BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Private Schools Should Have Their Students Wear Uniforms

I will proceed to refute pro’s arguments. #1 Uniforms will not boost a student’s self-esteem. Insecurities among adolescents are caused by puberty. Every teen will go through it. It is hormones that cause self-consciousness, not clothes. Teens will always want to identify themselves, be it through clothing or other things. [1] I would also quickly like to point out that the source pro uses to back up his statistics is an online-shopping website for school uniforms. This is a biased source and therefore not legitimate evidence. #2 Pro doesn’t seem to have a source backing this claim up so I will assume it’s a personal opinion. I will counter this with an opinion of my own. I’m a high school student and I have never been so distracted by other people’s clothing that it interferes with my schoolwork. Frankly, I can’t say what’s so distracting by a sweater or a pair of jeans. And I highly doubt other teenagers are so distracted that a uniform system should be introduced. #3 Again pro, websites selling school uniforms are NOT valid sources. I will comment on the bullying in a short while. #4 I would like pro to give me some examples of bad scenarios that happened because the offender was not identified by anybody of the school security. Cliques and gangs will always exist among teenagers because hormones cause them to rebel against the status-quo. #5 According to Psychology Today bullies are often the result of bad parenting. They do not pick their targets based on what they wear, but whether if they can dominate and humiliate them. Sub-assertive classmates are often an easy target, for they will not fight back. An assertive person can wear the cheapest clothes and still fend off a potential bully. [2] #6 Pro says that students find different ways to express themselves because they lose the freedom to pick their own clothes. This contradicts arguments #1, #3 and #4. On the one hand he claims that cliques and gangs will be avoided and students will have a feeling of togetherness. How will this happen if students are going to express themselves through other things? As I already established teenagers will form their own identity and will derogate others for it. #7 The sources did not explain in which manner the uniforms prevented behavioral problems and reduced vandalism. Meanwhile, I have found a detailed report of a similar experiment in Michigan. Here, the data suggested no correlation between uniforms and academic improvements and reduced behavioral problems. [3] As we can see, there is no conclusive evidence suggesting anything pro claimed. Only circumstantial evidence. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.psychologytoday.com... [3] http://www.nmu.edu...
logic is cause and effect

"you are con.. it is for you to defeat my claim"i did provide an argument to defeat your claim that logic is cause and effect (under "my argument")by the way,you are pro.. it is for you to prove your claim firsti am con.. it is enough for me to defeat your arguments only and i didrebuttals"random is unknown?"yea"sufficient amount of poison"sufficient for what?"morality is logical"sure.. so?"logic is not logical or illogical"logic is not logical, cause and effect is logical, therefore logic is not cause and effect"logic is true"logical is true, not logic
logic is cause and effect

bop is on pro they have to prove that logic is cause and effect= means is equal to=/= means is not equal torebuttals#1pro wrotecause=random+specifiedif pro was correct then the following should be correctrandom + specified = unknown + known = partially known = partially unknownfull side of glass = empty side of glassfull side of glass = causeempty side of glass =/= cause cause =/= cause -> contradiction=> pro is not correct#2 pro wrote sum of all logic = chaos + orderlogic = you can knowchaos = you don't knoworder = you knowchaos + order = you don't know + you know = you are confusedsum of all logic = you are not confusedyou are confused = you are not confused -> contradiction => sum of all logic =/= chaos + order#3pro wrotepoison = unhealthypoison = noun + verb + adjective [1]unhealthy = adjective [2]noun + verb + adjective = adjectivenoun + verb = 0noun = somethingverb = something0 = nothingnoun + verb = something = 0 -> contradiction=> poison =/= unhealthy#4pro wrotelogic is absolutelogical = don't cut off your hand to stay healthyillogical = don't cut off your hand to stay healthy (has serious gangrene) [3]=> logic is not absolutemy argument#alogic = you can knowif you know then you are right=> logic is when you are right#bcause = do iteffect = it is donecause and effect = do it and it is donea murderer murders an innocent person = causethe innocent person dies = effectthe murderer is not right to murder an innocent person=> logic is not cause and effect (follows from #a and #b)conclusioni showed that pro provided incorrect and irrelevant arguments to resolutioni also negated the resolution by showing that logic is not cause and effecti wish pro best of lucksources[1] http://www.dictionary.com...[2] http://www.dictionary.com...[3] http://www.healthline.com...#trolldebatehttp://i0.kym-cdn.com...
Christianity should be eliminated.

If Christianity should be eliminated and the constitution is causing problems, get a paper shredder and send the document on through. Most people on the planet are not Americans, so to them the constitution is nothing more but paper to them. The constitution is based on American opinions. Your argument is simply irrelevant to most people.American people are changing. A lot of Americans now days hate the founding fathers, a lot were slave owners. And I wouldn't list them friendly to gay community either. You know President John Adams said “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” In this generation you'll see Christians going to school, and then coming out atheists, and a lot of it has to do with a speculation that you evolved from a rock. Morality here is off too, school shootings causes complications with gun laws, crime has been on the rise, people abort there babies, and gays pollute marriage with their debased mind. The fact that the current constitution will be dismantled is certain, it's simply just a matter of what generation will do it... It's simply inadequate for an Immoral Secular nation, which is what America is becoming.So even if your argument has any weight, it's only temporary.
Christianity should be eliminated.

Well, I actually accepted this debate in error. But after thinking about it, I'll go ahead to continue on, maybe I or we might learn something. Eventually all Christians have to think about these responses for our Lord. So my basic arguments are 1). Religion causes hate, notably with Christians are the gays. 2) It has been known to cause wars (e.g. crusades) 3) known to cause death (capital punishment, and OT Law ain't exactly friendly to children that have cursed their parents either) 4) Does make women submissive to man. 5) Does approve of slavery 6) It is a source of terrorism. Ranging from the KKK, the Army Of God, the Centennial Olympic Park bombing,
The Drinking Age of 21, should be lowered to 18.

I believe the drinking age of the United States should be set to 18 instead of where it rests now at 21 for many reasons. 1. With it set at 21 this restricts most people until their final year of college from being legally allowed to drink yet we all know from experience that this doesn't stop them from getting alcohol, or liquor. 2. If the age is lowered to 18, it could possibly end one of the most common threats now to current underage drinkers. Those beings binge- drinkers. This would lower the frequency of it since now instead of having to worry about getting caught by police, only having limited time, etc., etc. Underage drinkers or would be of age drinkers if the age is lowered. Could not just walk into a seven eleven and grab a drink legally, or most likely go to a bar instead of hiding in on of their friend's car chugging a drink from a gas station, or seven eleven. It would also lower the rate of drunk driving by people in the age range of 18-21 since they now would not need to be on the constant move, they could center in one place, like a bar and have some drinks. 3. I feel it would also lower the drive for teens to drink underage. Since they would now just have to wait till their 18 instead of 21, as they currently are mandated to. For if one notice when they are given the privilege of drinking the drive to get drinks seems to sink, or even disappear as compared to what it used to be when they were younger. That is due to the fact there is no risk factor in it.
Motive is just as important as the action

You make a good point about a celebrity doing somethine purely for personal gain. But what the argument misses is that in the end a good deed was done. Was it not "good" because is was done for selfish reasons? Perhaps. But in the end if a child is fed or a school is built doesn't that have some element of kindness attached to it? It is like a person who has been fed. Maybe the person who made the food only did it becausr it was their job. Does that limit the virtue of the act? And in the end a person was given sustanence. Does the motive of the person who made the food matter if in the end a hungry person is fed? I agree that motive and intent are important. But I dont think that the end result can be negated if the original intent was not pure. Do we write of the works of Van Gogh because he was crazy? No, it is the lasting piece of art that we focus on. Perhaps an act is the same way. What we do is what lasts, not what lies behind it.
Motive is just as important as the action

Can on truly argue that the ends justify the means? A person's motivation for acting is quite important as it is most often what is used to define the person, not the action itself. As such, I first plan to prove the importance of motives through the issue of morality. Morality Let us start by taking a look at the example my opponent provided. When a celebrity donates to charity what is generally the first thought that comes to mind? For many I would say it is something along the lines of "Oh he/she's only doing that to look good or get some publicity." Though this may not be true all the time, such thinking shows that we as people do place great emphasis on the motives behind an action, good or bad. Why do people do this? The answer is because motivation can actually shift the meaning of an action. Yes, donating to charity is an act of goodness that will help people in many ways, however, if a person does so due to selfish motives it removes the "kindness" from the act. They are not giving their money to help others, only to make themselves appear good to others. Thus, even though people may benefit from the act itself, it can no longer be considered an act or selflessness or compassion. The motivation has actually changed the very definition of the person's act. An action which would normally define the person as a good soul has now depicted them as a fraud; their action ceases to be selfless and instead becomes selfish all due to the motivation behind it. Thus when it comes to morality, one's motives are what tips the scale up or down, not simply the action alone.
Motive is just as important as the action

I will take the con side, that a person's reason for taking action is not as important as the action itself. In the end, the ends justifies the means, so to speak. If a person donates to charity, does it matter why they did it? In the end, good was done. Sometimes a person's original intent was different than the outcome. While a person may have wanted to donate to charity simply as a tax right-off, perhaps afterward they realized the good that came of it for those they gave to. So their motive for taking action may not have been "pure", but in the end good was achieved, and perhaps they are also better for it.
Motive is just as important as the action

My opponent has done a good job in stressing the importance of motive when judging a person's actions. I think it comes down to a case by case basis, rather than a blanket statement that all impure motives can negate a good act, or that motives and acts are always on equal ground. The heart of all individuals are different, and thus, on occassion even an impure motive leading to a good act can have enough elements of goodness and kindness in the heart if the person to lift the assessment of them to more positive light. This of course is not always the case. In the end I do agree that motive and intent is very important, and plays a key factor when looking at the overall picture of a person's actions.
Motive is just as important as the action

Over the course of this debate I have demonstrated why it is important to take motive into account when analyzing an act. A person's motivation, as shown by many examples, does indeed have bring on how we perceive or judge an action. The point of my arguments was not to prove that a person's motives are more important than their action, but rather that it is equally important. It is this point which I believe my opponent failed to grasp. Throughout the debate, my opponent argued that the result of a good act still promoted good, even if the motive behind the act wasn't pure. And I must say, to this extent he is correct the result of the action is still good but that misses the point I feel. Although good is still promoted, there is no authenticity behind it and on that grounds alone I believe my point is made clear. The motive may no completely nullify the act but it certainly takes away from it which proves my point. A good act committed for selfish ends does not give off the same feeling that an act of pure kindness does. More merit is given to the act done selflessly than the one done in selfishness, in turn, showing the value we place on motivation. As such, I think the only conclusion we can make is that Motive ha n equal role in defining an action as the very action itself.
Motive is just as important as the action

I don't think that bad acts and good acts should be looked at the same way. Yes we look at bad acts and the intent behind them, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we should do the same with good acts. In the end, is a good act really empty if it was done with less than good intent? Perhaps doing something good means that regardless of the motive and intent that somebody is good overall. Not all bad people do good things. Some bad people do good things with bad intent, but in the end what they did matters. Do we look at Van Gogh's are and judge it based on his insanity? No, in the end we see the beauty of his creation, not the heart/mind of the man who created it. Perhaps looking at the act of a person is the same. A person may do something with selfish or less than pure motives, but perhaps because they chose to do a good act we have to recognize that there is 99% impure and 1% pure, and the 1% is good enough.
Motive is just as important as the action

You ask if it is necessary to look upon a good act with scrutiny? How can we not? It is evident that we do include a person's motives when defining an action considered to be bad. Are you suggesting that we play favorites? One can not pick and choose when one's motivation is a factor. If we except the fact that motivation is a factor in defining a bad act such as killing, how can we exempt it from a good act. They are both actions and should be held to equal standards. Just because an act resulted in good overall, it does not mean the action is above criticism. If we make exceptions for bad actions we must do so for good acts as well. To emphasis this, let's take a look at the story of Robin Hood, a story I'm sure almost everyone knows. In the story, the hero Robin Hood would steal from the rich and give the money to the poor. Obviously giving money to the poor and helping the less fortunate is without doubt an act of goodness, that can not be argued. However, Robin Hood still stole the money which he gave, so why is he considered to be a hero and not a villain? The reason is his intentions (motivation) was for good; to help those in need. Thus, we look past his misdeed and focus on his motivation rather than brand him a criminal. If we excuse criminal acts for good intentions, why is it wrong to berate a good act for having bad intentions. If not all bad actions are considered bad, than all good actions can not be considered good. You can not have one without taking the other into account.
Motive is just as important as the action

The murder/killing analogy is a very good one, and very effective. But i will say this, in those instances we are looking to apply punishment to a bad action. Is it neccessary to look at a good act with such scrutiny? Is it possible that it is enough to look at the good act, be content with the act, and leave it at that? Is it possible that the good act itself nullifies the weak and possibly selfish motive behind the act? Are we the sum of our motives, or our actions? If I said a person lived a life of charity, good deeds, kind acts and philanthropy we would celebrate that person, no? But if I then said that they did it because of taxe reasons or "to get into heaven" or because their spouse made them do it, would we knock them or take our opinion of them down a notch or two?
Motive is just as important as the action

I do acknowledge that though the intention wasn't exactly there, a good thing was in the end accomplished. However, the issue wasn't that motive can nullify an action, but rather that the motive is just as important as the action itself. The action may be good or bad in or of itself, but its the motive behind it which gives that action a more clear definition as I demonstrated before. The action is still complete but the intentions behind it are just as important in defining the situation as the action was; we can just ignore such a fact. To better explain this let us take a look at an action such as killing. When a person kills in cold blood, planning and calculating the deed, its called murder and is considered to be a heinous crime. Yet when a person kills in the heat of the moment (based on emotion) or unintentionally, the action is now classified as manslaughter which is not considered nearly as serious as murder. But lets not stop here, when someone kills in self defense the action is now considered completely justified and when a soldier kills an enemy in war more often than not they are considered to be heroes. My point is the action does play a clear role in defining the action just as much as the action itself, and this example quite literally makes that clear.
YES! to Scottish independence

What's that Mr McCallum? Do you realise that the Scottish economy isn't all that self-sufficient? And on the topic of finance, we need to look into Britain's debt. We all know that this is accumulating day by day and that Scotland is partly responsible for this. This ultimately means that if Scotland claimed independence, then they'd be responsible for repaying the debt of 90% of the British GDP, or nearly "2.2 trillion. We've already established that the country doesn't have the means to make two ends meet. How then does it have the means to repay a debt of this scale? Quite simply - it doesn't.
YES! to Scottish independence

Mr McCallum, I'm new to this whole debating concept but I'd just like to clear up a few things. You contradict yourself. Saying that Scotland receives subsidies from the rest of the UK, is saying that the Scottish Government is financially dependent on Westminster. The United Kingdom is the 7th largest economy in the world. This nation also has the worlds largest superpower, America, as an ally. If you still rely on subsidies from the UK, how do you expect to develop financial stability in the coming years. Yes, you have oil. So does Russia, Saudi Arabia and 113 other countries. The demand for oil, which is the basis of your economy, will be less than expected. I'm afraid, Scotland, that your economy isn't as strong as it needs to be.
YES! to Scottish independence

I believe that Scotland should become an independent country for many reasons the first being a purely democratic one. Because since 1945 the Scottish vote has not made a difference to the party elected. The second being an economic reason as in the past five years despite popular belief Scotland has received net subsidies from the rest of the UK. There are many more reasons but i will leave these two to be tackled with by the opposition. I am looking forward to a response!
Making abortion illegal.

So, smartone, if I read your stance on this issue correctly, you are for making Abortion illegal? Yet you say it is a choice of the woman and saying the consequences? Well first off, I am not a woman just to make that clear, anyway, it is always up to the woman and ultimately up to the woman. It is her body, even if a man and woman agree on having a baby it is still her body and her hormones, her protein, everything in her is hers alone. Baby's are actually blood related to the woman through the umbilical cord, so in that thought, men have no control whatsoever. If a female choses to have an abortion it is her right as a female. Now having it after the 3rd trimester is bad, due to the fact it not only purges a human life, it also leaves not only physical scaring, but emotional scaring as well for the woman. I believe abortion should not be illegal for the simple fact that her body is hers alone, no one can tell her to or not to have an abortion. . .
God doesn't exist

I'm going to start off with a popular piece of reasoning. I will introduce more arguments as I go on. God is claimed to be omnipotent, which means that he is in the stste of "having complete or unlimited power". Here's a thought about that. Can he create a rock so heavy that he is unable to lift it, but then lift it? If he can, then God is not omnipotent. If he has unlimited power, then his rock should cause him to fail to lift the rock. That literally means that he CANNOT create a rock that can do so, meaning he has limited power. If he cannot, then he still is not omnipotent, since his power is too limited to lift the rock. The claim that God is omnipotent is a false assertion that is left unsupported. This literally means that God's omnipotence is illogical. P1: If God cannot/can lift this alleged rock, he is illogical. P2: If something is illogical, it means that there is no logic to it. P3: If something is illogical, it cannot exist. C1: God does not exist. Sources: 1]http://i.word.com...