BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The heavier the school bag is, the lesser we study

I will be presenting my stance in that the weight of book bags does not have any effect on a student's education, or encourages them to study less. In the first round, I will state my case, and I will attempt to refute the opening case of Pro. I wish Pro luck, and I look forward to a great debate! Opening CaseI claim that book bags belonging to students does not have any effect on education. I believe that the education can be seen as a door, multiple doors, actually. It is the teacher's job to open the door and allow the student to strive in the classroom environment, but it is up to the student whether or not they wish to accept this education, and do something with it (walking through said door). This is a very generic analogy, but it shows the job of the student and the teacher perfectly. That being said, a student's education relies heavily on the actions of the student. If they have a heavy backpack, this should not stop them whatsoever from trying their best. If the student thinks that their teacher assigns too much homework, then the student should speak to the teacher about that issue. The teacher, in most cases, will not go to the student to talk to them about how much homework they are giving them. Rebuttals- "the child gets tired soon and does not have any energy remained to concentrate in the class. If the bag is very heavy"I assume we're talking about younger students, as Pro has stated "child" and High School and College students rarely worry about how heavy their book bag is. If this is directed towards elementary school kids, they don't get that many things to carry around anyway. Also, exerting energy does not have that much effect on a student's ability to concentrate. Concentration among students usually depends on how much sleep that child got. - "it may also cause a defect in the body posture of the student. "As stated before, it's doubted that their book bags are even that heavy. If children have bad posture, that is still their fault. Posture problems in students is out of laziness and feeling more comfortable with a slumped back as opposed to perfect, straight posture. As the year goes on, students would most likely get used to a heavy book bag, and would adapt to it. They might not even have a heavy book bag all the time. ConclusionA heavy book bag does not become detrimental to a young student as you might think, Pro. It has proven to be nothing more than a nuisance than a major issue.
Resolved: That, on balance, the rise of Brazil, Russia, India, and China (BRIC) has had a positive i

Chuck Norris did not bother to debate the topic, despite issuing the challenge. He has not met his burden to prove that, on balance, the rise of Brazil, Russia, India, and China have a negative impact on anything at all. Because he has failed to provide any argument, I hope you will join me in voting Con.
Resolved: That, on balance, the rise of Brazil, Russia, India, and China (BRIC) has had a positive i

Chuck Norris claims that, on balance, the rise of Brazil, Russia, India, and China has had a positive impact [on the world?]. Since there is yet not argument from pro, and I am not entirely certain as to his resolution, I will patiently await his R2 post. I do have a few questions that he could answer anywhere in his first argument to clear up my confusion. Does he mean they all have an overall positive impact on the world, on nations, or on people. If he means nations or people, does he mean all nations or people of the world? Good luck on your first argument.
Nintendo is the greatest developer in the world

My opponent seeks to affirm that "Nintendo is the greatest developer in the world." She has consistently, however, only been showing you evidence that Nintendo is the best VIDEO GAME developer in the world. This is like me taking the best polka band, comparing them with other polka bands, and saying they're the best band in the world. Or like providing evidence why the Pitbull is the best type of dog, but then trying to say from that that it's the best type of animal. My opponent may have meant that Nintendo is the best video game developer. That's fine, and she can start a new debate with that resolution. HOWEVER, in this debate, she must affirm that "Nintendo is the greatest developer in the world." I have provided other types of developers that are inherently greater than video game developers. Saving lives, even a few, is more important than letting people play a few good videogames, especially when there are so many alternatives to choose from in the case of videogames. People helping develop third world countries are greater developers than Nintendo. Also, many developers of technology are greater than Nintendo. Think of the benefits sciuentific and technological development brings. It makes our standard of living higher, requires us to work less on average, and much of the developmenmt now will allow us to help save the environment while we're at it [more feul efficient cars, alternate energy sources, etc]. And what's the lasting effect of Nintendo? A few hours of enjoyment for people, when they had plenty of other sources of entertainment to choose from anyway. It's plain to see that Nintendo is not the greatest developer in the world, and my opponent has given us no reason to think that they are. Thus, I must disagree: Nintendo is not the greatest developer in the world.
Nintendo is the greatest developer in the world

Well, I am not sure how to start this. First off, when I meant developer I meant video game developer. I assumed that everyone would be able to figure that out. Second off, if anybody did check that list, they would see that my argument dosent change a bit. There is a grand total of 70 games fully produced by Nintendo and they are all considered great games. And like I said before, if they had made just Zelda and Mario, they would still be the best because of how much these two franchises have defined modern video gaming. And yet, they have gone far beyond this producing a dizzying number of great games for everyone (hardcore or casual) to enjoy.
Nintendo is the greatest developer in the world

MY opponent argues that Nintendo is the best developer. To substantiate this, he makes arguments about how awesome games that Nintendo publishes are. First, there is a fatal flaw here. As a game publisher, Nintendo does not develop all of its games. It contracts independent, third party, or second party developers for a lot of the games they publish. From the Wikepedia article on the NES: "In addition, with the NES, Nintendo introduced a now-standard business model of software licensing for third-party developers." Also, here is a link to the article on Nintento's Entertainment Analysis and Development: http://en.wikipedia.org... In it there is a list of games Nintendo actually develops. The list is still pretty extensive, and many of the great games my opponent lists are on the list, but some are not. Next, I will show you why Nintendo is not the greatest developer in the world. Even if Nintendo is the greatest game software developer in the world, this is no high title. There are many more important types of development. Agricultural development, the development of the third world, technological development, etc. I would say that it is fairly obvious that the greatest developer in the world is not a video game developer. The most influential developers of the thir world [probably charities of some sort] are far greater than Nintendo. The most influential developers of technology are far greater than Nintendo, and in fact, Nintendo would not be nearly as successful without the much more important technological development of ages past. Nintendo's job is to make us slightly more happy. There are very few people whose lives would be worse if it weren't for Nintendo's game development; the same cannot be said for the development of the third world, agricultural development, or technological development, along with many others I need not bring up.
Nintendo is the greatest developer in the world

When someone first thinks of videogames, they might think of Halo or GTA but what really comes universally to everyones minds is Mario. He has graced nintendo consoles since the 80's and with the release of Super Mario Galaxy, he has shown the world that he is still on top. Sure, Rockstar has made Grand Theft Auto and Bungie made Halo but what other great games have they made? Nintendo has created so many different franchises that are still considered great today. Some examples would be Metroid, Donkey Kong, Super Smash Bros., and of course Zelda. They also have the current slots for the best video games of all time which are generally Zelda Ocarina Of Time and Super Mario Brothers. There has never been a single developer to accomplish so much. Along with this evey single game that nintendo has put out has always been considered very good or great (exception being Mario Party). Nintendo is the pinnacle achievement of the gaming industry.
Rap Battle(Icepick)

Thinks kids= children. I hate battling people who don't know slang. Go back to the suburbs. If you know like I know you'll let me keep my composure cuz if not I shut the house the fvck down like foreclosure I dont know what to do with you little hater, just to get in your head and cause you pain like african braiders but forget it, it's whatever boy you'll never top my metaphors feel this Hawaii heat and I don't mean the weather boy i think you starting to feel yourself to much young dude cuz you get jumping out of pocket, like baby kangaroos who wanna rock who wanna be in this spot disappear everything i spit is hot like the p0rn shop and it aint no rhymes stolen its just the fire rolling I score like Forrest and dance on you like Terrel Owens Your rhymes are gay, delivery is even gayer get on my level, but you gonna need a fvckin elevator Niqqa I'm the greatest so stop acting all anxious and even though im the mic doctor, i dont got a lot of patience you don't understand the kinda pain im used to what made me, and what makes me steal the show like a booster why i go so hard,pulling all cards tryna redirect the nation like Minister Fard I don't rap about jewels or cars i rap about how i kill rappers on bars I talk alot of sh!t thats my cocky side mics and beats i murder, call homocide or CSI Because for I die I'm leaving seeds on bread like New york rye let me get clarity my bi-polarity lay tragedy to your ville and i aint never been an amity It's Butch Cassidy or Kid Calamity Icepick my skills up like "Fvck Gravity!" My what have we? a monster among us? I am a perv, i fvck everybody over like whoremongers lil niqqa beware you say something I dare you when I rock H & R block could not prepare you
Rap Battle(Icepick)

Tell me this a rap and this dude is straight trippin' You about to be my slave prepare yourself from the whippin' Give you a fat lip like your a** was dippen' Then put a ring on my finger like the Bulls Scotty Pippen Raps leavin voters starstruck Your raps is waste, toss em in a garbage truck Haven't battled online? Practice first cuz damn you SUCK! Rappin' is easy peasy Lemon squeezy the breezy I'm mentioned with Eminem, Drizzy and Lil Weezy Your raps so stupid people think your mental The raps you created must've been accidental Cuz the rhymes I create get me the green like enviornmental Your raps missin' it, like words to an instrumental And your girl, she ain't yours just a rental You to old for the voters, your a Jackie Chan to my Jet Lee And drop the Coyote dawg cuz you just plain ugly "Icepick better chill", Bro, I'm cooler than frost Have you lookin like Kevin Garnett vs Wade you got crossed Then pull a Paul Peirce cuz your a** was tossed "I stay connected to your town.... Kids call me circuit city" -Pervert "Watch out kids, Marquis is in town hit the dirt!" This dude's a fruit, he whacks off with his tee shirt Swearin' to your unborn daughter? This guys a demon someone get his a** some Holy Water! You got no life, busy worryin' why your toilet bowl has no suction Hook up with your girl, show you some sexual reproduction I'm winnin' this rap, cuz I whooped you in the Introduction Examine what you doin'? Your causin' self destruction Your rhymes is whack, dude you stink And how can you erase me, I said I'm written in ink Your life I won't be sparing Your on the spot, the voters are now staring Tried to lie to em lke a red herring But the spotlight is on you now, and oh is it blaring
Rap Battle(Icepick)

I was busy. But now I'm not. Let's get started. Dudes embrace the flow, but also chicks love me got girls behind my bars like Coyote ugly Icepick better chill you can't my my skill I'm the champ when it comes to rap, im undefeated and i still got the belt to give the young mc a beating it wont be pretty i grind nitty gritty I stay connected in your town, kids call me Circuit city I get my truth deployed from seaboard to seaboard go in with a hard drive, f*ck a usb cord I swear on my nieces, my nephews, my unborn daughter I'll take you off your feet, like high water examine what im doing or your plans will ruined and you must agree with me like the keyboard is doing good with chicks cuz the game i spit i get quarter pieces, you can keep the dimes like it cost 90 cents My articulation will straight erase you write the end of your world like the book of revelations Im the battle of good and evil on beef Im Jesus Voorhees, and its good friday the 13th Hip-hop-ocalyptic it get cryptic yo run rings around this kid like the Olympics logo bet he's tired of hearing how i'm best trust i got the Ice steaming like Chinese chefs
Rap Battle(Icepick)

Alright, The battle has begun and you can no longer prolong The tune is irrisistable even you'll sing along Im always in the right And I can never go wrong Leave you feelin out of place like British people in Hong Kong Let's see if you can match up to this I comin for the number one spot like Ludacris You better "Get out the way" and "Move B****" Can't keep with the pace Your raps a disgrace How you gonna listen to a guy with a baby face? Think you spit better than me cuz your darker? Homie I'll scribble all over you like an expo sharpie marker In the end this battle will be painful like a bee sting Dawg, I'll let you do you just let me do MY thing With you, people will abuse Torture and misuse Dude this is rap, not rhythem and blues Bout to get whooped by a kid who ain't even 15 But I'm the best thing Debate.Org has ever seen You cold but I could never be hotter Boy you a Pu*** like cats are afraid of water Whats a matter? Do I got you bugged? I might drop the world, Atlas shugged I'm on a see-saw to the top who cares how much it tilts Boy you couldn't stand up to me if you were standin on stilts I kill raps like Oj Simpson Don't worry bout the others just make sure your listenin' Cuz I'll make sure I'm glistenin' like a star in space You got to face, what I spit you embace Yah you heard me I didn't stu-stu-stu studder My rhyes is so real you can't believe it's not butter Don't question my desire Take the wind outta ya like a flat tire And the name is Ice but I'm hot as fire
It is unreasonable to believe in atheism.

While Pro hopes to affirm the solution merely through Pro's own misunderstanding of what atheism is, I hope that those viewing this debate will see that was has really been argued here is whether of not atheism can be considered 'reasonable'.Pro's whole argument is based on the idea that if you cannot explain something, the only 'reasonable' solution is to merely accept what someone tells you, however irrational it may appear. This is ridiculous. Pro also seems to suggest that you must be 100% sure of something. If you do not believe in God, then this necessitates a 100% sure belief in the nature of the world. Here, he is again incorrect. Many atheists have other ideas, with different strengths of confidence in these ideas. Almost no atheists would say they are 100% sure about any definitive argument. Again Pro suggests that it is unreasonable not to believe in God as if you don't and it ends up it is all true, then eternal happiness will be denied to you. Again, ridiclous. Lying to yourself therefore based on a possibility of benefit is justified. Crucially, pro also seems to suggest that belief in God is a matter of choice, something you can switch on and off. That if I was to be reasonable, I could suddenly decide to believe. This again, is simply a falsity. What is 'reasonable' changes from one person to the next, as they will have had different experiences and different ethical and moral values. Lastly I would like to point out that Pro also seems to have decided that all who don't believe in God will be denied eternal happiness. If there was another round I would ask him i he considers that all that are not of his particular religion would also be denied eternal happiness, whether he considers others of different religions to equally be 'unreasonable' since he considers his God to be the one true God, and how he can possibly speak for God and say that atheists will be denied eternal happiness. Perhaps if God is real and I have led a God life, he'll let me into the magical land of milk and honey.
It is unreasonable to believe in atheism.

In this round, I hope to summarize the main arguments, and hopefully prove that it is unreasonable to believe in atheism. The first issue I would like to address is the question of whether one can believe in atheism or not. If one cannot believe in atheism (since it is a ‘non-belief' supposedly) then I can easily affirm the resolution since it would be very unreasonable to try believing in something that cannot be believed. Thus, for arguments sake, we must assume that our ‘reasonable man' is choosing between believing in a God or in a world without a God. I would like to define reasonable and reason. Reasonable: agreeable to reason or sound judgment. Reason: sound judgment. Thus, a ‘reasonable' man will rely on sound judgments, which by the definitions does not require him to have 100% proofs of anything. He merely needs to make the best choice of beliefs (i. e. 70%) from what is presented to him. Like I said last round, it is reasonable to believe in the bottom of the ocean even though we haven't seen it. Next, I would like to define what exactly a ‘belief' is. Belief: confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof. So, a belief does not of necessity have to be provable. Now, let's see what our reasonable man would think when he considers my point 3. He would see that he has a choice between believing in God or not believing in God. Being rational, he would want his belief to have the best chance possible of coinciding with the truth. He would realize that if he does not believe in God, that there must be some scientific and natural way that world came into existence. This is the question of the purple hippo that you proposed. However, if there is no alternative to the purple hippo having put the ball in the room, then the rational man, even though it is against his first instincts, would have to believe that the purple hippo existed since there is no other alternative. In this debate, I have shown two reasons why the alternatives to God are impossible (evolution lacks evidence and there had to be a Prime Mover). As the con, since you did not rebut these points, you allow me to assume that my arguments are true. Thus, in this case we can see that there is indeed no alternative than to believe in the purple hippo (who would be better described as a man with an invisibility cloak) since no other alternative has been presented by my opponent. So, what does this mean to the debate round. If the reasonable man were presented with the arguments in this debate, he would have to assume that there is no solid ground for atheism, and he would also realize that it in his best interests anyways to believe in a God since this view point gives him a chance at eternal happiness. Thus, I am not promoting lying to one's self as you claimed I am. I am merely suggesting that if there is substantial room for doubt in atheism (as has definitely been proven in this round) then any reasonable man would accept the existence of a God as in his best interests and as the closest guess he can make of the truth.
It is unreasonable to believe in atheism.

Thanks for pointing out the 3 rather than 4 rounds - and yes I agree to moving my 2/3 into this one. I will now deal with the issues you just raised in your round 2. You stated that if/when someone becomes an atheist, they have to in some way explain where earth came from. However I dispute this point. Atheism is just a non-belief (I will deal with the definition issue later). It is merely asserting that is irrational to believe in something for which there is no proof. It is not however (although it is often mistakenly considered so) a ratification of any other explanations of how life came about. There is no need for an atheist to present an alternative explanation. It will of course transpire that many atheists would be happy to do so - and many of course will be evolutionists etc, but you mistakenly believe this accounts for all atheists.You have made the common error that Atheism is a belief. It is not, though is often incorrectly defined as such by many theists. Atheism is in fact a lack of belief. http://www.999ideas.com... Only very few atheists think they can prove that God doesn't exist, and those people shouldn't really be counted as 'atheists' at all, since they make such an assertion that again, is unproovable. If you are arguing that it is unreasonable to 'believe' in atheism, the you have misunderstood the concept of atheism.If you are arguing that is unreasonable to be atheist, then you are arguing that in fact it is reasonable and rational to believe in something for which there is no concrete proof. Again in your final paragraph you use the argument that an atheist must come up with another explanation. But this is simply ridiculous. If I see a ball in the middle of a room, and don't know how it got there - and you explain to me that a flying hippo came through the window and give birth to it. Well, I cannot proove 100% that you are wrong. But would if I cannot give you an alternative theory that I am 100% sure of (though I may be able to suggest some other altertive viewpoints), would it be unreasonable of me to say that your view lacks proof, and thus I have a lack of belief in your theory? No. I cannot really respond to your argument about that atheism is irrational as there is nothing to benefit from it. I just think this is fundmentally incorrect. Even if something causes you pain, you can acknowledge its truth. Here you seem to be promoting kidding or lying to yourself (if your mind tells you you don't believe), in order to achieve some degree of what you see as 'reason'. This, to me, is a barmy concept. I look forward to your closing statement.