BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should Teachers Wear A Uniform

Yes, we're all equal. School Spirit, Right? I think teachers should have to wear uniforms because we, as students, wear uniforms everyday. When you walk in school you see navy and khaki on students. And then you see the teacher in a purple flowing dress or a green skirt. Our school colors aren't purple or green. Our colors are navy and khaki. And that's what the teachers should be wearing. Navy and Khaki. Show some school spirit, educators! also Setting aside cultural and religious issues that can arise from "business casual" dress.
There should be a civil suit against Zimmerman

I refute the Pros argument that Zimmerman acted in self defense by using his gun to shoot unarmed Trayvon Martin.When the Police Dispatcher told Zimmerman not to follow Martin he should have follow orders instead he pursued the teen.We know that crimes were being committed in the neighborhood that Zimmerman was patrolling mainly by blacks prior to killing Trayvon Martin and so, he stereotyped all blacks in the neighborhood as being law breakers meaning, black men to follow Trayvon Martin that fateful night. From photos, transcripts and other permissible evidence Trayvon was just visiting his mother's boyfriend.Trayvon happened to be the bad lucky one at Zimmerman's prey. We should look at Zimmerman's propensity for violence which is relevant to this argument his arrest for battery on a law enforcement officer, his injunction to prevent domestic violence taken out by his ex girlfriend and evidence of his training as a bouncer for Data Whore Productions. Pro should understand the justice system is broken especially for blacks why, because pertaining to Zimmerman and Martin Case, Zimmerman defense team were only suppose to use photos or videos relevant or admissible at the trial of which they did not do and secondly, the defense team kept talking to the media that made it difficult to find impartial jurors. Thirdly, Zimmerman claim of stand your ground should not have been grounds for his acquittal he should not have followed Martin when the police dispatcher told him not to he only stereotyped Martin for the way he looked, the black guy with the hooded shirt and decided to pursue him. The justice system failed Trayvon Martin and the NAACP and the parents of Trayvon Martin should pursue a civil case against Zimmerman. Sundial
Debate.com's sign-up policy is unreasonable.

Due to the high number of people who sign up and don't do anything, the Debate.org team simply wants to seperate the sheep from the wolves.The site is called Debate.org, not voteondebates.org, and it asks that everyone pitch in. There are only 86,000 members, of which only 500 are actively debating (as seen on the homepage) and the debate.org team simply wants to raise that number of active debates so that this website gets more activity. Currently, this website is actually lacking in activity and oculd doa a bit better, so by forcing everyone to debate it raises the debate amount be a bit to help the activity here on tthe site.
Debate.com's sign-up policy is unreasonable.

I have signed up for Debate.com in order to read debates, think about them, and possibly leave comments and vote. Unfortunately, despite my preference to remain out of the spotlight, debate.com's policy of requiring three completed debates before weighing in on existing debates has made me create this pointless debate. The founder of the site might have meant this as a method of creating content, but I cannot think it will be the type of content which any thinking person wants to see.
Should guns be allowed in the united states

I think that guns should be allowed because sometimes shooting happens like in school and then teachers call 911 but it's to late when they come if guns are allowed the schools should have metal detectors so they could check if somebody brought something dangerous to school like knifes guns and other sharp dangerous thing also if they allow gun in the united states with the gun seller should be careful to who they sell the guns and what are they selling. Guns should be allowed
Resolved: That President George W. Bush is a terrorist.

Thank you for starting the debate. I'll counter both of your contentions individually. 1.) Lying is not a threat, nor is it the use of violence. Furthermore, in this context, it did not intimidate. It does not fit the definition that you offered for terrorism. Furthermore, even if you accept that lying is terrorism (which it isn't), you still haven't proven that the administration lied. They were going off of CIA intelligence reports that they believed to be true. Saying something false when you are not aware that it is false is not lying. 2.) First, I'd like to point out that the vast majority of those casualities of Iraqi civilians were not made by US troops. They were made by Islamic terrorist groups in the region. Of course, some were made by US troops, but mistakes will happen. These mistakes do not qualify as terrorism, as they did not have any goal of intimidation or coercion. Mistakes do no have any goals, for that matter. Moreover, the bombing of Iraq did not have the goal of intimidation or coercion. It had the goal of defeating an enemy. Initially, this enemy was Sadam Hussein. Now it is the various terrorist groups in the area. The goal is the defeat of these enemies. We do not want to coerce them into a compromise. We do not want to intimidate them into backing off. We want to destroy them. Therefore, this does not meet the definition of terrorism.
Resolved: That President George W. Bush is a terrorist.

First I would like to define terrorism: "The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes." dictionary.com Also, we are talking about the current President of the United States of America, George W. Bush. I will prove why GWB is a terrorist through two contentions. CONTENTION I: Lies to America. According to the Center for Public Integrity, eight top White House personnel have lied in 935 public statments about Iraq. President Bush led the pack with 260 false statements about Iraq having Weapons of Mass Destruction. In fact, the Bush Administration tried to scare the American people to support the War in Iraq. When U.S. troops got into Iraq, there were no WMDs. This fits the definition because he tried threats and intimidation to get support for the war. Stories from MSNBC and CNN about the lies and a statment from Ron Paul about the War: Part 1 of 3 (http://youtube.com...) More information about the study (http://www.washingtonpost.com...) CONTENTION II: Bombing Iraq. 9/11 was the second 'terrorist' attack on the US, the other being Pearl Harbor. If this fits as a 'terrorist attack', then bombing Iraqi hospitals and homes fit too. About 3,000 people died on the 9/11 attacks. That's terrible, we all agree. What I fail to see is how people justify bombing Iraq and killing 90,000 Iraqis to date. Bombing and gunning down Iraqis fits under the definition as violence, just as crashing planes does. Thank you, I now await my opponent's rebuttal.
Eminem is the best artist to ever exist

1. Eminem has been in the music industry for almost half the time than Michael Jackson and still had sold 380 million albums worldwide, his music is lyrically superior to Michael Jacksons. Eminem who has been persecuted to be a homophobic and someone who hates kids. He has won multiple awards regardless of not producing an album for 4 years. 2. Not only does Eminem make incredible songs but he also won a grammy for producing and staring in the movie "8 Mile" unlike Michael Jackson Eminem is more than a one trick pony he is a jack of all trades. 3. For someone who has never passed the 9th grade he is a lyrical genius and is far superior to Michael Jackson http://www.youtube.com... Pre counter argument 1. I know that Michael Jackson has sold more albums and won more awards but Michel Jackson has been in the music industry a lot longer then Eminem. 2. Also with regards to my 3rd argument for someone who has been undereducated his lyrics are early superior than Michael Jackson, also it is inspiring to people that think that they don't have a shot at being great when they have been threw such a hard life Good luck
Eminem is the best artist to ever exist

First I will counter all of my opponents points, then make my points. 1. Time is not revenant in this topic. It is who is the best artist period. Michael Jackson has sold over 2 times the amount of records that Eminem has sold(Stated by my opponent). Please don't get me wrong Eminem is a great artist, but Michael Jackson is the best. Michael Jackson has been awarded 18 Grammys alone. 2. Michael Jackson is the "Jack of all Trades" he shaped not only the music industry, the music video industry, and fashion. 3. Finally the education of the artist is irrelevant to this topic. Michael Jackson has revolutionized the music industry with his amazing songs, interesting music videos, and dance moves. Jackson is referred to as the "King of Pop" witch says it all in itself. With over 750 million records sold, Michael Jackson changed the industry wether you like it or not.
Abortion is Murder

I will be arguing that abortion is murder. First round arguments, Second round rebuttals and Third round final words. According to online abortion statistics, over 14 million fetuses have been aborted. For comparison, Hitler only killed a rounded 6 million. If abortion is murder, this makes abortion clinics more evil than Adolf Hitler. "But the difference is the jews didn't WANT to be killed. All the women who had abortions chose to have an abortion. " To that I say, and what about the fetus? I suppose the baby didn't have any say in that decision. Suppose a jew in the holocaust had a child, and decided to have him sent to the holocaust. By your logic, theres nothing wrong with that. People say its not conscious which makes it okay. Which I suppose means all murderers who killed someone in their sleep aren't really murders. By the way, fetuses can feel pain by the 11-12th week. Now lets discuss some of the ways abortions are preformed. I'd also like to note that a lot of these are preformed on late term babies, so during the abortion they're moving and crying like a normal baby. In one method, they'll stick forceps into the uterus and pull the baby's body out by the leg. They'll get the body out, but not the head as its too big. The doctor will then stick surgical scissors into the base of the skull, and pull them apart the make the opening bigger. A tube is inserted which sucks out the brain, and crushes the skull allowing it to pass through the cervix. In another method, they'll use pliers and grab a limb, and quickly twist it, snapping it off so it can be pulled out until all thats left is the head, which is crushed. (As a reminder, the baby can feel pain during these operations) In another method, they put a salt solution into the uterus, which acts like an acid and burns the baby until its dead.
Abortion is Murder

Well first, lets define the difference between life, and potential for life. A sperm cell is potential for life. An unfertilized egg is potential for life. When they are combined, they become a zygote, which IS life. The definition of potential is "having or showing the capacity to become or develop into something in the future." Thats what a sperm cell is. It has the capacity to, but it isn't yet. Once combined with the egg, it starts to develop, and becomes life. A newborn infant will die without a second human to help it. It lacks the motor skills to find its own food, and other things essential to life. I asked my brother about saving the mother, or saving the fetus and he had a good answer. Statistically, the majority of pregnancies are from accidents where women were careless and let random guys into their pants. My brother says because of this, priority should be put on the baby, after all, the mother chose for this to happen. In cases like rape, they should try to save both, and I say hope for the best, because I believe God will let whatever is supposed to happen, happen. Again, thats for another discussion. "A perpetrator of genocide wants to systematically wipe out a demographic of people." replace the word "genocide" with "abortion" and it'll still make sense, because thats what abortion clinics do.
Abortion is Murder

Alright, let's say that aborting a fetus is murder because, as you said, it has the potential for life, and the murder of a potential life is murder. By that logic, aborting an embryo is murder. Aborting a blastocyst is murder. Aborting that very first cell at conception is murder. Killing an unfertilized egg is murder, because that egg has the potential for life. Just because it has the potential for life does not mean it should be treated the same as a living thing. With all respect to your religion, of course, I understand why you feel differently, but that is my perspective. By completely reliant on the mother for survival, I meant that were a fetus not in the condition of the womb, it would not be able to survive or remotely function. A fully developed and born infant now has the internal mechanisms necessary to survive and does not need a second human to feed from. I wish C-sections were an easy, universal solution, but it's not nearly that simple. In the age of modern medicine we can not simply "hope for the best;" to potentially sacrifice the mother's life just to save the fetus is too great a risk. The mother's life is worth more and if the doctor determines that the best course of action is an abortion, he is probably correct. Think about the greater good: if the mom dies, the baby dies too, so it's a tragedy. If the baby dies to save the mom, she can continue living her life and maybe raise whatever other kids she has and contribute to society. It's definitely a tricky moral and emotional boundary but I feel that the mother's life should always be a priority. "A perpetrator of genocide takes human lives;" A perpetrator of genocide wants to systematically wipe out a demographic of people. Abortions don't necessarily take human lives; a mother who decides to abort a baby is probably looking out for her own well being and her own life. It is a personal decision, not a designed murder. Imagine the painful decision a mother with a late-term wanted baby has to make, to terminate her pregnancy; I wouldn't call that genocidal. Again, all respect to your religion
Abortion is Murder

I like to try and look at things from other peoples perspectives. Probably since I'm a christian, I place a very high value on any human life. So I'll take this from the perspective of an atheist. An atheist once said murder is wrong because their one chance at life would be taken. Anything they would ever do or experience... all gone. So theres a huge reason abortion is wrong right there. Of course in my religion its a lot different, but thats for another discussion. "It is not even a separate individual: it is completely 100% dependent on the woman's body to survive." Thats true even after birth. If you take an infant away from its parents, what do you suppose will happen? And by that I mean, not given to other people, but I mean with no other person to take care of it. If you say it would die, you'd be right. By that logic, its okay to kill a baby even after its been born. "It's unfortunate but sometimes complications happen and the baby must be killed in order to save the mother's life." C-Section. Even if the mother might die, it seems the best thing to do would be try and save both and hope for the best. "The mothers who decide to prioritize themselves, and the clinicians who assist them, are in no way comparable to a perpetrator of genocide." A perpetrator of genocide takes human lives. A mother getting an abortion and the doctor who preforms it do the same. They're easily comparable, its no challenge at all.
Abortion is Murder

There is often a blurry line when defining life in the womb. But according to the majority of medicinal experts, a fetus is not a living thing, and is therefore not entitled to the right to life. The characteristics that comprise of a living thing include cellular organization, reproduction, metabolism, homeostasis, heredity, response to stimuli (including pain, as you mentioned), growth and development, and adaptation through evolution. A baby, of course, does not readily possess many of these qualities, but as a human some are inherent in genetics. The qualities that a fetus does not possess includes response to stimuli, which is shown first at 20 weeks, and sometimes later. Thus, a fetus does not necessarily feel pain, eliminating the first moral obstacle. But moving back to life in general - it could be argued that, yes, a fetus is a distinct living entity, despite severe deviations from the typical characteristics of life. It is not quite a life so much as a potential life; not quite a human so much as a potential human, because it has not grown enough or been born. It is not even a separate individual: it is completely 100% dependent on the woman's body to survive. A fetus is barely a living thing. Especially with the lack of complex thought processing and emotion, there should be more concern placed on the well being of the mother than the "life" of the fetus. I'd like to address your point about the many gruesome ways in which late-term babies are killed. It's true that these methods are violent, and in my opinion they are disgusting - but they are necessary. It is so rare that the typical abortion goes into the late term. If a woman waits so long to get an abortion that the baby is able to cry while being killed, there is a very high chance that the baby was wanted, and the only reason it's being killed is because it poses a risk to the life of the mother. By the third trimester, it is unusual to see mothers who have still not made up their mind about getting an abortion - most occur in the early second trimester or even before. It's unfortunate but sometimes complications happen and the baby must be killed in order to save the mother's life. I also am of the opinion that comparing millions of abortions to the systematic genocide of the Holocaust is inaccurate. (Also Hitler killed 6 million Jews, but around 11 million people total.) Not only are fetuses not living, as said above, but those that do more closely resemble life are usually wanted. The mothers who decide to prioritize themselves, and the clinicians who assist them, are in no way comparable to a perpetrator of genocide. Thank you for sharing your opinion!
Kids Should Have more Rights

According to my opponent, there is an intrinsic right for a human being to have rights. He goes so far as to say that those suffering from mental disabilities deserve equal rights to those who don't. By his logic, a chimpanzee that is more intelligent than a severely retarded human being should be denied their rights because of their species. Such a prejudice is never once justified in his entirely romanticised portrayal of human rights. Why do humans deserve any rights? Why do children deserve to vote? These questions are all left to baseless assertions such as that being human is somehow important and entitles you to have elitist status within a nation. Speciesism is a very severe form of segregation that justifies, very irrationally, why slaughtering an innocent cow for the sake of eating it and not allowing it to se the sun once in its life in the name of battery farming is somehow acceptable just because it is a cow, this is identical to what the Nazis said about the Jews and Slave traders said about the slaves. So, I ask you audience, why should kids deserve rights? The answer is that they are no more deserving of rights than the ants they kill on a daily basis. They do not give back to society in any productive manner; they are leeches on the system that the adults of the generation have upheld for their benefit. Children owe society, they pay back the debt in adulthood. Once the debt is being paid back then and only then, do they begin to deserve rights. Rights are not gifted, they are earned.
There is no free will.

People claim that there is no such thing as free will. Everything is because of fate and so. The BoP is shared clearly. 72 hours to argue. 10,000 characters. No forfeit. No Trolling. No Insults. No semantics. The voting style is open to anyone. This will be a four rounds of debate. First round is for PRO's ARGUMENT. Second round is for REBUTTALS or NEW ARGUMENT. Third round is for CON's REBUTTAL AND PRO'S CONCLUSION. Fourth round is for my CONCLUSION. My opponent shall type "no round as agreed" in the fourth round since he/she has the burden and is going first. If he/she posts some arguments/ rebuttals in his last round he will result in SEVEN-POINT LOSS.NO NEW ARGUMENTS in the conclusions area. By accepting this debate my opponent agrees to stick to the rules that I have mentioned above. If he/she violates the rules as shown above, she/he will lose this debate. Free will: the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion. https://www.google.com...
Gun ban legislation and the no fly list

First of all removing guns from the equation completely would reduce the number of gun related crimes per capita. Australia Norway, Canada, France, Britain,Belgiumetc... all have far lower gun related incidents and a far higher amount of gun regulation. So the claim that removing guns completely would increase crime is demonstrably false. I believe stern regulation is the answer to guns, banning them will do nothing whatsoever. I also think that it is fair to ban people on the terror watch list from having guns, and anyone who poses a threat to security on the no fly list. Other than that I believe in freedom, if you want a gun you should be able to have one, but we need reassurances that it is being properly taken care of. 2nd: the founders of this country considered the second amendment to allow the use of muskets and flintlock pistols as was the weapons of choice in the late 1700s. Today's weapons can slaughter massive amounts of people in a limited amount of time with the use of drum/extended mags. Today's weapons can shred cars to bits in seconds. That is not what the founders made the document for. Not in the slightest. 3rd: the constitution was intended to be a document that was evolving and could potentially change completely depending on what the majority wanted. And/or what the times called for. I am well aware that the constitutions status has changed radically in the last two centuries and is considered a static document. Though this was not how it was originally intended to be. 4th: the laws of our country are designed to protect its citizens and punish those who would disobey a law that is supported by the majority of the people in the jurasdiction of that law whether that be local, state, or federal . Yes the system is not perfect and yes, sometimes it does not work as intended, but it is the best system we have got. Finally I wanted to point out that in the 1780s and 90s our most powerful weapons ever were cannons and small hand grenades. Today someone can kill 100 million people by pushing 1 button and unleashing a 20 megaton nuke on a city, I wanted you to see how far our ability to destroy has come. We have the power to sterilize the earth of life several times over within only a couple weeks. We are not the people of 1790 we are the children of 2016. And we must learn to control our own power.
Gun ban legislation and the no fly list

The facts are as stated. Laws exist only to limit the law abiding citizen. That is not to say that laws are not necessary, but laws must be in accordance with the Constitution. Banning guns in an effort to reduce gun violence will not only fail, but accelerate gun related shootings to an all time high. The bottom line is that American citizens are guaranteed a right to be armed and have well regulated private militias and no matter how many people clamor to take that right away should not change the constitutional republic in which majority rule but minority right. Gun control is not about safety, it is a another measure by the international banks that run the world to dominate the last few dissenters.