BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
should schools teach sword fighting

Schools should not be teaching activities such as these for multiple reasons: 1. It encourages violence 2. It is unnecessary 3. Most schools currently have systems in place for break-ins 4. We can do things like this extra circularly. There are so many programs outside of school nowadays that teach self defense. I'm sure there is a few that teach sword fighting as a hobby. 5. Students who misuse or joke around about what they learned may cause injury or death to another student 6. Some students may just not be interested in this type of learning and others may think it's too violent 7. Given that this is something that takes quite a bit of practice and materials, how will swords or materials for every student be purchased? It would be a lot of money as schools usually house many students. It will also take up a lot of time. Up to two hours of the day! Because in some schools there are up to 30 students in a class, they wouldn't be learning in picking things up in that time period. 8. Yes, some may find it fun but I see it as an easy way for someone to get hurt. Eyeballs are things that might not want to be poked out.
At a four way stop is it appropriate to wave another driver on even if you arrived at the stop first

I believe I already raised many good points that have not been adequately negated by Con despite him saying they are only extenuating circumstances. I mentioned a few that came to mind immediately but there are plenty more reasons to wave another person on after you arrived at a stop first and I can think of a few more off the top of my head: pedestrians waiting to cross and you see no one else is letting them go or you wish to let them go quickly children in the backseat doing something distracting or dangerous new/student driver who many be unsure of themselves or what to do wanting to let the other driver go first since they are driving aggressively or fast prior to arriving at a the stop check engine light/gas light just came out and driver is trying to plan accordingly waiting for a passenger (most likely a child) to put on seat belt or put it back on car trouble/flat tire and they are planning on pulling over after you go but don't wish to proceed with 4-way stop slowly while you wait There are probably about a hundred reasons why some one would wave someone on and yes it does break the flow of traffic but it is still appropriate for humans to accommodate each other the best we can, especially when on the road when it can be a matter of life and death. I've already explained why an accident should not happen even with a driver waving another driver on at a 4-way stop as long as everyone is paying attention as they should be when behind the wheel. I do not believe that Con has proved it inappropriate for people to wave another driver on at a 4-way stop and I have given appropriate reasons to do so.
At a four way stop is it appropriate to wave another driver on even if you arrived at the stop first

At a four way stop is it appropriate to wave another driver on even if you arrive at the stop first. This is the question to be answered. While there are extenuating circumstances, I contend it is not appropriate. In general it is conducive to the overall flow of traffic to proceed through the stop in an orderly fashion. This insures every vehicle entering the stop will have a relatively equal amount of time moving through the stop. Waving another vehicle through the stop when they've arrived after you breaks the flow of traffic. It holds up the people behind you. It's true every driver is responsible for their actions. However the laws and rules are there to make transit more efficient and safe. People as individuals without rules cannot always be counted on to make the most cogent decisions. The rules let everyone know the standard by which others are operating. If everyone decided to play authority figure or did their own thing it would be chaos. Thank for participating in this debate with me. You make excellent points.
At a four way stop is it appropriate to wave another driver on even if you arrived at the stop first

Hello to you as well. Thank you for accepting. It's nice to debate something other than the usual. In the event that something might fall under the accelerator or break pedal it would be best to remove it as soon as possible. I wouldn't bother waving on another person. As it generally wouldn't take me long to clear the obstruction. I realise some people may not possess my dexterity. However I don't believe this is the case most the time. The typical offenders of this annoyance don't seem to be struggling to do anything. They are sitting calmly with a smug look waving me on. As far as being lost or problems with phone or gps I suggest pulling off the road. There are also drivers behind you, and it is rude to hold them up as well. The rule is whoever gets to the stop signs first goes first. If everyone follows this rule, than everyone will have a relatively equal amount of time spent at the 4 way. When someone breaks traffic rules it creates unsafe situations. It may confuse people. If there are four cars, each at a sign in the four way how clear is it who's being waved on. Following the rules everyone learned when they received their license avoids these situations.
At a four way stop is it appropriate to wave another driver on even if you arrived at the stop first

This is my first debate in a long while so I look forward to it. I will take the position of Pro, that it can be appropriate for someone to wave another driver on at a four-way stop sign even if they arrived at stop first. Just for reference, I will state now that I work in the delivery business and have for a number of years, and can totally agree with Con that it can be irritating when someone does so but I contend that it can still be quite appropriate. I can not argue as to why everyone would wave another person on at a 4-way stop but I will argue that there are good reasons to do so and that they are appropriate reasons. The first thing I can think of is if something fell under either the gas pedal or break pedal, the driver many want to wave another car that has just come to the stop on before reaching to clear the obstruction. Not doing so could lead to a dangerous situation or forcing the other car to wait until you remove what fell and proceed through the intersection. Another time I know I occasionally will have to wave someone on at a 4-way stop is if I'm having problems with directions suddenly while out for the job and I must look up where I am going on my GPS. It is wasteful for me to proceed through and then look up directions because I may have to turn around and take a left turn where otherwise it would be a right turn. This is just the first round so I will leave it there for now. I look forward to Con's rebuttal and to the remainder of the debate.
At a four way stop is it appropriate to wave another driver on even if you arrived at the stop first

To many times I come across what I'm sure are well intentioned people who wave for others to move through. I argue this is inappropriate and actually holds traffic up. The stop signs and traffic law exist so no one has to play traffic director in these situations. If one is needed often a police officer fills the roll. For some reason I find it extremely irritating when someone waves me on. It seems condescending, like they know best and will control the situation.
Mayhem in Syria: 500 Killed, Including 120 Children, in One of Civil War's Bloodiest Weeks

First of all, you are citing that everyone is guilty for his own sins. But what is about children? They are just children, even as you mentioned before 120 youngsters were killed. So why? I do not think that children have sins as adults do. They just began their life and they did not even kill or injure someone. It is beginning of their life, how can they have sins? Children are the purest people in the world. As psychologists say, they cannot injure someone. I think, the reason why they die is in their parents' actions. Every child has parents. After parents, everything goes to their children. So, not everyone is being punished due to their sins.
Mayhem in Syria: 500 Killed, Including 120 Children, in One of Civil War's Bloodiest Weeks

"Fathers are not to be put to death for their children or children for their fathers; each person will be put to death for his own sin. Do not deny justice to a foreigner or fatherless child, and do not take a widow's garment as security. Remember that you were a slave in Egypt, and the Lord your God redeemed you from there. Therefore I am commanding you to do this." (Deut. 24:16-18) Are we killing offspring of terrorists in these area?
Homosexuality is a psychological issue not a genetic issue

Greetings, my name is DrtraumaTy and I will be debating against you today. I will finish off this first round that my opponent is lacking evidence to back his claim. Moreover, he does not set any particular examples of "bias" by which he states to discredit any research done by a homosexual scientist. Does sexuality really dictate whether one's research is biased or not? If so, why? I look forward to the reply!
Homosexuality is a psychological issue not a genetic issue

Keep in mind, I do believe that there is some psychology to it as well. However, at present I also do believe that genetics play a factor. The science is there, whether you desire to consider it or not is completely up to you. This was a good debate, nonetheless! I wish we could of carried it out further, but due to an real-life instance I couldn't carry out my part. I look forward to our future quarrels! May the best man win!
Homosexuality is a psychological issue not a genetic issue

In summation I believe that there is too much evidence to prove that homosexuality can be the affect of issues that happen throughout someone's life. Bare in mind, I do not believe that the only reason someone is a homosexual / bisexual is because one of the things that I have mentioned is applicable to them. I agree, not everyone is the same and there are probably other things that happened to someone that could have made a rippling affect in their life that made them the way they are. But please don't think that I believe this is such an easy fix. This is where the psychological aspect of this comes into play. I believe that people that are homosexual / bisexual are psychologically affected. So it is hard for them to change, but likewise is for someone with ocd. I do think that it is intellectually dishonest to claim that homosexuality is derived from genetics. Also, I do not think that it is impossible for someone to willingly change their sexuality (although this will be a huge struggle). Any research that claims to prove that homosexuality is genetic and there is nothing that can be done about it is immediately discredited because there are too many examples that immediately prove that their claims are false. The fact is there is no proof that shows homosexuality is entirely genetic. And that's okay. Look, I'm not here to just hate on gay people. If someone is a homosexual and they want to live their life like that, I am not here to condemn them (maybe with the exception of adoption because that can play a part in a child's life). I want society to be honest and especially science. I feel science is being tainted by this societal pressure to not offend (as is the case with the DSM). If homosexuality really is a psychological issue, look at how many people are affected by this, but aren't given treatment. I especially do not like how homosexuality is being promoted and in a sense encourage ( lets say with like actively gay cartoon characters). All this does is make children question their sexuality more and more and will cause more and more psychological harm than healing. I really enjoyed this debate because I feel as though people look at this do have a lot to their disposal in deciding who had the better argument. I wish that anyone who votes actually takes time to read the log (because it took a long time to write it). I might have missed a few things that I wanted to address but in total I feel like I made a compelling argument for my side. Now its down to the voters. Good Luck!
Homosexuality is a psychological issue not a genetic issue

See, you only shot yourself in the foot again. It is very clear that you base your argument under the basis of your emotions rather than the facts that you so attempt to provide to supplement your argument. James Madison would of had a fit with you if he ever saw your argument so ridiculed as you have made it with just your sentiments. For example, you stated: "Homosexuality can be related towards the lack of a parent-child relationship. CSNews reported a story with a homosexual [/child stating/] "He describes experiencing a great deal of sexual confusion due to the lack of a father figure in his life. He turned to a life of prostitution with older men as a teenager." And I replied: "In terms of your argument #4, you are talking of a mere child; someone whom hasn't even made it past maturity yet. I find that not to be sufficient evidence, as there are many people whom suffered through neglectful parents that are openly heterosexual." And your response was: "No, the person in this example was not a child. How do you read "He turned to a life of prostitution with older men as a teenager" and think I am talking about a kid. To be fair on my end I did say "story of a child" but what I meant was his experience as a kid." Last I checked, a child is a teenager. Now, your argument about neglected children becoming homosexual because of lack of a parent-child relationship is complete fallacy. There are many, /many/ people whom have suffered child abuse and are heterosexual; to generalize that homosexuals are homosexual because of their mommy/daddy disputes is completely irrational. And while the study I quoted was of fish, which I am glad you caught, it outlines the very possibility that homosexuality can very much be genetic in other animals as well. I did not mention your twin study due to the fact that you did not source it, especially with your reasoning being due to your religious discriminatory values. It's a waste of my time to, especially when there are several twin studies that show one child becoming heterosexual and the other becoming homosexual due to genetic means. One of them is from "N. Kenneth Sandnabba, Nicole Harlaar, Markus Varjonen, Katarina Alanko, and Bettina von der Pahlen... They state; "We investigated the potential to engage in homosexual behavior in 6001 female and 3152 male twins and their siblings finding that 32.8% of the men and 65.4% of the women reported such potential (p < 0.001). 91.5% of these men and 98.3% of these women reported no overt homosexual behavior during the preceding 12 months. The potential to engage in homosexual behavior was influenced by genetic effects for both men (37.4%) and women (46.4%) and these overlapped only partly with those for overt homosexual behavior." If you cannot control your emotions, I suggest you waste away the following rounds and I will very happily do the same. We will let the voters decide whom is right and whom is not.
The Free Market

I have one (in my opinion, obvious) point to make: the reason I cannot provide examples is because nothing of the nature we have debated has ever occurred in human history. We must use philosophy because facts do not exist. It is that point which forms the bulk of this argument. 1. My opponent has provided no economic philosophy to argue. My opponent's arguments have been based on vague assertions with no real backing, fact or philosophy. The arguments seem as though taken from a WWII propaganda reel. The philosophies of Karl Marx and Friederich Engels have to be the paramount weighing factor for the sole reason that my opponent has provided no alternative. Furthermore, the trends that both my opponent and I agree on to have existed in the past (the pursuit of cheap markets) apply more to Marx than to my opponent's propaganda, even if we are to accept it. The reasons behind the aforementioned trend cannot be completely explained either way; the only known fact about it is that it happened and continues to happen. Marx noticed it and formed a logical reason behind it, one that my opponent agreed with in his first rebuttal. Anything more than that - such as low government interaction - can only be conjecture. In summation, it is the fact that my opponent agreed with a causal argument and could only expand with a correlative argument that causes the majority of my opponent's case to fall. 2. My opponent has provided no governmental philosophy to argue. Once again, my opponent has the audacity to counter centuries-old philosophy with a simple wag of the finger. My opponent claims that I have provided no evidence to back up my claims, when it is in fact my opponent that does not provide the evidence. The philosophies of Rousseau and Hobbes form the basis of many modern governments in the world today. Their validity is not in question here. Rather, it is the validity of arguments with no backing that is. Until my opponent can legitimately attack the philosophies I have proposed, my opponent has no case. For that reason, the Con has won this debate up to this point.
The Free Market

I have yet to be presented with an argument, or rather, an example, as to how "there would be no cheap markets to exploit" under a supranational government. As I've said, the reason the U.S. goes abroad to find "cheap markets" is precisely because of the lack of government intervention in those countries that drives up prices (i.e. the existence of a free markets in those countries). "My opponent argues that a 'cheap market' does not necessarily mean the exploitation of humans. However, that is exactly what is required for the system to work." Again, I have yet to be presented with an argument or example which I haven't already negated that supports this statement. Notice that at the beginning of the debate I defined the free market as "the sum total of voluntary exchanges bounded by private property rights." "Voluntary exchanges" is the key phrase here. Let's face it; humans are naturally selfish. They will generally only go out of their way to help others provided that they have met their own desires first. But this is precisely why capitalism works. I have something you want, and you have something I want, so we exchange in order for us both to be happier. Provided the exchange is voluntary, I see no way in which one of us is being "exploited" by the other. "My opponent spoke of taxes, minimum wage laws, and regulation as causes of the US' need to go abroad. I ask, though, are none of these things going to exist in Nova? And if we are operating under a supranational government, wouldn't these regulations apply everywhere?:" Why should these things exist on Nova? And why should regulations exist AT ALL - anywhere - under a supranational government? Remember, I've made no mention of a free market consisting of anything other than "the sum total of voluntary exchanges bounded by private property rights." "Furthermore, as the quality of living improves in the host country (read: the US), those regulations automatically get put in place on par with the living increases." First of all, those regulations don't get put in place "automatically." Government (yes, government) places them there. Second of all, by saying "as the quality of living improves in the host country," you are already admitting what are essentially the benefits of a free market system. I've already explained to you why direct democracy doesn't work, so I'm not going to go over that again. Direct democracy DOES NOT represent more people; it merely represents the majority (i.e. mob rule). It's a collectivist system that flies right in the face of individualism. The first rule of government is NOT to give people what they need; simplistically put, the role of government is simply to protect the individual from violence and coercion on behalf of his or her peers, and to defend the homeland from enemies from abroad. In a free society, the rest is left to the private sector, which does a far better job at providing people with what they need.
The Free Market

Since the debate has centered on two main issues, that is what I will argue. Cheap markets The reason this argument goes to the Con side is that, under a supranational government, there would be no cheap markets to exploit. My opponent argues that a "cheap market" does not necessarily mean the exploitation of humans. However, that is exactly what is required for the system to work. My opponent spoke of taxes, minimum wage laws, and regulation as causes of the US' need to go abroad. I ask, though, are none of these things going to exist in Nova? And if we are operating under a supranational government, wouldn't these regulations apply everywhere? If so, then the cheap markets that my opponent agreed to be "precisely why the system works so well and drives down prices." Furthermore, as the quality of living improves in the host country (read: the US), those regulations automatically get put in place on par with the living increases. This is precisely the reason companies go abroad to begin with. In the supranational government, this would not happen and, therefore, the terribly spiral I spoke about in my first point would occur. Constitutional republic I would like to ask my opponent what the difference between a direct democracy and representative democracy is, other than the fact that more people are represented in the former. The first rule of government is to give the people what they need, and what better way than when people actively say what they need? Moreover, Rousseau does not argue for "majority rule," like a republic does (where, ironically, the tyranny of the majority reigns). Rather, he argues for a "collective will" approach whereby the entire society decides what is best for the entire society. If the entire society has access to the collective wealth of that society, then it is naturally just. Conversely, as I brought up before, a constitutional republic leaves far too much capital at stake with too few people. Bribery is a common place; simply consult a history book of American history in the late 19th Century. Especially with such a large amount of capital as in a superstate, we must turn to a political and economic pairing that reflects it. That pairing is a socialist democracy.