BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Silent Lunches are the Worst things to Happen

Uniforms- are a horrid dress code, Why you may ask? It stomps out creativity in children young and it is a violation of the freedom of speech, because what you wear describes what you feel inside. I've had to wear uniforms at a privite school of Most Pure Heart of Mary in Topeka, KS.Public Spankings- They aren't common in Pulbic schools, but in MPH (most pure heart) if someone acted up or questioned the church then they got spanked and I have viewed several.Dention- My opponet consceeds that this is bad.Lunch Temp.- this horrible due to the long lunch lines by the time I get to eat my food it's cold!Liberal agenda- It's how nice the teachers are now. It bad, because trobble makers can get away with almost anything.ROTC PT (Reserve Officer Training Corps, Physical Training)- The reason this is bad is, because it's during school and you have to run 5 miles and comeback to school and due the rest of the school day all smelly and sweaty.A. Silent lunches conserve good energy by the fact that children will get done quicker and they'll be able to due homework and when you finish your silent lunch you can still talk in the halls. So weigh the Pros and Cons. Pros- You get homework done and you can still talk in the hallwaysCon- no talking during lunch B. Lunches aren't for talking they're for talking, otherwise they'd be called talk time. My response to your second arguement here is that obvisouly you aren't being very sneaky then, because I always bring me a little snack and I have never got caught.C. I already adressed this and if you want more time to communicate with your friends well then call your friends and have a sleepover or movie night or something.In ConclusionThe Pros, as I explained, out weigh the cons. I have also explained and shown how that schools have other things that are worse then silent lunches. Do not let my opponet bring up any new arguements except PT and Liberal agenda.
Silent Lunches are the Worst things to Happen

I think that Uniforms are good because it is easier to be in a even group, and there are less ways to become mean and/or bullied. Public spankings are, at least in my opinion, not common in most schools, and if performed, the performer should be in trouble. Detention is not that bad unless they make you stay for two hours writing the same sentence over and over. Long Lunch lines are not a problem, because you will get your meal sometime during the lunch. I personally don't care what temperature my lunch is. Most of the time, our lunches are cold, but they are cooked. I do not know what the other two examples are, so I won't say anything about them. This is how silent lunches are the worst: A. Silent lunches conserve bad energy. Most students talk during lunch because there is barely any other time to talk. If this energy is conserved, it can cause a rowdier next period and barely anything gets done. I have learned this lesson because people who are cooperative and quiet before lunch turn chatty and and uncooperative when silent lunch is exposed. B. Silent lunches bore you. Silent lunches is where you eat, and then you have nothing to do afterwards because you can't talk. In my school, if you bring in anything except a packed lunch if you don't buy, you get a weekful of detentions. C. Finally, most people want to communicate with their friends. what perfect way then somewhere where a huge group of people can eat. Most the time, the only time that you can communicate is in school. Only best friends can catch up after school. Your turn opponent.
Naturalism provides a sound basis for morals

You should not have chose "sound" as your descriptive term for your debate in that case. Enough with the semantics, lets move on to the main points of your arguement. Your defence of your appeal to majority is faulty. You say that our knowledge has advanced in science, which I agree with, but then you go on to list such things as the discovery of DNA and the Higgs-Boson. My friend, lets remember that your appeal to majority was for the theory of evolution which is based on ZERO demonstrable evidence. DNA, particle physics, etc. are all studied using the scientific method, you know, observable, repeatable, etc. You also seemed to take offence to my remarks about a one-sided education and peer-pressure, yet you do not defend it with any evidence to the contrary. If you really think peer-review is all its cracked up to be and is an objective means of reviewing sientific hypothesis and theories then you should read this: (. http://creation.com...). Also, you cannot use the comments section as part of your arguement so I ask the ready to disregard the comments on the grounds of fairness and equality. In this debate you have provided no evidence to support a naturalistic eplaination for all bio-organisms which your main arguement hinges on. So by default you have lost the debate. Your concerns about my questions on "why is survival good" are unwarented. In fact, I was driving at the same concluding point you made, in a naturalist world-view, survival is an amoral phenomena. Your conclusion about survival based on as "mathmatical and logical standpoint" is really a bad one. I am saying God has programmed all animals to endeavor to reproduce (and that after there own kind). You are essentially saying, they reproduce because DNA replicates and therefore that's just what they do. Thats not really an answer but I digress. You claim that so far my objections have been due to a misunderstanding of definitions or misunderstanding of arguements. I would hope that the reader can see that this is simply not the case. I understand your arguements all to well which is why I was able to effectively refute them. What I think your arguement has come down to, since you have provided no demonstrable support is, "I believe morality has evolved via natural processes, therefore morality has evolved via natural processes. " I'm sorry but this does not equate to a supported arguement. I'm afraid you have not addressed your own resolution. Your advocation began and ended with your beliefs and never did it incorperate support as evidence. Thanks for your time.
In my opinion, I think WSDC participants can be allowed to speak their mother tongue.

I accept that 5 rounds is perhaps too long so I will also make this my last argument. We learn that my opponent is Korean, which makes his / her contribution even more impressive. I studied Korean for two years. Not only is the script non-Latin, the vocabulary not related to any other language in the world, but the grammar is fundamentally different to English too. I gave up! However, more intelligent people than myself, such as my opponent, my Korean ex-girlfriend (I mean she was my girlfriend, she is still Korean! ) and United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon have proved that it is possible to make convey sophisticated concepts and ideas using English as a medium. My opponent mentioned the use of English in the Far East. I will give an example of English being used between two Chinese speakers. The Chinese word for "buy" is "mai" and the Chinese word for "sell" is "mai". Written in Latin script they look the same but in Chinese characters they are different. In speech the difference is only the inflection on the pronunciation, which can lead to fundamental mistakes being made. Therefore, English is employed in many large Taiwanese companies to avoid any such confusion. Although in China English is not used in government, because there are several Chinese dialects, plus many other languages such as Tibetan, Mongol and Uygur in use across the country, they use Mandarin as the lingua franca. Therefore, representatives in Parliament from outside the Han Chinese provinces must debate in a second language. Therefore, we must conclude that the case for simultaneous translation in debates is not made. However, I would implore the judges to give my opponent credit for conducting his / her arguments in a foreign language.
In my opinion, I think WSDC participants can be allowed to speak their mother tongue.

My opponent describes him or herself as having "short English" so I assume he or she is not a native English speaker…although he or she is being very modest as his or her standard of English is much better than some of the debaters in this site that have English as their first language! In his or her response, my opponent wrote: "…I can't exactly understand 'English-only debates will give those less able to speak English an extra incentive to learn.' Please allow me to elaborate. The type of young people who join debating societies are usually very intelligent and destined to become people with influence and elevated social positions. They may become politicians, captains of industry, scientists, military officers, or they may join one of the professions. Whatever career path they follow, however, in whatever country they live and work, they are likely to need to speak good English. Take the European Union, for instance. The official languages are: Bulgarian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Estonian, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hungarian, Irish, Italian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Slovak, Slovene, Spanish and Swedish. With so many languages, the official requirement for translation in the European Parliament causes a great deal of complexity and expense. http://news.bbc.co.uk... http://news.bbc.co.uk... This huge cost of translation services is, in practice, unnecessary, as many of the debates take place in English, with only the French (who are very defensive about their language) speaking in their native tongue. As it happens, I walked into a bar near the European Parliament one night not so long ago and I ordered some drinks in French (as that is the local language). However, the barman just looked at me blankly, it turned out he was a foreigner and didn't speak French. Therefore, I ordered in English and duly got served with no further problems. Actually, that bar was very crowded and I could hear accents from all over Europe (except Britain) there, yet everybody was speaking English to each other as it is the language everybody understands best after their own. I believe t is inevitable that European Union will soon ignore France's concerns about the diminishing importance of the French language and officially adopt English as the language of the EU. After all, India – the world's largest democracy - has 17 official languages, yet only one of them, English is used in Parliamentary debates. So we can see that speaking English is important the formal debating arenas of government and this is why debaters should be incentivised to master the language. Finally, I would like you to consider this: There may have a native English-speaker debating someone whose English is slow, basic and deliberate because it is not their first language and the judges will give credit to them for this. However, if the native English-speaker is nervous and stammers and stutters his words he would not get any credit. In this case, being a non-native English speaker would be a positive advantage!
In my opinion, I think WSDC participants can be allowed to speak their mother tongue.

Je remercie mon adversaire de commencer cette discussion intï¿½ressante. Simultaneous French / English translation: I thank my opponent for starting this interesting debate. Erstmal, Ich stimme darin ï¿½berein, dass Amerikaner und Britisches Volk nicht am Sprechen von Fremdsprachen normalerweise fleissig sind. Aus diesem Grund setze ich den Rest meines Arguments auf Englischsprache fort! Simultaneous German / English translation: First of all, I will concede that American and British people are not usually conscientious when it comes to speaking foreign languages. For this reason, I will set forth the rest of my argument in English! I will answer the points my opponent raised in turn. 1 – It is true that speakers of English as a second language may be at a disadvantage in terms of being able to express themselves as fluently as a native speaker. However, this is not always the case. For instance, English is my wife's fifth language (after Slovak, Czech, Polish and Russian) and yet she has a better command of English than many British and American-born people I know. In those cases where a debater's English is flawed, the judges should make allowances for this. Furthermore, simultaneous translation is subject to misinterpretation, mistakes and the interpreter can easily miss the nuances of the debater's argument. In addition, it is distracting to the audience, rather like watching a foreign language film with subtitles. 2 – Encouraging international debate is, indeed, a noble and worthwhile cause. However, English is the most widely spoken language in the world, it being the international lingua franca of commerce, industry and politics. English-only debates will give those less able to speak English an extra incentive to learn. 3 – The championship will promote international understanding if it is conducted in one common language. For example, a friend of mine in Istanbul regularly travels on business to Switzerland and Iran. The meetings are conducted in English since neither the Swiss nor the Iranians speak Turkish. You see, the English language has the ability to promote international understanding that would not otherwise be possible. 4 – As far as freedom of speech is concerned, English is a particularly malleable language, which allows most ideas and concepts to be expressed and understood, even when the vocabulary employed is basic and the grammar used is flawed. Thank you for your kind attention and good luck to my opponent in their first debate on this site.
In my opinion, I think WSDC participants can be allowed to speak their mother tongue.

*cite from : http://www.idebate.org... *Videos of Debate Championship -http://video.google.co.uk...= *WSDE : World Schools Debating Championships *My argument Participants of World Schools Debating Championships must use English in the current situation of contest. But I think this situation does not correspond with that Championships' purpose in that reason. So I think these participants can speak their own language, this Championships must accept participation of simultaneous interpreters. What are your opinions? 1. Debate participant's can learn highest ability of debate. -But non-English users cannot show their full ability of debate in the Championship because they have the language barrier. They should learn English and debate skills at once. But English users need to only learn debate skills. This situation is unfair. So I propose this Championship's accept participating of simultaneous interpreters. In this situation, debate participants can choose English or their own language to speak. So all the participants can display their full talent, they can more improve their skills of debate. 2. This Championships purpose encouranging World's Debate culture. -In this English-speaking world's residents, this debate can be used the beginning to interest debate and other cultures. But in other people's, especially unskilled people who are beginners of English cannot understand Championship movie so they cannot interest debate and other culture. 3. This Championships plan promoting international understanding. -Only English users can understand these debates well far more than non-English users. I have the question for you : "Is this championships really plan promoting international understanding? Can it promote international understanding well?" 4. This Championships work for freedom of speech. Language barrier can also restrain freedom of speech. Accepting the participation of simultaneous interpreters can reform these situation.
I will lose this debate

.... Well, this is awkward.... *_* Well see what I meant was.... Never mind.... Anyway, I will not just post my conclusion since this is the last round.ConclusionIt is proven that you can loose a debate in many different ways. For example, you can loose from maybe... Forfeiting all of your arguments? It is also now know that both of us. Male OR Female, are very flattery. Lastly, I was very entertained and hope to see my opponent debating more in the future.
I will lose this debate

Well, I will wrap this up fairly quickly because it is the 5th round. I'd like like to thank my opponent for a nice debate. Through this debate I learned tips and tricks to use for my future debates. Maybe the next one will actually be a little more clear. I must say, however, that I am female.. so you're last two sentences don't apply to me.. so I'll turn it back around and say vote for this guy named Con's side! He's really good! Have a good one
I will lose this debate

Too bad I don't know how to forfeit a round then, huh? Have no fear, I have another idea. (In an alternate universe that rhymes.) After careful consideration, I have decided I don't want to dispute that I will lose this debate.. and I actually am on your side now. Forget about whatever I said previously, because none of it matters, as I am taking the side of Con (1). (1) http://modeledbehavior.com...
I will lose this debate

Now I do concur that making up information will get you accurate points, but you must not forget the best person to ask. Your friend of course! Now I am not a very bright person. But my friends are GENIOSES! So I would certainly ask them for information if....1. I didn't have the Internet.2. I was lost in space and me and my friend knew how to breath.3. This would be prehistoric times where we never even had computers!I could list millions of reasons why, but I will just stick with these three.Now just reading all of my other debates except these, it is said that forfeiting a round will also cost you some points. To my Pro, this information can be quite helpful.
I will lose this debate

Reading articles elsewhere on the article I found that off-topic arguments will also lead to failure and the loss of your debate, all of which I am trying to achieve as per the title of this debate. Let me now refer to some irrelevant facts and realizations I have made while trying to complete this argument. *Hey, is possible to post pictures to further enhance my argument? http://weheartit.com... It looks like cheese, doesn't it? Cheese goes on pizza. I am hungry for some pizza. (Honestly, I just lied to you, and I thought you were the Con-man of this post.) I actually didn't find that "off-topic arguments will lead to failure", I made it up in my head... but I do believe that my brain is a pretty smart source. It's completely legit, and there are file cabinets up there for everything. And unlike Wikipedia, no one can edit this source. Welp, it seems like false facts will destroy my credibility (1) and contribute to lose this debate. (1) http://www.debate.org...
I will lose this debate

Though, never the less, I do also agree that the song drops of jupiter is quite a good song. But my absolute favorite part of that is. .. .. . Na. I know that many people have failed to win the "Wikipedia is a good source" Debate but I am sure that if people Truly put their minds to it, then they would definitly win and it can break the lose. Now I also may say that even though all these arguments I will make may be really dumb, but I know for sure that if you really looked inside your heart, you would find out that these arguments definitly make sense. That is all I have for this round of my argument.
I will lose this debate

Welcome challenger, or Con-artist, or whatever the opponent is called in debates. There are some tips that this website gives you to make a better debate in the lower right corner of this argument box. Some tips include reviewing grammar, spelling and punctuation, creating an arguable and clear topic, and having a strategy (1). I, the person who wrote that I will lose the debate, has no idea how to make her point clear for the thoughts floating around in my head are forever uncertain. By the way I asked this debate and the way you answered it I'm not even sure if I'm supposed to be arguing that I'm going to win or lose. Nevertheless, I am more interested in the lyrics to a Britney Spears song than the contents of my argument. I would post them if they weren't completely suggestive and inappropriate for this debate. I, being a woman with a short attention span, had no strategy coming into this debate; however, I do believe that there is no strategy for winning/losing. By the way, the song just switched to Naturally by Selena Gomez. This may seem completely irrelevant, but let us take a closer look at the lyrics of this song. "You follow what you feel inside It's intuitive, you don't have to try It comes naturally It comes naturally" (2) You do not have to strategize to win or lose a debate, sometimes words just flow to your mind naturally and one moment can change the outcome of a debate. As for my grammar, punctuation and spelling, I do not proofread much and there is no way to count how many unnecessar,y comma,s th,ere a,re in, this post. (1) http://www.debate.org... (2) http://www.elyrics.net...
I will lose this debate

I will definitely lose this debate. For starters, I have to complete a 3,000 character debate for a class that I must take and pass to graduate. I have only sat down in this class, which is an introduction to a philosophy course, once. That was just enough time to review the syllabus and look at the assignments for the rest of the semester including three five-round debates. This will be the first one that I get out of the way if someone accepts this challenge, if you can even call this a challenge. Furthermore, there is nothing I am passionate about enough to argue about, therefore I have no reason to win this debate. I have have no debate experience and I do not know any of the necessary terms to place in the argument box. Here are some of the concepts that I am completely unsure about: 1. Do I put definitions here? 2. What is this first round acceptance? 3. Why, when I signed up for this site, did it feel more like a dating website than a debate site? Here are some definitions I think are relevant to my argument: lose : to fail to win, gain, or obtain ; : to undergo defeat in (1) debate: a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides (2) I am interested in learning your viewpoint about this nothingness and your answers to the three questions listed above (and any other rules, tips and tricks that a beginning debater should know and follow) of a debate and assist me complete this task. (1) "lose." Merriam-Webster.com. 2011. http://www.merriam-webster.com... (21 January 2012). (2) "debate." Merriam-Webster.com. 2011. http://www.merriam-webster.com... (21 January 2012).
the worzils

No wrongWhat he ment by baby he was refering to himselfAnd one of their songs was 'Nellie the Bionic cow' this is good because it makes cows feel wanted.....cow rights Also they sang " I want to be a eddie stobart driver" this means that eddie stobart truckers can feel wantedGet the patternBut non of then are abpt Justin Bimbo HahahahahThankyou
the worzils

Dustbin boober had a song called baby, which is probably what he and everyone else thinks of the wurzels! Babies aren't good at music, they are just an annoyance!Just in Bubba also has a stylish haircut, which infinity Times what can be said for the millions of current and past wurzels members! This is the problem with country folk bands. They just pick rubbish people off the street and then they are in the band! However, only one person is good enough to be Just Tin Boo Bin! He is better.Thank you.
the worzils

Hu stupid townies do not know any thing revisist I think means if you revise a lot for tests etcc.....The wurzios are better because they produce something called MUSIC if you do not know what that word means ask your grandad he will definitley start of with DURING THE WAR we had proper music (they will mean the Wurzils) Justin Bimbo just comes out with a lpad of old goboldy goop Thankyou