BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Kids should wear uniforms

Hello Con, I'm glad that you have accepted my debate,I believe that kids should wear school uniforms for several reasons.Firstly, school is an institution for educating children(dictionary.com). School is not a place for children to wear what they want to, it's place where they are educated for their future lives. As you have mentioned:"It teaches them from a young age that everyone should act the same, and dress the same." I am yet to find how wearing school uniforms can affect the children to act the same. Wearing school uniform makes the school look more organised and shows pride for each schools. Wearing school uniform also allows other students/parents to easily notice where a child is from. For example, this is probably a really bad one, a child is seen getting into an accident where his/her parents are nowhere to be found. If the child is wearing a school uniform, one can notify the school immediately. Of course there are variables to this, but what I am trying to prove is that wearing school uniform can reduce these from happening.Talking about your harsh reality, I think that judgements made by what a child wears is harsher than wearing the same clothes like everyone else. As children are not forced to wear school uniforms, they will, of course, wear different clothes than everybody. Some will wear fancier than others. This can lead to judgements made by other kids, and this leads to bullying. Sources: http://www.bullyingstatistics.org...I look forward to your next argument to be made.
Kids should wear uniforms

Kids should not wear school uniforms. It teaches them from a young age that everyone should act the same, and dress the same. Children should be able to wear what they chose because it lets them determine who they are and what they are trying to become. We shouldn't decide that for them. It also takes away from their childhood. Let them be unaffected by the harsh reality that we always have someone telling us what do or what to wear. There will come a time when they are adults and will have jobs that will come with dress requirements, but right now let them be children. Let them explore and dress how they want.
We Should Allow Religion To Create Rules For Our Country

I look forward to this, and am hoping for a clean and well mannered argument. I would like to start off with saying that America was founded based on the beliefs that church should not control the state. The pilgrims, who separated from England due to the suppression of religion are thanked for the founding of this great country, and we almost turn their beliefs around, and allow religion to control many aspects of our every day life. Many governmental choices, such as the ban on gay rights, a topic more recent, all the way back to slave ownership. Both of these laws were backed by the premise of "The Bible Says It Is/Isn't Okay. " If we are going to make laws based on religion, we should follow that premise wholeheartedly, and not pick and chose which laws to make and which to ignore. Allowing religion to control our government will only do to allow many unsatisfactory laws to pass congress. With the ideas of separation of church from state, we should follow them, and allow our citizens to vote on laws based on beliefs and opinions instead of taking them straight out of the Bible, or other religious texts. I do realize my argument here is short, but I have not had much time and I would rather put down something than forfiet the round. I plan on posting better arguments next round.
politics should be taught in high school

If they aren't graded for it I doubt they'd even show up to class unless it's mandatory and even then they wouldn't care about the class at all to even give an effort. We have to look at the mentality of high school students.If there are students who are interested in the field they'll do research and look into politics on their own instead of following a curriculum developed by the school. My passion in school is History I've always loved social studies classes in general. I've taken a Government class in which our teacher often implemented politics into the course. Ex one of our homework would be to watch the Republican debate and write about it. Our teacher often tried to make us discuss politics in class but students are lazy they don't care (note it's an honor class). It's usually me talking about candidates and their policies to the teacher, the only time other students would actually get involved would be to trash talk Donald Trump because of what he has said. Another reason is teachers are not allowed to express their political views in class, they don't want teachers to influence a student's political views. We need another way to make young folks to take an interest in politics, having a class about it in high school will not help.
Teaching evolution in schools provides no benefits for students.

Thanks to my opponent, and now onto my rebuttals. Firstly to respond to my opponent's question "Has there ever been a situation, in your life, where a basic understanding of evolution would have helped you out?" Yes, I am a chemist and a basic understanding of evolution on a molecular level has helped me immensely in understanding and designing experiments. Without this understanding money could have been wasted chasing a dream that is unrealistic. However, by applying molecular evolutionary principles I am able to avoid obvious dead end traps. This means saving money which at times can amount to thousands of dollars. Secondly an importantly my opponent has made the common mistake of mixing the definitions of evolution and abiogenesis. My opponent has said "When I say evolution, I'm referring to the 'goo to you' theory, as taught in our public schools. " This is not the theory of evolution taught in schools and is a massive Red Herring used to distract from the general theory of evolution which is described as ""Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification."(1) In fact evolution, on a molecular level, is necessary to understand commonly accepted concepts like natural selection. My opponent also makes an Appeal to Ignorance for not teaching evolution in school when he says "According to a recent poll, by Pew Research, one third of Americans don't believe in evolution." The fact that someone does not believe or understand the science that support sevolution does not make them correct. Using the same rational, is it possible for us not to teach gravity in school if 10% of all people in the nation believe that the gravitational constant is wrong? No, as the theory of gravity is a scientific fact. In the same way, we have fossil evidence and molecular evidence to show evolution is a scientific fact.(2,3) For this reason alone evolution should be taught in schools. If someone goes to a theistic (Christian) school and is not taught evolution, that is a shame as they are missing out on a core, underlying and defining concept of biology. This lack of knowledge can also exclude them in later life opportunities. I think I should note here, that while my opponent says this is a debate about schooling. It is important to note that school is meant to prepare you intellectually for future life which includes university.(4) To elaborate, if we are to extend this argument of not teaching evolution, it would be better then to just to shut all schools down, as students can learn later when they need the information. I am sure my opponent would agree that this is ridiculous statement to make. However, if my opponent makes this claim then the argument against teaching evolution is defeated. I hand the debate back to my opponent for his closing statement. (1) http://evolution.berkeley.edu... (2) http://evolution.berkeley.edu...(3) http://www.talkorigins.org...(4) http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Teaching evolution in schools provides no benefits for students.

"Evolution is a critical part of biology which helps us understand not only the existence of higher life forms but also natural selection."This is a complete fallacy. (1) Evolutionists make some grandiose claims about how badly we need evolution, in so many things. It's rather ludicrous. The author does a wonderful job destroying their arguments. The simple fact is, there is not one thing we can do with the 'help' of evolution that we can't do just as well without it."To elaborate a bit further on natural selection, by understanding evolution a student can learn about simple things like how we domesticated dogs from wolves.(4) Or how we selected bananas (by choosing their natural evolutionary traits) to be the delicious fruit we eat today.(5) These examples show that a basic of evolution is helpful in understanding the world around us and for example why some plants can be used and others cannot."Once again, you are mistaken. (2) Dog breeding stretches back thousands of years before evolution came on the scene. Breeders knew what they were doing then. They weren't as sophisticated then as we are today, but our superior knowledge did not come from evolution. Biology and genetics describe these things. Not evolution.As for your bananas, (3) That technology is also thousands of years old. As a matter of fact, many of the crops we have today are of ancient descent. Today we have strains of plants that have increased yields, yet are more susceptible to disease. We often have to cross bread them with earlier strains to provide resistances, at the cost of yields. Once again, this is all related to biology and genetics. Not evolution.Regarding the last two points I made, breeding plants and animals have nothing to do with the theory of common descent with modification. It's nothing more than adaptation. The expression of genetic traits that already exist in a lifeforms DNA. A chihuahua can still breed with a wolf, for example. You'd probably have to use artificial insemination because of the size difference, and the wolf would probably kill the little runts out of embarrasment. But it can be done.As for your last argument, it was my assumption that no further education would be sought after highschool. I can argue, based on my earlier rebuttals, that college creates an artificial need for the study of evolution, since I have shown that we really don't need it for anything. There are also plenty of high paying careers that one can go to college for, so being handicapped by not being taught evolution is nothing of the sort. One would simply choose from several other professions.I enjoyed destroying you position. ^_^ Just kidding. Your turn. Make it count.1 http://www.evolutionnews.org...2 http://serendip.brynmawr.edu...3 http://plantbreeding.coe.uga.edu...
Teaching evolution in schools provides no benefits for students.

Now onto my opening statement. Evolution can be defined as the "descent with modification". (1) The question this debate asks is "why should we teach evolution in schools? " The answer in my opinion is simple. Evolution is a critical part of biology which helps us understand not only the existence of higher life forms but also natural selection. In fact evolution is accepted by the American Academy for the Advancement of Science as the most widely accepted principle in science. (2) This is probably why the National Science Teachers Association is so adamant that evolution should be taught at school as they deem it necessary to improve the general scientific literacy of students. (3) To elaborate a bit further on natural selection, by understanding evolution a student can learn about simple things like how we domesticated dogs from wolves. (4) Or how we selected bananas (by choosing their natural evolutionary traits) to be the delicious fruit we eat today. (5) These examples show that a basic of evolution is helpful in understanding the world around us and for example why some plants can be used and others cannot. Let me also note that many Universities have minimum entry requirements/recommendations to study further. One of these requirements for example is the Biology SAT's which require basic understanding of evolution. (6) On the other hand many universities have entrance exams which include evolution as part of the test. (7) As such by denying students the opportunity to study evolution one is effectively limiting future options for these students with respect to career choices. This may not seem like a big issue, but it could mean a massive difference in salary. This difference in income earning potential could mean the difference between a life in poverty, or affluence i. e. having a house that is paid for. I think these points are important enough to prove evolution should be taught in school. As such I hand the debate over to my opponent for rebuttals. (1) . http://evolution.berkeley.edu...(2) . http://archives.aaas.org...(3) . http://www.nsta.org...(4) . http://www.pbs.org...(5) . http://rationalwiki.org...(6) . http://sat.collegeboard.org...(7) . http://www.admissions.ucla.edu...
Teaching evolution in schools provides no benefits for students.

I didn't think anyone would, to tell you the truth. Good luck. According to a recent poll, by Pew Research, one third of Americans don't believe in evolution. When I say evolution, I'm referring to the 'goo to you' theory, as taught in our public schools. That's a pretty huge chunk of our population. Many people went to Christian schools, where they don't even teach evolution. I wonder how many of them feel handicapped, in any way, for this lack of knowledge? My best guess would be none. I attended a private school. I was never taught evolution. I do not feel deprived, in any way. When I left high school, I joined the Navy. I served on the U. S. S. Missouri for five years. I became a civilian and worked a variety of jobs, over the last 24 years. In my entire life, I have never encountered a situation where I thought to myself. .. Gee. If I would have been taught evolution, I could do this, or figure this out, or get out of this mess, by evolving common bacteria into a biological super weapon, to save the world from the aliens. All joking aside, I ask you. Has there ever been a situation, in your life, where a basic understanding of evolution would have helped you out? I cannot think of one situation where evolution could help a person. That's all I have, for now. I can't develop this any further, until I hear what my opponent has to say. The floor is yours, sir.
Teaching evolution in schools provides no benefits for students.

Thank you for your rebuttals.I'll make this brief.At the beginning of this debate, I mentioned the 'goo to you' theory of evolution. This is what is taught in schools. It teaches that life began from lifeless chemicals that eventually formed the first living cell. This process continued for billions of years and is responsible for all life, as we know it.In the rebuttals section, my opponent tried to make you think I don't understand the difference between abiogenesis and evolution. I assure you. I do. The theory that one 'kind' of life can evolve into another different kind of life is what is taught in schools. By kind, I'm referring to a family of animals. Dogs, for instance, or bears, or cats... the list goes on. Each kind has variations within the group. They are different, but still in the same family, or kind. THAT is what I mean by 'goo to you'. It is important that you understand this, for voting purposes.I would also like to point out that evolution, as taught in our grade schools, is nothing more than a bare outline of the theory. In reality, it's pretty useless knowledge to have. It's no good for anything practical. It has no real world applications. And let's be realists here. Our public schools have a real bad track record of teaching our kids anything. We would be better off teaching evolution as an entry course for college. As an elective, of course.Now, when you're voting, I want you to take a moment and think about this. In your adult life, have you ever needed what you were taught in school about evolution? think about your friends too. Do any of them require a need for evolution, as taught in our grade schools? That's all I have. Back to you, pro.
American public education system destroys creativity and individualism

I accept, Thanks for making this debate. I currently go to a public school, so I will providing my experiences. You didn't provide a definition of "destroy" so I will provide one. If you want to change it then do so next round. Destroy (verb): to cause (something) to end or no longer exist : to cause the destruction of (something) : to damage (something) so badly that it cannot be repaired http://www.merriam-webster.com...
American public education system destroys creativity and individualism

Some definitions real quick Creativity - Ability to produce something new through imaginative skill, whether a new solution to a problem, a new method or device, or a new artistic object or form. The term generally refers to a richness of ideas and originality of thinking. Psychological studies of highly creative people have shown that many have a strong interest in apparent disorder, contradiction, and imbalance, which seem to be perceived as challenges. Such individuals may possess an exceptionally deep, broad, and flexible awareness of themselves. Studies also show that intelligence has little correlation with creativity; thus, a highly intelligent person may not be very creative. See also genius; gifted child. Individualism - a social theory advocating the liberty, rights, or independent action of the individual. Sources: . http://dictionary.reference.com... . http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Same sex marriage.

My opponent has broken the stucture in round one. First round was for acceptance and definitions only.OutlineI. Benefits of marriageII. Being Gay is not a choiceIII. Financial gain to governmentIV. Separation of church and stateV. SourcesI. Benefits of marriageThe first question, is why would someone want to get married? The answer is there are 1,138 benefits, rights, and protections available for married couples by federal law. Therefore, there are many logical reasons why people would seek to reap these benefits. "There are 1,138 benefits, rights and protections available to married couples in federal law alone" [4]II. Being gay is not a choiceThis might sound silly, but you can't just will yourself to be straight or gay. "Most scientists would disagree. Years of research suggest that people can't change their sexual orientation because they want to, and that trying can cause mental anguish. What's more, some studies suggest that being gay may have a genetic or biological basis. " [5]"Gay conversion therapy, as it is known, supposedly helps gay people overcome same-sex attractions. But mainstream psychologists say the therapy is ineffective, unethical and often harmful, exacerbating anxiety and self-hatred among those treated for what is not a mental disorder." [6]That means by denying gays marriage we are practicing discrimination. Discrimination is unjust. III. Financial gain to governmentMarriages licenses are a source of revenue. This relieves tax burdens off of straights. Therefore, straight people gain a financial advantage from gay marriages.IV. Separation of church and stateAlmost all arguments against gays seem to originate from religion. Yet, the separation of church and state disallows religion to interfere with government affairs. Banning gay marriages on religious grounds would be a violation of the first amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" [7]By banning gay marriages based upon a religion, congress would be respecting an establishment of religion. V. Sources4. http://gaymarriage.procon.org...5. http://www.livescience.com...6. http://www.livescience.com...7. https://www.law.cornell.edu...
Same sex marriage.

Homosexuality is a choice and any person is entitled to their own choices, but to people of the same sex entering the union of marriage is unnatural and promotes a regressive, anti-reproductive life. The choice to marry another individual is unnatural and allowing marriage promotes this unnaturalness in the human race. Its easy to predict a future of people who become obsessed with this idea that if your not gay, then your wrong. Its the exact same thing happening with the minorities of America, some say if your not black your wrong.
Abortion is abominable

If it occurs early enough, abortion is acceptable.1. Embryos aren't individualsEmbryos aren't aware of anything, and are usually invisible. Accordingly, embryos aren't actually "alive."2. Almost all abortions occur earlyEarly abortions aren't immoral at all, and almost all abortions occur early on. [1]3. Outlawing abortion is unconstitutionalIf you are impregnated (accidentally or otherwise), you alone are empowered in adjudicating an outcome. Outlawing abortion in all instances is an unconstitutional infringement of individual autonomy.4. Abortion is often appropriate.Although adoption is an available option, additional unwanted infants abate adoption odds of already-existing individuals. Accordingly, abortion is appropriate if an embryo is unwanted. [Note: my opponent violated the terms of the debate by using two words that started with consonants in the previous round - "pain" and "depleted." According to his own rules, he has automatically forfeited the debate.][1] http://www.wpclinic.org...
Abortion is abominable

"Abortion": Termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo prior to viability.Pro argues against abortion, con argues for abortion. All words in the arguments of both Con and Pro (except for statements in the first round) must start with vowels. Use of any word that starts with a consenant leads to an automatic forfeit. Numbers may only be used to represent letters or words. Symbols should not be used to represent letters or words solely through the symbols' shapes. "Y" is both a consenant and a vowel; it may only lead a word under the circumstance that it is acting as a vowel. The first round is only for definitions, introductions, and discussion of the terms of the debate (and, as stated, words do not all have to start with vowels in this round.) Thank you. (And I know this is a challenge, but I'm sure both sides would be able to adjust.)