BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Net Neutrality

"The internet is far too vast to be properly regulated. The money required to promote neutrality is far too large amount to be feasible." Net Neutrality enforcement isn't like police enforcement in that one is regulating innumerable potentially morally unrestrained individuals. There are a finite number of telecoms in the US, and that number is getting smaller as the giants swallow up the smaller ones. Considering that Net Neutrality has been to this point the de facto standard, the telecoms would not have a mandate to implement; rather a restriction to avoid. The only expense would come when the principle is violated, which could be settled easily enough by a class action lawsuit. "a successful business in the real world should also reap the benefits of advertisement on the web." Such is the nature of the internet right now. Are you saying the field should be tilted further in favor of established businesses in the interest of fairness by allowing an internet tax paid to the service providers? If that is your argument, then it essentially boils down to which side we compensate towards: the landed and established businesses, or the smaller, potentially successful startups. While one could make the argument that the former is "fairer", it is only so when regarding the present independently. Most large companies today had the benefit of being one of the first to corner a market. Simply by virtue of temporal advantage, and not necessarily by virtue of inherent product quality (though this is often the case as well), they were able to succeed. It follows then that in the interest of fairness, barriers to entry be removed as much as is reasonable in order to allow at least a similar opportunity as was afforded to the currently dominant business. This leads to more consistently multipolar markets, which are nearly always more productive than unipolar monopolistic markets.
Net Neutrality

Well let's go ahead and get this going... First: The loss of net neutrality is not something that the government or big business can do anything about. The internet is far too vast to be properly regulated. The money required to promote neutrality is far too large amount to be feasible. Second: My opponent states that the internet is a level playing field, and that is so true. Much like our society, success gains you a higher place in society so why not extend that to the internet. The web is nothing but a reflection of the real world so a successful business in the real world should also reap the benefits of advertisement on the web. This is how America works. You succeed, you gain the benefits.
Net Neutrality

Net Neutrality is an issue coming up with increasing regularity with service providers altering, blocking, or prioritizing content. With modern society becoming increasingly dependent on free and unfettered flow of information as the internet provides, Net Neutrality is becoming increasingly vital to future economic growth. Firstly, one of the most common arguments against Net Neutrality is that it is internet regulation, using the latter word as a pejorative. Free market economy, they say, mandates that ISPs may run their networks however they choose. However, they neglect the fact that the internet is a market itself, and ISPs act not so much as companies presiding over a resource as governments presiding over an economy. Just as the government needs restraint on its own economic control in order for its economy to grow, so the service providers need to exercise restraint in their control over the internet's tubes for it to grow. Secondly, let's look at what gives the internet such vast economic potential in the first place: it is this level playing field that has been maintained up to this point, giving McDonalds just as much potential for a great internet presence as the restaurant down the street. Of course this has been skewed by advertising and convention (people are more likely to go to places they've heard of, for example), but this will only be exacerbated to an extreme degree by the loss of net neutrality. Allowing the service provider arbitrary control over what gets to their end users will inevitably impose a huge burden on smaller website owners who cannot afford to front the cash that Google or Amazon can in order to get priority access to end users. The loss of net neutrality will mean a huge barrier to entry into any market as the internet becomes increasingly integral to information gathering, which will damage economic competitiveness not only between internet companies, but anybody for whom an internet presence is important.
Net Neutrality

This debate boils down to one item in particular, whether you, the voter, are going to support the established business or the young upstart. The young business may seem like the right or honest thing to do, but the established has done its time and carved its name. The established had to deal with the hurdles of their time and now times have changed. Young business will have to face new hurdles that they must leap if they want to join the ranks and reap the benefits of being supported.
Net Neutrality

You say that we have been unable to regulate businesses in the real world, so why try in the digital? In reality, the two are not parallel. I do indeed realize that advertising is part of the business, and the advantage gained therefrom is exactly what logically follows for having been the first to market. Economic growth is hindered when the rewards for success do not necessarily follow from the success itself, for example, legal smothering, or in this case, the imposition of unreasonable fees to get into an online market. Something like advertising does follow from the success itself, since it is directly related to the product and does not try to seek its own in extracompetitive methods by altering the playing field itself.
Homeschooling is More Productive/Better than Public Schooling

I would first like to apologize for, as my opponent pointed out, for not giving proper citing. DebateStatistics.org is a valid organization, and I will be citing just three of the sources they used. Washington State Department of Labor and Industries, "Workplace Bullying: What Everyone Needs to Know" [online] Workplace Bullying Institute [online] The New York Times, Business, "Backlash: Women Bullying Women at Work" [online] --- Although this is the final round of the debate, I feel my opponent could only drop their argument entirely in the face of these sources -- unless they would like to argue that the New York Times, Workplace Bullying Institute, and Washing State Department of Labor and Industries are ill-reputable sources run by people 'possibly under 18'. My opponent has also said that they agree with my argument on bullying, so it flows to my side. Saying that physical bullying doesn't exist outside of school is highly illogical. I will only briefly mention that domestic abuse and assault are things that exist, feeling confident that I don't have to source their existences. This means that two of three major points presented in my opponent's final argument have just been obliterated, and now completely flow to my side. To wrap things up, I will attempt to shoot down their only remaining point in this debate, stating that places like neighborhoods and social media are substitutes to making friends and interacting. While friends can be made and found through these methods, it is never guaranteed that you will. In a traditional public school, you are guaranteed to be going there with people of your same age, and it's almost assured that at least a handful of them share the same interests as you. This is why I believe the bulk of this argument flows to my side. For all of these reasons throughout the debate, as well as the fact that my major point about parents having to take on the role of teaching, I believe that I have successfully beaten my opponent, won this debate, and so I strongly urge a Con/Neg voter turnout.
Homeschooling is More Productive/Better than Public Schooling

Although personal events and stories are not "traditional debate format" they were, in my opinion, relevant to the topic and demonstrated issues with the public education system. However, I will include evidence that is more relevant to my opponent. My opponent's evidence is not relevant due to the fact it is an opinion stated by the author of the article. There are not statistics that show how adults can be bullied and or bullies, and the author is not cited, therefore the article could have been written by someone under the age of 18 and who does not have the correct information. As I stated before, there are other ways to socialize and make friends. One example would be to debate right here and find people with similar opinions. Social media allows the same type of interaction. If you take a walk around your neighborhood even you could find a friendly person or two. My opponent stated, "No matter if someone graduates from public school or homeschool, bullying remains an issue." This is true, and I agree. With social interaction there will be bullying. However, when children are homeschooled they can avoid physical bullying, as my opponent stated "adult bullying" is verbal.
Homeschooling is More Productive/Better than Public Schooling

Starting off their second speech by complimenting me, I don't believe my opponent has done many improvements upon their base argument. One issue I would like to point out that I noticed repeated several times throughout my opponents second speech was the use of themselves as an example. While this has not been specified for this round, in most traditional debate formats, self sourcing tends to be a bad idea. Instead of hounding my opponent on this flaw however, I will simply state the personal examples that make their points less relevant to the argument. First of all, my opponent tried to negate my argument about their free time activities being offered in school due to the fact that my opponent does not always have availability to them. While this may hold weight, the weight that it does hold seems to teeter off when you account for the fact that my opponent is using their own experience, though there are hundreds of thousands of young students in the country who can freely doing these things in schools. Most middle schools and high schools have elective art courses they could take, if my opponent would like to draw during school. Reading could always be done in English when offered, and during lunch periods as well. But I am droning on, so I will push forward. My opponent has also said that their church offers a group for them to join, which should not be accounted for in this debate, as that is a very situational substitute. Moving off of personal examples, and going to the statistic brought up by my opponent, while it may be accurate, it's not particularly helpful. While it shows that a lot of homeschooled students have graduated, my opponent has failed to make a correlation between this number and how a massive wave of students going to homeschool would instantly somehow do better than they were in public school. They also said that bullying is not a big problem out of school and in the adult world, but I will argue that this is simply not true. According to BullyingStatistics.org, "Sadly, adults can be bullies, just as children and teenagers can be bullies. While adults are more likely to use verbal bullying as opposed to physical bullying, the fact of the matter is that adult bullying exists. The goal of an adult bully is to gain power over another person, and make himself or herself the dominant adult. They try to humiliate victims, and 'show them who is boss.'" No matter if someone graduates from public school or homeschool, bullying remains an issue. While bullying is bad, I feel at least being exposed to harsher people is better than staying dissociated from them until adulthood. My opponent has yet to refute my point being made that parents would have to learn to teach curriculum on par with public school, and thus they clearly either agree with me or have no way to disprove me. Again for these reasons, I heavily urge a strong Con/Neg voter turnout.
Homeschooling is More Productive/Better than Public Schooling

I'm just going to say right now you will most likely win because I am 13 and you are 36 (I looked at your profile). I understand why you would say reading, writing, drawing, and being creative already happen in school. However, I have read before class even started and was told to pay attention and put my book away. Doodling is something that personally helps me concentrate and I know the same for many others and as stated before I was told to put my pen down and pay attention. Even in English/Reading class I have to ask if we can write/read. The website Bright Hub Education states , "There was a higher graduation rate from homeschooled students (66.7% compared to the counterpart at 57.5%). The homeschooled students came in with a higher ACT score (25.0 compared to 14.7)." (Paragraph 8, Dr. Michael Cogan.) Clearly this evidence can show that children who are homeschooled and taught by their parents or family members have a higher success rate. Yes, school is good preparation for social issues. However, being bullied is probably not something that is going to happen in anyone's adult life. There are other ways to socialize besides school as well. Most libraries have clubs to join. Personally, I attend a youth group at my church where I have made many friends. Most schools as well allow homeschooled students in their community attend school events and dances.
Homeschooling is More Productive/Better than Public Schooling

My opponent presents highly superficial reasoning for preferring homeschooling to traditional public schooling, and for these reasons I will strongly oppose them. First of all, the glaring issue is having their parent(s) able to actually educate them on a level that is acceptably on par with that of the schooling they are trying to transfer from. While easier said than done, having to be a teacher for homeschooling is difficult. My opponent's parent(s) would have to both learn to look past favoring their child, and they would also have to be able to SUCCESSFULLY educate their child on the curriculum currently taught at public schools. They also bring up rumors and other social stresses, which are highly irrelevant to the argument on hand. While social situations can be tough for children and teenagers, my opponent fails to see that the goal of their own topic is to prefer homeschooling to regular schooling. Not only do you learn information from certified officials, but you are also prepared for social situations. In an environment where the only people in my opponent's school substitute would be their parents, they would not learn the proper developing social skills that are crucial to becoming integrated into adult life, college, and one day having a job, which my opponent also mentioned. They mentioned that having at least four hours that would be spent in public school could be spent getting one, while many high schoolers who are enrolled in public school have no issue working. The final major point my opponent brings up is that they would have more time when being homeschooled. They themselves stated that "More time would be provided to me to read, write, draw, be creative, ect." which already flows over to my side. My opponent has either forgotten or let slip that reading, writing, occasionally drawing, and creativity are already normal occurrences during school hours. This means my opponent has said that with the time they gained from having four less hours from public school, they would be spending the time doing things they could already be doing in school - saving them the various troubles already mentioned in my argument thus far. For this reasoning, I heavily urge a strong Con/Neg voter turnout.
Homeschooling is More Productive/Better than Public Schooling

I would like opinions on this topic. Evidence is obviously optional but not required. Also I am new to debate.org so please message me and tell me how these normally work. NO HATE. Currently I am enrolled in public school and am looking to be homeschooled next year. I have multiple reasons but my top 3 are there is less drama, more time, and less stress. This past year I have struggled with my friends and have had to deal with a lot of drama. I found out from multiple people that there was rumors about me and my friends were talking behind my back. If I were homeschooled this would have been completely avoided. Another reason I would like to be homeschooled is because I would get done with school at around noon. That would give me at LEAST 4 more hours in the day, and I would eventually be able to have a job when I am old enough. More time would be provided to me to read, write, draw, be creative, ect. My last point of why more students should be homeschooled is there is less stress. With time to work all day on homework (if there is any) more time would open up to sleep. There is also the obvious reason that we wouldn't have to worry about people judging about looks. All in all, homeschooling would help students tremendously.
Short Story Challenge

Alright, I'll do this! I'm going to try to give you flexibility and a creative prompt for your story, just try to do the same for me! Your first topic choice will be the beginning of a sentence, and the other choice you have are items you must include in your story. 1. "Allison, no! You can't leave with him! " She whipped her head around, her golden blonde hair snapping angrily, "Why not? " =OR= 2. ( must include in story topic of your choice:) A sword, a child, and a pair of die. You can choose either one of these.
Short Story Challenge

Simple. We give each other two topic choices for a 3,000 character (SHORT indeed, bwaahaha) story. First round is for accepting and assigning each other topics, second, third and fourth rounds will be the three stories and the final round we post why we think our stories were better. I'll assign my opponent his/her two topics at the end of my first story. Please, if you aren't going to see this through, don't accept. I can't write raps at the moment, but I could write a story.
Short Story Challenge

Melanie coughed violently at the sickly sweet smell of marijuana that filled her lungs. She wasn't the one smoking it, of course. She was a little Ms. Goody-two-shoes to do that. Tonight, though, was different; it was prom night. She already resolved to herself to not be so uptight, to lay back a bit and become more well liked. She looked at herself through the smoke in the rearview mirror. She could see herself sitting in the back seat by Joey and Chris, her hair neatly done up and her face lush and full of pigments to make her look gussied up. Her eyes were highlighted with a stunning black eyeliner and green eyeshadow, her eyes dense and heavy green as though they were made of dazzling emeralds. All she saw, though, was a scared little girl who just wanted to have some friends at her new school. Since it was so close to prom and she was new, she couldn't find a date in time. Sure, she seen the way some guys looked at her, but it made her uncomfortable to be around them, so she just ultimately decided that she was being too picky and just decided to go with a bunch of guys that she met her first day. They seemed nice. She coughed again on the sickly aroma, one her lungs weren't used to. The driver looked back, John. "Not used to it, huh? Well, you will, sweetheart, you will." Chris laughed and whooped. "You ready for the big night, Claire? It's going to be awesome. F*cking awesome!" She smiled weakly and clutched her transparent scarf around her shoulders tighter. "Aw, don't be so nervous. Come here..." Joey tried to hug her close, but the smell of alcohol on his breath stunk really bad. She pulled away. "Joey, no." Maybe this was a bad idea... Joey smiled obnoxiously, like a child who thought something juvinile was funny. "Oh, come on Claire." She shook her head and the driver turned on his brights. It was dark outside, and it didn't help that it was about to rain, though it had rained earlier, it looked like it was about to again. He put his hand on her leg. She shook her leg and pulled his hand off, offended that he would touch her so close to her groin. "Joey, no!" He tried to pull himself on her while Chris whooped again annoyingly. "Stop!" John looked in the back, and Claire pleaded with him to say something with her eyes, but he just looked back and laughed, distracted by the show. She screamed, but not because he was hurting her by the way he was pinning her arm, but because of the big red truck that was roaring thier way, and John was too distracted to see it. She felt her eyes grow wide. This was a bad idea. John snapped around and jerked the wheel, over-compensating, and they could all feel themselves being lifted, and time stopped in the fraction of the second the car left the ground and was airborn, about to flip over violently. And Claire could see it all- but in the mirror, she saw someone she didn't recognize- herself...then she did, a frightened little girl again.
Short Story Challenge

"Jaaaaaaaack! I told you (you) couldn't kill me. Now I'm here for your head!" The vampire-lord split his gaze between the shadows, ripping apart those same shadows that were his own, that used to be his ally were now his enemy. Jack, with supernatural agility, stealithy slid between the shadows, melding with them as if they were a part of him. "This ends here, you son of a b*tch!" shouted Jack, projecting his voice, letting it echo off the stone walls, and letting them hit Mark, the Lord, a second time. He seemed to shudder at the venom in his voice, almost like he was touched by the one now in Jack. "You think you're clever don't you?" panted Mark, "But I- I WON!" he shouted, letting his voice swell with rage. His sunken eyes had a hollow look, as though he had seen centuries of suffering, his wild hair no longer slicked-back, but hung scraggly in his face, making him look like a lunatic. "It was I who killed your harlot of a wife and took your son so many years ago. Damn you! You killed so many of my own children." Jack's heart panged at the memory of his wife, but he would not let him win by emotional warfare. As for his son...well, he was safe now, far away from Mark's clutches. "You mean your vampire monster breeds? I killed them like I will kill you. You're a plauge on this earth and to the Father. I have come to end it; your senseless war with human ends." Mark stood in the middle of the room by the eleaborate, elongated Victorian dining table. Jack watched him from his perch on the second story balcany, overlooking through the pillars and elequent chandelier that ornamented the room with a classy 16th century feel. The modern appliances, such as the sterio system and slot machines in the parlor that was in an open archway to the dining area gave the castle a unique, unbelievable taste. Yes, Mark loved to gamble, but this time, he was going to lose. The tension built in the air, and Jack closed his eyes, feeling the rhythm of Mark's demonic heart beat faster and faster, along with his breathing. Suddenly, a roar sounded an Jack opened his eyes to see Mark upturn the 8 foot pure cherrywood table across the large room, using his vampiric strength. "Show yourself you coward!" Jack entered his hunting phase, a switch that he learned to turn on fueled by pure anamalistic instict. He had taken note of the chandelier. He pulled out the single shot pistol he acquired from Mark's gallery during his infiltration, since his beretta was broken in a battle with Mark's wife, now even more dead than she was, for she was a vampire too. He took aim at the chandiler, trying to guess the areodynamics of the bullet, so he would not waste his shot. "Show yourself!" Mark repeated. Then, Jack shot, praying the bullet would knock the chandelier down onto his enemy's, and old friend's, head. If not, he would lose his element of surprise, and surely be killed by Mark's unholy power. The shot rang, and something unexpected flashed before Jack's eyes