BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Sex education should be taught in schools.

The big problem with your case is: sex education is already taught in schools, so no policy needs to be taken. First of all, I'll assume we're talking about an policy action being taken by the United States government. This is fair because the majority of users on this site, including both me and you (according to your profile) are American. Also, the term "should" indicates that a policy action should be taken. It indicates that a change should be made in our laws because of some benefit. Regardless of the benefit accrued by the policy you advocate, if the current system can do what you advocate, then there is no reason to take the policy. In policy debate this is known as inherency. If a policy action is to be taken, the person advocating the policy must prove that the status quo is not already solving for the plan he presents. Otherwise, why advocate the plan if it is not a change? In all areas of the United States sex education is taught or the legal framework is in place that its constituents could teach sex education if they so choose. Thus, we cannot accurately say that your policy action "should" be taken, because it has already been taken.
The violin is the best classical instrument

(I'll try to refrain from providing a rebuttal here, as that's what the next round's for!) Merriam-Webster defines "best" as "excelling all others" [1]. In reality, the best musical instrument is something that is subjective rather than objective, as one could prefer the tone quality of a euphonium [2] (very beautiful, expressive piece, by the way), for example, over that of a violin. Being so subjective, it could be argued that the triangle was someone's favorite instrument, and in turn, the best to them. This fact couldn't be argued, for in their eyes, the triangle is the finest instrument of all. In this video [3], a proponent of the triangle being the best instrument could argue that the man pictured in the video, Jose Cortijo, plays the triangle with such skill and emotion, and that his instrument provides a tone that no other can match. A pianist, on the other hand, may argue that their instrument is the best with factors such as its wide dynamic range [4], beautiful, expressive tone [5] and the wide variety of styles in which you can play it [6] [7]. If that pianist also plays an electric keyboard, they could also argue that their instrument can emulate a wide variety of other instruments, whereas a violin cannot [8]. However, a violinist, or nearly any other instrumentalist, could argue that their instrument is better than the pianist's on the same grounds (except that last one, of course) that the pianist has asserted. It is difficult for two to debate a matter when the arguments of both parties will practically be identical, and this is the issue with arguing a matter as subjective as the superiority of a musical instrument over another. The violin is not the best classical instrument, for it is impossible to prove that the sound of any one instrument is superior to any other. Links: [1] - http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] - [3] - [4] - [5] - [6] - [7] - [8] -
The violin is the best classical instrument

The violin is the best classical instrument. Not only does it sound nice but it also looks graceful sitting on the shoulder of a violinist. Violins play a big part in orchestras also. There are many violins in an orchestra that they have to be split up into first violins and second violins. They stand out from other instruments, which make the violin an appropriate instrument to play the melody. The violin can even be compared to the human voice because of how expressive it is. Not a lot of instruments can compare to the violin when it comes to expressing emotion. The violin is a very expressive instrument that can be used to convey a lot of emotion. Watch from 1:15 to 3:50. (Continue if you want to listen to the rest) There is not a moment in that solo where the violinist is not expressing emotion. From the beginning slow and peaceful to the end of the solo where there is a frenzied panicked rush to play all those notes. This piece goes from peacefulness to passion so vast. The change from high notes to low notes really makes an impact too. The only other classical instrument that could come close to the emotion being conveyed in this piece would be the piano. The violin not only expresses emotion but it can also express objects and things. The music is Vivaldi's four seasons. The music literally expresses all four seasons. Listen to 0:34-1:10. Does it not sound like birds to you? Here is the poem that Vivaldi based the four seasons off of. http://www.britannica.com... You can clearly hear when Vivaldi is expressing the gentle breeze of a wind to the flash of lighting and the sound of thunder. Not a lot of instruments can a sweet breeze swelling into a thunderstorm like Vivaldi's Four Seasons. Finally the violin can be compared to what most people think is the most expressive instrument of all, the human voice. Have you ever hear of a violin "singing". Now with new technology the violin has been shown to have similarities between itself and the human voice. http://www.futurity.org... This article is evidence that the violin can definitely be compared with the human voice which not many instruments can do. Violins are not in orchestras just to look pretty. They are very important compared to other instruments. Violins can express emotion and things like no other instrument can do including the human voice. Hearing a violin "sing" is truly an amazing thing to hear and no other classical instrument can come close to the beauty of a violins sound.
Gay Rights

Unfortunately my opponent has still failed to recognize the separation of church and state in the sense that people can join in union, but the term marriage pertains specifically to a joining of people through a faith. As stated in my opponent's round 3 "As I have stated the bible is not the only thing people live by and dose not have to set all of the standards." This is in fact true, but in order to be married rather then engaging in a Civil Union you are required to conform to standards set within the religion. Seeing as how this is the case, gay marriage is not even feasible because it goes against most religions, but for the sake of this debate we must assume it is against all religion because my opponent failed to show a situation where this is not the case. The opposition's entire debate is based on people not having to conform to religious standards. I will agree that this is the case, but as stated previously, it is neccesity for people to conform to be "Married" thus why I offered the alternative of Civil Union, where no conforming is required. Due to a lack of proof, and a lack of defense on my opponents side, I believe that a vote in negation is the only logical vote.
Gay Rights

The governments sanctions Common Law Marriage, which are also known as Civil Unions. Marriage as defined by the Roman Catholic Bible, and most bibles at that, is an unbreakable bond between a man and a women. I believe that my opponents argument is invalid until there is proof of a religious book stating that homosexual marriage is deemed acceptable. Unfortunately my opponent failed to touch on the fact that Marriage is Religious while Civil Unions are not. Also due to no proof on my opponents part backing up that marriage is not religious where as I stated how marriage is defined in the Roman Catholic Bible his claim must be declared invalid.
Gay Rights

It would be impossible based on the current regulations and the strong influence of the Roman Catholic Church for homosexuals to be granted the right to marriage. The alternative to this is simply coming together in a Civil Union which offers the exact same benefits as marriage through the church, with a different name. It is obvious that homosexuals cannot join in union through the church because it violates the Bible. When going through the state Civil Unions are granted, I believe that asking for marriage is counterproductive when the exact same thing currently exists with a different name.
THBT preserving culture has no place in the society today

The majority of my opponent's prior speech is analysis on the semantic issues present in this round. He claims, in so many words, that I have offered abusive terms to guide this discussion and that those terms should not be accepted; these terms are 'Value(s)', "Government' and 'Progress'. However, I have offered no semantic interpretation in this round. I haven't offered any framework whatsoever. My arguments in this round should not be discounted because of my opponent's disappointment at my arguments. They have been sincerely warranted and are the logical extension of my opponent's arguments. Not all values intrinsic to human nature are good ones, but they have been values that people have traditionally held. We wouldn't allow integrated marriage following the emancipation of the slave because it was the 'right thing to do'; however as our society has evolved we've weeded out that racism and made it unacceptable; image if we had not done so but had instead fought to defend this 'culture', we would have hampered progress and would still have a wide-spread ideal that racism is okay. That said I will be brief here; Con's biggest argument is that as people change societies must also change. Unless they do, then progress will not be able to occur. But the values are the most valuable; love, compassion, hard work -- they will always be maintained even if not in the same way. It sucks when cultures die, but it is necessary for the progress of humanity. Culture is not a bad thing, but we must let progress take it's course; culture that is not destructive will survive by it's own merit and that which doesn't will fade away.
THBT preserving culture has no place in the society today

I would like to give some rebuttals regarding the burden given to me by your government side. When I conceded to the dynamism of society, I was emphasizing my opposition on the point explicitly stated by my contender that culture is absurd when brought upon by the people to the modern world today. Technically speaking, I felt that the clash was a bit vague, and let some important terms undefined. Examples are values, preservation and culture. I was giving my presented characterization of preservation of culture, but I felt that your government side was a bit unresponsive about it. Before I present and elucidate my arguments in this debate, I would like to clear out some points that my contender failed to define correctly. First of all is the word value. In this matter and in the essence of the context, I was saying clearly about ethics and generally-accepted truths and principles by people, so I believe that it's a wrong claim to have 'right values' since the word itself proves to be positive. Second is the word culture. I was connoting it as the way of living held on for a long time by people, and is still retained because it is still cherished as important for their own growth. These made the real matter of the debate unrealized. Since it is a value-assessment debate, we are judging whether it is important to preserve culture or not in the society that we live today, just to remind the opposing side. In line with this, I would like to refute some statements coming from the government side, to bring forth my new arguments. I really felt that culture preservation cannot hamper 'progress and unjustly force' people, not unless it is dressed as something that an individual should strictly follow; that it will be the margin of one's actions. In my previous argument, I clearly said that culture is not something to put in a glass case, that it should always stay the way it is. Culture grows with society in a form that people create for themselves, which characterizes culture as dynamic. Further substantiating it, detriments would be met if these traditions are destroyed and disabled, not necessarily totally eliminated. Problems occur not by eliminating but by destroying it. Culture, being dynamic, already has its natural extinction, that it gets eradicated by the people whenever they feel it oppressing. However this can never be a blanket policy;some countries like India for example, has the caste system which is still enacted until today. However this clearly proves that culture is something that is not stagnant, and therefore posting no reason for not actively engaging in it. It is a way of life after all; a person cannot wash it away completely from his personality or way of thinking. Following these rebuttals, I would present three important criteria why we should preserve culture in my next post. With that, I wish to extend.
THBT preserving culture has no place in the society today

When my opponent agrees to my major premise, that societies evolve and change over time, he affirms the burden I intended to prove. I made it clear from the get-go that I never intended to argue that we should eliminate our culture or forget our roots; instead I argue that we shouldn't actively work to preserve culture because it prevents progress and unjustly forces people into certain roles that the culture would dictate. As societies evolve and ideas about what that society should encompass evolve, we stop doing certain things; when the U. S. abolished slavery, we slowly let go of a nationalized idea of white supremacy. With that change and the pursuit of equality we lost certain chauvinistic values that we now romanticize, the but core essence of those values were never lost. The fact is that by trying to hold onto the values from 'the good 'ol days' we are blinded to the progress we make in the here and now; we sacrifice our new positive values. If abolitionists hadn't fought to end slavery in the 1800s because of the claim that America's culture would be destroyed, we would have millions of people still bound into slavery today and we would treat people as property. That example isn't restricted to the past either; by trying to 'defend the nuclear family' as we are in the status quo, we unjustly deny gays all across the country the right to marry because it's 'the right thing to do These things considered, my opponent's argument about preserving these values highlights the simple truth, that some of these values don't need to be protected. We must never prevent progress just so that we can try to prevent progress just to hold onto values that we believe to be right; the right values will always surface and maintain themselves in the end. In conclusion, we don't need to work to preserve culture, we just need to let whatever will be, be. The good values that we should promote and uphold will always find a way to remain in the end, whereas through blindly protecting culture we prohibit progress and keep positive change from happening.
THBT preserving culture has no place in the society today

Right off the bat, allow me to clarify my course of advocacy in this debate; by standing in affirmation of the given motion I do not intend to argue that the correct course of action would be to do away with traditional cultures in a given society, I intend to argue that going out of one's way to preserve a specific culture does more harm than it does good. Societies evolve, and as they do ideas and social constructs about those societies evolve as well. In the 1800's for example it was necessary for working class citizens to fall into classic gender roles so as to provide best for a family; the husband would go out and work, usually back-breaking jobs, because he had the physique and build to do so. His work was hard labor necessary for the survival of the family. The woman served an equally valuable role by taking care of the children, making sure the family's living space was habitable and cooking meals from scratch to feed her family. Neither of these roles were demeaning, it was a necessary construct for the family to survive and prosper; however to assert that those gender roles should remain in the way the did in the 1800s would be absurd. Modern convenience dictates that a man could stay home and take care of children and a women could go to work provide for her family. People are different, families are different and trying to force a common culture onto these unique individuals harms them. If through progress and social evolution certain cultures disappear, then that's quite honestly very disappointing. However to claim that the unique values and needs of individuals families aren't as important as trying to blindly maintain 'culture'.
THBT preserving culture has no place in the society today

Considering the current face the society has today, it displays well-adopted changes and innovations that carry out a new way of living --- a new culture. However, I believe that preserving culture still plays a vital role in the development of the society, especially when ethics of freshly written laws, policies and other actions of the leaders in the society are questionable. I concede to the fact that every individual copes with the widening horizons of the society, but breaking a certain culture of a well-defined population where one belongs to, by means of stepping on the values it tries to keep, is similar to destroying the foundations that make their sector unique and, at the same time, strong. Culture shaped through ages binds everyone in the society. Preserving the traditions and the associated principles with them will not only guide people now, but also in the near future.
Historicity of Jesus' Resurrection

Con "He made a fallacious argument from authority. The argument from authority is a fallacy when you say something is true merely because the authority says it is true. I showed the historical facts that secular historians agree to. These are people that have earned degrees in this specific area. So, yes, to argue that something is true merely because of an authority is a fallacy. But I'm not asserting that. I argued that the resurrection is more the likely true. When you have an initial movement that caused people to become martyred in your name, when you have billions of followers after you, and universal scholarly consensus, it becomes unlikely and improbable that this can all come from a mythical figure. The scholarly consensus comes from looking at the four Gospels and acknowledging that certain historical events did occur. The other part is acknowledging that no one will die for a lie, which is why Jesus had to not only have existed but have been resurrected. So, my argument is not, authority agrees to this, so it's true. My argument is that scholars recognize that no one will die for a lie. This means that it is impossible for someone to make up the story of Jesus and then did for that fake story. My opponent completely ignored this argument. I have rebutted all of his arguments, and frankly, most of them are irrelevant, as they argue for some inconsistencies in the Gospels or other such things, by they can be true and still not disprove that Jesus existed. Again, I rebutted con's arguments; he ignored mine completely, and only restated his. I will correct one of his arguments, because it is relevant, and universally misused. He argues that ancient myths predated Jesus. Yes, they did, but none of those mythical figures have any similarities with Jesus. This correlation with Pagan myths and Jesus is a complete fabrication made by lying atheists. I challenge my opponent to source ONE ANCIENT TEXT of another religion that predates the Bible that teaches a similar event to Jesus. He can't, because they don't exist. CONCLUSION People will not die for a lie. Unless my opponent addresses this argument, he has not refuted Christ's existence, because as of right now, he is claiming the absurd notion that the first apostles made of a Jesus myth and then were tortured for that lie with no benefit to them.
Historicity of Jesus' Resurrection

1. Not one single writing from or about Jesus during his lifetimeAgreed and irrelevant. We don't have any writings from many historical figures of the past. When dealing with people that are a few millenia old, we must understand the rarity of written documents and how quickly things were written down. This is key to understanding history.2. False writings about Jesus.Agreed and irrelevant. Again, we are dealing with ancient history, which is much different than modern times. There are also many other early christian writings that are false attestations, because there were many people wishing to distort truth. But this only attests to the hisoricity of Jesus; it does not lead away from it. Many people were writing about this person, which shows likeliness of his existence.3. JosephusJosephus' Testimonium is not a fabrication (1).This testimony by Josephus is actually mostly authentic. Christian scholars concede that some words may have been an interpolation, but the basic testimony was still there.Also, Origen does allude to this testimony, which is why he mentions that Josephus did not believe Jesus was the Messiah.4. Christianity borrowed from Pagan MythsThis is a tired and old argument that is, honestly, blatant lies that are used to attack Christianity. None of the claims of the similarities of the myths can be substantiated, and it is always found as the pagan myths borrowing from Christianity, not the other way aroung (2). 5. The Gospels Disagree with HistoryThis is another blatant false statement. It is also an argument from ignorance. Just because we do not have an outside source corrborating these events does not mean that they are untrue. This is analogous to saying that a woman had a child, but it died before anyone else could see it. Then, a skeptic comes along and says the child never existed because there wasn't another person besides the mother to prove the child's existence. Yes, a third party helps corroborate the truth of the claim, but the lack of a third party does not deny it's validty.CONCLUSIONNone of the arguments that my opponent offered cast any serious doubt on the historicity of Jesus. As in my opening statements, I mentioned the near universal agreement of secular scholars on the historicity of Jesus. This is so because there aren't any convincing arguments against Jesus' historicity. It is more than likely that Jesus existed, and as my opening arguments showed, was that His resurrection provides the only possible explanation of the events.(1) http://www.christiancadre.org...(2) http://thedevineevidence.com...