BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Woodshop should be considered an art in High School

Engineering-the branch of science and technology concerned with the design, building, and use of engines, machines, and structures. the work done by, or the occupation of, an engineer. the action of working artfully to bring something about. "if not for Keegan's shrewd engineering, the election would have been lost" Woodturning isn't designing or building. I will give you that it uses machines but I will also state that making clay pots which is considered an art uses a potter wheel and stove. Images of Pottery http://www.shutterstock.com... Proof that Ceramic(Pottery) is an art https://en.wikipedia.org... Potter Wheel https://en.wikipedia.org... Technology-the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes, especially in industry. "advances in computer technology" machinery and equipment developed from the application of scientific knowledge. the branch of knowledge dealing with engineering or applied sciences. Woodshop isn't practical use. Woodshop in America is more arts than crafts than drafting. For example making a wall shelf isn't making a house. The government considers woodshop more than arts and crafts but really it is. This the projects i did this year so far. -Sanding Block -Wall shelf -Pen -Cutting Board This is more crafts than engineering/technology.
Woodshop should be considered an art in High School

Art-the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power. "the art of the Renaissance" How is art different then woodshop. Like the definition woodshop express's one imagination in a visible form. Scroll Saw Projects look pretty nice and some may argue that they are art. Woodshop should be consider one year of art at high school. Images of Art https://www.pinterest.com... Images of Woodturing http://veryshareimg.com...
Abortion

I do agree that if a couple is not ready for a child, they should not get pregnant. The problem is, many couples do do this. They use protection, the use medicine, etc. Despite this, many times it's not enough. Say the condomn breaks; say the medicine doesn't do its job. In this situation, despite the couples best effort, the woman has a high chance of getting pregnant. Now the couple is faced with a choice: Have the baby and potentially not be able to give it the life it deserves; try to find a church, foster home, or government agency that will take the child and still, possibly, not give it a good life; abort the child and spare it from having a potentially unpleasant life and spare yourself from spending resources you may not have. Out of those choices, which is both the most morally correct and financially responsible?I understand that abortion can be considered murder and it's not completely morally competent, but it certainly a better alternative than letting the child live and have a childhood that could damage the rest of its life. I am not advocating that abortion should be the only choice; if a couple can find a good place that can raise the child well, by all means, go for that; if the couple can find another couple who wants a child and can raise one well, by all means, give it to them, but if none of these options are available, I believe a couple should have the choice to abort their fetus.In a short conclusion, abortion should not be a couple's only option, but it should be an available one if there are no better ones.
It's time to crackdown on geriatric spinsters

Interesting view, Brian. I'll take a crack at it via 6 contentions which I will provide numerically below. I look forward to both an interesting and entertaining debate. Good luck! 1. Pro is suggesting that we crackdown on spinsters in general (as a whole). His argument is insufficient insofar as it assumes that childless women have paid less in taxes and/or debt to society than women with children. He hasn't proven that this is the case, nor has he proven that it applies to EVERY 'spinster.' 2. Pro is requiring that we crackdown on spinsters, as in unmarried and child-less women. Being a parent is therefore the variable between spinsters and women in general, so Pro has the burden of proving the value of home labor and/or childbirth is greater in comparison to other types of labor. In other words, Pro must prove that housework (or work done by stay-at-home moms) is unpaid labor worth the same or more than the value of women without children (spinsters) who probably worked in the general workforce instead. 3. Women paying less taxes than men is certainly evened out by the fact that The Glass Ceiling not only exists, but leads to women generally earning 75 cents to every dollar that a man working the same job and with the same credentials earns. In other words, if women were earning equal wages to men, they would be paying an equal amount of taxes. The system can fix itself here. 4. Pro writes, "In capitalist societies citizens must take responsibility for themselves." However, note that Pro fails to detail the disproportionate and perhaps unconstitutional reciprocaties of social programs such as Welfare, etc. 5. Why is it necessarily a good thing that all women reproduce? After all, the world is over-populated. Moreover, whose to say that a spinster couldn't contribute just as much to society without actually tax paying ,in such a way that a service like childbirth is offered instead? For instance, said spinsters could be the prostitutes, strippers and porn stars necessary to society in the sense that they help keep sexual predators off the street, keep marriages together, enable certain people to lose their virginity at a reasonable age, etc. 6. Finally Pro's suggestion of "the state pension should be extended to both sexes until the value of their tax contributions runs out, after which time they will have to take care of themselves" is an insufficient solution. First, that ignores part of the reason for having pensions in the first place (not burdening the elderly to work, assuming they could even find work and that it would be feasible for them to work). Second, Pro has not offered another way to care for the elderly when their "contributions" run out, nor has he argued why the government shouldn't have to. He is also leaving out the fact that unpaid labor (i.e. stay at home moms) exists and there is no existing system of valuing that work to date. Moreover, Pro has not suggested what should happen should said people die BEFORE their tax contributions run out. Keeping these arguments and questions in mind, back to you, Pro.
It's time to crackdown on geriatric spinsters

I was just thinking that it had been a while since I last posted one of my "crackdown" debates and I was pondering what section of society needed cracking down upon next when a woman came into the room and (for some reason) told me about how traumatic childbirth is. This outburst reminded me of a group of people who have been freeloading off the rest of us for far too long now and who certainly need cracking down upon, and need cracking down upon hard. Now, it's well-known that women have a greater life expectancy than men and that they also earn less money and, therefore, pay less tax than men. So why do men have to work like toiling coolies all their lives to pay the taxes to provide state pensions for a bunch of frigid old biddies who never contributed their fair share to society either financially or by going through the trauma of childbirth in order to produce the next generation of taxpayers? Some might call them "harmless old dears" and suggest that we should "leave them alone" but in capitalist societies citizens must take responsibility for themselves and unless they contribute something in lieu of taxes, such as suffering the ordeal of childbirth, the devil should be allowed to take the hindmost. All I am saying is that the state pension should be extended to both sexes until the value of their tax contributions runs out, after which time they will have to take care of themselves. Of course, this does not apply to the United States where pretty much all of the elderly poor are left to fend for themselves anyway. Thank you. http://www.youtube.com...
This site is rigged and impossible to win.

Experience has shown that a number of policy debaters (like yourself) utilize this site. I contend that at the least these debaters will understand proper judging paradigms. By leaving insightful reasons for decision on the comments, debaters with reasonably informed paradigms can set a model for other users of the site. Through this educating process, the site will become a fairer debating society. This scenario is not "impossible." Furthermore, most debates result in a winner, so obviously it is possible to win. Perhaps the win is not fair or deserved, but it is still possible to win, and that is the topic of debate. Next, a definition from merriam webster for "rigged": 1 : to manipulate or control usually by deceptive or dishonest means 2 : to fix in advance for a desired result The site is not rigged. The site does nothing to favor one side or the other. Your bone of contention is with user responsibility, not the site. As such the site is not "rigged," just like a policy round with a lay judge isnt "rigged," its just judged by someone who is incompetent. There is no "fixing for a desired result" or "manipulation." There are just a lot of judges who dont understand what they are doing. As Pro, you must defend the stance that "this site is rigged and impossible to win," meaning you must win on BOTH positions that "this site is rigged" and is "impossible to win." As Con, I must just prove your statement false. I can do this by negating only one of stances, as the premise must be taken as a whole.
This site is rigged and impossible to win.

This site makes you lose or win not solely depending on the arguments but significantly how popular you are on the site and the way you speak. This site has nothing to do with the points you make and how well you debate. You cant win a debate on this site because people are biased and often vote depending on their personal views without even reading the debate. This is nothing like actually debate just whether you speak convincingly and are not rude. Therefore, I will significantly decrease my use of this site and you should as well until the voting is fair and we can actually debate.
The great superhero debate: Marvel vs. DC

Ladies, gents, I welcome you too see the best super hero there ever was- SUPERMAN In advance, warning, this is quite short because I am currently quite bus so I could only take like 30 mins! Here we go: Superman is spectacular in so many ways that it is hard to say, but let's start with the crazy amount of strength. "Superman currently possessing enough strength to hurl mountains, withstand nuclear blasts with ease, fly into the sun unharmed, and survive in the vacuum of outer space without oxygen." Holy Cow! Move a mountain? Easy. Nuke's? A minor paper cut! The sun? AC! A vacuum? Who cares? Superman is just so freakishly strong that it defies imagination. Other people say Superman can even lift planets! Watch out, Earth! Flying Ability- "Faster than a speeding bullet." "Superman could fly to other worlds and galaxies and even across universes with relative ease." HULK SMAS_ wait, where did Superman go? Dang it! MARS! Superman is a living jet, flying at incredible speeds that are hard to fathom. Other- "vision powers (including x-ray, heat-emitting, telescopic, infra-red, and microscopic vision), super-hearing, super-intelligence, and super-breath, which enables him to blow out air at freezing temperatures, as well as exert the propulsive force of high-speed winds" Why he would beat Hulk- "he can be hurt or even killed by cosmic entities or individuals with similar extraordinary level of power" Yep, I think superman is easily stronger than Hulk, thus being able to kill him.
The great superhero debate: Marvel vs. DC

I am terribly sorry for the glitch last time, to view the words, just highlight it. Again, very sorry. But anyways, let's do this thing!WONDER WOMEN: Ok here it goes; "Wonder Women had strength that was comparable to the...Superman."Wait a tick, say what? Strength like Superman? Now THAT is strong. In case you don't know much about superman, here is a fact you might want to consider: "Superman's strength....could move entire planets."Ok, ladida, superman, wait, WHAT? Entire planets...wow. Wonder women has strength comparable to moving freaking PLANETS. Geeeeting Diiiiiizy, thanks to ...Wonder Women! Other Powers besides freakish strength:Superhuman Durability- "high resistance to damage and magical attacks...ability to heal at a superhuman rate...considerable resistance to human weaponry's."Flight- 'Nuff' said.Ridiculous superhuman speed- "She is able to think, react and move at superhuman speeds. According to flash, she can easily keep up with him"Reflexes- "Wonder Woman's reflexes are far beyond the limitations of the finest human athletes. She has been able to react to a barrage of gunfire from multiple opponents at once unharmed."Stamina- "Wonder Woman can last a great deal of time in any fight and with virtually anyone...she doesn't tire out, as her body produces no lactic acids in her muscles." Dimension Teleportation- "Wonder Woman can literally leave the planet through meditation." Take a lesson from this, kids. Meditate daily, and you will teleport to a different dimension! Nah, just kidding. Wisdom- "possesses great wisdom and intelligence, though the degree varies from author to author. She is among the smartest and wisest"Also, she is master at flying planes, Archery, and Swordsmanship.Why will Wonder Women win? (W's much!)"Jean's limited power made her vulnerable to a variety of skilled and/or powerful opponents" Aha! I think, just maybe, that Wonder Women, you know being able to lift PLANETS, falls under a "powerfull opponent." Also, " As "Phoenix" her main vulnerability was that if she became emotionally unstable, she would lose control of her powers." Bye bye, telekineses run Jean-Grey, hello, superhuman strentgh!Thank you,Jacobi1121References:http://superman.wikia.com...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://dc.wikia.com...http://marvel.wikia.com...
The great superhero debate: Marvel vs. DC

Ok here it goes: Now that is a great comic. But anyways:The RingThis special piece of jewellery makes green lantern one of the most powerful superheroes. It has many abilities, including but not limited to:Energy Projection- Green Lantern can use this ability to fire blasts of energy at the will of the user. Also, without an alter to the appearance of the blast, the owner can will the energy to be stronger and weaker as they choose.Force Field- The wearer can create a force field for themselves and the people around them that they want to protect.Energy Constructs- “The ring can form constructs of Oan energy. The primary function of the Power Ring is to provide a weapon capable of transforming the wearer's thoughts into physical constructs through the wearer's strength of willpower. A Green Lantern can create any particular items or construct that they can imagine as long as they have the willpower necessary to will it into existence. The constructs are made out of bright green energy, which is a tangible form of pure willpower, and they exist only as long as a Green Lantern is fueling it with their willpower. Items created by the rings are not indestructible and are only as powerful as the willpower of the Green Lantern creating them. The types of constructs usually reflect the ring wearer's personality.” Perfectly said. Flight- Enough said. Time travel- Again, self-explanatory.Cellular regeneration- “The ring has an ability to heal physical injuries; this seems to be a feature held over from the previous incarnations of the ring. Green Lantern can use the ring to repair injuries in himself or others.” Detection Abilities- If green lantern can imagine what he will be detecting, he will have the power to detect it. Translation- Can translate any language. And by anything I mean ANYTHING. Like, dog barks, or super galactic dog barks. a86; Emergency Beacon: A Green Lantern in distress can use his/her/its power ring as an emergency beacon.Pretty powerful ring, eh? Why green lantern has an edge over Silver Surfer: Green Lantern has the ability to turn into a human. How is this important, you might ask? Well, silver surfer has a soft spot for humans and the: “Surfer values his Earthling friends so dearly.” So all green lantern would have to do is befriend hum, then catch him resting or chilling or something and poof, green lantern would win. Then you might think, well how would green lantern know so much about his opponent? His ring has the ability to be the encyclopedia of all encyclopedias of sorts. He definitely knows about silver surfer. Thank you,Jacobie1121 References: http://superherotacular.blogspot.ca...http://dc.wikia.com...
Translations of the Bible are not unBiblical, and are, in fact, commanded.

I think that the contention that no authentic translation of scripture exists expresses the least hope for God's care over the Church that I have ever seen, even from hardcore Evangelical Protestants. I. Implications for Salvation Your profile says you're a Baptist, and Baptists, like most Protestants believe that one must hear the word and believe it in order to be saved. Koine Greek and Biblical Hebrew are hard languages to learn - I know, I've had to do both. If the only way that a person can read and understand scripture, and by your faith be saved, is to read and understand these texts in the original languages, you are condemning a huge number of people who would otherwise be saved to Hell. To suggest that God wants everyone who has learning disabilities, who is bad at foreign languages or alphabets, or who doesn't have access to the materials necessary to learn Greek or Hebrew to be damned is entirely inconsistent with a Loving God who desires that all be saved, a conception of God which has been affirmed since the Church's earliest days. II. The Problem of Originals The original copies of the Bible don't exist. The oldest manuscript of the Bible is the Codex Vaticanus, and it isn't complete (It lacks several Epistles and the Book of Revelation) and it wasn't written until the 4th century. We don't have the original books that the various authors of scripture wrote. Some scholars even conjecture that the Gospel of Mark was based on or derived from a now lost Aramaic text given that most of its idioms are not Greek. What's more, all the old manuscripts vary, usually in minute details. Your argument has the result that there was no inspired Word in the world well before the Fall of the Roman Empire, let alone in the modern age. III. Implications for God's care Jesus commanded the Apostles to make disciples of all nations, not just the ones that spoke Greek. Your argument seems to imply that God could not or did not allow for inspired translations other than the originals but that God did inspire scripture, which means that God either didn't have the power to do something or that he didn't care enough about creation to actually do it. This means that only the select few with the capacity to read the original copies, which we no longer have, have heard the Word. IV. Practicalities On a functional level, the Church cannot function without translation, and cannot function well without a variety of translations. God's inspired word subsists in all academically accurate translations, and scripture is know to us in the modern age even without the originals. Anything else would cause a person to abandon Christianity.
Translations of the Bible are not unBiblical, and are, in fact, commanded.

The hot topics among protestant Christians today include mainly the split over music types and the translation used by the church. Many say that alternate versions are not Biblical, or worse, satan-induced. My stand is quite the opposite. The KJV is not the only good translation and is far from an inspired translation. The only inspired version of the Bible was the original autograph in the Greek and Hebrew. That is my stance. Since this is a large topic, I am making this a 5 round debate.
The United States federal government should substantially increase social services for persons livin

i thought we were having a decent debate till you went and done that and said " i win " . let me tell you what i mean when i say the goverment couldnt care about you unless you are rich . of course the goverment " care " thats why they introuduce these systems for crying out loud . i mean they dont care because like i said it suits them for you to be poor and uneducated , but they know one thing if it doesnt look like they are doing a decent job the people wont re-elect them. the goverment dont give a crap about you my friend nor do they care for me or any other middle or working class people. Sure they help you but only because they have to. Imagine a factory , the boss wants to pay them as low as he can but the workers wont work for low wages and bad conditions they want to feel like they are important and cared for otherwise they will not work and they factory will go bust , picture the factory as a country now. as this is the end thats all i have to say except for one thing , if you ever say " i win " again in a debate the other person will not take you seriously nor will the voters.
The United States federal government should substantially increase social services for persons livin

My opponent stated that America and other first-world countries don't care about what happens to their citizens. However, if they didn't care why have so many of the [England, France and Canada] implemented systems of universal health care? In addition, why does the US have a welfare system if they do not care? What legitimate reason can you give for a government preferring to have poorer people? If a government preferred poor people, why do they bother with free schooling, public libraries, and so on...?? My opponent has given illogical contentions so I feel that I have won this debate.
The United States federal government should substantially increase social services for persons livin

I would like to point out again my opened is right in what he says that the government do have a moral obligation to protect the people etc etc . I would also like to point a harsh truth about America and several other first world countries , this may come as no surprise but honestly the government could not care less what happens to you , as shocking as it sounds it suits a government to have the vast majority of its people living at or below the poverty line for many reasons such as if that person , is not as well educated then he or she is less likely to question the governments actions , also with people living in poverty and not as well educated means they will take up jobs that help the country's economy and military mainly. I understand the poor should be given help and I accept you are right I am just telling you it will never happen as a government prefers having poorer people.