BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
be it resolved that education should be optional in the Philippines

hearing the arguments coming from the negative side of this debate, allow me to first remind you of the several points that you seem to bypass. First you said that "majority of the kids will quit school." My question is that since when did a vulnerable creature tried not to listen to the advice of their parents? specially in the Philippine context. Second, you said that "it gives them the chance to get a degree and make more money when they are literate". Another question, are those great academic persons we admire until now have been sent to a formal school? i say they are not so why do you think that these illiterate people will not have that knowledge if they can get it all by themselves through the use of their capacity as rational individual? Thirdly, you said that "it makes them feel better about themselves" question again does it mean that you are illiterate you cant have the chance to educate yourself alone? I am sorry if i am quite vague when i created this debate what i mean with education is the formal way of education which happens inside the school. I say the if we will impose the proposal, we can make this children master the things that they really want to engage themselves in.
be it resolved that education should be optional in the Philippines

Education should not be optional to the Philippines because every kid should have education. If they make education optional, you know that the majority of the kids will want to quit school. education gives people the chance to get a degree and make more money than what they would have if they wouldn't have gotten a degree. Education also makes people feel better about ourselves. No one feels good if they are illiterate. They may be embarrassed because they don't know how to read. You say your first argument is " this proposal will make them more aware of he things they should suppose to engage in while they are still young." They can still engage in things after school. First, just think about it. The adults who are literate would die, and the kids would be illiterate because they didn't go to school. They would have kids, and their kids would be illiterate, too, because their would be no teachers. Also, what about doctors, scientists, lawyers, and other jobs that need literacy? The Philippines would be nothing but illiterates and would have a only a small percentage of those that could read!
be it resolved that education should be optional in the Philippines

debating on the motion that this house would make education not a mandatory anymore i propose that students in the Philippines should make the option isolated from the concern of their parents. first argument is that this proposal will make them more aware of he things they should suppose to engage in while they are still young. I clarify that the parents can still give their children bits of advices but the final approach would be on the youth themselves. because of this proposal, children will see every consequences of their action and would be able to balance things through their experience.
be it resolved that education should be optional in the Philippines

But what if the kid decides that they don't want to go to school, and they don't, and their parents never teach them anything, so they are not as smart as their peers? Then, when they get older, what happens if they want to become a doctor, but they can't because they didn't finish school and get their high school diploma? There are kids all over the world who wish that they can get an education, but they can't. It isn't fair to throw away education if it is available. Education should be mandatory everywhere. Thank you everyone.
be it resolved that education should be optional in the Philippines

thats the problem with the youth of this generation. We always want to make things easy that is why we never had the mastery that we want at the end of the day. If we really want to develop ourselves we should take not the road less traveled. Dont you think that inside the four corners of the classroom students have a high tendency to just rely on the things given by the teacher compare to those students who will just rely on themselves to discover new things which catches their attention every time they explore a world without any barriers compare to those students who exhaustively spend time doing things that they are compelled to do.
Resolved: Qur'anic Scientific Foreknowledge Exists

Resolved: Qur'anic Scientific Foreknowledge ExistsI negate.RULES1: The Burden of Proof is on Pro, as Pro is making the positive claim while Con makes no such claim.2: Pro will forfeit Round 4.3: Pro must present no more than 1 central claim of Qur'anic scientific foreknowledge in this debate.4: Failing to fulfill any of these rules is grounds for a 7-point forfeiture.ROUND SCHEDULERound 1: Con states rules, round schedule, and definitions. Pro makes opening arguments.Round 2: Con rebuts Pro's arguments. Pro rebuts Con's arguments.Round 3: Con rebuts Pro's arguments. Pro summarizes the debate.Round 4: Con summarizes the debate. Pro forfeits the round.DEFINITIONSQur'anic scientific foreknowledge is defined as "that the Qur'an, through Allah's revelations to the prophet Muhammad, accurately predicts scientific knowledge that could not have been known at the time of its writing," [1].To be Qur'anic scientific foreknowledge, a statement must fit the following five "criteria:It must be correct. A statement cannot be scientific foreknowledge if it is incorrect, because the scientific method necessarily eschews incorrect data as unscientific.It must be in the Qur'an. A statement cannot be Qur'anic scientific foreknowledge if it isn't in the Qur'an, because the only possible source of Qur'anic scientific foreknowledge is the Qur'an.It must be unambiguous. A statement cannot be scientific foreknowledge if it is ambiguous, both because science is necessarily precise and because ambiguity allows modern science to be shoehorned into ancient religion when none is present.It must have been outside of contemporary knowledge. A statement it cannot be scientific foreknowledge if it was already known, because this makes the "foreknowledge" into merely "knowledge" and makes divine intervention unnecessary.It must have been outside of contemporary technology. A statement cannot be considered scientific foreknowledge if it was knowable with the technology of the time, because this makes divine intervention unnecessary," [1].To exist is to "have objective reality or being[,]" [2].REFERENCES[1] http://rationalwiki.org...[2] https://www.google.com...
Shape-shifting is more useful than teleportation

My opponent refuted my "battle arena theory" as saying that it would be easier to avoid any and all conflict. This is not true, to have the possibilities is much more useful. He then said " there comes the further question which will inevitably leave you with less enemies (as clearly having enemies is not useful but avoiding making them is indeed)." This is actually supportive of my side. If you take out one enemy, you have one less. As he said, "clearly having enemies is not useful." Turning into a fast creature actually is a lot better, as with teleportation you can't see what's there until you're there. If you can fly, you can surveil the situation that you otherwise would've just dropped into. To refute my point that shape-shifters can turn into something capable of teleportation, he talked about how in that situation, the shape-shifter would be much too powerful. This is looking a little too far into the situation. "With great power comes great responsibility," according to Spider-Man's uncle. The shape-shifter would have to know not to turn himself into a paradox and would therefore not continue trying to achieve the perfect entity my opponent speaks of. If they didn't, they might try enough to actually get there. He talked about a world where everyone teleports vs. a world where everyone shape-shifts. In a world where everyone teleports, he said, a lot less time would be wasted on travel. I already proved this point wrong. If you had your powers taken away, teleportation going would actually hurt you a LOT more. You would've never had the chance to learn how to fight because you always immediately fled the conflict. There's where Con's case contradicts itself. As a shape-shifter, at least you would have some knowledge of how that sort of thing works. As a teleported, you would've immediately avoided any conflict. Therefore, this argument is actually supportive of my side. To respond to my case being built on the foundation of more power being better, if you know how to use it, of course more power is better. Would you rather be alone if you were capable or incapable of defending yourself?
Shape-shifting is more useful than teleportation

Shape-shifting is better than teleportation for the following reasons: 1-More useful in a battle situation: Let's face it: in the fantasy situations that have powers like teleportation and shape-shifting, you are going to have some fighting going on. True, in a battle situation, teleportation could help you get away, but shape-shifting provides much more failsafe approaches: you could turn into something small, like a bug, and run away, you could turn into a bird and fly away, etc. If you think about it, you probably wouldn't need to flee in the case of having a shape-shifting power, because you would kick butt. 2-More useful in a travel situation: The only other appeal of teleportation is that you can travel really fast, but this is incompetent to shape-shifting also. You can turn into something with wings and fly there, you could turn into something really fast (maybe a cheetah) and run there, and so on. As with the aforementioned situation, there are myriad possibilities. 3-Shape-shifting envelops teleportation: As the resolution is unconditional, meaning that there is no limit in the hypothetical situation, something that has the power of shape-shifting could theoretically turn into something with the power of teleportation. This means that whatever arguments my opponent makes really just help my side. However, my opponent cannot use the same approach, as you can't teleport so that you can be a shape-shifter. I might bring in more arguments in the next round, so be warned.
Resolved: Vanilla Ice Cream is Superior to Chocolate Ice Cream

Thank you, Epicurus, for responding swiftly to my arguement. Contention One: Vanilla ice cream is healthier. I also provided an example (with very specific nutrition facts) of both the chocolate and vanilla ice creams. http://caloriecount.about.com...... http://caloriecount.about.com...... Since my opponent has not provided me with a DIRECT reference to vanilla ice cream being healthier, then it still stands that vanilla ice cream has failed this contention. Contention Two: Vanilla ice cream is better for society. Once again, the term "better for society" is a term that has varying definitions and connotations for every person. I didn't know you were talking about living standards, GDPs, poverty, and unemployment in relation to the respective top three producing countries of vanilla and cocoa. In that instance, you have to prove to me that the cultivation of those two crops and standards of living are indeed linked, because correlation does not necessarily equal causation. In the instance that the cultivation of vanilla is linked to higher living standards and cocoa to lower living standards, wouldn't that make a case for people to buy chocolate flavored ice cream and, thusly, IMPROVE THE SOCIETIES of those countries? Therefore, it is overwhelmingly obvious that the harvest of cocoa beans is less of a strain on both humanity and society as a whole than vanilla (sound familiar?), and that vanilla ice cream has failed this contention. Contention Three: Vanilla ice cream further stimulates its respective market. I cannot argue with Epicurus on this contention: Vanilla meets this contention HANDS DOWN! Since vanilla ice cream failed two out of the three contentions, chocolate flavored ice cream is superior to its vanilla counterpart. This argument was copied and pasted because it fits in Round Three AS WELL as in Round Two.
Resolved: Vanilla Ice Cream is Superior to Chocolate Ice Cream

Thank you, C-Mach. I'll start with the opponent's rebuttal to my first contention. The fact of the matter is that I defined the standard in this debate as Mayfield brand ice cream, which is in accordance with Public Forum rules, which the opponent agreed upon by accepting this round. Therefore, my sources, which I did, in fact, display, are the only ones relevant. On to my second contention. The opponent again misunderstood what I stated. I stated that vanilla is superior to society in that it did not exploit the economies of poorer countries like chocolate. This is very similar to outsourcing or sweatshops, where the labor force is cheap thus exploiting impoverished people. As for my third contention, the opponent openly admitted to me being right. At last, the opponent has failed to provide any contentions of his own, thus having no grounds for the con in and of itself.
Resolved: Vanilla Ice Cream is Superior to Chocolate Ice Cream

Thank you, Epicurus, for responding swiftly to my arguement. Contention One: Vanilla ice cream is healthier. I also provided an example (with very specific nutrition facts) of both the chocolate and vanilla ice creams. http://caloriecount.about.com... http://caloriecount.about.com... Since my opponent has not provided me with a DIRECT reference to vanilla ice cream being healthier, then it still stands that vanilla ice cream has failed this contention. Contention Two: Vanilla ice cream is better for society. Once again, the term "better for society" is a term that has varying definitions and connotations for every person. I didn't know you were talking about living standards, GDPs, poverty, and unemployment in relation to the respective top three producing countries of vanilla and cocoa. In that instance, you have to prove to me that the cultivation of those two crops and standards of living are indeed linked, because correlation does not necessarily equal causation. In the instance that the cultivation of vanilla is linked to higher living standards and cocoa to lower living standards, wouldn't that make a case for people to buy chocolate flavored ice cream and, thusly, IMPROVE THE SOCIETIES of those countries? Therefore, it is overwhelmingly obvious that the harvest of cocoa beans is less of a strain on both humanity and society as a whole than vanilla (sound familiar?), and that vanilla ice cream has failed this contention. Contention Three: Vanilla ice cream further stimulates its respective market. I cannot argue with Epicurus on this contention: Vanilla meets this contention HANDS DOWN! Since vanilla ice cream failed two out of the three contentions, chocolate flavored ice cream is superior to its vanilla counterpart.
Resolved: Vanilla Ice Cream is Superior to Chocolate Ice Cream

I'd like to begin by thanking my opponent, and then move on to bolstering my contentions. I will start with my first contention, vanilla ice cream is healthier. Using Mayfield Brand as the standard in which the nutrition facts of chocolate and vanilla ice cream are compared, it becomes very apparent that vanilla is, as previously defined, superior to chocolate in the realm of health. According to http://www.thedailyplate.com..., one serving of chocolate ice cream contains fifteen more calories, and four more grams of total fat. Moving on to my second condition, vanilla ice cream is better for society. In the first round, my opponent failed to provide points, instead opting to attempt a rebuttal without an explanation of my contentions, thus completely misunderstanding said contentions. To say that vanilla is better for society is to say that it does not exploit the labor force of poor nations. According to the CIA world factbook (https://www.cia.gov...), the top three producers of vanilla, Madagascar, Indonesia, and China, have higher living standards, gross domestic products, and lower poverty rates and unemployment rates than the top three producers of cocoa, the key ingredient of chocolate, the latter countries are Cï¿½te d'Ivoire, Ghana, and Indonesia. Therefore, it is overwhelmingly obvious that the harvest of vanilla extract is less of a strain on both humanity and society as a whole than cocoa. My third contention, Vanilla ice cream further stimulates its respective market, was, again, misunderstood by my opponent. To clarify, vanilla ice cream is further stimulating its respective market, vanilla flavored products, than chocolate. Due to the exponentially larger applications of chocolate in addition to ice cream (candy, beverages, etc.) comparatively to vanilla, one can very safely deduce that vanilla ice cream benefits its flavor's market further than chocolate. According to CIA World Factbook, the vanilla market also further stimulates the economy of it's top producers than chocolate. Therefore, it is overwhelmingly obvious that vanilla is superior to chocolate. Your rebuttal, con?
Resolved: Vanilla Ice Cream is Superior to Chocolate Ice Cream

Contention One: Vanilla ice cream is healthier According to caloriecount.about.com, chocolate ice cream (1/2 cup, 66 grams) contains 143 Calories (65 Calories of which come from fat), 7.3g of fat (4.5g of which is saturated fat), 22 milligrams of cholesterol, and 18.6g of carbohydrates (16.7g of which are sugars). http://caloriecount.about.com... Let's see about vanilla ice cream from the same site. Vanilla ice cream (1/2 cup, 72g) contains 145 Calories (72 Calories of which come from fat), 7.9g of fat (4.9g of which come from fat), 32mg of cholesterol, and 17g of carbohydrates (15.3g of which are sugars). http://caloriecount.about.com... I don't know about you, but I think vanilla ice cream has failed this contention. Contention Two: Vanilla ice cream is better for society The term "better for society" is a term that has varying definitions and connotations for every person (I do not want to debate this right now. Let's stick to the subject matter.). However, chocolate contains caffeine, which can give a person a "buzz" when consumed, and thus, people can complete tasks assigned to them (e.g., spreadsheets) without being drowsy. Vanilla ice cream has not met this contention, even though the term "better for society" is pretty sketchy. Contention Three: Vanilla ice cream further stimulates its respective market. When you say "further stimulates its respective market," I assume you mean a popularity contest (NO DUH!!!). Vanilla ice cream is the most popular flavor with 29%, chocolate second with 8.9%. http://www.makeicecream.com... Vanilla ice cream has met this contention overwhelmingly! Since two out of the three contentions were not met by vanilla flavored ice cream, chocolate flavored ice cream is winning. Your rebuttal, Epicurus?
Resolved: Vanilla Ice Cream is Superior to Chocolate Ice Cream

On balance, vanilla flavored ice cream is superior to vanilla flavored ice cream. Public Forum Rules As defined by http://www.merriam-webster.com..., superior means "of higher rank, quality, or importance." Contention One: Vanilla ice cream is healthier Contention Two: Vanilla ice cream is better for society Contention Three: Vanilla ice cream further stimulates its respective market.
Personality Vs Appearances in relationships

Great topic, should be really fun. To answer this, let's go back to the reason why humans even have relationships in the first place. Before dating, relatonships consisted of one thing, sex. For a good reason too, it was much easier for a guy to take a girl home and make kids than to have to stab a deer and have dinner with her. There was little reason to date, that limmerence that embodies the beginning of all reationships is all you needed. Besides that, as long as she looked pretty, her personality didn't matter. Today though, these methods are frowned upon and punishable by law. Culture has evolved and love has been stretched out into lifelong (or weeklong, as the case may be) commitments. Guys still love a pretty face, but now women desire more than being toys. Which makes sense but it takes away from a man's natural attraction to a woman. Relationships weren't ever meant to be more than an affair for a night. For that one night, all that mattered was how she looked. The point here is simple. Guys love girls with nice bods for a reason. Girls don't like being seen as just a nice bod. Guys are urged into commitments where in order to be able to handle the chick, he has to get to know her.
CBA Debate - The use of Torture in order to prevent Nuclear Detonation.

http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... First I would like to express disappointment. This last post sort of wastes the point of the debate format test. Second of all, I would like to go on record that I may have mono, so my next round being posted on time is on the fence. Finally I would like to point out that my opponent is completely wrong because waterboarding is indeed torture. DEFINITION Torture- the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty. http://dictionary.reference.com... PROOF When the US military trains soldiers to resist interrogation, it uses a torture technique from the Middle Ages, known as "waterboarding". Its use on terror suspects in secret US prisons around the world has come to symbolise the Bush administration's no-nonsense enthusiasm for the harshest questioning techniques. http://www.independent.co.uk... ===== I wanted to prove it wasn't torture," Mancow said. "They cut off our heads, we put water on their face...I got voted to do this but I really thought 'I'm going to laugh this off.' " Witnesses said Muller thrashed on the table, and even instantly threw the toy cow he was holding as his emergency tool to signify when he wanted the experiment to stop. He only lasted 6 or 7 seconds. "It is way worse than I thought it would be, and that's no joke,"Mancow said, likening it to a time when he nearly drowned as a child. "It is such an odd feeling to have water poured down your nose with your head back...It was instantaneous...and I don't want to say this: absolutely torture." Matthew Muller joins Chris Hitchens, Daniel Levin, and other former waterboarding apologists whose firsthand experience changed their mind. http://waterboarding.org... ===== Signaling sharp breaks from the Bush administration, Barack Obama's attorney general nominee declared Thursday that waterboarding is torture and that the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay will be closed as quickly as possible. Testifying at his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Eric Holder made it clear that the new administration is prepared to roll back several of the most controversial practices of the Bush administration's prosecution of the war on terrorism. http://www.politico.com... ===== "CIA members who've undergone water boarding as part of their training have lasted an average of 14 seconds before begging to be released. The Navy SEALs once used the technique in their counter-interrogation training, but they stopped because the trainees could not survive it without breaking, which was bad for morale." (From Case) ===== It's time for my opponent and the Bush Administration to get over their opinions and face facts that waterboarding is indeed torture. There are really 2 parts to the definition 1) Pain (drowing causes both mental and physical pain) and 2) getting information (waterboarding's goal). My opponent therefore used the only solution he was not allowed to use and therefore loses.