BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should Cell phones be allowed in Schools.

Among all the modern electronic gadgets, the most common is a cell phone. It has become an integral part of modern man's life. Almost everyone, is using it. This wide usage of cell phones creates a big problem especially while they are being used by school going children. some State governments put a ban on the usage of cell phones in schools because they help in the perpetration of certain very unhealthy activities. But the usage of cell-phone in schools, became out of control. Students are cheating, capturing tests with questions and give them to other students, even somebodies are talking during the class. So my position is that teachers should prohibit any usage of mobile advices since student entered to the class. It will make the process of studying more fair and decent.
atheism is disbelief

Theism - 'belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe' - the dictionary. Theism is the belief in God(s). Not science. The vast majority of atheists also believe in science - science can not be proven, so it is belief - but not the same belief that theists have. Yes, only you know how many fingers you have behind your back, just like how only God knows if God exists. I choose to believe that you have 3 fingers behind your back just like how I choose to believe that God is real. Atheists choose to believe that you have a different number of fingers behind your back. They choose to believe that God does not exist. These are all beliefs, so atheists do believe - but in a different way to theists
atheism is disbelief

Ok, you have 3 fingers behind your back. A believer says it's true. An athiest would look at all of the facts, and make a decision that no you do not have 3 fingers behind your back. An agnostic would look at all of the facts and be unable to reach a conclusion. Athiesm is not disbelief, but a belief in facts and evidence. Theism is faith. It does not require evidence and is down to your personal opinion.
abortion

As to the judging process, I would ask that voters take note of that. Now looking at the broader issue outside of this debate, I am disappointing at the lack of discussion here as I value a civil exchange of ideas in a debate Since my previous arguments have not been responded to in any way, I will simply reiterate here why I believe abortion is bad: 1. Abortion takes the life of a child. Both form a philosophical and a scientific perspective, there really is no doubt about whether a fetus at any stage of pregnancy is a living human person. Since this is true there is no doubt that abortion is the murder of the unborn. 2. Unborn Children have the right to life and a "choice". The Pro claims that women have a right to choose what happens when it comes to their health. I would argue that their right to choose stops short of taking the life of another human being. The child has a right to life as well and a right to make choices when it comes to it's health and life. The problem with abortion is not that it gives a choice to the mother, but rather that it forcibly takes a choice away from the child. 3. Abortion is harmful to health. Contrary to what many people claim (including the pro speaker here), abortion is never necessary to save the life of a mother and it has extremely detrimental effects on her health, psychological and physical, not to mention the irreversible effects on the health of the child. Given these facts, there really is no basis for supporting abortion. Thus for those reasons as well as the fact that there has been no response to any of my arguments, I would ask for a vote in favour of the Con.
Electoral College system

Let me clarify that I am personally undecided on whether the U.S. should abolish the electoral college, but I'll play devil's advocate here. I do believe though, that electors should be stripped of the power to vote against those they represent, if it does remain at all I think it should remain solely as a strictly representative body. Advocates of the electoral college say that it is necessary to give less populated areas of the country a relatively equal say in presidential elections. This is the same reason that people advocated for the New Jersey Plan during the Constitutional Convention: smaller, less populous states wanted equal representation in Congress. People assert that more populous areas such as California and New York, would have greater control on the election. As a side-note, I'd also like to ask how much better off do you think we would be with 8 years of Al Gore and Joe Lieberman, the Kings of Government Censorship?
The deficit presents no solvency risk to the United States

I'm not really sure how to respond to my opponent because much of what he said seems to be agreeing with me. He organized his response into three rebuttals and one new point, so I'll address each of them.1. All government spending introduces new money into the economy and taxes removes it"this argument has no basis. throwing cash in a shredder does not mean throwing cash in a garbage heap because that shredder may be the carrybag of the govt. it is not new money that govt. introduced. it is the same old money. "I'm not sure what my opponent means by "carrybag of the govt. " My point was that physical currenct (like bills) serves as a token to allow efficient trading of dollars in the private sector. Once those bills are returned to the government, they have no value to the government, since it is allowed to print them at will. Because the government can never run out of money, it (1) doesn't view the bills as having value, and (2) can never be insolvent in dollars.2. The "debt" is just the sum of the previous deficits (spending minus taxes)"the flaw in this reasoning is that without borrowing money how come govt. or any entity can spend that money? "Well, as I explained in the first round, a currency issuer spends differently than a currency user. The issuer of a currency does not need to acquire the currency before it spends it. It just spends it. I would also point out that I'm not aware of anyone who suggests that taxation is a means of borrowing money.3. there 2 types of U. S. savings bond: series 1 and EE. both earned interest rate Yes, they earn interest, however they also have a present value. That is the value they are worth right now. My point was simply that swapping them at present value for cash would not change how much "money" grandma has, although it would remove an interest stream from her. It would also not impact the government's fiscal position because this "repayment" of the debt would just be swapping one government issued piece of paper (bond) for another (cash).4. budget deficit is really good during recession time according to eminent This topic does not relate to solvency and suggests that the deficit is good, I'm glad my opponent agrees. In fact, when he does talk about solvency, the economist in the source supports the proposition:The deficit presents no solvency risk to the United States.
The deficit presents no solvency risk to the United States

1] All government spending introduces new money into the economy and taxes removes itthis argument has no basis. throwing cash in a shredder does not mean throwing cash in a garbage heap because that shredder may be the carrybag of the govt. it is not new money that govt. introduced. it is the same old money.2] The "debt" is just the sum of the previous deficits (spending minus taxes)govt. borrowed money through taxes, t bills etc and then spend the money in private sector development.The government does not need to borrow before it can spend nor does it need to tax before it spends. In fact, as we have seen, the dollars that are used to buy treasury bills or pay taxes entered the private sector through government spending. the flaw in this reasoning is that without borrowing money how come govt. or any entity can spend that money? heres what happened: govt. borrow money through tax and spend the money to private sector. that private sector will continue production of goods and services that we the people use. so ultimately govt. is spending money for the people.3] there 2 types of U.S. savings bond: series 1 and EE. both earned interest rate and both have a maturity. so in maturity your grandmother will have $100 + interest rate. so there is a gain i.e. the interest. so there is a change in financial position of your grand mother.so pro did not give a valid argument. heres my arguments:1] budget deficit is really good during recession time according to eminent economist NEIL H. BUCHANAN. you better read his article here:http://writ.news.findlaw.com...
The deficit presents no solvency risk to the United States

I will admit that there are many people who will use the deficit (and scary sounding claims about the deficit) to promote their own fiscal agenda. These agendas usually center around separating the middle class from their savings. However, this fact has nothing to do with whether the current level of deficit poses a solvency risk for the United States government. I advanced four arguments in the first round. My opponent ignored, failed to address, and thereby conceded them n his response. They are: All government spending introduces new money into the economy and taxes removes it The "debt" is just the sum of the previous deficits (spending minus taxes) Paying off the debt by swapping bonds for cash (both government paper) has no impact on the solvency of the U. S. government. Government spending causes inflation only once all excess capacity in the economy has been utilized and the government is competing with other consumers. As noted before, my opponent made no attempt to rebut any of these points. Instead he listed six plans to reduce the deficit. He made no argument that the deficit should be reduced, much less that doing so is necessary to preserve the solvency of the U. S. government. I extend all arguments from the previous round.
The deficit presents no solvency risk to the United States

federal budget deficit does present solvency risk because president obama took the following measure to reduce budget deficit: 1] President Obama established a budget reform commission, the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, which released a draft report in December 2010. It included various tax and spend adjustments to bring long-run government tax revenue and spending into line at approximately 21% of GDP, with $4 trillion debt avoidance over 10 years. 2] President Obama announced a 10-year (2012–2021) plan in September 2011 called: "Living Within Our Means and Investing in the Future: The President’s Plan for Economic Growth and Deficit Reduction." The plan included tax increases on the wealthy, along with cuts in future spending on defense and Medicare. Social Security was excluded from the plan. The plan included a net debt avoidance of $3.2 trillion over 10 years. If the Budget Control Act of 2011 is included, this adds another $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction for a total of $4.4 trillion. 3] The House of Representatives Committee on the Budget, chaired by Rep. Paul Ryan (R), released The Path to Prosperity: Restoring America's Promise. The Path focuses on tax reform (lowering income tax rates and reducing tax expenditures or loopholes); spending cuts and controls; and redesign of the Medicare and Medicaid programs. It does not propose significant changes to Social Security. 4] The Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) proposed "The People's Budget" in April 2011, which it claimed would balance the budget by 2021 while maintaining debt as a % GDP under 65%. It proposed reversing most of the Bush tax cuts; higher income tax rates on the wealthy and restoring the estate tax, investing in a jobs program, and reducing defense spending. 5] The Peter G. Peterson Foundation solicited proposals from six organizations, which included the American Enterprise Institute, the Bipartisan Policy Center, the Center for American Progress, the Economic Policy Institute, The Heritage Foundation, and the Roosevelt Institute Campus Network. The recommendations of each group were reported in May 2011. 6] The Bipartisan Policy Center sponsored a Debt Reduction Task Force, co-chaired by Pete V. Domenici and Alice M. Rivlin. This panel created a report called "Restoring America's Future," which was published in November 2010. The plan claimed to stabilize the debt to GDP ratio at 60%, with up to $6 trillion in debt avoidance over the 2011-2020 period. Specific plan elements included defense and non-defense spending freezes for 4–5 years, income tax reform, elimination of tax expenditures, and a national sales tax or value-added tax (VAT).all these steps will reduce budget deficit unless new govt. did not implement them.http://en.wikipedia.org...
Paid-for college should be available to all high school graduates that require the financial aid

I understand that if I have a degree, and I have experience, and if I have all these other things, then I can be successful. Theres so much more to those statistics than just the degree. Also, when that degree becomes free, it become equivalent to not having a degree. Giving 4 whole years to everyone would essentially make it just as beneficial to not go at all. I have a few voting issues that I would like to bring up. 1. My opponent has failed to several arguments, which must mean he agrees with all of my arguments. 2. He really has not taken a stance. When I said something wouldn't work, he only talked about one thing in his argument. I would quote it, however it happened in every round, so it shouldn't be too difficult to find. 3. He ignored the specific numbers I gave, presumably because he knew there was nothing he could do about them. He merely said he understood it was "expensive", but he failed to explain how all $810 billion would instantly make it's way back to the government. 4. I would also like to point out that his second round was absurd. I had no where to rebut, and clearly he wasn't going anywhere either. Thank you.
Paid-for college should be available to all high school graduates that require the financial aid

Education is a privallege, not a right. While i beleive those are disavantaged need help, yourmeans ofdoing so are incorrect. Are you aware that last year alone 45 million Americans, or 14.5% of the population was under the federal poverty line? Your argument is lazy at best. As for total cost, ill assume that 50% of people under the poverty line would like to take advantage. I feel this is generous because if an entire group of people was offered something free, more like 99% of them will take it. None the less, i feel like 50% proves my argument enough. If 22.5 million people wanted $36,000 dollars in college, the total would cost about $810,000,000,000. That money has to come from somewhere? Where do you want to make cuts? The military? Medicare and medicaid? The only problem with cutting those things is that people like those programs. So you essentailly would have to defund the entire government to give everyone free college. Thanns
Paid-for college should be available to all high school graduates that require the financial aid

Alright, thanks for starting this debate. You seem to have failed to lay out the base definition, so I will provide them. College- "a part of an American university that offers courses in a specified subject" Baseline, college is effective if you take 4 years. This will cost roughly $36,000 per student. financial aid - "Money to support a person or cause" This is very flexible, how do we determine who should receive handouts? I can imagine nearly every student will apply for financial aid, and we can simply not afford to give everyone $36,000. You also give no requirements, so I must assume there are none. Why should a student who is not qualified be given a handout? Why should a lazy person be handed what ever he needs? Thanks http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Best Military Leaders of History

(Dammit I was gonna pick Napoleon......)My #1: Russian General Georgy Zhukovhttp://t3.gstatic.com...Famous Wars: World War 2, World War 1Claim to Fame: Having grown up as a peasant who was conscripted to fight in World War 1, Georgy Zhukov would rise through the ranks to eventually become the most decorated general in Russian history who also played the most pivotal role in leading the Red Army back through Eastern Europe to defeat the Nazis. Amongst many notable generals in World War II, Zhukov was placed at the top due to "the number and scale of victories" [1] Even other WW2 generals such as Bernard Montgomery and Dwight D. Eisenhower recognized Zhukov's great contributions in many important victories in the Second World War. In the march back through Soviet territory all the way to Berlin, he became known as "the man who did not lose a battle." [2]Since 80% of all Nazi Germany casualties occurred on the eastern front with Russia. the eastern front of the war that ended up being won under Zhukov's actions has been argued to be "the single most important chapter in modern military history" [3].Having won the Order of Victory Twice, the Hero of the Soviet Union four times, the Order of Lenin 6 times, the Order of the Red Banner three times, and even presented a sword bearing a gold emblem of the Soviet Union, Zhukov played a tremendous role in orchestrating the victory of the the allies in World War II. Victories under Zhukov's watch included the Siege of Leningrad, the Battle of Moscow, the Battles of Rzhev, Case Blue, the Battle of Stalingrad, the Battle of Kursk, the Dnieper–Carpathian Offensive, the Kamenets-Podolsky Pocket, Operation Bagration, the Vistula–Oder Offensive, Operation Solstice, and finally the Battle of Berlin [4] Zhukov's popularity following World War II was so immense in Russia that Stalin himself began to fear the man as a potential opponent. But rather then send him to a camp or place him under house arrest like so many other perceived foes had been, Zhukov was simply delegated to administer the Odessa Military District. Zhukov was so powerful and cunning that even Stalin himself could not beat him or dispose of him, and Zhukov regained a spot in the Russian military leadership after Stalin passed away. [5] Sources:[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...[3] http://www.nytimes.com...[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...[5] http://ww2db.com...
Best Military Leaders of History

This is not designed as a regular debate, per se. Instead we will be choosing three military leaders from any point in history who were most succesful and/or influential militarily (NOT culturaly). For each of the chosen military leaders we will give a picture of them, time period and wars in which they fought in, a short biographical note, and then why you think that this person qualifies as one of the greatest military leaders in history. Note that there will be no rebuttals in this debate. We are merely presenting our military leaders individually and then letting the voters decide who gave the better argument for their leaders. Also, the first round is for acceptance only so that we all have an equal amount of rounds. I am going to leave this debate open, so anybody is allowed to accept. Good luck!
Joke Debate

Yes Yo Mama Round__ 1 Yo mama so lazy she thinks a two-income family is where yo daddy has two jobs. 2 Yo mama so lazy she's got a remote control just to operate her remote! 3 Yo mama so lazy that she came in last place in a recent snail marathon. 4 Yo mama so skinny her nipples touch. 5 Yo mama so skinny she hula hoops with a cheerio 6 Yo mama so skinny she has to hold herself above the toilet for fear of falling in. 7 Yo mama so skinny she has to wear a belt with spandex. 8 Yo mama so skinny she turned sideways and dissapeared. 9 Yo mama so old her skin is colored dust (Original joke) 10 Yo mama so fat her she eats the Cheerios box (Original joke)
Evolution, religion in public schools

I don't believe not believing in macroevolution is a logical fallacy. You can't prove that we as humans evolved from an ape, or that the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe. My position is on historical science. Science in Latin simply means knowledge. But anyway, you absolutely can prove microevolution... Despite the common claim that evolution is duly supported by the evidence, the facts show otherwise. A growing number of leading scholars (with Ph.D.s from top secular universities) are questioning the merits of Darwin"s theory. For starters, while there is plenty of evidence for microevolution (small changes within a species) there is no compelling evidence for macroevolution (the theory that all of life descended from one common ancestor through random mutation and natural selection). In science class today, the word "evolution" refers to Darwinian macroevolution, not microevolution. Nevertheless, it is amazing how many people confuse the evidence for microevolution with evidence for macroevolution. After a Newsweek article on evolution, one respondent wrote in to the editor in defense of Darwinism: "They say there"s no evidence for evolution. Yet there it is within my own lifetime. My older sister was one of the patients saved by the new wonder drug penicillin, which probably couldn"t save her now because microbes have evolved to the point that penicillin can"t kill them anymore. That"s fact, not theory"evidence that life forms can change over time."2 Can you spot the confusion? While she offers evidence for microevolution, her example is irrelevant to the grand claims of Darwinism. If, in order to beat the antibiotic, the bacteria had evolved into jellyfish, that would be evidence for Darwin"s theory. But no such transition has ever been observed in either the lab or in the fossil record. Much of the evidence that supposedly supports Darwinian evolution"the Peppered Moths, Darwin"s finches, HIV mutations, and more"only support microevolution. The move from these examples to Darwinism is a blind leap of faith. And yes, you are correct when I am expanding on religion classes. As I recall back when I went to school, we learned a little about world religions but not in depth. And even with the little education that I got from other religions, it seemed like Christianity was talked about the least. My personal opinion.