BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
extra recess should be banned

extra recess is bad for kids bc they will get tired forget what they learned and could get frostbites or heat strokes Legal liability is another justification for cutting recess times. Children could fall while jumping rope or get hit with a baseball. Some administrators are skittish about making themselves vulnerable to any legal action. " As schools cut back on expenses because of budget cuts, paraprofessionals are often cut from the staff and supervision at recess becomes a problem. Volunteers are difficult to find for a recess duty. " Strangers can access a playground easily at some schools and sexual predators could be a concern. " Bullying can also thrive in an unstructured environment. Bullying usually takes place outside of the classroom in hallways, locker rooms, playgrounds, buses, and bathrooms. Less recess time allows for less bullying time.A child"s safety during recess is a concern for many parents, teachers, and administrators. Some schools even have chosen to ban games or activities deemed unsafe and, in some cases, to discontinue recess altogether in light of the many issues connected with child safety.10,36 Although schools should ban games and activities that are unsafe, they should not discontinue recess altogether just because of concerns connected with child safety. There are measures schools can take to address these concerns and protect children while still preserving play during recess.5,11,24,28,34,37,38 Compliance with the Consumer Product Safety Commission"s Playground Safety Handbook
Gay Marriage Should Be Made Legal Worldwide

Thanks to DarkStrike for accepting my challenge and just remember that all posts have to be school-friendly. Shouldn't really be a problem, but I feel the need to say it anyways. Before I get into the meat of my argument, I would like to address the fact that I say "Worldwide" in the title. I just mean that I believe this matter, and the points I make for my cause, transcend any one country and really apply universally. If my opponent disagrees, we can of course debate that as well. Gay marriage should be made legal worldwide because it is moral and absolutely just to do so. I'm going to start off by saying that I am NOT debating the morality of gay marriage. I won't bother to address that because it is outside of the argument. This is solely whether or not it should be legal. I am a Libertarian and believe that my personal opinions should not constrict everyone else from enjoying a right. This can apply to lots of things. I personally despise alcohol and marijuana, but I fully believe and know that people have the right to indulge in them. I can see no strong reason that gay marriage isn't legalized other than religion and supposed morality. Many people are under the belief that it is their moral duty to try to stamp out all that their religion or belief system labels a sin (in this case, gay marriage) with laws and legal constrictions. This is false! It is everyone's moral duty to assure that everyone enjoys the rights (in this case, marriage) that they do, despite the differences. In the Christian faith (which the majority of the world is, so it is the one I will use as an example), humans are given choices for a reason. They can choose to follow God and obey his commands or turn away from God and not follow his commands. Even if they don't believe that gay marriage is right, forcing their beliefs upon others takes away the gift (or curse) of choice that God gave everyone. That is most certainly not a moral thing to do. And if someone does not choose to follow a set of morals, then why would that person possibly want to and where would they think they have just cause to impede the progress of this movement? In closing, legalizing gay marriage would be moral and just in allowing gay couples freedom of religion and freedom from religion.
Gay Marriage Should Be Made Legal Worldwide

Okay, before I get into this I would like to state the following ground rules and explanations for this debate. First of all, it is for a school project, so obviously no inappropriate comments or arguments. Also, it is relatively time sensitive and if it could be concluded or at least close to a conclusion by March 24. Most importantly, if you decide to debate against me, be absolutely sure you will be able to finish the debate. I can't have my opponent leaving halfway through. Thanks for accepting this slightly restrictive set of guidelines and let us have a good debate! Okay, now into the actual debate. This is a debate over gay marriage legally, not ethically or morally. So make sure you are debating against of the legalization of gay marriage, not the very idea of it. Citing sources is not necessary for common knowledge and the like but obviously citing for statistics is required. Other than that, just a good old debate on a very controversial issue. First round will be for acceptance and questions about the project or rules if there are any from my challenger. Thanks again for debating with me.
Drugs should not be legalized, and drug dealers should be punished greatly to save lives.

I will be debating that drugs do harm, should not be legalized, and drug dealers should be punished greatly. This will save lives, which, I hope we all want. http://www.denverpost.com... For 2014, The State Patrol reported that troopers issued 5,546 citations for driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Of those, 674 " about 12.2 percent " involved suspected marijuana use, either alone or in combination with otherintoxicants. For 354 of those citations " about 6.4 percent of the total, or one in every 16 " marijuana was believed to be "the only substance. Let's see what pot does to the kids "https://www.rt.com... "One of the reports key findings was that the number of children aged zero to five exposed to marijuana increased 268 percent when comparing the period from 2006 to 2009 to the period from 2010 to 2013: triple the national average. The report showed that more young people aged 12 to 17 were using marijuana as well. When asked during a national survey in 2012 whether they had used marijuana in the past month, 10.47 percent of Colorado"s youth said they had, which was 39 percent higher than the national average. "I never dreamed in a million years that this would happen to my son," Kendal, a parent who didn"t want to use his last name, told CBS, referring to a time when he came home to find his 13-year-old son unconscious from what he says was a marijuana overdose. "He was gray. His heart wasn"t beating and he wasn"t breathing," Kendal said. ^ nobody wants that to happen to the kids. And we haven't even started on the hard drugs like heroine. https://www.drugabuse.gov... Heroine deaths have rose about 6k since Obama has tacken office. This may be a result of Obama letting drug dealers out of jail, such as ge did earlier this week. Or Obama making drug dealing (which kills people) a non violent crime. This is stupid since drug dealing kills people, yet is nonviolent. Punching someone in the mouth doesn't kill anyone, yet is a violent crime. "According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), over 669,000 Americans used heroin in 2012 with 18- to 25-year-olds having the highest number of use. Since 2006, heroin-related overdose deaths have risen by 45 percent. It kills people, but many people want to legalize it. If we legalize drugs, then more people will die, as more people will take it, and more people will take more of it.
Drugs should not be legalized, and drug dealers should be punished greatly to save lives.

Your whole argument here is basically "if I want to take poison I should be able to" the constitution says "protect the common welfare of the people" having poison readily available doesn't do that. If a guy takes hard drugs and gets high, he hurts other people, possibly with murder, maybe just in a car crash. I'll not respond to your argument that my views will be looked as evil, because everyone has at least 1 view that certain people see as evil. Even the most PC people have some of their views attacked. I don't want to control people's lives, I want to not make poison available, and punish people who sell this poison to kids and other people. Legalizing drugs will actually alow the goverment to control more as most liberal plans are. The goverment will be controlling all legal poison, and the people that take it. Drugs control a person, the drug dealer controls the drugs. Don't make the goverment the controller of the people. If you want less goverment control, as I do, vote for illegal drugs. On a side note illegal drugs kills less people. Children are taught about drugs now. If it becomes legal the justification will be "it's legal, so it can't be that bad" and that's a smart thing to do, until they are found dead. The law should protect the people, not harm them. Drugs are legal now, should not drug dealers who kill many people with drugs be punished greatly? Or should they be set free?
Drugs should not be legalized, and drug dealers should be punished greatly to save lives.

I posted my arguments in the comments. However, I will revise them and list them here for my turn. (Little side not. My quote does still accurately describe my position. Just because people die using their own free will doesn't mean you can take it away from me. I'm a law abiding citizen. Why should my rights and freedoms be taken away? The answer, is because you don't like the choices that the drug users make, and in some instances, the choices I make. That sums it up fairly well. You don't believe that drugs are good for you. I don't either. But your repulsion to it leads you down the path of more government and more control. Let me ask you, what will happen once your views are placed on the chopping block? Or when your religion is attacked as evil? Or your race is reviled as the pure incarnation of evil. Will you look to those who fight for freedom to protect you? Just remember that whatever door you open for the government, it is a thousand times harder to close. What will happen when your viewpoints are the evil in the world? You may say that will never happen, but if you look back at history, you will. You stand for freedom for all who share my views on drugs. I stand for Liberty for all.) You know, I was going to put more after the "little" side note, but I think I'll leave it. I now leave it to you to say why you can control people's lives, but they can't control yours. Or otherwise, why society is in charge of me, and not me in charge of society. And, in the form of a rebuttal, two points. First, education is the greatest good. Everyone should know everything. Nothing should be off limits and nothing should be limited. So, teach children about drugs. Show them how idiotic it is to destroy their bodies with it. And second, who said I wanted children to have access to drugs? I know I gave you very little to work with, but try and fight my comments on Liberty without putting legalization for children in my mouth.
Drugs should not be legalized, and drug dealers should be punished greatly to save lives.

You didn't give me much to work with here. The quote you have it quite famous and can be tacken and interpreted many times. Your argument seems to be that if one wants to kill themselves with drugs they should. This is flawed. If a kid doesn't know that drugs are harmful, and only does it to be cool or try it once, he may develop an adiction that ruins his life or ends it. Also of drugs are legalized those who are alcholic or adicted will do drugs or die. Hard drugs like heroine do NO good, and are simply poison. Why do you want to legalize poison when there are peopke who don't know what they are tacking and what it will do?
Drugs should not be legalized, and drug dealers should be punished greatly to save lives.

I will be arguing in favor of drug legalization. I concede the first topic. Some people may argue that drugs aren't harmful, but I am not one of them. However, I will be arguing the second point. Drugs should be legalized. As far as the third point, I hope by arguing for the second point, I will make it obsolete. I assume that the first round is for opening statements, the second for further elaboration, and the third for closing remarks. The only point I have to put forward at this time is this quote by Henry Patrick. "Give me liberty, or give me death." Thank you for this debate. Good luck
The airspeed velocity of a swallow carrying a coconut is enough to fly a distance of 200 Mi.

I am strongly disappointed with my opponent's response. Even though he had two rounds where he was clearly available to refute my argument, he never did.Therefore, carry all these unrefuted arguments from Round 2:>My opponent cherrypicked an unlikely situation for his case.>The African Swallow would never find the "World's Smallest Coconut.">Due to weight, The African Swallow could never realistically carry a typical-sized coconut.>Coconuts are not even grown in the same environment that swallows live in.On top of this, my opponent accuses me of both treating this debate like a joke and pressuring him into taking a different side. >First of all, if anyone is taking this debate like a joke, it is my opponent. I provided legitimate refutations to my opponent's claim, and afterwards he did nothing but attack my tone and the words I used in my hashtags. Even though "Yolo" doesn't construct my argument, my no means does it degrade it either.>Second, when my opponent first sent me this challenge, I only informed him that I would rather take Con in this debate. Upon this statement, he immediately switched sides. I don't believe that fits under the definition of "pressured," but once again, topicality doesn't matter, I suppose.ConclusionAlong with not refuting my argument, my opponent has resorted to credential attacks and "hashtag deficit" claims, whatever those are. I put forth a full effort in this debate, and that effort was not met by my opponent.#Thus, a Con vote is fully warranted.
The airspeed velocity of a swallow carrying a coconut is enough to fly a distance of 200 Mi.

My opponent has turned this simple debate into a joke with using the terms Yolo and Swag for that I can only see a pro ballot... Also I would like to say that this debate was originally thought of by me but Massive would only do this debate if he had con- therefor because of the reasons that Massive only wanted to debate for a win and crushed me deep down. * insert crying face here* I can only see a pro ballot #SentFromAMall #VotePro
The airspeed velocity of a swallow carrying a coconut is enough to fly a distance of 200 Mi.

I will allow my opponent the next round to respond.I would also point out that my opponent now wants to elaborate on the meaning of "hashtags" after explicitly saying in round one that definition arguments don't matter. My opponent is breaking his own rules and thus should not be allowed to win this debate.But, regardless, I'll make up for my low amount of hashtags last round by posting more this round, if it makes my opponent happy.#VoteCon#ThisIsNotTwitter#Friends#Yolo#Swallows#Coconuts#ProBrokeHisOwnRules#PostedFromAHotelInSiouxFalls#MassiveDump
The airspeed velocity of a swallow carrying a coconut is enough to fly a distance of 200 Mi.

In order to figure this out, we want to establish a Strouhal ratio which is the frequency (f) of wing beats and amplitude (A) of each wing flap. With those two numbers, it will be possible to estimate airspeed (U) for a cruising bird. (fA/U) if you will. So, with a frequency of wing flaps of about 7 times per second (which has played itself out in the Philos-O-Tron Wind Tunnel Testing Area) and an amplitude of .18m per flap (given that the average wingspan of this particular avian is around 29cm) that would yield an airspeed of roughly 11 m/sec or 24 mph assuming the swallow is unencumbered.[1] (#science) The average African swallow weighs about 21 grams [2] The worlds smallest coconut is 3.847 grams[3] (0.135699 ounces) [4] So If we give the swallow (which we will name Moose) the worlds smallest coconut which would weigh him down by a mere smidgen. By gripping it by the husk the swallow would indeed be able to carry the coconut a distance of 200 Mi. (#thegaurdswhereright) 1-http://www.monkeyrivertown.com... 2-http://wiki.answers.com... 3-http://www.indiabookofrecords.in... 4-https://www.google.com... #comatmebro
The Republican House of Representatives Is More Responsible For The Lack of "Doing" in Washington

I apologize for not being able to post for the third round of this debate, and I'm afraid I will have to abandon this debate altogether. I'm out of state right now, visiting my grandmother, who is very, very sick right now. I'm think I'll be home in time to post a actual debate, and as of now I'm typing this from McDonald's. I can't create a half decent debate from here with all the noise, and this is the only place with WiFi around here. I'm sorry about this, but it came out of no where, without warning. I concede this debate to con.
The Republican House of Representatives Is More Responsible For The Lack of "Doing" in Washington

I would like to show in the debate that it isn't just the Republican house failing to do its job, but that the real issue lies in both parties wanting to play politics and push their own agenda instead of wanting to do what is right for the American people. Sleeping Senate? The 111th Congress was controlled by the Democrats. Both the House and the Senate. During the 111th Congress, the House passed a total of 420 bills that just sat on the Senate shelf, and never got looked at. The Senate stated that it has a very busy schedule, but holding up 420 bills that were passed by the House. The Senate makeup of the 111th Congress was 40 Republicans, 58 Democrats, and 2 Independents. Those two independents voted with the Democrats, so the real number of Democratic votes was 60 to 40. It was a Democratic Senate failing the do their job and look at the bills already passed by the house. Fiscal Cliff MessIt is the leadership of Harry Reid, and the Democratic held senate that is to blame for the Fiscal Cliff and sequestration cuts that we are currently experiencing. Harry Reid wants to point his finger at the Republicans for this big mess, but the Republican House has already voted to extend the Bush tax cuts, and sent the bill over to the Senate. Harry Reid refused to even bring the bill to debate on the Senate floor. The Senate is still controlled by the Democratic party. Harry ReidHarry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, always wishes to point his finger at the Republicans for not taking action, but he refuses to compromise and to work with the Republican house. He always wants his "name" in the bill, and push his agenda into the bill. Because of his personal political agenda, he has refused to allow certain bills to come up for a vote. Who is the real problem here? Sources for Arguments above: . http://www.infoplease.com... . http://thehill.com...http://thehill.com...http://www.rgj.com...
The Republican House of Representatives Is More Responsible For The Lack of "Doing" in Washington

First off, I am not claiming the Democrat senate is a well oiled law/compromise making machine, simply that the House is worse at its job.Failure To Legislate The 111th Congress (2008-2010) passed 303 laws in its two years. But, when the Republicans gained control of the House for the 112th Congress, the number of laws passed fell to a mere 61. This was caused, mainly, by the House refusing to pass anything supported by Obama to win small, unimportant victories. The primary job of Congress, according to the Constitution, is to make laws. In that respect, the House is failing at its job.Wasting Time on ObamaCare The Republican House knows it has no chance to repeal ObamaCare, as the President would veto any bill that make it to his desk. Still, they have voted to repeal ObamaCare 40 times. This is something they know will not go anywhere. Yet they still waste the time and energy of themselves and their peers. This time and energy could be used on reaching more bi-partisan agreements, passing more laws, or making internal party decisions. The Abuse of Filibusters The Republicans have used the filibuster to expire laws they don't like without using a vote. They give speechs until Congress can no longer vote on the bill because they aren't in session. This defeats the purpose of a legislative body that votes on laws, because the minority can delay the vote till the bill expires. In the 112th Congress, Republicans have used the filibuster a record of 61 times. Basically, any bill Republicans don't want to get to Obama's desk, they can stop by wasting more time and energy.Sources:http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com...http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...http://www.archives.gov...http://www.cnn.com...;
The Republican House of Representatives Is More Responsible For The Lack of "Doing" in Washington

(1-3 sentences) The second round is where both sides will put up their main argument (at least 2 paragraphs) You may not rebut what your opponent said in rounds 1 and 2 during the second round. Round 3 will be the rebuttals. Round 4 will give a chance to both sides to rebut the rebuttals, and to state their closing arguments. Swearing is not allowed. Sources must be cited. Best of luck to my opponent. *****************I believe that the Republican House has harmed the democratic process by refusing to pass laws, and by not cooperating with their fellow lawmakers outside of their party.
Resolved: The Hockey Stick is likely correct

You know, guys, I didn't know they extended the argument length characters. I have been gone for a while. In this debate we will be arguing whether or not the famous hockey stick graph is likely (greater than 50%) correct. Definitions: Hockey Stick: The Hockey Stick graph is the infamous graph, first formulated by Mann et al. 1998, 1999, and recently updated in Mann et al. 2008. This graph purports the idea that the period of 950 - 1250, called the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was much cooler--or virtually nonexistant--in the climactic record. Further, the study also shows no Little Ice Age (LIA) in the data, either. Instead it shows a continually linear decreasing trend up until the mid 1800s, where the temperature increases. The Hockey Stick: http://upload.wikimedia.org... Correct: in this debate, since correct is a word with common knowledge definition, my opponent has the burden of proof (as pro) to explain why the Hockey Stick is likely (greater than 50%) correct.
God is real

Pro's case is composed of weak, unsubstantiated objections to the atheistic view of the universe, based wholly in his personal inability to understand modern cosmology and evolutionary biology..." it makes more sense than believing that there was nothing and then all of the sudden there was the stars and the moon."Not all cosmological models necessitate the Big Bang coming from nothing; cyclical models of the universe suggest that big bangs are just part of larger cosmic cycle involving an eternally existent universe.And besides that, Pro has provided no compelling reason whatsoever for us to not believe that something cannot come from nothing. Nothingness has no properties or constraints; we cannot arbitrarily decide that something cannot come from it based on personal incredulity. " And it also doesn't make sense that people just popped out of nowhere or monkeys"People did not pop out of nowhere; they slowly evolved via genetic mutations and natural selection over hundreds and thousands of generations. And they did not evolve from monkeys; humans and monkeys both descended from an ancient species of ape via the same process of macroevolution.The resolution has not been affirmed.