BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
What to study in college & why? [Career Challenge]

Salutations to all, I will be scratching the surface of this topic. My later arguments will progress further in detail. I would like to thank my opponent for his participation. Hopefully, as viewers, I will persuade you in my favor.I would first like to mention that I will branch off of the idea of those who desire to attend college. If my opponent would like to go an untraditional route, that is perfectly fine. Every individual that hits adulthood would have to decide what they will become throughout life. It is in my opinion, that preparation for college is the best route. As I stated in round one, I will list at least six study fields and at least one career path branched off each one. There is no current ranking order for this list. IT IS HIGHLY RECOMMENDED FOR VIEWERS TO CHECK CITED SOURCES FOR FURTHER CAREER RESEARCH!Study Field 1#: Architecture & Engineering ~ Ex. Aerospace EngineersA love for mathematics is necessary. A bachelor"s in Aerospace Engineering is required, along with the love for aviation. Average Salary: $104,000Study Field2#: Management ~ Ex. Financial ManagersIt is a must to have a bachelor"s degree in one of these categories: Finance, accounting, economics, or business administration. If you love managing money, this is your ideal career. Average Salary: $110,000Study Field 3#: Education, Training, & Library ~ Ex. Special Education TeacherA bachelor"s degree in Education and a teacher"s license is a must. Those who love to help other learn will find this field satisfying. Average Salary: $55,000Study Field 4#: Healthcare ~ Ex. Massage TherapistReceiving a certificate in Massage Therapy is required. Those who like to help reduce stress in people"s lives will love this field. Average Salary: $36,000Study Field 5#: Life, Physical, & Social Science ~ Ex. Medical ScientistsA person needs a high level of education that requires a PH.D. or a M.D. This field is for the strong-willed helpers to society. Average Salary: $77,000Study Field 6#: Protective Service ~ Ex. Police & DetectivesSome college education is highly recommended, and one must attend an agency"s training academy. To get at least an associate in criminal justice will strengthen your job prospects in this field. Average Salary: $56,000Study Field 7#: Media & Communication ~ Ex. Writers & AuthorsAlthough a degree isn't required for a writer, a bachelor"s degree will sharpen your literary skills. Majoring in English, journalism, or communications are considered the typical majors in this section. Average Salary: $56,000These 7 fields, along with examples, are my consideration as excellent studies in college. I will elaborate more in the next round. Again, I will like to say that you should check out these sites for more information. I ALSO RECOMMEND YOU TAKE CARL JUNG"S PERSONALITY TEST FOR A FAIRLY ACCURATE READING: CHECK CITED SOURCES!Cited Sources:http://bls.gov... ~ Government site about all occupationshttp://www.humanmetrics.com... ~ 9/10 accuracy for this personality test, trust me.
What to study in college & why? [Career Challenge]

Greetings to my opponent, I shall be taking this debate and will be following the guidelines my opponent has set forth. However, I want to be clear on several key issues: Con has stated that she will be giving ideas on "career paths" and listing "study fields". However, she has titled the resolution "What to study in college & why?". I submit that career paths and study fields need not take place in what is defined as a "college". Sometimes, they take place in other locations such as training facilities, self-study, military academies, culinary schools, etc. A lot of careers also emphasize acts instead of studying, such as volunteer services and overseas missions. I want to ask Con to redefine the resolution simply to "What preparation should people make during the years after high school for their future career?" I also ask Con to agree that we may argue freely, that the basis for my role as "devil's advocate" be based on free values and morals held by myself or others and not dictated by that of any set rubric, that aside from what was stated in her round 1, no other restrictions are expected or enforced, and that the persuasiveness of our arguments be judged by the voters and not by any future rules or regulations Con may want to impose later on. If Con agrees to all of these, then we can proceed, otherwise, we can take another round to negotiate both in the comments and if need be, in the debate.
What to study in college & why? [Career Challenge]

Hello onlookers, I am Regaladia. I made this challenge in order to give ideas about career paths. I will pick 6-9 study fields, & propose why they should be highly studied. Challenger will then pick 6-9 different study fields, & do the same. Since this round is just for hellos, I would like to ask my challenger to follow 3 simple rules: 1# CHALLENGER MUST PARTICIPATE IN EVERY ROUND! (I highly disapprove of individuals that forfeit.) 2# Challenger should be my devil's advocate. (Explain why my picks are pathetic choices.) 3# Challenger "CANNOT PLAGIARIZE," & must cite sources. (That's if you gathered info. from somewhere outside your mind.) If these are followed, then this will be fun. Good luck to my future challenger. I hope you enjoy the debate my future onlookers. Let the challenge begin!
gender equality is a myth because the midsets are still obsolete

Now, let"s begin by defining some basic definitional terms. Gender equality: the state in which access to rights or opportunities is unaffected by gender. Myth: A widely held but false belief or idea. Obsolete: no longer produced or used; out of date "Yes it is a myth, even in today's society just look around you. .. What do you see? ?? A few countries headed by women, a few business organizations led by women. - Just look around you in society today and you will actually find a lot of things. You see civil unrest, hardship, poverty, war, terrorism. You also see various religious groups who have scriptures which portray "Women" as less equal to men. You also have the femisimisim agenda movements comprised of women, which tend to value themselves in a higher regard than men. These groups of women fight for women's rights because of a perceived "Inequality" which they believe exists against women. "People simply cannot tolerate a woman excelling in every direction" Here pro seems to be making a blanket generalization that people cannot tolerate women being successful in life. Although, this may be true for some people, it is common knowledge that nobody can speak for all people. Because, as humans, we are all individual minds, with different viewpoints, different ideas, and different perspectives. So what my opponent is saying is just merely a generalization which is not representative of all people. "The daughters are always reminded on daily basis that they are to go to someone else's house. teachers discourage them from taking up heavy sports as they may hurt themselves or because of their complexion. Do whatever you want the child will always be your responsibility" - Once again, pro has framed this point in a way that generalizes a large group of people. Some parents may encourage their children to go to someone's house. However, there are many different styles of parenting, and they are not all created the same. There are 4 primary types of parenting. Authoritative, authoritarian, permissive parents, and uninvolved parents who tend to be neglectful. As with teachers, for as many teachers that will discourage women from playing sports, there are just as many that won't.
gender equality is a myth because the midsets are still obsolete

hello! i have written something on the resolution that states "gender equality in a myth because the mindsets are still obsolete. Yes it is a myth, even in today's society just look around you...What do you see??? A few countries headed by women, a few business organizations led by women. Now make a simple analysis...and you would found that gender equality may be a good slogan but it does not prevail in today's society; therefore, it is a myth far from the reality. Ofcourse its a myth. People simply can not tolerate a woman excelling in every direction. The daughters are always reminded on daily basis that they are to go to someone else's house. teachers discourage them from taking up heavy sports as they may hurt themselves or because of their complexion. Do whatever you want the child will always be your responsibility. No matter how much you earn the decision making in family is not your forte. You have to abide by the rules made by the men of the house. Bosses discourage women from taking up demanding assignment for the sheer reason of you having a family that may need you at any time. If the maid/servant is on leave its always a women who works in their stead and not their better half when relatives/guests visit, the lady of the house works tirelessly to please them. If you are seen with your male friends without your husband around your social image is gone. Your male subordinates may think its ok to defy your instructions and back bitch about you. Although there are always exception for everything I doubt there are many for the above. After all this I fail to understand that how can my corrival support the statement that gender equality is not a myth. please express your views!
Smoking Ban

Con’s Case:Contention One: Tobacco is good for the economy:Essentially Con argues against smoking bans by referencing the money made. Consider if you would the reality that by allowing harmful substances like tobacco to be legal, our society has monetized a human life. Profits are made and jobs created but society pays the ultimate price in life’s lost. Remember these lives that are being liquidated for the tobacco industry include some 41,000 deaths per year from second hand smoke. A smoking ban would negate or at least mitigate the damage done to society in this way. I leave this contention with a few questions. What good is a job if you are not alive or healthy enough to work? What good is a wealthy society void of justice that allows 41,000 people to be killed by others annually? What price is my opponent willing to accept in exchange for thousands of innocent lives lost? Consider this contention mitigated. Contention Two: Tobacco is an addictive drug:Con’s second contention is fascinating. He claims that because tobacco is so addictive we should not have smoking bans. This is perhaps the greatest argument that could be made in favor of a smoking ban. Any substance as harmful has tobacco that is coupled with its addictive nature is clearly and indisputably dangerous. Somehow con has thought that the concept of a smoking ban would case a mafia resurgence. This is absurd, there are plenty smoking bans in the world with no sign of the mafia…Perhaps con could elaborate on why a smoking ban would result in an uncontrollable mafia. Overview:I have clearly illustrated the harm posed by smoking. A smoking ban addresses these harms. Unless you think money = morality or are convinced that a mafia will be the result of a smoking ban (Neither of which seem even slightly reasonable) I implore you to vote Pro!
Smoking Ban

I will present an argument this round and rebut his case in the next. Contention One: Tobacco is good for the economy. As of 2014, about 264 billion cigarettes were sold into the U.S. The average cost for a cigarette is about $6.28. Now of you do the math, that means as of 2014, $1,657,920,000,000 is put into the industry to employ people that want to work for tobacco farms. They can also tax the cigarettes, which is proven to reduce smoking, and is a closer method to preventing smoking from becoming a bigger issue than simply banning it. With all of the money that is made from cigarettes, the industries can use their money for beneficial purposes, and heck, this is just from cigarettes alone. Combining those statistics with use from pipes and cigars, this further bolsters my point and will allow more people to have jobs. http://www.cdc.gov... Contention Two: Tobacco is an addictive drug Tobacco contains a substance called nicotine, which is also present in coffee. This causes people to be addicted to tobacco and keep using it. Out of the 80% of people who who want to quit smoking, only 5% are able to actually quit smoking. Now where am I getting with this? http://www.spine-health.com... Tobacco is harder to quit than alcohol is. What did the attempt t ban alcohol cause? The Prohibition. This was an event where people would sell and buy alcohol illegally and would still proceed to drink it, and caused the Mafia to form. The Mafia killed our cops and citizens. I wouldn't want another crisis like this to occur. Conclusion: To tie my arguments together, I must conclude that keeping cigarettes legal is the safest method for the citizens and also is financially the most beneficial method. With a complete ban on tobacco, people will just keep smoking and refuse to abide the law, poverty will increase because less people will get jobs, and another group like the Mafia will cause crisis.
Smoking Ban

Thanks to Kingofeverything for accepting this challenge. Overview:My case here is quite simply. First, an intro to ethics that will frame why the reader should care about this topic. I will then demonstrate the harm of smoking, and demonstrate how smoking bans address these harms. An Intro To Ethics: Ethics delves into what ought to be rather than what is. Henry Sidgwick rightly points out a typical flaw made when determining what ought to be done. “we frequently prescribe that this or that `ought' to be done or aimed at without any express reference to an ulterior end,” (1) As John Stuart Mill says “All action is for the sake of some end.” In order to determine what we ought do we must observe what the results will be from that action. What ends are produced? “all the rules of conduct which men prescribe to one another as moral rules are really---though in part unconsciously---prescribed as a means to the general happiness of mankind,” Henry Sidgwick (2) Any moral code is a means to an end. Thus to affirm the resolution that society ought to implement or maintain a smoking ban I need to show that by doing so the general happiness of mankind is produced or preserved.The Harm:“Cigarette smoking is responsible for more than 480,000 deaths per year in the United States, including an estimated 41,000 deaths resulting from secondhand smoke exposure. This is about one in five deaths annually, or 1,300 deaths every day.” (3)“If smoking continues at the current rate among U.S. youth, 5.6 million of today’s Americans younger than 18 years of age are expected to die prematurely from a smoking-related illness. This represents about one in every 13 Americans aged 17 years or younger who are alive today.” (3)“Those who live in homes with smokers have a 20-30 percent higher risk of developing lung cancer than those who do not live with a smoker. Many see it as unfair that others have to suffer the effects of secondhand smoke when they are not able to make the decision for exposur to it. Non-smokers who worked with smokers experienced a 16-19 percent increase in lung cancer rates. In this case, the worker had no choice but to face exposure to the smoke.” (4) It is evident that smoking as well as secondhand smoke is detrimental to health.Solvency:“Smoking bans remove these risks for many people. The National Cancer Institute, Surgeon General of the United States and National Institutes of Health all support smoking bans because of the statistics of second-hand smoke.”(4)Conclusion: It is clear that society ought to implement or maintain smoking bans. Sources:(1) http://www.laits.utexas.edu...(2) http://www.laits.utexas.edu...(3) http://www.cdc.gov...(4) http://www.debate.org...
George Zimmerman Acted In Self-Defense Against Trayvon Martin

I will not be making my opening argument this round which is something I don't normally do when I debate. I will merely say that I watched the majority of the George Zimmerman trial (I'm a Florida resident, it was on local news), and I think the evidence was overwhelming that Zimmerman acted in self-defense. I would personally like to debate with someone who actually watched the majority of the trial (a few clips does not count). I would also ask that any racial prejudices be cast aside in this debate if there are any.
George Zimmerman Acted In Self-Defense Against Trayvon Martin

He left his car carrying a weapon. You claim that Trayvon assaulted Zimmerman, but how close did Zimmerman get before that happened? You don't chase down people in the middle of the night with a gun. There was no possible way that such a course of action would turn out for the better. He was recklessly endangering both himself and the stranger. Also, during this encounter, George Zimmerman failed to run away. If he was trailing Martin from a long distance, then how did he not see him coming and run away? Even brandishing the weapon in warning would've been better than letting him attack you until you had the claim of self-defense. In a court of law, once someone has admitted to using violence in self-defense, the burden of proof falls upon the defense to establish self-defense. Trayvon clearly attacked Zimmerman. However, that act was in self-defense, which means that it must be proven to be self-defense. That's where the case was lost. How was the prosecution supposed to prove Trayvon's self-defense without his testimony? There was no conclusive evidence that Zimmerman directly confronted Martin, and the jury decided that was enough to let him go. But the act of stalking someone in the middle of the night with a gun in a clumsy enough manner to get noticed, and then failing to run away is reason enough for manslaughter.
George Zimmerman Acted In Self-Defense Against Trayvon Martin

There had been a series of robberies in that area before that night, and Zimmerman thought Martin looked suspicious. He made two non-emergency calls. Trayvon was staying with his dad that night who lived in that neighborhood. So he was not leaving the neighborhood. While I do think Zimmerman should have left it alone after he called the police, I think that is the only mistake he made. When someone is following you the first thing that should be done is to get home which Trayvon had plenty of time to do in which he didn't. He did in fact confront Zimmerman and assaulted him. The second thing you should do if he is still looking for you is call the police, and Trayvon did not do that either. Trayvon was just as responsible for his death as Zimmerman was. Zimmerman did not at all think Trayvon would actually come and find him. That is not normal behavior for someone who is trying to get away from the guy who is following him. If Zimmerman wanted confrontation why didn't he just punch or shoot Trayvon outright when they interacted. I already pointed out Trayvon's autopsy showed that he didn't take blows to the face. The only person who actually wanted confrontation was Trayvon when he went to go find Zimmerman instead of going home like he should have done. You don't go up to the person who is following you unless you want confrontation.
George Zimmerman Acted In Self-Defense Against Trayvon Martin

The operator was under a bad policy to not give direct orders. So "we don't need you to do that" is the most forceful way he's allowed to say "don't follow him." In no way was he advised to get out of the car and follow the suspicious person. The defense made claims that asking Zimmerman which way the suspect fled could have been reasonably misinterpreted as an order to follow. However, this is immediately negated by the "we don't need you to follow" phrase, which was stated after asking Zimmerman which way the suspicious person went. It's a situation where the police are on their way and the suspicious person is leaving the neighborhood. There had been no crime committed. There was no reason to follow him. The moment Zimmerman left his car was the moment when Zimmerman was creating a dangerous situation: a confrontation between two scared strangers in the middle of the night. Let me repeat, there was no reason to follow him. This is what makes him responsible, because it was his conscious decision to leave his car and create a dangerous situation. To not understand that a person would be scared from a stranger following him in the middle of the night is an act of extreme stupidity. It's reasonable to expect that a conflict would emerge from this vigilantism. To not is a mistake, a mistake that turned out to be deadly. A mistake that was Zimmerman's
George Zimmerman Acted In Self-Defense Against Trayvon Martin

Psyduck, late in the trial the prosecution did in fact go for manslaughter seeing that they most likely were not going to get a second-degree murder conviction. As the trial continued the prosecution also charged Zimmerman with felony murder and child abuse, but when the verdict was given Zimmerman was found not guilty on all counts. Your argument that Zimmerman escalated the situation is one I have heard a lot. Zimmerman made a non-emergency call when he dialed 911 that night. After Zimmerman explained the situation to the dispatcher, Sean Noffke, Zimmerman said that he was going to follow Martin. Here is where everyone loses me in accusing Zimmerman; that Noffke said "do not follow him". That is not true at all, Noffke said "we don't need you to do that" which Noffke explained during the trial as a suggestion not an order. Noffke also pointed out that Zimmerman did not sound hostile or angry in any way during the call. Noffke also asked Zimmerman "which way did he(Martin) go" which he said could be interpreted as go and see where he was heading. Zimmerman did follow Martin, but the defense used several visual aids that clearly showed that Martin had more than enough time to go home during Zimmerman's phone calls. Instead he chose to confront Zimmerman in which if he was the one confronting Zimmerman he obviously had something harsh to say to Zimmerman. Once again Zimmerman was said to have been very calm when he made the phone calls and did not sound hostile. If Martin acted in self-defense why did he confront Zimmerman? The autopsy showed indication that Martin was indeed over Zimmerman assaulting him and that the gunshot that killed Martin came from underneath him. There was also no indication from the autopsy that Martin had taken any blows to the face from Zimmerman. Every witness that the defense put forth testified the screaming from the phone calls was Zimmerman. While one of the key witnesses the prosecution had, Trayvon's father, testified that the scream did not sound like Trayvon's and that it probably wasn't him. If Martin confronted Zimmerman and then assaulted him and was endlessly beating him and Zimmerman shot him that means Zimmerman acted in self-defense. When someone is bashing your head into the concrete and punching you in the face you would probably be terrified and would start to panic. Zimmerman was afraid for his life and felt the only way out was to shoot Trayvon. I do not think Zimmerman meant to kill him, but I believe he had no choice and anyone would have done it. http://en.wikipedia.org...
George Zimmerman Acted In Self-Defense Against Trayvon Martin

I'd like to argue that he at least committed manslaughter. The prosecution did not go for manslaughter because they wanted a heavier punishment and ultimately failed their gamble. The facts are simple. He created the situation in which Trayvon Martin was killed. Any degree of escalation of the situation that lead to Trayvon Martin's death was ultimately his responsibility and fault. Trayvon Martin was the one acting in self defense, not George Zimmerman.