BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Schools Should Have Same-Sex Classes.

In my opinion, schools SHOULD have same-sex classes. I will accept all of my opponent's definitions. Now, in order for me to win this debate, all I have to prove is that school's should have same-sex classes, and my opponent has to prove that schools shouldn't have same sex classes. So to fulfill my burden, I'll break the schools into younger schools and older schools, as defined by my opponent. Younger schools: Physical Education is a class that should be broken up by gender. Anatomically speaking, males and females are very different, and thus a different kind of education is required. Older schools: Sex Education is a class that should be broken up by gender. Once again, anatomically speaking, males and females are different, and require a different style of education. As I've never been in a sex ed class of girls, I can't attest to any problems there, but as I guy (and a rather inquisitive guy at that) I can attest to the fact that it's awkward to ask questions about anatomy even in a class full of guys. Mix some girls in there and. .. nobody would learn anything. It would actually worsen the level of education gained by mixing these classes together. I'm actually pressed for time right now, I'll extend/counter when I have more time. .. But I propose that Physical Eduction and Sex Education are classes that should be broken up by gender. "Classes" (as stated in the resolution) is plural in my sense because you have two classes, one male and one female.
Schools Should Have Same-Sex Classes.

Schools Should NOT Have Same-Sex Classes. First, I must establish what is meant by the topic. *Schools: Grades K-12, which is Kindergarten through Twelfth Grade. *Same-Sex Classes: Classes of only girls, or only boys. ----Meaning, Schools should have classes consisting of only girls, or boys. **Also, I will be using the term, younger schools. By that I mean, sixth grade and under. By older schools, I mean seventh grade and older. ---------------NOTE--------------- Since I am negating this topic, I will let my opponent have the first argument. However, I would just like to state a few points to begin. I will come back in round two to attack my opponent's points and elaborate on my own, building a more stable argument. Next, I'd like to briefly touch on a few reasons why same-sex classes are bad. One, you have to learn how to interact with the opposite sex sometime in your life. You can't avoid it. If you attend a school with same-sex classes, when you get to college you will have a hard time learning how to work with the opposite sex. Two, younger schools often have recess, or break. At this, boys and girls will be together. We can't keep them seperated here. Although, we will try. Three, best friends or siblings will not be able to have classes together. This can and probably will cause feelings of lonliness and not wanting to attend school, causing absences and grades to fall. Four, kids that are older are more attracted to the opposite sex than those of a younger age. Five, people that are attracted to the same sex are allowed to be around those people, unlike those who are attracted to the opposite sex. Is that really fair? To sum up my points, it is hard to keep sexes seperated and will do nothing but cause problems. I will come back to elaborate my points and attack my opponent's in the next round.
LSD should be legalized with restrictions

CONTENTION 1: LSD is nonaddictive and has a low active dose/lethal dose ratio LSD has effects that can be felt by ingesting around 30 micrograms of the substance. The lethal dose is averaged at around 200 micrograms/kilogram to 1 milligram/kilogram, equivilant to an AD/LD ratio of around 1:1000. In comparison, caffeine has a ratio of 1:100, while alcohol has a ratio of 1:10. There has never been any reports of human death from LSD overdose. There is general consensus in the medical community that LSD is nonaddictive. CONTENTION 2: LSD has many positive effects and few negative effects. LSD is known for its creative and spiritual effects. It is widely reported to create a heightened appreciation for art and music, and many of the most famous and influential artists and innovators were fond of the drug, crediting it with their success. Included are The Beatles, Bill Gates, Kary Mullis, and Steve Jobs. There is no evidence of long-term adverse reactions to LSD. Most complaints consist of "bad trips", which only last for the duration of the drug's effect. CONTENTION 3: LSD has plausible medical uses. LSD is considered useful for treating psychological disorders because it allows the user to accept himself or herself and to release repressed thoughts and feelings. LSD has also been used to reduce end-of-life anxiety in terminally ill cancer patients. Physiologically, LSD has shown promise in treating cluster headaches, widely considered to be the most painful condition humans can suffer. To alleviate victims of this pain would be not only medically, but morally, the right thing. CONTENTION 4: Legalization and regulation would increase safety of users, as well as create revenue through taxation. In today's illegal LSD trade, safety and security of users is almost nil. A buyer may be very young, or receive a dosage of unsafe levels, a dose contaminated by unsanitary or unsafe manufacturing equipment, or even a potentially lethal drug in lieu of LSD. Many police raids have found dealers passing Dimethoxybromoamphetamine (DOB) as LSD. DOB has a much greater overdose potential than LSD, and can be potentially fatal. Legalization, and subsequent regulation of LSD would create safer doses, safer manufacturing environments, age restrictions, and practically eliminate the use of dangerous drugs as LSD substitutes. Once again, thank you to Con for accepting the debate. I await your rebuttal. Sources: . http://rgable.files.wordpress.com... . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://csp.org... . http://www.huffingtonpost.com... . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://en.wikipedia.org...
All white t-shirt punks should be thrown in jail

REBUTTALSDefinition of a punk"Common sense" is not a source provinding the definition of punk, it is your own definition. So far you've given three of your own definitions of 'punk,' and not actual definitions, so I'll stick with the definition of 'punk' that I have provided a source for. PunksA punk is not defined as one who jumps/attacks somebody. GospelsGetting someone behind bars just to be preached to does not show that all white t-shirt punks should be thrown in jail. --------------------You have not given any rebuttals to my arguments.
All white t-shirt punks should be thrown in jail

One definiton of punk could be somebody who uses a skull to represent themself. An image of death as if it is something positive is punky. Punk could also be defined as a person who tries to pretend the meaning of a word needs a book full of explanations for it's definition, rather than just manning up to the argument. Punks who hang out in groups all wearing white t-shirts are punks. I think we all understand the meaning of "punk" when it referrs to punks.SOURCES: 1) Common sense 2) Punks. I had to beat up some of those punks when they jumped me. They all should have been thrown in jail long before they jumped me. That would have been better for them. It's hard to get them to listen to the gospel when you have to deprive them of the abiltiy to harm you. It's better to get them behind bars where they will be more likely to listen to the preacher.I'm not mad. I'm just having fun, preaching the gospel. Punks rub me the wrong way.
All white t-shirt punks should be thrown in jail

Hello, Pro. I am interested in debating this topic with you. I'll open with my arguments since that's what you did. --------------------REBUTTALSPunks'Punk' has several definitions, but I'll assume that your definition of a punk is: an inexperienced young man[1]. Inexperience is not the equivalent to criminal, or one who commits crime. All white t-shirt punks should be thrown in jailWith this, you are saying that all inexperienced young men who are clad in white t-shirts should be thrown in jail. Typically criminals are thrown in jail, not innocent and inexperienced young men. When they all look alike, how is one supposed to be singled out and charged with the crime?Video and photographic evidence, eyewitnesses, finger prints, etc. That is how one is "singled out" if they are in a group of people. Just throw them all in jail and make sure a good hell fire and brimstone preacher can present the gospel of God in that He came down from heaven and paid for their crimes and rose from the grave so He can forgive them and be their justifier.If this is done, innocent people will be put in jail. Everyone is innocent unless proven guilty. Not everyone believes in God or the gospels, and even if they did, there are better alternatives in treating criminals, like psychology. Then give them a nicely patterned shurt when they leave jail and they might stop being punks.A punk isn't defined as one who wears a white t-shirt. Even if they are given a patterned shirt, they can just take it off and put a white t-shirt back on. --------------------ARGUMENTSArgument 1: Putting multiple people in jail with the hopes that at least one is a criminal. If that is done, innocent people will be put in jali. Argument 2: Innocent untli proven guiltyOtherwise known as presumption of innocence. Everyone has the right to a fair trial. The burden of proof is on the prosecuters[2]. --------------------SOURCES[1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
All white t-shirt punks should be thrown in jail

Guys who hang around in groups all wearing white t-shirts generally are intent on covering for each other when they commit a crime. The perpetrator will be described as wearing a white t shirt, and when they all look alike, how is one supposed to be singled out and charged with the crime? Just throw them all in jail and make sure a good hell fire and brimstone preacher can present the gospel of God in that He came down from heaven and paid for their crimes and rose from the grave so He can forgive them and be their justifier. Then give them a nicely patterned shurt when they leave jail and they might stop being punks.
Should Batman Arkham Knight be published to Xbox 360 and PS3

Well still though, I mean, it may take up too much hardware since Xbox 360 is old but come on, I'm not really going to buy Arkham Knight just to play it on Xbox One, do you know what I mean? Just to play a ONE game! I mean, let's upgrade the Xbox 360. See, all this is to be blamed on the creators of Xbox. Instead of going to Xbox 420 or Xbox 720, they decied to name it some stupid thing and change everything all around. I would've preferred an Xbox 720, would love to see it. I mean, I know I'm not the only one who wishes this.
Should Batman Arkham Knight be published to Xbox 360 and PS3

I don't know about you, but I just found out that the creators of the Batman Arkham video game franchise aren't publishing Batman Arkham Knight to Xbox 360 or PS3. THEIR PUBLISHING IT TO FREAKING XBOX ONE AND PS4. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY! I don't know why! So what? Xbox 360 and PS3 are old, BUT STILL! I'm not going to buy an Xbox One JUST to play Batman. That's stupid and a waste of money. I hope they do realize that their losing fans while doing this. And they won't be making as much money as they would if they published Arkham Knight to Xbox 360 and PS3. I am so disappointed in RockSteady Studious. I CAN'T BELIEVE they would do this! I mean, Arkham Knight looks so amazing to play. But if they want to go their own route, then it looks like I won't be playing that game at all. I don't get it since Xbox One and PS4 came out many game developers are rushing to publish their games to those consoles. Graphics don't change if you publish it to a new game console.
The Pak-a-Spak Knapsack with its fantastic plastic spastic is the ideal theme park accessory

However, I am sure that engaging in this absorbing activity would raise some eyebrows in theme parks which are, after all, the most family friendly of all attractions. .. “Mummy, why has that man got his hand up that lady’s skirt? ” “Daddy, what is that lady doing on her knees in front of that man? ” “Look, Mummy! That lady’s got all milk round her mouth. ” Better to do enjoy all the rides in less than half the time it would normally take by using your new Pak-a-Spak Knapsack™ imitation invalid infant to jump the queues (cut the lines) and then take the dirty slapper (lady with low morals) to a cheap motel and give her a proper seeing-to there. Thank you.
The Pak-a-Spak Knapsack with its fantastic plastic spastic is the ideal theme park accessory

I disagree. A young woman of low morals is a much better, and cheaper theme park accessory. What better way to pass the time standing in line than getting a little trim. The only added cost is the price of a second admission. Young women of low morals are in plentiful supply these days.[1] 1. http://aspeneducation.crchealth.com...
The Pak-a-Spak Knapsack with its fantastic plastic spastic is the ideal theme park accessory

Everybody loves theme park rides, don"t they? But nobody likes standing for hour after hour to get on them do they? No, but not everybody does have to wait: rich mothers from Manhattan hire cripples to pose as family members so they can jump the queues (cut the lines). That's because handicapped visitors go straight to the front of the queue (line) and all their family can join them. [1]"Awesome!" I hear you say, "The next time I visit Disney World I'll hire a spastic stooge, but where do I get one from and how much do they cost?"Well, dear reader, there are agencies that hire out people with reduced mobility issues or learning difficulties (or both) but the catch is they run at $130 an hour, or $1,040 per day. [1]"Fvcking rats c0cks!" I hear you exclaim, "That's silly money, I'm not paying that!"Don't worry, you don't have to. That's because the Pak-a-Spak Knapsack™ - the fantastic plastic spastic you pack on your back - is now available from Eggleston's Ethical Enterprises for less than it costs to hire a live disabled person for an hour.Expertly crafted from the finest polyvinyls these miniature manikins have extremely lifelike skin textures and are sure to fool any ride attendant into thinking you are holding a real disabled baby, rather than just a realistic replica retard. See for yourself by clicking this link: http://www.debate.org...That's why the Pak-a-Spak Knapsack™ is the ideal accessory for theme park visits.Thank you. [1] http://nypost.com...
Legalization of recreational marajuana

Con begins by suggesting that pot cannot be legalized, because people might smoke and drive. First, extend my argument that drinking and driving is infinitely more dangerous than smoking and driving [1] yet alcohol remains legal. For Con's argument to have merit, he would have had to argue that we ban alcohol (which has been tried and failed) though he did not. Second, studies show that driving under the influence of marijuana is not that dangerous, and that it could be more dangerous to drive while tired [2]. Nonetheless, smoking and driving should be illegal. Con is arguing that people might break the law to smoke and drive -- yet this defeats his own argument, as people could just as easily break the law and continue to smoke weed (and drive) now. My opponent's second argument is that smoking pot is dangerous because pot smokers inhale more smoke. There are several rebuttals to this (especially in regard to freedom) that I have already addressed and Con has ignored. However pot can be ingested which completely bypasses every single one of the dangers of smoking in terms of tar or other impacts on your lungs [3]. People can also smoke weed through vaporizers, which is another way to virtually eliminate all of the harm from smoking [4]. In conclusion, I would like to repeat my dozen arguments below. The ones in bold are the ones that my opponent has dropped. 1. Smoking pot does not infringe on anybody else's rights.2. Comparatively, smoking weed is minimally harmful.3. Legalization of pot would save a ton of money.4. Legalization would also be great for creating jobs,5. And adding a significant amount of revenue to alleviate tax payers.6. It's not fair to make pot smokers criminals and pay a lot of fines.7. Criminalization leads to arrests and records, making it harder to get jobs.8. Prohibition is ineffective and disproportionately targets minorities.9. Legalizing pot keeps money out of the hands of gangs and drug cartels.10. Pot has a lot of medicinal benefits and social benefits. 11. People become desensitized to pot's mild side effects. 12. People have the right to relax in a way that is not dangerous. These contentions, especially the ones in bold, must be awarded in my favor. I have proven that legalizing drugs is more just, fair and reasonable than criminalization. Thanks! [1] . http://www.techtimes.com...[2] . http://time.com...[3] . https://www.leafly.com...[4] . http://www.leafscience.com...
Legalization of recreational marajuana

Thank you for your response. In pro's argument she says: "Plus, it would be unrealistic and unproductive to criminalize anything that could be potentially harmful." It can be harmful in more ways than you think. We now have aproblem with drinking and driving. Can you imagine adding driving high and drunk to the list of problems. According to the National Institute of Drug Abuse: "According to the 2014 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), 10 million people aged 12 or older reported driving under the influence of illicit drugs during the year prior to being surveyed.4 NSDUH findings also show that men are more likely than women to drive under the influence of drugs or alcohol. And a higher percentage of young adults aged 18 to 25 drive after taking drugs or drinking than do adults 26 or older.4" The institute also says: After alcohol, marijuana is the drug most often found in the blood of drivers involved in crashes. Tests for detecting marijuana in drivers measure the level of delta-9- tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), marijuana"s mind-altering ingredient, in the blood. But the role that marijuana plays in crashes is often unclear. THC can be detected in body fluids for days or even weeks after use, and it is often combined with alcohol. The risk associated with marijuana in combination with alcohol, cocaine, or benzodiazepines appears to be greater than that for either drug by itself.3," The National Institute of Drug abuse is obviosly a credible source. Another problem is second hand smoke. Second hand smoke from cigarettes is bad but second hand smoke from marijuana can be equally or more damaging to others. The Canadian Cancer society says: "People who smoke marijuana tend to inhale more smoke per puff and hold it in their lungs for as much as 4 times longer than people who smoke tobacco cigarettes. This means that smoking 2"3 marijuana cigarettes can expose you to roughly the same amount of smoke as 20 tobacco cigarettes." This is also a very credible source. People have a right to do what they want but when it harms them and others it can not and should not be easily accessible. Pro argues that the country can profit off people harming there bodies. Cigarettes, alchol abuse, sugar, chemicals etc are already a problem. I don't think adding marijuana is a very smart desicion.
Legalization of recreational marajuana

The legalization of a harmful substince can damage family communities. Acording to the centre for disease control some effects of marijuana are : -short-term memory impairment and slowness of learning. -impaired lung function similar to that found in cigarette smokers. Indications are that more serious effects, such as cancer and other lung disease, follow extended use. -decreased sperm count and sperm motility. -interference with ovulation and pre-natal development. 'impaired immune response. -possible adverse effects on heart function. -by-products of marijuana remaining in body fat for several weeks, with unknown consequences. The storage of these by-products increases the possiblilties for chronic, as well as residual, effects on performance, even after the acute reaction to the drug has worn off. Of special concern are the long-term developmental effects children and adolescents, who are particularly vulnerable to the drug's behavioral and psychological effects. If this substince is proven to be a serious health hazard why do we wan't to legalize it. Pro may argue why cigarettes are legal and marijuana isn't. One reason is that cigarettes were legalized in a time when the health hazards where not known to the public. There are too many people addicted to smoking now to ban it. But now with our modern health technology we know marijuana is hazardous to health. We can stop the legalization of a harmful and addictive substince that can ruin peoples lives. CDC surgeon general's warning: http://www.cdc.gov...
Students should rather learn how to solve real world situations.

This resolution brings into question whether we should keep the current system of teaching students, or replace it with things such as communication and paying taxes. In my school, communication class (speech) is a requirement. However, since this is a cheap shot, I would rather just clarify this topic in order to have a meaningful debate, as opposed to me just using some cheap fallacious trick to win. I assume this debate will be about whether we should keep education how it is, or replace it with an education that involves paying taxes and starting a business. The voters should notice the use of the word, replace instead of adopt, because the resolution includes the word rather. So it's this or that, not this or this and that. Now as for my case, I would like to begin with the claim that current education is as necessary, if not more necessary, than things such as paying taxes and starting a business. To clarify, I hope we can agree that things such as paying taxes, is generally more easily learned, than our current studies. I would say that paying taxes, shouldn't take two semesters. This is why I venture to say that we should learn how to pay taxes, outside of our normal routine education. This does not exclude the possibility of having a class on how to pay taxes, as an extra. The current educations teaches us how to even do math, in order to pay taxes. Without my opponent's proposal, we would all learn how to start a business and pay taxes, but not know how to plan out assets and liabilities in terms of business. Therefore we wouldn't be able to maintain the business. Without history, we wouldn't be able to know how successful businesses have been able to prosper. How did Bill gates get to where he is? The list can go on. The current education is a prerequisite to starting a business and paying taxes. And because of current studies being a prerequisite to real world problems, not knowing the current studies itself must be a real world problem.
Word Debate

cockalorum Pronounce: cockï¿½aï¿½loï¿½rum "a boastful and self-important person " [1] "a self-important little man. " [2,3] . http://www.merriam-webster.com... [1] . http://www.vocabula.com... (also here) [2] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [3] Use in context: "a boxer who was as famous for his prefight cockalorum as for his knockouts in the ring" . http://www.merriam-webster.com... when invented: "probably modification of obsolete Dutch dialect kockeloeren to crow, of imitative origin First Known Use: circa 1715" . http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Word Debate

Word: Zucchetto Definition: "A small, round skullcap worn by Roman Catholic ecclesiastics, a priest's being black, a bishop's violet, a cardinal's red, and the pope's white; calotte."[1] Use in context: The zucchetto began existence as the Greek pilos and is a descendant of the beret (which itself was originally a large zucchetto). Sources: [1]: http://dictionary.reference.com...