a saving grace. If you want there to be no abortion. You should maybe get your lawmakers to work on giving the families you stopped from getting an abortion money. Accidents happen when 16-year-olds have sex. It's happening and it's what always will happen. If you cut off abortions, Others will go to different countries to get them done because of it that big of an issue for them. Especially if someone was raped and they have to tell their child that their child was made of sexual violence against your own mother. Just because it has DNA of a human doesn't mean it can feel, Think, Or see. No one's arguing that it's not going to be a person if you left it alone. What they're arguing is, At what point is it considered squishing an ant vs a live baby. After 6 weeks. It's not any more human than it will be once it's grown fingertips and a working body and eyes. Don't you think those people who get abortions hate it, They hate every minute of it because they're removing a part of something that could've been their whole life. Something that could be everything for them, But they're doing the ultimate sacrifice be not having a baby now when they're unstable vs when they're able to. And what right does anyone have denying someone what they can do with a mixture of sperm and an egg at 3 weeks? No one's going out and having a field day with an abortion, If you've ever been to an abortion clinic, You'll see sad grieving mothers and sad fathers who have to lose their child because they couldn't take care of it because they could barely take care of it themselves.
Online games at school

I have three children with another one on the way. When it comes to online gaming here are some dangers: Violence, predators, bullying, privacy issues, etc.,. Check it out: https://internetsafety101.org... . It's not being over-protective, it's being smart. When/if you have kids, hopefully you'll understand. You're right, it may be my opinion, but in this debate, I have at least listed some sources to back up my argument. In the future, you should do the same.
Online games at school

No, I do not believe kids have a "right" to entertainment and web-based gaming at school. Especially when they, or their parents, are not the ones paying for it. Specifically, an iPad paid for by the American taxpayer. Entertainment is a commodity, not a necessity. Let's say we go with parental supervision and emails. How are you going to address how the feelings of the kids who can't play games? Your suggestion removes equality all students currently have with the restrictions. Still care?
Online games at school

Here's a list for parents when it comes to purchasing school supplies for High School students in 2016: http://www.greatschools.org.... No iPad Present. Speaking of parents, what if parents do not want their kids playing certain web games, or web games period at school? Aside from that, there is an immoral implication surrounding your suggestion, where a tax payer is required to fulfill a commodity, not a necessity. What about their rights?
Online games at school

Okay, please lay out your reasoning as to why school systems should afford less fortunate students the ability to play games online while learning should be taking place, and furthermore, where are the schools supposed to receive the funds to pay for this, and lastly, how could you convince a municipal government to go for this? I promise, if there was zero incentive related to education, it wouldn't pass. Incidentally, why did your school issue iPads for students? I doubt it was to play games.