BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Having many and different kinds of hobbies is better than having little and single one

Having multiple hobbies is overwhelming and as a result, one cannot receive the full satisfaction of their hobbies. Let us say one loves to play Video Games, Go Fishing, bake, and draw. Fishing takes lots of time as there are tons of techniques and concepts to learn and places to explore. Video Games are also great, but one needs to devote lots of time to be able to master any competitive video game or difficulty. Now, baking also takes time because one needs a recipe and hours to bake a cake that tastes and looks good. Finally, drawing requires lots of devotion and money to be able to master what professional artists' have done. Artists' have spent their entire life spending time drawing to perfection. Speaking from experience, one can have as many hobbies as they want, but they will not get the full satisfaction of their hobbies as they would if they only focuses on one hobby at a time. If one has plenty of time to spend on only one hobby, they will be able to have the time to spend on it and realize their mistakes faster. One only gets better at what they do from learning from their mistakes and others. If you are overwhelmed by multiple hobbies, one will not be able to master the material very quickly. As a result they will become frustrated that their efforts are not getting them anywhere and give up. Speaking from experience, it is worthwhile to focus on one hobby and feel the accomplishment of mastering it rather than becoming overwhelmed by multiple hobbies and mastering none. The saying goes, "A jack of all trades, but a master of none."
A Fetus is Not Morally Equivalent to a Mature Human

Thanks to my opponent for debating an important aspect of the abortion issue.The ResolutionIn a previous debate my opponent claimed:"The unborn entity, from the moment of concept, is a full-fledged member of the human community" http://www.debate.org...Due to forfeits by the other side in that debate, my opponent did not have an opportunity to defend his position. In this debate I will argue that there are differences between a fetus and a full-fledged member of the community that affect the morality of abortion, Con will defend his position that there are no such differences.If Con is correct, then abortion should be illegal, because abortion is then proved morally equivalent to murder. However, if Con is wrong, it does not imply that any or all abortions should be legal. It may be that some or all abortions should be illegal for practical reasons, or that there are some circumstances where the weaker moral status of a fetus is still greater than other moral considerations. In other words, even though abortion is not murder, there might be other reasons in some circumstances to make it illegal. Perhaps benefits to society predominate to make abortion illegal; we are not debating that.The present Supreme Court ruling is that the fetus is part of the mother before the end of the first trimester, and not part of the mother after that time. Accordingly, the legal status of the fetus changes. What we are debating here is that the status rightly remains the same from the moment of conception.DefinitionsOrdinary dictionary definitions are used for this debate, with context determining the appropriate choice from multiple definitions.AcceptanceThis round is for acceptance, clarification of the resolution, and definitions. If Con does not agree with my basic interpretation of the resolution, he is to negotiate changes in the comments before accepting. Arguments begin in R2.My opponent has no obligation to use arguments made in the previous debate cited. He may argue any way he sees fit.The challenge is reposted at the request of my opponent.
Should their be school uniforms

Alright so first of all there are some schools out there that have a community very different from one and another, that includes a poor to rich scale. If poor children wore very old and dirty clothes to school while the rich wore designer brands can you guess who would get picked on? I have heard a story about this school (I will keep it's identity secret) where on mufti day (where you get to wear what you want to school) the poor children would not want to go, why? Because they will be picked on of course! We must keep the mental health for our poor students well, healthy! Before you go rambling along about how the school should implement systems to keep bulling to a low, those never work! Trust me I have been there and done that even with uniforms I cannot imagine what would happen if we did not have uniforms. So put your uniform on and lets go to school!
Should their be school uniforms

Good luck to you too! Now, while uniforms have some benefits, there are legitimate issues with them. 1. Their existence to remove social-economic divisions has in fact, made it worse 2. Studies haven't proved that they increase attendance, grades or increase exam scores. 3. They don't stop bullying, and can actually increase violent attacks 4. Tensions between a uniform school and a non-uniform school 5. Take away students freedom of expression 6. They delay the transition to adulthood 7. Can impact a student's self image 8. The studies that state that uniforms help have been questioned 9. They just hide some of the major issues with schools Source: https://school-uniforms.procon.org...
addictions to game

The first appearance of the game from 20 years ago, the addiction of game has always been mentioned. Depending on development of computer and smart phone, people can play the game anytime, anywhere. It was enough addictive. At first, game play alone. For instance video game which doesn't connect each other through internet. Most people don't predict that game will become not only large industry but also addiction of game. Depending on development of electronic devices, The game was launched in many diverse fields. And almost game connect through internet. many people start to addict game. Now our society, this problem is not only game addiction but also additional crime. The first person shooting game must kills people. And then they are winner. Young people play the first person shooting game, they cognize contempt of life. People must solve these problem. To solve this problem, there are two ways to do this. First, playing a game time is limited by age groups. Second, school educate correct lecture about game. Although, the game industry is huge value, The game industry has achieved rapid development. As to the development of the game industry is experiencing side effects. First solution, playing a game time is limited by age groups. It is positive working which have not yet mature children restraint self-control, excessive use of the game can be prevented and because of divided by age group, People can understand this policy. Second solution, school educate correct lecture about game. It is working which Excluding a game, stress solution method tells people and people can know how to properly utilize game. The game has become an essential presence in our society. Excessive game addiction, our society is so sick. people must know how to properly utilize
God exists (pro) vs God does not exist (con)

I will be arguing in this debate that the case for God is extensive and is most often underrated. I will be using science, philosophy and logic to form the foundations for my arguments for God. I am a Theist and my opponent should most likely be an atheist who denies the existence of God. Definitions : Universe - all of space, matter, time and energy God - The necessary, uncaused, omnimaximal, timeless, spaceless being. Exists - to have an objective being or existence. Rules : -no trolling -no forfeits -no semantics (tweaking definitions of the dictionary) Rounds : Round one - acceptance R2) arguments R3) Rebuttals + arguments R4) Rebuttals R5) Rebuttals BOP : Burden of proof will be shared. The opponent (who is most likely an atheist) will have to demonstrate that God does not exist. Since claiming that the natural reality is all that exists and that there is no supernatural reality is a claim. Whoever claims that God does not exist is making a negative claim and therefore should prove it. Proving a negative claim is possible because you can prove that there are no muslims in the U.S. senate, there are no dinosaurs on the face of the Earth, the sun does not orbit the Earth. all of those were negative claims that should and could be proven. The most logical position taken if you reject the claim that there is a God would be an agnostic, who claims that he simply does not know since you would still have no evidence for/against either sides. No arguments against religion shall be made since you could disprove all religions and you still would not undermine or even address the reliability of God.
Stop accepting debates with the title 'How do Atheists rationally know truth from fiction?'

In conclusion of this debate new people should be thankful they can enter debate at all. from experience not all people meet the qualifications of participation. Let"s face facts it is not the question that is cause of resistance it is the way an answer is reposed to. There are in fact many ways an atheist can rational tell truth from fiction. May-be a goal should be governed among us to find the most basic way. My Comment in answer form to the question, is simple not be irrational. Restriction of acceptance to participation is a tad bit irrational. A little over the top, a bit extreme, and over reacting. Thank you for the opportunity to debate.
Stop accepting debates with the title 'How do Atheists rationally know truth from fiction?'

Yeah, I"m old insight has something to do with the way light reflects of my glasses. Now is the time in this debate when I am moving to comedy. Some people as they get older get cranky. We are old enough to know that we really need some-one to change are diapers. We"ve sat in enough crap to know it"s just not fun to do all day long any more.
Stop accepting debates with the title 'How do Atheists rationally know truth from fiction?'

Newcomers to Debate.org, DO NOT accept ANY debate with the title 'How do atheists rationally know truth from fiction?'. The guy who has been posting them, ViceRegent, is a middle-aged bigoted ignoramus with the brain capacity of a lemur, and he has been spamming this same debate for months. Please don't accept these debates. If you want, copy and paste this debate and post it yourself to spread the message :)
Calvin Johnson is better than Dez Bryant

My facts are not wrong, if you look at http://bleacherreport.com... you will discover that my facts were correct. Also, it is physically impossible to compare Dez and Calvin based on one game. If I said that Allen Iverson was better than Michael Jordan just because he crossed him over one time, you would laugh in my face. The same with comparing Dez and Calvin by one game, you cannot. Thank you for letting me debate.
Calvin Johnson is better than Dez Bryant

Here is the problem, ALL YOUR FACTS ARE WRONG! As I said in round 2 Calvin has more TD's this season and he has played 1 less game than Dez. And if you remember when the cowboys played the lions before the game Dez said he was going to show that he was as good as Calvin. Well Calvin set records in that game and got a TD while Dez had a slightly above average game. Nate Burrelson puts it best "He possesses all the tools to possibly be as good as Calvin, but he is not Calvin Johnson." Calvin>Dez
Calvin Johnson is better than Dez Bryant

To respond to you argument about his attitude, some of the greatest receivers of this generation have had attitudes. Take for example Terrell Owens and Chad Johnson. Now, Dez Bryant has a lower drop rate than Calvin Johnson, and still has more 3rd down and red zone targets. If you were to stack their current careers up against each other, you would find out that Bryant has more receptions per game, has a better rec/target ration, has more receiving yards per target, and averages more TD/GM.
Calvin Johnson is better than Dez Bryant

Dez Bryant is behind calvin in every regard. First his attitude is very bad. He gets in verbal conflicts with his own teamates. Calvin has never been in the spotlight for doing stuff like that. Also Calvin Johnson this year already has 53 cathes for 904 yards and 9 touchdowns! He has also missed a game with an injury. Dez Bryant this year has 52 cathes for 749 yards and 8 touchdowns. Dez has also played every game unlike Calvin. The numbers don't lie. So what does Dez have that Calvin does not?
Students should be able to choose the school they attend.

First, some rebuttal: -Relating to how your arguments are centred about the student's freedom, on the negative, we question the true effectiveness and whether it is actually best for the student to have this freedom. Linking this to many common day-to-day cases where we can see freedom being abused, we believe that freedom should only be justified if it is appropriately used. This correlates with issues such as freedom of speech. Yes, we allow freedom of speech however it is unjustified to use hate speech on others, in this sense extremities violate the code of freedom. -As I will explain later, it is the state's role to determine what is best for students, specifically the education sector of the state. While no education system is inherently flawless, we have seen that the education system has served many children fine. There are also many further implications which I will address later regarding the impracticalities of attending schools in a different city or town. Moving onto substantive, there are two main problems with allowing students to decide where they want to go. 1. The maturity level of the students. Students, especially in high school, are often prone to making uninformed decisions. Students are easily influenced by their 'mates', whether it's for good or ill. Under the current system, students are able to pursue their career pathways with freedom after completing high school. So technically, in this debate we are restricting the 'students' to students in high school and/or primary/elementary school. We cannot let students in this certain age group 'make' their own choices. Sure, there are schools that can be tailored to suit the students individual needs, however Pro has not considered the economic ramifications of making such a move. In this scenario, the government has attempted to provide the best possible education to the students given their particular circumstances. 2. The economic implications. Going to a school in another city on a frequent basis calls for an excessive amount of time spent on the road/travelling. Can we really justify that one school is around 'two hours of work' a day more efficient than another? Can we necessarily justify that a specialised school will certainly cater better for a particular need of a student? Allowing students to freely move between towns will incur large amounts of costs for families. It isn't necessary for us to impose this burden upon families, because these students HAVE the choice to attend the institution of their choice when they graduate. It is also frequently proven that the later stages of education lay down the most important foundations for career pathways, so students are not blocked from their career pathway because of their high school education.
Students should be able to choose the school they attend.

This solely based on how I have seen other countries letting students decide their schooling. This debate is also to be well taken and open-minded. Not meant to offend anyone. The U.S. is really the only country that makes their students attend schools based on how the school districts are divided in cities or towns. The only education students are allowed to choose is college or universities. I have been to Mexico and have family in Mexico. I have seen students being able to choose where they want to attend school. Students get to choose the school based on what they want to learn. Some schools are only vocational and others give a more advanced learning. Two schools that I know of that are vocational and educational are Cecytes and Cobach. Ceytes gives schooling based on how to run a hotel, cleaning rooms, cooking, and learning English. This school is more for those that want to go into a business right after high school. This is especially true if the school is in a more tour place area. Cobach in the other hand is more educational and only those who past their test may attend. This school is for those that wish to attend the university afterwards. Something that I forgot to mention with Cecytes is that even though its a more tour place school is still does offer some math, and writing, and so on for those who continue to a university. Both schools do however have a tuition regardless. Other countries where I have seen this happen as well are Japan, China, and North Korea. The students are allowed to choose which school they attend. Of course, depending on what it is they are looking for. Having students choose their school allows students to push themselves to get where they want to. It gives them the opportunity to know what they are looking for. There might be other schools that have this kind of system that I am not aware of at the moment. I am open to any opinion or if you know of any country that also does this or does something similar i would very much like to know of them.
Gay adoption

Still your argument I believe is wrong because human nature, dictates that a man and a woman should raise a child, because each gives a special value or teaching that no one can replace. For example a man could never teach you what a woman teaches you throw time, it is not the same reactions, and it is absolutely not the same types of the idea. And what would a child think or believe when all his friends are being raised by a mother and a father meanwhile he has two fathers or two mothers.
There is a giant diamond buried in my backyard

I ask that the last round be for rebuttal only. No new arguments please.Source, with background information. The Toriblean (pronounced Tor-i-bl-an)The Toriblean is the one true Holy Book. It is 2000 years old and spells out everything about the Great Diamond in magnificent detail. It explains that you must remain faithful to the Diamond and it's wishes if you wish to observe it for all of eternity. If you are not faithful, you go into the Great Sulfur Field, where you will burn for all of eternity. It is clearly written. To go against the Toriblean is to go against the Diamond, and that, my friend, is unforgiveable.Rebuttal:1. The space in my backyard has existed for a long time."100ft is not even close to enough depth for such an amazing diamond. It would have to be at least 1,000,000,000,000 miles deep". Ah, but you see, this is no ordinary gigantic diamond. This is, in fact, an omnipotent, omnipresent diamond. It is in everybodies backyard, and exists at every depth at once. How could this be? How could a nonliving thing be omnipotent? How could a diamond exist everywhere at once but still have physical substance? Simple. We just attach a supernatual form 777 and that explains everything away, () as seen in this video.2. Look around" The world obviously exists so we can create new television shows, and rule the world through hypnosis and brainwashing".This is an absurd argument. If "we" refers to humans, then the television shows are pointless because animals are oblivious to them!. If "we" refers to the media executives, then why create normal humans at all?3. Faith"Obviously a diamond this magnificent can only be found by accident. Someone who believes in the diamond would look for it, yet someone who doesn't know of it, can't believe it and can find it accidentally".Ah, but this is not the case. You see, the diamond uses it's omnipotence to remain hidden from non believers. You say somebody that doesn't know about it, can't believe it and can find it accidentally? If somebody doesn't know about this diamond, they are obviously a spawn of the Giant Talc. The Giant Talc is a much weaker, yet still beautiful and defiant, mineral which is the source of all evil and dissent. If you don;t believe in the diamond, then the Giant Talc has infiltrated your mind. You should contact your nearest Toriblean and read it. That'll get rid of the evil Talcian spirit.
There is a giant diamond buried in my backyard

P1. 100 feet is not even close to enough depth for such an amazing diamond. it would have to be at lease 1,000,000,000,000 miles deepP2. The world obviosly exists so we can create new television shows, and rule the world through hypnosis and brainwashing.P3. obviosly a diamond this magnificent can only be found by accident. someone who believes in the diamond would look for it, yet someone who doesnt know of it, cant believe in it and can find it accidentaly.
There is a giant diamond buried in my backyard

I made a slight wording error in the resolution. It should be "It is beneficial to believe that a giant diamond is buried in my backyard"Okay, let's go.1. The space of my backyard has existed for a long time.The space in my backyard has been around for a while. Who's to say a diamond hasn't formed some 100 feet buried beneath?2. Look aroundLook around in my backyard. Foliage, animals, snakes, unmowed grass, a fence. This must all exist for a purpose. Obviously, it must be so that this diamond can exist. Their must be a higher purpose for this planet existing, which is obvioiusly the gigantic diamond. Look how beautiful it is. Look how perfect. 3. FaithLook at how amazing that diamond is. Wouldn't you want to own it? The problem is, is that you need to be worthy. So if a skeptic, a non-believer if you will, tried to find proof in the diamond, the very need to find proof would make it impossible to find it. You see, the only way to reap the benefits of this diamond is to unquestioningly believe it exists. Then, after you die, you'll be buried next to this giant diamond, and your conscence will be able to view it for eternity, and bathe in it's magnificence. These are all very good reasons to believe in the giant diamond. I look forward to your arguments.