BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Latin Still Being Taught in School

Ok. So let me get this straight. You want Latin to be available as an option, not something mandatory. This had been established in Round 1. In my Round 1, I argued that Latin should not be taught at all in schools. In Round 2, you did not offer any new points, you even agreed to most of what I had said in Round 1. So at the end of these two rounds, you agree that Latin is not very important at all, and that a person can survive without learning it. But you still somehow feel like it should be available to people who really want to study it. I would argue that a person can learn this outside of a school setting, through private Latin institutions or by themselves at home. Because you did not give any real reasons why it should be taught in SCHOOLS, I feel that your stance is leaning to my side of this debate. In other words, you do not have any strong reasons to support teaching this language in schools, and you seem to be ok with it not be taught at all in schools. You are very much on the fence in this matter, not having any clear stand.
Latin Still Being Taught in School

In my particular case, my high school's graduation requirements involved learning a foreign language with 3 consecutive years of courses. The 4th year was not mandatory. It is true that Latin is no longer a very practical language, in the sense that it is not spoken unless one is translating a written passage. I am not saying that Latin uniformly gives everyone a leg-up, but in my particular case it did (English is my first and only language). I do agree that learning a language that is still actually spoken has more practical use. For example, while Latin could help me learn the names of body parts quicker in medical school, I would imagine Spanish would be immensely helpful for encountering patients that speak it. It is also true that Latin is not particularly helpful for learning Arabic or Mandarin, but it is merely one option. I do not support Latin being mandatory, but rather still be available as an option. There are some who would prefer to spend their time learning European languages (myself included) because it would be more difficult and time consuming to learn a new set of symbols for the alphabet. The reason I added the paragraph about Latin being translated in its original form applies for any language. Connotations and nuances are often best conveyed in the native language in which they were written, whether the language is Latin, Japanese, or Italian. The appreciation isn't there for everyone, but I personally saw it as an important aspect of my education. I am still not convinced that Latin should be permanently eliminated from school curricula. If students would like to learn Latin, so be it. If they don't, they should be able to choose another language. Once again, I am in favor of having Latin available as an option, not a requirement. (The following paragraphs are an aside and have nothing to do with the argument, but this is what I meant by appreciating Latin poets in their native tongue. It's more for your information and amusement than anything else. It was very comical to translate this passage from the original Latin a few years ago.) "De cathedra quotiens surgis-jam saepe notavi -pedicant miserae, Lesbia, te tunicae. Sic constringuntur gemina Symplegade culi et nimias intrant Cyaneasque natis." "I"ve noticed when you get up from the couch You"re buttf*cked, Lesbia, by your wretched skirts. Your skirts are caught between those massive buns As big as two Gibraltars; a tight fit." -Martial, Epigrams XI.99
Latin Still Being Taught in School

This argument is coming from someone who has gone through 4 years of Latin in high school, and is not currently studying classics in college. I absolutely hated Latin when I was learning it, but every passing year reasserts its lingering usefulness. While I don't think learning Latin should be mandatory, I don't think it should be totally eliminated either. While Latin is a dead language, it is a very systematic, logical language. While all the translating practice was very annoying, it made me exponentially more conscious of grammatical rules, how I write, and how I speak. Also, a surprising amount of English words have Latin roots, which makes it much easier to decipher an unfamiliar word's meaning. Latin doesn't have much practical use in everyday life, but it can be very useful in fields such as Law, Medicine, and Science. Latin is the linguistic ancestor of Spanish, French, Italian, and so many others. The vocabulary and declension rules are incredibly similar to some languages, which makes it far easier to draw connections and learn these other languages with Latin under your belt. Finally, if for nothing else, translating Latin imparts an appreciation for an ancient civilization that simply cannot be captured in English translation. While we can learn about Roman history and myths through a textbook, there are some aspects that need to just be appreciated in the native language. It makes you view Romans as actual people that existed and conversed just as we do, rather than some primitive, far-removed relics of the past. You will know what I mean if you have ever translated passages from Martial, Catullus, or Cicero.
Latin Still Being Taught in School

Under your logic then, we should be having every subject under the sun as an 'option' for all students. We should have science and mathematics subjects (definitely) but also English and Arabic, sanskrit and mandarin, how to read hieroglyphics, history, not only of Europe but also the history of the natives of South America, we should have religious courses and Physical Education etc etc. All this because some students 'might' benefit from it in some time in their future lives. This is just so impractical. Because we are talking about schools in this debate, they have a cap on their budget. They need to properly select which courses should be on offer, not to mention the staff and other resources required to properly teach the subject. And all this largely depends on how useful a subject will be for the majority of the pupils who live in that community. I never said that by agreeing with me you are conceding the debate. I said that you are very much taking the easy way out in this debate. You argue that yeah it's useful for some, and useful for others, but you know it's still kinda useful and we need to keep it there anyway. So that everyone is happy. You never gave any substantive arguments why SCHOOLS need to offer this subject specifically. I felt that as the proposition in this debate, you never fully provided a thorough reasoning of why schools need to offer this subject. It was more on a Latin is useful and so it should be there. Yeah, no kidding. Every knowledge on this planet is useful in some form or another. Does that mean we should let kids as young as 10 studying those subjects religiously and painstakingly just to forget all of it upon graduation?
Vegetarianism: A Positive Lifestyle.

I accept your challenge and will debate with you on whether or not being a vegetarian is a good life-style. Seeing that opponent has already chosen pro, I would logically take con and be against the life style of that of a vegetarian. I am against vegetarianism because it discourages people from eating the other food groups; it prevents them from getting the right amount of nutrients only available in other food groups; and vegetarians still eat meat - they claim to be herbivores, but are, just like the rest of us, omnivores as many of the foods they eat are still eaten by carnivores. I believe that it is a negative lifestyle that negatively affects one's health and should not be used unless one is extremely healthy or ill.
God Glorifies Himself Through The Everlasting Damnation of Sinners (devils and mankind) in Hell.

Er... So you didn't even read my post where I clarified that the mention of Russell wasn't meant to argue against the existence of God, but rather to support an argument, which I'll admit, was slightly beyond my initial two?Trust me, I am not interested in ever debating you again, sir. If you want to face the truth and see a rebuttal of your arguments please refer to my second to last post.In conclusion I would like to encourage you to not cop out of future debates because your feelings get hurt or an opponent veers slightly, that's not how it works and leads to nothing.And by the way, I think that the way you refer to atheists and you general threatening tone should cost you behaviour points.
God Glorifies Himself Through The Everlasting Damnation of Sinners (devils and mankind) in Hell.

I answered repeatedly from different angles your opening argument/challenge points which were copy and pasted from your own words along with your copy and pasted promise not to introduce an atheistc arguemtn..which you promply ignored and violated. I ignored your sidetrack issues which you introduced to the debate after you specifically promised you would not introduce those issues. Because I have remained focused on your two points, and you have pretty much ignored my arguments as you went off in violation of the rules, insutling me for not going off topic with you after you promised to remain on topic, I will offer no furrther arguments and suggest you redeem yourself a bit by offering a focused discussion of my ansers to your two points. If in only one round, even only the last round, you put up a focused discussion without violating the rules you promised to adhere to, I will give you another debate along these same lines, maybe with a different topic
God Glorifies Himself Through The Everlasting Damnation of Sinners (devils and mankind) in Hell.

So... That's it? You forget about my last post, don't refute any of my points and just say that because your feeling were hurt and I sort of went of topic and "refused" to apologize, the debate ends? And no, the fact that I forfeited a round doesn't mean that anything should clinch. I explained my reasons and apologized for my lack of time. I encourage you to buck up and post your rebuttals and stop being so immature. If it makes you feel any better: I'm sorry I slightly veered off topic and was provocative by saying that it was a cop out not to touch that point.What makes you think that theists don't similarly cling to their beliefs and vote against me based only on their ideas and not on my arguments?Just as you say that voters should vote against me due to conduct, I say they should vote against you due to ending the debate and not answering my points.
God Glorifies Himself Through The Everlasting Damnation of Sinners (devils and mankind) in Hell.

Your admittance of ignoring the rules which were established according to your own words and promise, along with your refusal to apologize and insist that I should argue with you in tangents you promised you would not introduce in this debate should be loss of conduct points from all voters. The fact that you forfeited a round after you wasted my time with your rule violations should doubly clinch all conduct points for me. I will request that the moderator enforces this cleer conduct win for me. Voters may feel that since they accept no proof of God's right to rule over them, you win the arguments. Atheists will almost always vote against a person like me simply because they must do so in order to cling to their disbelief and their hope of negating their existence by defeating/negating God. Because of your poor conduct and refusal to apolgize, and then insult me for declining to follow your rule-violating rabbit trail, you will not get another debate with me, and I advise readers to noice your conduct so they know what to expect from you if they take you up in a debate challenge.One final thing....The things you have done wrong have permanently altered yourself and people around you. The effect of yoru wrongdoings is eternal, and eternal punishment is fair and square, and necessary to stop you from doing wrong and further negatively affecting yourself and others around you. God glorifies Himself by justifying your existence in Hell forever showing He is righteous, just, and good. What good is God if he does not give punishment equal to the crime? Your crimes have eternal effects by changing the things and people involved. Your time is finite, but the fact that you are a lawbreaker is infinite and the things you have done testify against you forever, and Hell testifies forever to God's goodness and glory as the Creator of all. Because you have lied and continue to go off on rabbit trails which you agreed woudl be violations of the rules for this debate, I will stand on the arguments I have given. I thouroughly adressed the two points you promised to focus on and you have worked hard to stay off of the points you promised you would debate in.
To be decided during the debate

I find that if I have to take the CON position for any of these, I would be arguing against my own beliefs, but I'll do so anyway XD The second one is nearly impossible to argue CON, and the first one is pretty difficult as well, so I'll go with the third one. "The rating system is out of control- such as a movie being PG13 for saying b*** and s***, and nothing else that is 'bad'." Please choose your position.
To be decided during the debate

This is a special debate in which the one who accepts the challenge will be the one suggesting the topics of debate. There will be 5 rounds of this debate. 1A: This introductory post 1B: My opponent will suggest 3 topic of debate, of a wide variety of categories. The three topics of debate suggested cannot all be within the same topic of discussion, (ie. All three cannot be about Religion, All three cannot be about Politics), cannot include both sides of a particular argument, and must be broad enough for a layman to be able to adequately debate with limited research (ie. No extraordinarily complicated Physical theorems). 2A: I will respond with my choice of the three, or rule that the choice of the three subjects violates rules stipulated in 1A. If I make that ruling, 3 new topics of debate will be given as a comment and I shall respond with my choice of those 3. 2B: After choosing one topic, my opponent will then pick a position, either PRO or CON. If my opponent picks PRO, he/she shall use the rest of 2B as his opening post, and FORFEIT 5B by typing "Thank you for the debate" until the character limit is satisfied. If my opponent picks CON, he/she shall choose a position and wait for my opening post in 3A. The rest of the rounds will be devoted to a typical 3 round debate.
Gay Marriage Is Beneficial To Everyone

Economy - I'm glad. :) Social Justice - That is to assume that people are always aware of the benefits of something. Parents do many things that benefit their children that children think are just awful. Social justice works the same way. No one against woman's suffrage felt benefited by woman's suffrage but the next 100 years of rapid social progress would say otherwise. Benefits are not always apparent to the beneficiaries is what I'm saying. To combat your list: Individuals wouldn't necessarily feel an immediate, direct benefit, unless you count an influx in the use of glitter in public as a benefit. But they would benefit from the economic boost, and depending on the demographics they are a part of may have more social benefits. Most of the middle of your list are the same basic demographic -the antigay crowd. As I said before. While antigay people may not feel benefited by it, the social ramifications of consistently supporting human rights will only benefit their goals in the long run - the antigay crowd, for example, frequently criticizes the ACLU. But that same ACLU has fought for religious purposes. The religious crowd may not notice or recognize it, but the fight for social justice for gay people forwards their own social justice goals. I think that parents of gay children would benefit, and gay children themselves. Right now because gay marriage is illegal, parents feel less comfortable about the idea. To use an anecdote - I came out to my grandparents. They weren't necessarily upset about my sexuality, but concerned because they knew the ramifications of it. While some parents will overreact, gay marriage being legalized will give those kicked out more resources and confidence so that the impact won't destroy them. But I don't believe that children being more likely to come out is a negative - like I said before, people may not like it, but it's beneficial in the long run. Comedians still make jokes about black people despite black people almost reaching full legal equality. In fact for a couple of weeks comedians will have a great deal of fodder about how every florist is sold out of lavender and pink. As far as idiots, I don't expect anything benefits them much, as they reverse any benefits that they received through sheer stupidity. But perhaps the lack of what they believe will benefit them - then they'll stop concentrating on homosexuality and start concentrating on the next stuid thing. Everyone will be affected, even indirectly.
Gay Marriage Is Beneficial To Everyone

I accept this debate and will argue why Gay marriage is not beneficial to everyone...... Emphasis on EVERYONE and BENEFICIAL...First the Pro's arguments - 1 - Economy: Gay marriage would benefit the economy, I wont contest that - 2 - Social Justice?:"would be a step towards religious and social equality, which would benefit ALL religious institutions in the long run"I dont think this is true. Religious institutions, especially the Catholic Church, have routinely denounced and criticized scientific facts and social movements since the Middle Ages. These are the same religious institutions that stubbornly refused to believe the Earth revolved around the Sun, that witchcraft was fake, that Muslims were evil, etc. If Gay Marriage were legalized, it would be the latest slap to the face of long standing religious institutions. These religious institutions would immediately denounce gay marriage, and then as time progressed and people grew comfortable with gay marriage as a reality, they would look back and ridicule the church for protesting something so fiercely. - 3 - Marriage is a fundamental rightI do not deny this, but the point of this debate for me is to prove how NOT everyone would benefit everyone. List of people who would not be befitted from Gay Marriage - Normal People - How would gay marriage actually benefit any one person individual person? many people would be rather unaffected by gay marriage being legalized and thus wouldnt "benefit" from it - Homophobes - Gays walking around everywhere would be their nightmare - Racists - These guys sh*t on gays all the time, if Gay Marriage were legal then racists would be very annoyed - Conservatives - NOT ALL OF THEM. But there are some who are against gay marriage and if it were legalized conservatives would feel upset, well some of them - Anti Gay Groups - These groups would have lost the battle, something that would annoy them forever - Anti Gay Authors - Authors who have books denouncing gay marriage would see sales plummet if gay marriage were to be legalized - Ignorant Bigots - There are people who make an opinion and stick to it no matter how dumb or stupid it may be (Glenn Beck), those who denounce Gay Marriage would spend their lives denouncing it and how this country is going to hell, and that hate speech would piss off a lot of people - Comedians - Comedians who have jokes about how Gay marriage is normal and poke fun at other anti-gay groups would lose a lot of material if gay marriage were legalized. - Parents - If gay marriage were legal, kids would come out to their parents more often and more freely, some would be upset - Idiots - Idiots who think that Gays are the reason AIDS is around would be very traumatized by gay marriage being legalized because they think that AIDS would start spreading more, even though that is a complete lie only idiots believe I have named some groups of people who would be HARMED by gay marriage, but i would like to remind voters that the debate is whethor or not gay marriage is BENEFICIAL to everyone, so he has the BOP to show that we all BENEFIT from Gay Marriage.Unaffected by it =/= beneficial to people
Gay Marriage Is Beneficial To Everyone

Full Resolved: 'Gay marriage' as a legal, state union is beneficial to all people in the country, economically and socioreligiously. Definition: Gay marriage is the legal, state union between two consenting parties of the same gender. I will be arguing based on three points: Gay marriage encourages stimulation of marriage and family related markets - Though gay people may have weddings, many, seeing the lack of legal recognition, are discouraged from holding weddings and because of laws surrounding marriage and adoption and family planning, may be discouraged from starting a family. If gay marriage were legal, thus encouraging more gay couples to have formal weddings, it would stimulate markets commonly utilized to hold these events (small markets perhaps, but markets nonetheless). As well, despite arguments that giving these couples marriage tax benefits will decrease state and federal revenue, it will also decrease the use of Medicare, as gay couples, now encouraged to marry, are less likely to engage in risky sexual behaviors. For example, following Massachusett's legalization of gay marriage, they say a decline in STD rates in the state, while other states not recognizing gay marriage saw an increase. Gay marriage legalization would be a landmark for social justice of all kinds - The legalization of gay marriage, despite protests from religious organizations, would be a step towards religious and social equality, which would benefit ALL religious institutions in the long run. The concern is often that gay marriage would force churches to marry gay couples, despite only isolated incidences which may hint at this. State recognized marriage has not forced churches to recognize unions in the past and would not now - churches are still allowed to not recognize couples which do not follow their belief system. Allowing gay marriage would only solidify that religious freedom and continue to forward America's progress towards complete freedom. Marriage is a fundamental right - Gay couples consist of consenting adults wishing to enter a legal union. Loving v. Virginia set the precedent that marriage is a basic human right - denying this right to consenting adults because of their gender is gender discrimination of the same kind that prevented women from voting in prior to the early 1900's. Invalidating gay marriage also invalidates interracial marriage, and other marriages often looked on with dissent. Legalization of gay marriage would further validate these unions. I look forward to my opponents response.