BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Public schools should be banned

"You say that education can be saved with Ken Robinson's planned method of schooling, but I say this is false, because they are impossible to implement." Not necessarily. Ken Robinson's idea of a more personalized, artistic educational approach has worked in several schools around the globe, such as the Sudbury-type schools. "First off, public schools are run by the government. Which means the government sets standards and rules for how the schools are to succeed, and if the schools do not obey their funding is cut. The effect this has is that when change happens, and it happens often, schools can not change themselves on time to adjust." I never said that all the reform must happen quickly. I know that large organizations, such as schools, do not react well to sudden change. I think that the educational system must be reformed gradually. That way, we could see which aspects work best, and see what we need to improve. "Second, because schools have so many students and so many needs to fulfill since they are not a niche but a mainstream, enormous average for an average community (and ghettoes), schools are forced to enforce conformity so that everyone can do the same assignments, and if this does not happen, everything falls apart. Because again, the entire foundation is flawed." The answer to this seems extremely simple; build more schools. In the U.S.A, there are a lot of students but not enough schools. With appropriate government funding, perhaps we could build more school so that there would be a lot less pressure for the schools to enforce conformity.
Sports should be compulsory for every child over 5.

Firstly, I will state my argument. It is that if every child aged 5 from here on in played a sport up until the age of 16, it would benefit society. My points are 1. It will tackle obesity levels, 2. It will help children socialise. & 3. It will benefit students in other ways, like academically. Firstly, obesity levels are on of societies challenges. Heart disease and other heart related problems kill thousand of people a year. This is preventable by making all children do a sport from a young age. It will make them fit & healthy from a young age, making them less likely to become obese. Secondly, It will help kids socialise. Kids who normally shack up days on end in their room on the computer or Xbox normally don't do sports. It's leaves their social options limited, and they turn to an online community for help with this. Infact it further distants them from real life friends in many ways, and thus if every child does sports, it will benefit them. Last but no least, the cildren will benefit in many other ways. For example, it's been proven scientifically that students that exercise regularly get an academic boost and helps concentration levels. Aswell, all children have different talents. Sports will bring this out of them. Whilse the con side may argue all kids aren't suited to sports, sports brings out talents that can be used in music and art. There's a plethora of sports to choose from. Baseball can be used to strenghten arm muscles and can enable children to run in short burts, whereas Basketball instigates throwing and jumping skills, aswell as the ability to quickly switch from defense to offense. Meanwhile, soccer improves stamina and kicking abilities. Also, American football, while it is for teenagers and onwards, encourages thinking tactically and determination , And I'm only talking about America! Mormally, a child that is good at one sport, usually excells at other sports and more than often, activites like Music and Art. I encourage anyone to challenge me, and look forward to a good debate.
A joke debate

Thank you for this debate Pro. My opponent makes a huge spelling error in round 1. I believe he means to say "Skeleton" rather than "sceliton". That said, the answer to his question is simple: The skeleton does not have any guts. The joke is a pun. My joke: Your mother is so fat that when God said "Let there be light!", he asked your mother to move out of the way. Thank you for reading, have a nice day.
A joke debate

My opponent's jokeYour joke does not make any sense. By definition, stealing is: "to take (something that does not belong to you) in a way that is wrong or illegal". [1] If the bread was free, it would not be illegal to take it. Thus, the joke itself is illogical and un-funny.My joke:Astronaut booty call: "I'd like to see what's under your Kuiper Belt"My opponent's jokes have been very weak and unfunny. Although it is technically subjective, most will find my jokes funnier that my opponent's and as a result will choose to vote for me. Remember, if you thought my jokes were funnier or "Less terrible" than Pro then you should vote Con. Thank You![1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Is Classical Education better than Public School Education

OK, I define public school as the new school method. I don't know what they do in school, but I define classical education as the same as Classical Conversations. 10 student max., 1 tutor. Meeting every week. 6 strands: Debate/Rhetoric/Grammar/Research/Exposition & Composition/Logic Public school is like 50 students in 1 class and the teacher doesn't teach concepts, only demonstrates problems. IDK how public school works, so thats why I say you defend P.S.
Is Classical Education better than Public School Education

I find this a difficult area to formulate discussion around as the boundaries between the two are not well defined and clear. Public school education to me is built upon a foundation of classical education with its three phases (primary, secondary and tertiary) central to how the process works and so the two are not mutually exclusive. That being said I still feel that public school education is not sufficiently evolving parallel to modern living and has not deviated enough from the classical framework to meet the needs in society today. The trivium of grammar, rhetoric and logic are important foundations but are not the only ones relevant and important to individuals and to society. Could you then define what you see as classical education? and comparatively public education? Especially if you are based somewhere like America where the definition of public education is very different to that in the UK (where I am).
Gay marriage should be legal.

Why challenge me to a debate and then forfeit the opening round itself.? I will present 2 reasons why i revised my stand on Gay marriage. 1.A marriage is not only a social institution, but a legal one.I completely agree that an individual's sexual orientation is none of the Government 's business.But marriage as a legal institution exists to promote stable traditional marriage, which is in the interest of the state as it will provide a stable environment for the growth and production of future citizens.Gay marriage cannot do both as the members in a gay marriage cannot produce children of their own. The state spends a LOT of money and resources in settling disputes. This was justified because of the benefit it provided for the society as a whole through children. I don't see why taxpayers should shell out their funds to protect Gay marriage. 2. the Morality: this argument goes something like this: 1.It is morally correct to use organs given to us for the purpose for which they were intended(eg. One must only use one's eye to see, deforming it willfully to look 'cool' would be morally wrong) 2.it is evident that sexual organs were intended for reproduction. To misuse them solely for pleasure would be morally wrong. i am *not* saying that homosexuality should be banned.I assert that a person's sexual orientation is strictly none of the government's business.But just because it should be legally tolerated does not mean that it is morally right.Just like pornography, alcohol and cigarettes, they are nothing but an unwanted consequence of having freedom of expression.It is not in the interest of the state to promote these things. If you want i can give you the catholic apologetic reasons that really convinced me, but you should be willing to accept christian doctrinal arguments. please clarify your stand if you are interested in this debate.
Gay marriage should be legal.

Being a liberal,I used to support gay marriage in the beginning too. Even now, i believe that the things that various so called 'christian' groups do, by spreading hatred against them is *wrong*. Nevertheless,I am convinced that legalisation of gay marriage is not only *not* necessary from a legal point of view, but is also morally wrong. I am a catholic christian and catholic apologetics played a major role in re-shaping my opinion. But since you are atheist, i will provide purely secular moral and legal reasons for my stand. Please let me know if we are going to argue about the legal aspect of gay marriage alone, or if we are going to debate the moral aspects as well in your opening statement.
Who is better, Connor Kenway or Ezio Auditore

if connor was the best then he wouldn't need all those items to work with he word have just a few items like ezio because ezio can use little items and still be able to kill a lot more people then connor by far. When you see that connor is an indian who can hunt and survive in the wild ezio lives in the cites and is able to help. Also ezio uses a dang freaken cannon in a game and connor runs around looking for animals when ezio can secretly kill enemys with out even trying.
Who is better, Connor Kenway or Ezio Auditore

Ok now on to armament and powers. Connor has for weapons, hidden blades ( well which assassin does not have them) swords, Tomahawk, pistols, bow and arrows. knifes, rope darts His powers is well in the regular version the eagle vision. But in the dlc version. He has animal powers. like the Wolf Cloak which makes him invisible, eagle flight where whenever he jumps he can glide like an eagle, and then bear might, where he can use the power of the bear to kill many enemies at a time. He is not ranked as the 5th most bada$$ video game character by Ultimate Gamer
People who don't understand seperation between church and state are idiots

I was foreshadowing this argument: Most people do understand the separation of church and state, but they are too IGNORANT to accept this as another point of view. Therefore they are not idiots, just too IGNORANT to accept it. The separation of church and state was created to allow anyone and everyone to keep to their morals and to believe what their religion is. But really the people who you say are idiots are actually following this law by sticking to their morals and believing what they think to be true. This is what the law was made for, to give moral/religious freedom to all.
People shouldn't be allowed to have names longer that 4 letters.

I did not purposely forfeit the last round. DDO would not give me the option to post an argument. Because of this and also because round 2 was skipped, I suggest we null this debate. PLEASE, NO ONE VOTE ON THIS DEBATE. If my opponent is a fair player, he/she will not argue with this statement, but in he/she's next post simply say, 'agree'. Thanks. Sucks that this happened though. Hopefully we can debate another time.
People shouldn't be allowed to have names longer that 4 letters.

First of all I don't know how a bag of chips made you think of why people should have their names be 4 letters or less. I think that is quite strange to say the least. Second of all. The world won't end just because people have longs names. The world has gone on for centuries now and it hasn't ended yet and people have long names. So that proves that the world won't end. A black hole will have to hit the earth for it to end the world. Trust me. You need to stop cursing in your arguments or you will lose points. You've made your point pretty clearly and you don't need to make it more clear by using curse words. That's not going to help you win.
People shouldn't be allowed to have names longer that 4 letters.

Thank you iholland95. I really don't know what else to say, so I'll leave it at that. RIGHTY-OH, lets get started then. So I was sitting on my couch one day. And suddenly I realized my chips were all gone. I'd eaten all of them. A. L. L. *of* T. H. E. M. Then a thought popped into my head. What if my chips were gone because my name was longer than four characters. WTF? !? It made sense though. .. .. .. .. .. DAMN. .. .. .. .. So first, I was gonna just kill myself, because my name is Jayden, and that is OBVIOUSLY LONGER than four letters. I mean COME ON RIGHT! ?? ! And, actually I tried to on several accounts. .. .but ahhh that's for another time. Anyway. .. .. .So then I realized that 'hey, I gotta change my matha fvckin' name DOG! '. And THAT I DID. My name is now Biff. Not Jayden. Who the fvck names their kid Jayden anyway. Jesus H. Fvck! Ya, well I'm really dragin' this out, so I'll just start now. Here are my reasons why everyone should have a name that is 4 or less characters.1. People agree with me. A recent survey at www. namesunder4. eu. com/ogay/uckfay/ouryay/elfsay states that over 99.99999% of the world has a letter in their name that is either a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m,n,o,p,q,r,s,t,u,v,w,x, y, or even z. Now, if you multiply this surveys out-come by 26, you get what you get and you don't throw a fvcking fit GOD DAMMIT. What I'm trying to say, is that most of the world has a name longer than 4 characters, and they wish they could just change their name, but they can't because they got taped to their bedroom door. They keep trying to get untapped, but people keep coming into their house and taping them up again. We MUST stop the door tapping! ! s://encrypted-tbn2. gstatic. com. .. ; alt="" data-sz="f" />Do you even lift BRO? ?? ?! !? !Nope. ..2. The World will Most Definitely End "If we do not force every single person to have a short name, (under 4 letters), the world will get brain cancer and implode because it is unable to remember everyone's names. " -- Léd. Zep-LainAre you serious? ! You will let billions of people die, just so you can keep your faggety little queer name? I was gonna make another argument, but I was like "naw bro, I'm hungry".
People shouldn't be allowed to have names longer that 4 letters.

This is a troll debate. I do not actually believe the resolution. I am merely saying it for the sake of argument, and entertainment. <>Profanity allowed You will be arguing that people SHOULD be allowed to have names longer than 4 characters. VOTING CATEGORY'S "SOURCES", "AGREED WITH BEFORE", AND "AGREED WITH AFTER" ARE TO BE CHANGED TO *HILARITY POINTS*. BASICALLY THOSE POINTS GO TO WHOEVER WAS THE FUNNIEST.
Money is bad

1. Money is made out of paper, which is from trees which breathes in carbon dixocide and releases oxygen. 2. Money is also bad because they can spread diseases from a sick person to another person. 3. Trees are helpful because they provide oxygen, shade, and mudslides. Without this, there will be mudslides from rain. Which is why money is cutting these trees and having more mudslides. 4. Money is just a plain old currency which you also need ink too. 5. Some people just give paper money to a buisness or something just trying to keep his real money. I thank whoever joins this debate with only one argument. Please no cheating like having 6 accounts and voting for yourself.
The Resurrection of Jesus

I will defend the position, that the resurrection of Jesus happened.I will argue that:1. Jesus died by crucifixion.2. The disciples of Jesus had an experience that made them believe that Jesus body was resurrected.I will then present the hypotheses that Jesus was resurrected that accounts for the known data.To win the debate Con has either to show that one of the two points above is wrong or he has to present his own naturalistic hypothesis that accounts for the data. He then has to show that his hypothesis is more probable true than the Resurrection Hypothesis.I would like to apologize in advance for any grammar or word mistake I'm going to make, because I'm not a native speaker.Position and Burden of proof:The plausibility of a hypothesis is always depending on your horizon. If you start with the metaphysical position that God does not exist, then it is improbable or impossible that the resurrection happened. Contrary it would get very probable if you start with the position that the Judeo-Christian God exists.Therefore I suggest to adopt the position of Agnosticism for this debate.Definitions:Agnosticism: Not knowing if God exists. It is possible that God exists, it is possible that he does not exist. (1)Resurrection: The bodily rising from the deadA priori knowledge: Knowledge independent of experience, deductive. (f.i. Knowledge about the probability, that Person x will win the lottery)A posteriori knowledge: Knowledge dependent on experience or empirical evidence, inductive. (f.i. Knowledge that Person x won the lottery) (2)Structure:R1: AcceptanceR2: Case of Pro and Con, Cons reply to ProR3: RebuttalsR4: Final Rebuttals, ConclusionSources:(1) https://en.wikipedia.org...(2) https://en.wikipedia.org...
Emotion is the basis of all decisions

I agree with the definitions! lol Well, at what point does the emotional become the rational? If emotional and rational are on opposite ends of the spectrum, it could be possible to make a rational decision, void of emotion. If I eat a spinach salad(which I hate) because I know its good for me, where is the emotional aspect? I merely ate a salad to stay healthy, I was indifferent in the process of choosing when it came to emotions. It was a rational thing to do. Just because a decision comes from the brain, does not make it emotional.
The Plantingan Modal Ontological Argument is sound

Sound = 'based on valid reason' (1)So I have the burden of proof to uphold the validity of the argument's reasoning. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________The ArgumentNote: when I say 'possible' in this context, I am essentially saying 'logically possible'. This is because we are discussing ontology (that is, whether things exist), and hence we are discussing whether it is logically possible that such and such exists. In other words, when discussing ontology, logical possibility is the form of possibility most appropriately considered (2). P1: God = The greatest possible being/maximally great being (the definitions are interchangeable)P2: God exists in at least one possible worldP3: If God exists in at least one possible world, He exists in all possible wordsP4: The actual world is a possible worldC: God exists in the actual world. This argument is deductively valid, inasmuch as the premises deductively entail the conclusion. The only point of contention is regarding the veracity of the premises. Defence of P1This is an uncontroversial premise - it accords with the traditional understanding of God so this is a suitable definition. Even if one denies that God is the greatest possible being, the argument is still sound insofar as it proves that the greatest possible being exists. Defence of P2This logically follows from P1, the greatest possible being is, by definition, possible. Otherwise it wouldn't be the greatest possible being. Defence of P3From P2, we have two possible options:1. God exists in some possible worlds, viz. He exists contingently2. God exists in all possible worlds, viz. He exists necessarilyThe latter is greater than the former, since necessary existence is 'greater' existence than contingent existence, insofar as necessary existence entails a greater 'amount' of existence than contingent existence. If X exists in more possible worlds than Y, then X has greater existence than Y. As the former is therefore less great than the latter, it contradicts the definition of God. As if He only existed contingently then he wouldn't be maximally great, yet he is defined as being so. Reductio ad absurdum, the negation of an absurd conclusion must be true. Ergo, God must exist necessarily. Defence of P4Uncontroversial. If the actual world was not possible, then it wouldn't exist. But if it doesn't exist then it isn't actual. Hence the contradiction present if one attempts to negate this premise. ConclusionThis logically follows from P4. I have upheld the argument and hence I affirm the resolution. Over to Con. (1) Google: 'Define sound'(2) . https://www.bu.edu...;
The Plantingan Modal Ontological Argument is sound

Resolved: The Plantingan Modal Ontological Argument (or a logically equivalent formulation) is sound.This is a challenge to Philocat.The burden of proof is on Pro to show that his argument is sound.Pro will make his presentation in the first round. Pro will waive his last round. The debate will last four rounds.Sources are fine as long as they are properly cited. TinyURL links do not count as sources.I wish my opponent the best of luck in this debate. If Philocat does not desire to debate this topic at this time, I will consider allowing others to accept this challenge.
The world would be better without weddings

How would your wife get married? You could easily skip the whole ceremony and declare yourselves married, though perhaps it'll be difficult in this world. I'll first go into why we don't need marriages in the first place, then I'll explain why they may make the world worse.Do we need marriage?Actually, there's no real benefit to having a marriage. If you wanted to gather your friends to celebrate you getting together with your loved one, why not do it in your own home? You'd save quite a bit of money, which I'll go into more detail later. If you want to have a baby, there's no current laws restricting having one before a marriage, if marriage at all. Though only the mother gets the rights to the child in this case. http://www.unmarried.org...Is a wedding worth it?On average, a wedding can cost around $25,000 on average. [https://www.costofwedding.com...] Do you really need to use that much money, let alone just $5,000, if you're just getting together with a loved one? You're not even guranteed to be with them for the rest of your life.Since you've legally bound yourself with your loved one, you're going to have to legally unbind yourself with a divorce if the marriage is going bad. According to Nolo, "Most of our consumers reported paying a total of around $15,500 for their divorces, including $12,800 in attorney's fees" [https://www.nolo.com...]. Once you're done with that, there's more than $50,000 down the drain.Conclusion: Weddings tend to be more costly than they need to be, and the concept itself is pointless as there's not even any reason to have a wedding. If you wanted a party to celebrate, just gather your friends at your house. Want a baby? The only thing stopping you is a lack of fatherly rights to the child. This isn't worth the $25,000 it costs, and a divorce wastes that money, and more! Besides, animals in the wild don't need weddings. So why should we?
The world would be better without weddings

Weddings... a joyful celebration of a man and a woman (or perhaps same gender). All your friends dress in white, eat cake, and drink some beverages as the clergy announces you husband and wife... what could be better? I'd say using your money on better things.I'll be arguing that we'd be better off without official weddings.Definitions:Wedding; a marriage ceremony usually with its accompanying festivities (including the cake, clergy, and beverages) https://www.merriam-webster.com...World; The Earth's population in generalBetter; improved, favorableRules:1) If you're confused about definitions, or would like to add a definition, ask in the comments before accepting.2) No trolling or semantics. Take this debate seriously, even though I may be taking an awkward side.3) Forfeiting or timing out counts as a loss, and the other side will win after the 72 hour response time is up.4) To make sure there's less of a chance of forfeiture, you must have a minimum of 1 debate completed.5) Round 1 is acceptance only.6) Failure to obey the rules means an instant loss.Again, I'll be saying we'd be better without the weddings.