BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should students be allowed to play games for class

Apologies, then. In that case, it should still not happen. Instead of doing classwork, they will be doing games. Again, fun in theory, not in practical use. 1)Games means less actual 'class work' done. 2) Less work done means less work makes up your average 3) The worse you do, the worse it hits you on grades. 4) Doing bad on one assignment can basically DOOM you. Not only that, but you haven't specified who's PAYING for the game to be made. These things cost money, you know. Then you have to buy all of the computers for all the kids to play on them. To be frank, it will save time and money to hand them a worksheet so they can have the actual skill pounded into their head. For your EoC, you won't be typing on a iPad, now will you? Not only this, but on games, you don't take it seriously. It's just a game after all. Pounding this mindset into the heads of children will make them think that the EoC is a game! But I digress, In short, (1) Grades will mean more, which will mean more 'technical'(being under a 70) fails, (2) It will cost money to supply the kids with games and gadgets, (3) Teaching kids to play on a online game when the final exam is on paper is useless, and finally, (4) It will make kids not take the EoC seriously. I now begin my rebuttal: 1) A review game is fine and dandy, but this is no actual proof that it works better than worksheets. Infact, worksheets work better!( http://www.ajc.com...-/ ) 2) Mine-craft for art creativity? Kids will only use that to "kill monsters" than to create art. I know it is just an example, but still. 3) Contrary to what my opponent says, having fun while playing games does NOT increase productivity. You've got a bunch of games on that tablet, or on that phone, or on that computer. It's connected to the internet, after all! There is no sure way that the students can play JUST that game. The internet is endless. 4) To quote the article again, to teach is to not let people play games. The article explicitly states that those who have with said subject(in other words, they need to learn), are helped more by worksheets. Overall, games are not the way to go! I await your rebuttal.
Should students be allowed to play games for class

Ok you seem to have misunderstoodI said play games FOR class, not during, as in offtaskingThis means games that the teacher assigns for whatever purposeFor example, a review game of any sortsThe teacher could also uses games such as Minecraft for an art class for creativityUsing games children will be more interested in learning stuff and in turn make them smarter students while still doing what they enjoy, which is playing gamesAlso, if the students have all their fun playing the game, they likely wont be bored during class, increasing productivitySo if the students play games during class provided by the teacher or used by the teacher for learning purposes, they won't be as jittery during the day because they get a chance to let out energy, they have fun, and it helps stick info in their mindIsnt that the whole goal of school anyway? To help a student learn? If so then the teachers should use whatever to help a student learn including gamesOf course playing games during times when you aren't should be punishable but that's not what this debate about
Should students be allowed to play games for class

I accept the challenge, and hope my opponent gives a good debate. Opening argument: Students should not be allowed to play games in class.Knowing children in general, they will do ANYTHING to get out of doing work. Playing games will reduce the productivity of students, and in turn, lessen the amount of students who graduate from college and school. Contentions: 1) Students cannot be trusted to do work unless there are no potential distractions 2)Children, are likely to get off task by playing games. 3) Grades will get worse due to the lack of effort put into school. I will flesh out my contentions in R2.
God exists.

The resolution is that God exists. Pro will be arguing that God exists, while Con will be arguing that Pro has not established that God exists and/or that God does not exist. By accepting this debate, Pro agrees that they have the burden of proof to establish that it is objectively more likely than not that God exists. The rules for assessing this are the standard rules of logic, including the rules of deductive and inductive inference. For example, a deductive argument must be deductively valid and have premises that we have sufficient reason to believe are true, and an inductive argument must establish that the conclusion is the best or only explanation for the evidence cited in the premises. God for the purposes of this debate shall be defined, by default, as an omnipotent, omniscient, all good person. I take this definition from the first paragraph of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on "Concepts of God." [1] If Pro wants to use a definition other than this default definition, they should ask for me to approve it in the comments section before accepting the debate. The following types of definition are unacceptable: (a) Definitions that attempt to win the debate by defining God as something that obviously exists, like "God is love" or "God is the universe." (b) Definitions that attempt to define God as something radically different from the traditional Judeo-Christian God as conceived of by Anselm, Aquinas, Richard Swinburne, or other traditional authors. Please note that the character maximum for this debate is 5,000 characters per round. I am trying something new. [1] https://plato.stanford.edu...
Abortion

Saying a woman should be well informed is code for government sponsored misinformation based religious ideology (http://www.motherjones.com...). I agree with you that we as a country provide poor sex education for our children. In my opinion we provide a poor education in general compared to other developed countries. Therefore I propose more federal funding for public education including strict guidelines of how and what we want our children to be taught including for sex education. We should also increase funding to women's health organizations like planned parenthood and mandate contraception coverage on government healthcare and healthcare on the affordable care act exchange. Other then that abortion should be legal as long as the fetus is not viable outside the womb.
Abortion

Neither of us agree with most of what is in the original resolution. The debate was structured so neither of us was required to do so. However you have taken somewhat of an extreme position on the other side. Granted there are unintended pregnancies and sometimes there are changes in a woman's circumstances which makes having a baby problematic. But understand an abortion is the taking of a life. Sometimes it has to be done and when it has to be done it is ultimately the woman who makes the decision. But that decision should be well informed. And if a woman doesn't want to have a baby she can simply not get pregnant. Yes as noted above there are 'unintended pregnancies but many of these are the consequence of the woman's own negligence or the consequence of poor sexuality education. Give women and men the information and the resources they need to prevent unwanted pregnancies and thus eliminate the need for many abortions
Abortion

Many people find abortion to be morally objectionable. Maybe not to the point of executing women who have abortions or even punishing them in other ways in the criminal justice system. There are some who generally oppose abortion but understand there are circumstances under which a woman would want an abortion. Laws can be set up and enforced in a way which allow abortions to occur when needed or in some cases where the woman wants one. But particularly in the later circumstances measures to discourage and dissuade the woman from having the abortion. Such as advising pregnant women of alternatives, and making contraceptives more readily available There should not be unrestricted access to and an unrestricted right to abortion. The state should balance the woman's rights with a respect for life
The federal government of the United States of America should be abolished.

I am not arguing that our current Government is efficient or undersized, I am simply arguing that our current Government should not be abolished and refuting claims that our Government should be abolished. In fact, I believe the Constitution allows for a balanced Government, and it is the politicians who have expanded beyond this document that are the real evil. First, the Government IS the problem, but it is not the structure of the Government that is the problem. It is the politicians. Executive Orders can, and have been, overturned by the Supreme Court. This can all be undone by a respectable elected President. In fact, the entire mess we have gotten ourselves into can quite possibly be overturned if we elect the right people into Office. The best solution is not to completely start over; in fact, that is the worst solution. The best solution is to fix what is broken, to limit Government size, and to begin abiding by the laws of the Constitution. Our Constitution is the oldest one of its kind still in use; it is the work of a group of political geniuses. Every Executive Order you listed that reaches outside the boundaries of the Constitution may have been issued by a President, but that does not mean that the Constitution allows them to. It is not the structure of the Government, as a three-branched constitutional republic obviously works, it is the people in the Government, the politicians who have screwed us over by expanding their power. The federal Government's purpose is not to provide for the states. The purpose of the Government is to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity. " In fact, in your first argument, you state that the federal Government is "grossly oversized" but then you go on to claim that one of the Government's purposes is "addressing the needs and desires of the various states"? If you do not want your Government to be oversized, then do not let it attempt to provide for the states' needs and desires. The Government's prupose is not to provide for every little want and need of the states, the Government's purposes are SPECIFICALLY outlined in the Preamble of the Constitution. Again, the politicians may be greedy and powerhungry -- in fact, they are -- but it is they who have ruined our Government. The outline of the Branches' powers, the structure of the Government, is not what is at fault, and it should not be abolished. What should be abolished, however, are the politicians -- the ones actually to blame for the mess you summed up in most of your argument.
The federal government of the United States of America should be abolished.

Resolved: As of circa 1913 the federal government of the United States of America has repeatedly demonstrated its inability to properly manage the nations resources, societal, religious, racial, and political issues, and as such, especially considering the present destitute condition of the body politick, the government should not be reformed or altered, but entirely abolished in favour of either another system, or of no system. (That is, I am arguing only for the abolition of the present federal government, not the state or local government, and since this is the first debate I will have organised, the rules are simple: justify the opposing position. I dont have the patience to write out detailed parameters in an attempt to appear the sophist. Also, I admit I am still an amateur, so dont expect the best debate ever here.)
Bronies Vote!

Okay, I've had enough of this no-chance-of-winning charade. I just want something to do that has a completely EQUAL 50-50 chance of me winning with a topic I like. So when I got a little inspiration from i8bacon, one of DDO's many yet few Brony brothers, I have decided to follow in that sort of pattern/style or whatever. I will make a debate one of these days that I WILL win, one way or another. So it's stupidly simple. Any Bronies in on this must vote for me, others either vote for Con or just not bother, although I would like it if you DID bother, in a nice way PLZ!!!!! But that is not all I will say on this thing. No, I will also say the reason I put two rounds on this is because my mobile device freezes up browser whenever I choose 1 round. So...I'll think of something to say in the next round. Wait...why bother saying anything when music can say everything for you!? http://music.soundoftheaviators.com... http://music.soundoftheaviators.com... http://music.soundoftheaviators.com... https://soundcloud.com... http://music.soundoftheaviators.com... https://soundcloud.com... https://soundcloud.com... Also Bronies please tell me what you think of this musics stuff! I have no idea what to expect out of any opponent that should come to this. BUT I may have more musics by round 2. Wish me good luck, and vote if you are a Brony!
Bronies Vote!

*Tries to keep temper in check* okay....I have seriously had ENOUGH of every single bucking thing I say here be contradicted by some smart-aleck such as yourself who believes Bronies to be either useless worthless pieces of junk, or just not important in the general society. First of all, no one deserves either of those treatments, ESPECIALLY me, someone who's been looking for some backup and comfort for all these years, and really it's not helping me with all this "logic and reason" and "cold hard facts" *squee*. Believe me, if the world were really supposed to house humans on cold hard facts, why would we even have emotions? The only people here that are NOT walking machines are to me either people that have ideas of a code and ghosts in our souls (Aviators) or just Bronies in general. What the buck? Is it that I'm just talking too much? I'd just give the debate straight, but I have autism, so I can't do that without saying something else with it. If there is anyone out there who would like to suggest ways I could win a debate, or Brony-related topics I could probably have a shot at, LMK! You know what? No, I've had enough. There are Bronies out there, and it doesn't matter how many there are, they're still out there, and if they can vote, I know they will. I'm tired and sick of all this silence. I'd probably say I'm the LOUDEST voice on here, and I want the silence to be broken. We are all corrupt, but we all have hidden potential inside of us to do good, and we have to fight our inner darkness, and just shutting it up isn't a way to do that. http://music.soundoftheaviators.com... I'm not forcing, or commanding for that matter, but I am telling the truth of what I want! I want all Bronies to let yourselves be heard on DDO, and stand up! Rise against the hurt, pain, hate, and lies even when they're coming at us from all sides! http://music.soundoftheaviators.com... http://music.soundoftheaviators.com... (Think of more songs if I left out one or two!) Together we can...do whatever we want with the world, I guess...so vote! And if you're just browsing DDO and are unsure about whether or not to become a Brony, I would suggest going the friendlier, more Love and Tolerance-akin path (you know what I mean...). Seriously, the silence is killing me. And it's killing the world. Have something be done about it. Let's paint the whole world red....*lies down satisfied*...
Quran is not man-made book

Jews do not call pious men "sons of God." I know the Quran doesn't say all Jews referred to Ezra as the son of God. I asked you to provide me with just one source from any time, where any Jew(s) has referred to Ezra as the son of God.9) Voters, please take a particularly close look at this one. Pro says, "You can deny the true scientific knowledge about embryology..." What the hell are you talking about? The Quran says it forms into a blood clot. It does not. Your source last round linked to an article which didn't even claim that it does, but tried satisfying the verse by saying it turns into something similar to a blood clot. This time your source is linked to an article about time relativity. Show me a damned source or a backup to this claim that during embryonic development it turns into a blood clot. None?Yes I didn't directly refute any of your contentions. I refuted your resolution and gave many reasons to back it up. Voters could decide who's arguments were stronger.
Quran is not man-made book

4) The verse says, "Then eat from all the fruits..." The bee doesn't eat from all the fruits or all of anything, it eats from flowers or honey. And how does "from all the fruits" mean all kinds of products?5) I quoted the verse. It says "none holds them up except Allah." Where is the misuse of meaning? It seems that the author didn't know about the scientific phenomenon of flight. It seems the author thought that birds flying in the sky is magical. You say the verse is to show the power of God. The only statement about the power of God in the verse is, "none holds them up except Allah." Which would imply that Allah is holding the birds and not air pressure.6) Christians do not worship Mary. I don't think you read the piece that was your source. The point of it was that it is a misconception that Catholics worship Mary, they hold her in high regard, but do not worship her. "The honor we give her, therefore, and the dulia we give her is higher than any other being. But it is not latria. We’re clear about that. We do not worship Mary."7) I've never heard of Jews claiming that Ezra was the son of God. Actually, I think it is a preposterous claim. Do you have a source for that?8) Then according to your logic Mohamed was dumb, and the verse is contradictory anyway.9) What science has confirmed embryology in Islam? The point is, it says blood clot. To my knowledge at no point in the fertilization process or after, does a blood clot form. The article you sourced for your claim says, "The third meaning of the word alaqah is 'blood clot.' We find that the external appearance of the embryo and its sacs during the alaqah stage is similar to that of a blood clot." Similar is nice, but the verse doesn't say similar, it says "made into a blood clot," Allah is not supposed to make mistakes. Finally, what's your evidence that I'm trying to misrepresent something? And what "something" do you think I am trying to misrepresent. I don't like your hollow claims.
Quran is not man-made book

Review on your contentions: Contention 1.- I agree that if there is only one mistake in the Quran then it's not the book of God.Contention 2.- This is not about writer of Quran but the author of that book. It's not the same. Quran has been revealed to Muhammed and then Muhammad would recite that and the scribes would write that.Rebuttals on "Errors in the Quran":1) There is no place in the Quran where God says that the concept of seven heveans is concept of atmosphere and its layers. When Quran are saying about seven heveans, it's saying about heveans in general, not the atmosphere layers.(1)Also the science now saying that there are mulitple (uni)verses, one above other, which confirm Quran statement.(2) 2) This is misuse of words because word nuran which is used in that verse don't refers to entity that emits light. When Quran speaking about Moon and what is purpose of him, it uses word munira which means reflected light( for example: 25:61 verse). 3) This is wrond translation of words and the Christians and atheists often use this example to attack Quran but the true translation of word sulb is not ribs but the loins. (3) 4) The words: from all the fruits means from all kind of podructs and the polen and nectar are products or fruits.5) You again misuse the meaning. This is not saying scientificaly how birds fly but show the power of God.6) Mary was and is worshipped. Even if you dont't believe in Trinity, you are trying to use that against Islam. It's not correct. When you go in the church you will see big statue of Mary and the Christians have that statues home and they pray in front of them, but they won't say that they worship her. (4)7) Quran doesn't refer to all Jews, but there was few people who claimed that as there are some Christians who claim that Jesus is not son of God. (5)8) Dumb = inarticulate. This words refer not to power to invent but the power to comprehend God.9) Even the science confirmd concept of embriology in islam , and you are trying to misrepresent something. (6) http://www.onislam.net... https://yahyasnow.wordpress.com... http://www.patheos.com... http://www.islam-guide.com...
In order to defeat ISIS we have to kill the loved ones of terrorists

I shall not go into my arguments now, but I will go over the rules the Pro and I have agreed to. I shall state my case, as shall the Pro in the next round. DEBATE STRUCTURE Round 1. Acceptance, No Arguments Round 2. Opening statements (no rebuttals) Round 3. Rebuttals Round 4. Rebuttals Round 5. Final Rebuttals and closing arguments RULES 1. The burden of proof is shared 2. Forfeiting will results in a full 7-point loss 3. No images or videos are permitted. Links to videos or Images may be used as sources, but the media itself may not be posted in the debate. 4. The character limit is 10,000 5. All arguments must be made in the debate. Any arguments that are mentioned in the comments should be ignored. If there are technical difficulties, sources may be posted in the comments. 6. No Kritiks 7. No Semantics 8. No Trolling 9. All sources must be accessible online and all links must be posted to the debate. 10. Violations of any of these rules should be noted by voters in their scores for conduct.
In order to defeat ISIS we have to kill the loved ones of terrorists

This is not a joke but a thing I've seriously been thinking about for quite a while after Trump suggested the idea on his campaign trail. However I'm not convinced Trump is going to stick with the idea after and if he ever gets elected, to what extent the military can refuse orders by the president and how exactly the president can circumvent the Geneva convention in that regard (collateral damage is as I understand permissible in certain situation). Howsoever interesting these questions are that's not what we're going to discuss here. I'm here to discuss the actual merits of what I'm suggesting. We have tried a lot but nothing seems to have really worked so far. The only way to really put an end to the menace of global jihad and to quell the murderous tide that is now sweeping over huge swaths of western civilization is to play ball and show that we are going to go the extra mile to show that if you're messing around with us then you're going to pay a steep price. Good luck