BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Science is the greatest integrator of human societies

I have checked into account all of your points and I want to lay my point of view regarding the same. 1. I agree Science and technology has paved way for many cures and treatments of incurable disease but the use of drugs and pharmaceuticals has increased so much that for even a regular cold, people prefer antibiotics which has made the human body hollow from inside and weaker and less resistant than our ancestors. With the discovery of new drugs, the population is more prone to a lot of side-effects which could lead to permanent changes in the genetic material leading ultimately to mutations. 2. I admire that the discovery of new ways of transport has brought the world closer but it also enormously contributes to our latest enemy that is, pollution and global warming. People are using and owning vehicles which are more than necessary. The most popular example is of the Capital of India, Delhi is ranked as one of the most polluted cities due to which people are suffering from various lung problems and the quality of air has degraded so much that it's not possible to breathe the fresh air that we used to. If nothing is done on time, soon all of cities will be like this and greenery will be lost forever. 3. The most important gain of science according to the young people of the generation is the invention of social media which closed the gaps of countries around the globe. Social media has made the world it's slave and we didn't even realize when. Teenagers are so addicted to their mobile phones, they can survive without food but not wifi. The "good" use of social media to increase awareness is done by merely 20% of the world, while the rest 80% is busy looking at memes. They're so engrossed in making fun of others, making stupid people famous celebrities, that half of them don't even know about the condition of the world. Also social media has made people social only on the internet while speedily decreasing the real life interactions of people making them more introverted and self conserved which is clearly not healthy and results in mental disorders like depression. 4. Genetically modified foods has definitely helped in fighting off malnutrition but are those who are really needy even getting these advantages? The children of Africa are still hungry, still malnourished. The use of technology should be provided in the most affordable and subtle way to those who are really needy of it and not to those who just want to maintain their figure. This might seem rude but this is the truth of the world. Technology has only made the rich richer, and the poor poorer. Can't we still go back to the simple way of living? Where there was no race to be successful, everyone lived their life happy and contented. There were no mobile phones but people did communicate. No social media but people were social enough. No modified food, but people slept fully fed and satisfied. There was no need of science but if we have it now, shouldn't it be used for the betterment rather than the abolishment of the earth.
Science is the greatest integrator of human societies

I understand that the advancement of technology (science) has caused problems, but I do believe that the helpfulness of science are more than the harmfulness. I would argue on the following points 1)The advancement of science has lead to better medicines/ treatment and is able to cure human beings of diseases that could not be treated before. 2)With more advanced transport infrastructure, we are able to get to places more quickly and safely. 3)We are able to inform/communicate with others around the globe, which will raise awareness about current affairs/issues. This will enable those in need to get the help that they require. (eg. Rohingya and Syrian crisis) 4)GMO (genetically modified) food is able to solve the problem of food shortage and malnutrition in many places of the world. So I do believe that science bring more positive impacts than negative ones. (Please note that I would elaborate more during the other rounds and I may talk about other examples.)
Science is the greatest integrator of human societies

Science is an integral part of the human world in this century of millennials. I agree it is the greatest revolutionary change in the history of mankind but are we really using it the correct way? We have being so engrossed in discovering technology and ways to make our lifestyle easier that we have forgotten what it feels like to be human again. Science has not only invented a robot, but has turned a man into a robot in some cases. Satellites are widely used for espionage purposes. Excessive industrialization has lead to air pollution and other health hazards. It snatches the soul of a man when he runs a race in mad pursuit of material prosperity. Science, at the same time, has given him frightful nuclear weapons. If there be a third world war, it will abolish the whole mankind from this planet. Peace on earth is at peril now.
Gay Marriage should be legal in the United States.

My opponent stated that legalizing same-sex marriage would break the tradition of marriage. However, they did not say how changing this tradition would negatively affect heterosexual marriages. Heterosexual marriage is not affected in any way by allowing gay marriage. The only difference is that homosexuals couples would have the same basic human rights as heterosexual couples. I would also like to add that legalizing same-sex marriage does not harm society in any way.
Gay Marriage should be legal in the United States.

Introduction:Before I present my argument, I would like to say that I had made a mistake. I had accepted the position of Con without carefully reading what my position would be. I will not, however, forfeit. All I ask of the voters is to vote not based on which side they actually agree with, but on who had the better and compelling argument, as how debates are supposed to be.Argument:1. Marriage has been tradionally defined through centuries (excluding recent jurisdictions) as between men and women.Tradition has been the basis of culture. A change in the norm would break the tradition, and although it would make a new one, the old tradition would be lost. An example of such is Latin, which, after the Fall of Rome, people began to speak less of. They may have gained new traditions in their language, they also had lost a common language to commnicate.I will wait until the next round for my opponent to make his argument and rebuttals.
Gay Marriage should be legal in the United States.

Before I begin I would like to clarify that marriage, in this argument, will be defined as: "The legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship" (Oxford Dictionary). The only thing I have to provide for my opening position is that there is no valid reason to not allow gays to marry. My opponent will refute me by providing valid reasons.
Cross Country is Better than Track

"Exactly. According to the laws of thermodynamics, things with more mass can exert more energy." Although I love to see a 12 year old interested in thermodynamics you might want to re-read the laws of thermodynamics. More importantly, with your statement one could deduce that you believe the bigger the individual the further they could run. This is just wrong. AGAIN I will mention the build of a cross country runner limits how far one could and should run. AGAIN the larger the person the more they are meant NOT to run long distance. "And as such, would give kids more exercise. Remember, you said that on race day it would, but during practice they should be working just as hard." In any sport there are more days of practice than there are days of actual competition. My point was that during a cross country meet a cross country will have had more of a work out (meaning more calories burnt) than say a sprinter on a track team. However, I said on practice or training days a sprinter burns just as much calories as a cross country runner. It is just a matter of how much time is spent running. A cross country runner will compete for 15 to 20 minutes on a race day; a sprinter may compete for as little as 11 seconds. But on a training day the practice last about equally. As for your comment to mine about track allowing a larger variety of athletes compete you can't even logically refute that. Track allows sprinters, long distance runners, jumpers, and throwers all to compete as a team. Cross country allows … long distance runners to compete and only long distance runners to compete. And to add, track has superior cross training at the middle school/high school level which is healthier for the athletes. These track teams more than usually require lifting in their training schedule. This is to increase the red cell muscle as talked about earlier. While I competed on a cross country team our workouts consisted of running… and more running. Recent studies have shown that cross country runners should incorporate more cross training activities. To reiterate my statement, I am not saying that all cross country programs have poor cross training; however, generally cross country programs have poorer cross training than track.
Cross Country is Better than Track

"One's physical build affects the amount of miles that should be run." Exactly. According to the laws of thermodynamics, things with more mass can exert more energy. "Sure the cross country runner ran for a longer time period " Exactly, if a cross country runner runs for that whole time, he will have reached his physical limit during the race, even if not near the start. "If you are talking about more exercise on a race day I can't argue that; however, during everyday practice a sprinter could burn as many calories as a cross country runner. " And as such, would give kids more exercise. Remember, you said that on race day it would, but during practice they should be working just as hard. "Track allows a wide variety of individuals with different athletic skills to compete together as a team." So does cross country. "Based on your very 'simple' context and fortified with the word is, I am going to assume that you believe cross country is always better than track." Not always. I mean overall.
God, heaven, and hell only exist metaphysically, not physically. Therefore, are only ideas.

Welcome to DDO! Before my beginning argument, I feel it is important to talk about the study of metaphysics. The prefix "Meta", meaning "beyond" and the word "Physical", meaning "That which is material". Metaphysics is a fundamental branch of philosophy that looks at the nature of being and the world that encompasses it. Thing's like ideas, opinions, and thought are all considered to metaphysical. So, my beginning argument is rather practical. Neither myself or con can determine the physical existence of god, heaven, or hell. Therefore they remain as ideas and exist metaphysically, not physically.
Gun rights

Just because nobody has any guns doesn't mean nobody doesn't have to protect themselves.Many people will use unconventional tools as weapons like a hatchet or a pocket knife.Then what will anyone do to protect themselves?As a plus guns,to many people,are great fun to fire and they provide a extra level of secureness to many people and their families.With guns,many lives are saved each year and they provide great entertainment for going out and just plinking with friends on weekends.So in the end,baning guns is a terrible idea and should never be put into action,and for good reason,too.
Gun rights

http://www.walmart.com... /go to this link/People don't need guns to commit a crime,so if somebody is getting robbed,the thief needs money which means they can't buy a gun so they use something like a knife,WHICH IS USELESS AGAINST A GUN(mostly).The person they are robbing (if they spend their money on one) can use their gun to protect themselves.Even if the government passed a law that bans guns,people would still make them and do you know who those people are?They are criminals who are not going to follow any law in the first place!Then nobody but criminals and the military/police would have guns.Which means that good inocent citizens would be able to have the upper hand in some low life coming up and SHIVING THEM FOR 200 BUCKS!
Gun rights

Guns are a big part of the America and we have the freedom to own and shoot guns,and no gun owner wants their gun taken away by some liberal thinking that guns are evil.News flash guns are inanimate objects that can't kill anyone unless they are loaded and pointed at someone and someone else pulls the trigger.(with exceptions... ) Either way you see,guns will be around for along time and everybody I has enjoyed shoting guns and will enjoy shooting them well into future.
Transgender people are not the sex they claim to be

The issue with this line of reasoning is that if someone claims to be black because they "disagree with the race assigned to them at birth" then everyone around them will be expected to give into their delusion. You can be a feminine male but that does not make you a female and you should still be referred to as he. And I'm not arguing their "gender identity" (which in my opinion is basically just different labels people give themselves to feel unique ie queer gendered etc. ) I am actually arguing that just because someone claims to be female or a woman they are not actually a woman and they should still be treated as a male.
Transgender people are not the sex they claim to be

Scientifically, People are always the same sex they were at birth. However, Gender is not so much of a scientific thing these days, And is more what the person believes their identity to be. You can not prove in any way that the gender transgender people claim to be is not what their gender is as it is not based in science either way. It is the same thing as if a person decides to change their name. It's not a scientific concept, It is entirely based on the person's feelings.
Transgender people are not the sex they claim to be

First off while it is not the average there are many trans people who argue they are a different sex to what they are born with. And also I am arguing that sex and gender are intertwined and that someones inherent personalities don't mean anything in deciding whether they are male or female. Because that decision occurred when they were a developing fetus and is not something they can change, I see no evidence that gender is removed from sex as the vast of people stick with the gender they are assigned as from birth. And we are only seeing a rise in transgenderism in the last 10 years whereas before then the numbers were relatively low. I don't really agree that the concept of gender being a social construct gives someone the right to change it to whatever they like and make up things like queer gendered, Or demi gendered etc. I just think that maybe people are just more in touch with their masculine or feminine side than average and that's ok but what isnt ok is when they decide to lie to themselves and pretend to be something that they scientifically aren't.
The Christian god is unmerciful compared to the Jewish G-d.

I think it's clear that the G-d of Judaism is merciful and only want the people to turn from their sins. I know I portrayed a christian god that most won't agree, but as per their own scripture, there is just no other possibility. I think people try to dissuade themselves that the christian god is different because it would be too cruel to see old grandma in hell just because she was not chosen. He chooses who will burn in hell and who will be save, but Judaism ask each one to repent and do good. Thank you
The Christian god is unmerciful compared to the Jewish G-d.

"Most major Christian denominations either reject predestination either completely, or they reject that God predestines people to hell." True, most denominations reject predestination. Why, because it is painfully unmerciful for god to do that. It does not change the fact that the NT teaches it! If you are not chosen, you are doomed to hell by a god that does not care to save you. There is no other way to read that verse and Jesus made it clear in the gospel of John that no one could come to Jesus, but him that the father draw near. Even if Jesus preach to them, they just could not come, because they were not chosen. And that is what the NT teaches, but people prefer to deny it, because it is too cruel. People love "Jesus loves you "I still contend that that G-d is unmerciful in comparison to God. " The god of the Christian is a tri-une god, thus one part may seem to be unmerciful, but that 1/3 part of god of the Old Testament is part of the god of the new testament." "In addition to this, many Christians interpret Old Testament to support the existence of hell." Because it is so clear in the NT, then they can re-interpret the passage with the lenses of the NT. "Since it is impossible for a living human to know what happens after death, to definitively prove which of these interpretations is more correct is also impossible." What really happens does not matter for this debate: Christian god, hell forever if you refuse Jesus. Jewish G-d, Hell not forever. Any person can go to heaven. "If you view the God of the Old Testament as distinct from the God of the Old Testament, then based off of their actions, the God of the New Testament is more merciful. " NO, the New Testament adds new theology to the Hebrew Bible. If you look at the Hebrew Bible and what Jews believe, the Hebrew Bible G-d is more merciful.
The Christian god is unmerciful compared to the Jewish G-d.

In regards to predestination: Most major Christian denominations either reject predestination either completely, or they reject that God predestines people to hell. http://www.religionfacts.com... This means that Christians reject the idea that God chooses who goes to heaven or who goes to hell. Most Christians, excluding Puritans, some Calvinists, and probably some others, fully accept free will. I concede that Christians view the God of the Old Testament as the same God of the New Testament. However, the way that God interacts with humanity in the Old Testament is very different from the way God acts in the New Testament, in spite of the numerous amount of scriptures that say that God is unchanging. Overlooking these scriptures and viewing the two as distinct, in regards to their actions (the afterlife not included), I still contend that that G-d is unmerciful in comparison to God. I will also concede that most Jews do not believe in "hell" as a place of eternal punishment, while many Christians do (although there is a growing number of Christians who are annihilationists, and believe that instead of being sent to hell after death, a sinner merely ceases to exist - here is one such example/argument for it: http://reknew.org...) In addition to this, many Christians interpret Old Testament to support the existence of hell. Jews reject this interpretation, yes, but that means that the only difference between the Christian God of the Old Testament and the Jewish G-d is one's interpretation of scripture. This interpretation is entirely subjective and dependant upon one's preconceived notions of god. Since it is impossible for a living human to know what happens after death, to definitively prove which of these interpretations is more correct is also impossible. So: If Jews are right and the Old Testament does not support the existence of hell, then the Christian God is less merciful. If Christians are right and the Old Testament does support the existence of hell, then there are two more options: If you view the God of the Old Testament as distinct from the God of the Old Testament, then based off of their actions, the God of the New Testament is more merciful. If you view them as the same God, then being the same unchanging God, they are equally merciful.
The Star Wars The Force Awakens was a good movie

I will mostly be pointing out the facts on why The Force Awakens is a COMPLETE re-slash of a New Hope. -Classic Light vs Dark side(Rebels vs Empire AND Rebels vs First Order) -Astromech droids sent on missions at beginning of movie (R2-D2 getting message to Ben, and BB-8 looking for help) -Sandy planets as home for main character(Tattooine and Jakku) -Main Characters having no family(Rey waiting for them to return, and Luke's family getting burned to a crisp) -Both main characters lose their "mentors"(Luke and Ben Kenobi, and Rey and Han) -Both main villains have a "sidekick"(Boba Fett and Captain Phasma) -Both main villains related to mentors they killed(Vader was Kenobi's Padawan, and Han was Ren's "father"(we dont know for sure)) -Both main villains have a mentor of their own(Sidious and Snoke) -Both do almost every flight to places in the Millenium Falcon -Both astromech droids tag along for entire movie(R2 and BB-8) -Both main characters use Anakin's lightsaber(Luke and Rey) -Both evil sides get their giant planet destroying spheres(because people normally do that) destroyed at the ends of TFA and ANH. -And many more. Design: They relied too heavily on CGI for the movie. In made some of it look unrealistic. Conspiracies: What does that have to do with the movie? We're talking about the movie, not the theories that came out of it. Thats what I have so far. Thanks for letting me debate this.
Public High schools

Thank you for responding. :) My case: VP: http://www.libertarianrock.com... This is were I get my information from. You can extend my value premise. My opponent makes up a statistic that has no evidence. My opponent makes no rebuttal so my value premise must be looked to in the round. I would ask my opponent that he would signpost where is was making arguments in his case. So by attacking his case, that is defending my value criterion, and contention 1. Point A: Let me just say this, if a student can not handle a test, how are they going to handle life? Secondly the key is to allow retakes and to re mediate, to help students who struggle to succeed. Failure is a speed bump to success. This test ensures that the students have a quality education and they do not pass high school without the proper tools. If they are bad test takers, how will they take SAT's, if they can't handle the tests they wont be able to handle everyday situations. Point B: He states that the tests take away from programs such as arts, well even this is bad, it does not matter. A real basic education is more important than just extra curricular activities. Point 2: If a kid really wanted to be an artist he would enroll in classes not involved with school, and would practice on his own. Point C: Look to my VP: the public school systems don't teach right, and the students aren't ready for college. With the standardized exit exams, we can make sure that the students, know basic knowledge. "If exit exams have no bearing a a student ability to succeed in a job, then why are we wasting time and money on them?" Because they make sure that they have a quality education before the graduate. Point D: My opponent states that the exams waste money, IT IS NOT A WASTE OF MONEY, it makes sure that the students have basic knowledge before they graduate. Look to my VP, those facts are appalling. Teaching the test is only a bad if there is a bad test. I'm arguing for a good test, not a bad one. One that requires basic knowledge. Turn: This will be good because the teachers are teaching necessary material. Grading: this is a moot point, a machine can grade. or the teachers can apply themselves. Point E: I'm arguing for a critical thinking test. Agreed. Point F: I use critical thinking. We can never stop luck, but it is a better method of our current public school system. Point G: This is a copy and paste, I also read this article. So what, there is also countries that use standardized exams such as Finland, and they rank near the top of high students in the world. My opponent does not state how he would change the public school system, and we can not leave it this way.