BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Star athletes are over paid

Star atheletes especially those who play popular sports in a big league - most likely in the first world countries - are overpaid. They say atheletes dedicate a tons of their time and efforts, however in this copetitive world who deosn't do the same in order to be succeful in their life? There are millions of people who are starving in the thrid world countries where people might not even have a time to play any sports - not even own a tv to watch NFL and NBA games - and if they had time they will be working a full day just to make a dollar or so. Sure, athelets try their best, work hard, but even those who work for decent companies at managerial level do work hard and dedicate as much amount of time and effort. However thier salary will still remain at six figures. Do you really believe these people didn't try their hardest? They may have gone through tough schooling and stressful trainings in their own field. Only a very little part of the world benefits from sports and such entertainment. The others work hard but still live in poverty. Athletes don't have long career and it's true they retire early. But they make tons of money that some people might not even able to spend them all in their whole life. with a one million dollar in your pocket now, you can simply buy bonds and get interest payment. One million now may worth more then two million in the after ten years. Money lose it's value accross time due to inflation. Unless those star athletes gamble, party, or do other stupid things there is absolutely no logical sense that they can go backrupt. Worth mentioning athletes get base salary plus other bonus payment wich can double up the total compensation.
Facebook rocks

There are several relevant definitions of "rocks" as a verb, but contextually I can tell that my opponent intends for the slang definition of "rocks. " From Merriam-Webster: "to be extremely enjoyable, pleasing, or effective. " [1. . http://tinyurl.com...]My opponent then claims in his opening argument that "Facebook helps people get in touch. " What he is effectively doing is suggesting that (x) criteria, in this case the ability to communicate with people, bears out the claim that Facebook rocks. His argument is as follows: P1: If Facebook possesses (x) criteria, it rocks. P2: Facebook possesses (x) criteria. C: Facebook rocks. The primary problem with Pro's argument is that he possesses the burden of proof to demonstrate to us categorically that Facebook rocks. This is an appeal to objectivity, with the implication being that (x) criteria will allow us to ascertain objectivity. However, this is not the case, because there is no objective criteria for what rocks or not. Even though one person may find that Facebook rocks, we cannot say categorically that it "rocks" -- which Pro must be able to do in order to fulfill his burden of proof -- if only person disagrees with that assertion. For instance, let's say that, because whether something "rocks" is subjective, I personally disagree with Pro's claim: even if I accept that Facebook allows us to contact other people, I may not find that this means that Facebook rocks. I could say, for instance, that this is actually a negative quality because it allows other people far too much knowledge into my personal life. Let's say that my Facebook contains pictures of my family and friends, and I don't want people from my workplace checking on me, which they are able to do by virtue of the ease at which we can locate people on facebook. The argument comes down to this: P1: If the notion of whether something "rocks" is objective, a single person disagreeing either that the software rocks or that (x) criteria bears out that it rocks, it does not objectively rock. P2: I disagree that software rocks and that (x) criteria bears out that it rocks. C1: Facebook does not objectively rock. Because Pro cannot prove categorically, objectively that Facebook rocks, and it is possible for people to disagree with what he has stated, which is nothing more than a mere opinion, he cannot fulfill his burden of proof. Therefore, the resolution is negated.
Facebook rocks

At this point the debate is over, as my opponent has dropped my arguments and has not fulfilled his burden of proof.On top of it all, he has completely misinterpreted and manipulated my argument. I never once said that, if the majority believes Facebook rocks, then it rocks. I pointed out that this was his argument, and I explained why it was nothing more than an ad populum fallacy. This is an argument that he has dropped. The point still stands: not only has he not actually proven nor provided any numbers on the majority -- whereas I have provided evidence that in fact the amount of Facebook users has been declining -- but I have proven that, even if it WERE the case that the majority of people use facebook (even if they think it rocks, which isn't necessarily true, either), it would not follow that his case follows. The point is, he cannot prove objectivity and has provided no reason as to why his statement is categorically true. Therefore, he has not fulfilled his BOP.
Facebook rocks

My opponent, instead of addressing my syllogism, has in fact dropped all of my arguments and instead is making an ad populum fallacy: this is a "popular appeal" or an "appeal to the majority," the "The fallacy of attempting to win popular assent to a conclusion by arousing the feeling and enthusiasms of the multitude." [1. http://tinyurl.com...]This argument that my opponent is making is effectively the following: P1: If the majority thinks it is so, it is so. P2: The majority think it is so.C1: Therefore, it is so. P3: If the majority thinks that Facebook rocks, then it rocks.P4: The majority think that Facebook rocks.C2: Therefore, Facebook rocks. This isn't true, as the truth of a claim is never determined by how many people believe it. If something is objectively true, it is true irrespective of whether people believe or disbelieve it. Therefore is also some very important context that my opponent is leaving out, outside of merely the argument of subjectivity which he has obviously dropped.The number of Facebook users has in fact been declining. This is a quote from an article published in April 2013: "In the last month, the world's largest social network has lost 6m US visitors, a 4% fall, according to analysis firm SocialBakers. In the UK, 1.4m fewer users checked in last month, a fall of 4.5%. The declines are sustained. In the last six months, Facebook has lost nearly 9m monthly visitors in the US and 2m in the UK." [1. http://tinyurl.com...]This decline is even relevant to this day. This is from an article published in April of 2014:"[I]n the US, Facebook now adds only 1 million people per quarter, and that number itself is likely in decline. In fact, growth does not appear to be accelerating in any of Facebook's user regions." [2. http://tinyurl.com...]My opponent has completely ignored these declining numbers. But even if they weren't the case, his unsubstantiated ad populum fallacy would not hold.
Is Home schooling a good Idea

Well the socialization is a problem for home schooling because some only child or only home schooled child of others could end up in possible isolation. And the income of the parents would reduce because of the fact that they would have to have full focus on the child. All schools have exams and that would be hard to organize or even know when they should take the exam. Now parents love spending time with there children but sometimes parents would like to have a break from time to time from their children. And parents full responsibility meaning the parent would have to make it work fully. they would have to make sure that the child would do things right. Some parents make it a issue. For example, Maybe a parent falls asleep and the child would receive no education at all and the parent would be forced to have the child put in a legitimate school.
Is Home schooling a good Idea

I am not arguing that it is universally a good idea, but that it can, and often is, done right. Teacher/Student RatioFirst off, home schooling allows students to receive more personal attention from their teachers. The average classroom size in the United States is greater than 20 students to one teacher [1]. This means that any student who is having trouble with a particular concept has to compete with 20+ peers for the time and attention of their teacher. In contrast, a home-schooled child will only have 2-3 classmates, allowing for more personal attention by the educator. Tailored LessonsAnother advantage of homeschooling is the ability to tailor lessons to the ability of the student. Public schools have been using standardized testing since the nineteenth century, especially since 2002's No Child Left Behind came onto the scene [2]. What this means is that teachers have to prepare all of their students for the same test at the same time, regardless of the ability level of the student. The outcome is that some students will be at a higher level, and therefore be bored, while others will be at a lower level, and be frustrated. In contrast, a homeschooling instructor can tailor lessons much more freely to the knowledge and ability level of their students. Learning StylesFinally, it is no secret that different students learn differently. There are at least four different learning styles that all student fit into, or into a blend of them [3]. If a teacher has 20+ students, they will not be able to tailor their teaching style to meet the needs of that large of a group. However, if a teacher has 2-4 students, they are much more likely to succeed at doing just that. ObjectionsCON's objections seem to be that the parent-educator may not be properly educated to take the role of a teacher, and that the students may not get a good education. While I agree that this is a concern, it is certainly not a prevalent problem. In fact, 90.3% of homeschooling parents have at least some college education, while 28.7% have graduate degrees [4]. Also, even home-schooled students whose parents do not have college degrees score above average on tests, and those who have one or both parents with degrees score even better [4]. CON's objections to home-schooling are without merit. Sources:[1] . http://nces.ed.gov...[2] . http://standardizedtests.procon.org...[3] . http://www.ion.uillinois.edu...[4] . http://www.hslda.org...
Is Home schooling a good Idea

CON has brought up many points here, all of which I will not address. Social IsolationCON suggests that home schooled children may suffer from impaired socialization. This is a serious concern, which, thankfully, is not born out by the evidence. Home schooled children are not stuck in a classroom for 180 days a year, allowing more field trips, hands-on experience, and adult interaction [1]. I actually knew a family that home schooled, and between boy scouts, Taekwondo class, and other similar activities, there was plenty of socialization. Other ArgumentsCON has brought up numerous other concerns regarding home schooling, including lowered income, organizational challenges, parents needing time away, and parents needing a nap. I see no reason to address all of these issues individually. I agree that not everybody is capable of home schooling their children. A family will need to address the financial, organizational, and other challenges before they choose to take this route. The fact that these challenges exist does not in any way mean that home schooling is bad, or that it should not be done. It only shows that it is a serious undertaking that should not be undertaken by everybody. Wrapping UpI have demonstrated that home-schooling can be beneficial. CON has failed to provide evidence for any of his/her claims. I feel I have met the burden I accepted, while CON has failed in that respect. Source:[1] . http://www.hslda.org...
US Prisoners Should Have Access To Prostitutes

Resolution: The Federal Government shall establish and regulate a system of prostitution in America's prisons and jails. Debate Structure: R1 Acceptance R2 Opening arguments R3 Rebuttals to round 2 arguments R4 Rebuttals to round 3 arguments and conclusion Deviation from the structure should result in a full loss of points for the offender.To give people an idea of what I'm proposing before they consider accepting this debate, I'll lay it out a bit now. Prisoners have accounts with money in them. The state/feds give(s) them a minimum amount monthly, and they can earn more from good behavior and doing extra work. This money is spent on food and extra luxuries, like a second pillow or something of that nature. Under the system I propose, the Federal Government would have the prostitutes priced in a way that allows them to be attainable for prisoners without some extreme amount of saving up (like a year, they wouldn't have to save for that long). This would not be for profit, it would be paid for by whatever the prisoners can throw in, and then taxpayer dollars. As far as prostitute safety goes, they will be under whatever surveillance seems necessary to offer them protection. My opponent is free to argue that the prostitutes would be abused with this system, but if they were part of the Federal Government, and had, for lack of a better word, 'handlers' who they could report their abuses to, abuses would be a small problem. If there are any further questions about my proposition please ask before accepting.
michael Sam's sexual orientation

"Michael Sam's orientatin is no one elses business..." Michael Sam plays in the NFL. Lots of people watch the NFL and therefore it is everybody's business. "...it should not effect his NfL drafts chances." Clearly many people disagree with this. Everything has to have limits. "what he do behind when one else is around shouldnt affect him throwing a football." He is a NFL player and there is no being the scenes. This argument is unsupported. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Partial Birth Abortion Should Not Be Allowed Even If A Woman Was Raped.

Ok here is my challenge I want this debate to be specific, My argument is against partial birth abortion (PBA) in the case of a woman having conceived through rape only! I don't wish to debate about PBA being used in cases of fetal disability or anything like that. My argument is a woman who is raped and conceives as a result of that rape should not legally be allowed to have a partial birth abortion. If you believe she should be allowed then lets debate. Please note I am not talking about routine early stage abortions just PBA.
THBT gun ownership should be considered a privilege rather than a right

FORMATRnd. 1 Pro: AcceptanceRnd. 1 Con: AcceptanceRnd. 2 Pro: ConstrutivesRnd. 2 Con: Constructives/RebuttalsRnd. 2,3 Pro: Rebuttals/ConstructivesRnd. 2,3 Con: Rebuttals/ConstructivesRnd. 4 Pro: Rebuttals Rnd. 4 Con: Reply Speech (5,000 characters max)Rnd. 5 Pro: Reply Speech (5,000 characters max)Rnd. 5 Con: WaiveDEFINITIONS:"Rights" are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement"Privilege" are a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people."Guns" are a normally tubular weapon or other device designed to discharge projectiles or other material (inclusive of assault rifles and machine guns with carbines of more than 14.5mm, exclusive of carbines of more than 14.5mm)BoP is shared. Good luck!
This house will ban use of mobile phones by drivers(whilst drivind)

Hello everyone and I thank Con for instigatingFramework and DefinitionsWill Ban: In the United States. Mobile Phones: Cell phones or flip phonesI think these definitions will be fair for both Pro and ConPlan:As the US, we can impose a ban on mobile phones while driving similar to the ban under dui (driving under influence), with similar punishmentsPoint One: People die due to distracted driving330,000 people have died every year due to people using their phones as they are driving.Con has only stated one reason to why phones should be allowed. That reason is a) off frame and b) does not outweigh the lives of all these peoplePoint Two: Dui was banned, and it causes less deaths then phone use while drivingTexting while driving is 6x more likley to result in deaths then drunk driving.Dui was banned in 1910, why is something that is 6x more lethal not banned?Logically, it should be bannedPoint Three: It is the will of the American Population to ban phones while driving94% of drivers support a ban on texting while driving.74% of drivers support a ban on hand-held cell phone use.Refusing a ban now would be denying the democracy of American Government Rebuttal:In other countries,...:Off topic, as stated in my frameWe need mobile phones all the time: That is a massive exaggeration. The basic things we need are food, water, and a place to sleep. Phones are just for entertainmentRadical measure: After 330,000 people have died , banning is not a radical measure. Are people's lives less important then getting to where you are going?Track for an accident: There are many ways to call for help not using a mobile phone, such as a SOS feature or a phone built into the vehicleSource Tally:me: 4 sourcedcon: 0 sourcesIt logically makes sense to ban mobile phone use while driving, due to my arguments above https://www.edgarsnyder.com...https://one.nhtsa.gov...https://theneurotypical.com...https://www.honda.com...
Short Story Challenge

I wish, in response, good luck to my opponent. I have chosen the topic of Rivals. Proluge: Alayna Morrison had always been "that smart girl." She excelled in every subject, and was at the top of every list involving education. She had always been quiet, resigned, the girl that sat in the back of the class, by herself, doing her homework and classwork to perfection. Her life was about education, her parents expected the best from her, from the smallest assignment to the biggest exam. Ginger Falls had always been the opposite; never known for her brains, but very pretty, and known for her cheerleading ability. She was loud, rambunctious and ever-popular. She relied on copying others and expecting her tutors to do her homework for her in order to keep her grades high enough to appease the cheerleading coaches. She was the classic bully, picking on anyone with less popularity than her. Her favorite target? Alayna Morrison. But that was before Reese Young moved into their town. He was cute, popular, and an amazing football player. He was always flirting with the cheerleaders, but no one understood why he went to the library every day to study with Alayna, the nerdy girl. He and Alayna quickly became friends, and much to Alayna's chagrin, this brought her into the spotlight of the school. The week before homecoming, Ginger realizes that Reese is more interested in Alayna than her, and decides to do something about it.
Short Story Challenge

I will announce my choice in round 2 like Pro specified, for this round I offer Pro these choices to write a short story from. Topics: - Political Intrigue - Adventure - Rival's by Rival's I mean a story that has to do with Rivals in some way no restriction beyond that, it could be about there competitiveness for example, or how they come to a truce, or how one wins, ect. If my opponent feels that's to specific a story Topic though to count for this debate and feels that I need to give three 'real' topics then please request so in the comment section so that I may provide something more general in place of 'Rivals' Other than that I await round 2 and wish good luck to my opponent.
Short Story Challenge

Pro Greetings. In this debate we will be having a short story contest. Here are the rules: - In round 1, PRO will give three topics from CON to choose from. - In round 1, CON will give three topics from PRO to choose from. - In round 2, PRO will announce his chosen topic as given by CON and GIVE A BRIEF PROLOGUE to the story to build dramatic effect. - In round 2, CON will do the same as above. - In round 3, PRO and CON will complete their respective short stories. Voting: - Everything stays the same except: - Best Argument = Best Story - Sources = Rhetoric - Conduct = Relevance to topic Topics: - Fantasy - Historical Fiction - Suspense
Is Death bad? (redoing)

Apparently, you have confused the fact that albeit Death is unknown as being a state beyond that of known living, there lies the fact that the only absolute about Death is that it is the actual "loss of life", making my deductions correct and not making them inconsistent at all in any sense. This would further conclude that the assumption of Death as a Badness would not only be speculation which ascends from human fear, but make the fact that Death is Bad as being capriciously produced from fallacies. Macquarrie and Mora have both quoted one thing, that "death is not an event of life" thereby substantiating the only capable proven fact about death " that death is not life, thereby being that death is the loss of life, the lack of life, or however you would like to state it in no uncertain terms. I"m still unclear as to where any of my arguments are inconsistent or how you go to the point that if there wasn"t pain involved in dying then that would inadvertently make death bad? That would be like saying if someone died in their sleep without feeling any pain that justifies that death would then be bad and not be a considered good as I have stated in my argument. I have just given instances in where death can be seen or viewed as good, as when someone is experiencing pain during the process of dying. Yet, if a person is not experiencing pain during this process of dying and just happens to die it doesn"t make the finality of Death automatically bad because the person didn"t experience pain. That is not my point. My point is that Death is not a negative act nor should not be viewed as an adverse event regardless of the circumstances. Death is a natural occurrence, a natural cyclic event that transpires in everyone"s existence. Death is not bad, it is natural and occurs as a natural and normal part of cyclical events of the laws of nature. The Badness of Death is a creation of man's fear of the unknown which is created within his/her own psyche.
Is Death bad? (redoing)

Although you modify your original argument, the problem is quite the same. Here are your premises: "there is no pain in death" "Death and dying are two distinct separate entities" "Death is good if pain is involved when in the process of dying" "Death is the Ultimate Unknown" To begin with, if you are to consider all of these premises as absolute truth, you would already notice that these premises are inconsistent together (or at the same time). The problem being that near the end of your argument, you stated that Death is unknowable/or that knowledge/information is unattainable. Yet those that came before imply that there are things we are able to know about Death. That: "there is no pain in death" "Death and dying are two distinct separate entities "Death is good if pain is involved when in the process of dying" Death to be: Loss of one's suffering; Loss of one's pain; Loss of one's anxiety Loss of one's Fear' The fact that your argument is inconsistent already cause it to not be able to stand on its own. Furthermore, about the case where pain in dying cause Death to be good. It"s not a solid point to prove that Death is NOT bad because one would be able to counter-argue that by simply stating that if what you said is true, then Death is bad if no pain is present in dying. In conclusion, if one were to rephrase your argument to it simplicity, it would probably be like this (if not similar): Although we are unable to know anything about Death, we know that Death is et cetera ...(those that you stated about Death). This can be used in order to comfort someone to a degree but when suggesting it to be a form of truth is absurd.