BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Middle School is Irrevalent and is Unneeded

According to your above statement, it seems that the true purpose of middle school does not lie in the compulsory education, but in sexual education and the learning to control the sexual desires from the raging hormones within the young teenager"s body. But if we have to closely monitor sex, chances of reproduction among humans will decrease by large factor. Learning sex and its techniques, we may increase the desire of sex and the population of our country. Look at China and all of its people, children in China are not forced to go to school and in the process, may learn more about the deep inner joys of sex. In fact, if you go to the famous Chinese search engine, Baidu.com, the first thing that pops up after searching "bl" is not blue, but blowjob. And still, China is the world"s biggest banker, statistics say that by 2030, China will be the new world super power and come ahead of the US. We must follow China"s guide.
Middle School is Irrevalent and is Unneeded

Middle School is vital in a child's education. Puberty occurs in middle school, and as we all know, the raging hormones summoned by said puberty can cause unpredictable behavior in boys and girls alike (but mostly boys). How many of you recall doing stupid things when under the control of hormones? It can be said, in fact, that puberty is the adolescent alcohol. Due to the unpredictable nature of these sexy, sexy hormones, we need to ensure that all kids under the influence of their body need to be carefully monitored and controlled. Statistics show that middle school is the time period where teenagers discover the wonders of internet porn and masturbation! We will not have our future generation held sway under such raunchy influences! We must stop this problem once and for all, and what better way to eliminate it than during middle school? Grumpy health teachers can instill fear in kids - they can preach about the wonders of abstinence, the total illegality of internet porn, and the horrors of genital warts! Such teachings will utterly eliminate all traces of temptation to view racy content! We must have a cultured, sophisticated future generation of non-masturbators, intent on something other than endless reproduction! We need a strong, united America! We are not rabbits! Strength through unity! Unity through faith!
Middle School is Irrevalent and is Unneeded

According to your statement, China is in poverty due to having too much sex and not enough work. Well, I don"t know why then, that all the Chinese kids get A+ in my classes. Looking at this image of Harvard Students, you can obviously see that most of them are chinese. http://www.asia-insider-photos.com... And to solve a problem, we must encounter the problem first. We US citizens may spend 10,000 per children, but the Chinese spend 100 times less. Why do we Americans have garage/yard sales? Because we go on shopping sprees and "accidently" buy too much stuff. The Chinese don"t do that, back in the 1900s, they used to not have any entertainment, any birthday gifts, food was scarce and was not wasted, no fat people. But now, we see lots of fat asians in China? (cited:http://media.boreme.com...) What is the REASON behind this? According to CNN, due to the wealth of the Chinese nowadays, they don"t want their sons to have to experience what they went through. They overfeed the children resulting in fatness. As you can see, I said the term "wealth". Due to the poverty that the Chinese have gone through, it only natural according to Darwin"s theory that the Chinese evolved and grown smarter to adapt to their situation. This is why we see the Chinese nowadays consistently getting A+ while not doing anything. We may see the wrinkles in their eyes but that is the result of late night porn and sexual activity. I am not saying that chinese people are better or anything, but heredity is a big factor.
Middle School is Irrevalent and is Unneeded

I am afraid that my opponent is uncivilized. Research supports my argument; masturbators are more often than not unsuccessful later on in life. I am not preaching about the evils of sex, but rather the importance of abstinence until an older age! Did you know that on average, the birth of a baby will leave the couple 10,000 dollars poorer? Do you honestly believe that sex at an earlier age is a beneficial thing? In addition, your example of China is irrelevant. Did you know that the majority of Chinese people are in poverty right now? Why is this? Because they're too busy having sex! Their desire to reproduce is unstoppable, trumping all other desires! Do you want an America swamped in poverty, sunken to the lowly spot of "Number 2" in Global GDP? No! We must become a united, strong, independent nation! The only way to do that is to reproduce on a careful, planned system! Masturbation must be saved until a later age. If we have our future generation discovering the wonders of sex at an early age, the chances of high-school baby rise exponentially! That's $10,000 per couple! Your average McDonald's Fry Cook makes that much money in a YEAR! This kind of financial burden must be reserved until the teenagers have a respectable income (e.g. when they're 30). Strength through unity! Unity through faith!
Riggs v Palmer Case

14) the court is bound by rules of currently existing laws made by legislature, not appeal to conscience. (515.3.9-10) the court in many occasion have changed their minds on different, widening the scope of a particular set of laws. The courts have previously used other cases to create a new standard in the law. It may not be written that if the owner of the will is killed by one of the correspondents, that individual will not be responsible. The courts has used this case as a way to create a precedent , that such an action will not be acceptable. to rule in favor of appellant gives additional punishment to the respondent. (518.3,12) Con argues that removing Elmer from the will is an example of double jeopardy. That he is not true it is part of his punishment. Removing him from the will should be standard procedure when the individual kills the owner of the will. Questions: 1)Does a reasonable person have the right to give away his property to whoever he wants? 2)Are laws bound by the courts or is it that the courts are bound by the laws? 3)If a will is legalized isn"t it recognized as a binding contract? 4)Do you want to let the courts decide when they will not honor your legal wishes based on anything Other than Law ex, feelings. 5)I believe that emotions do have a place in law because some laws are enacted by public opinion. However there is a process that follows before public opinion can become law. It would be unfair to just jump from the feeling that something doesn"t sit right to your conscience to pushing it through and holding someone liable to the consequence of feeling of ill feelings by the courts. Would you agree or disagree? 6)If we do not uphold and safeguard the freedom of the people to contract with valid legal document what will happen to our property,rights and freedom in the future? Yes a Reasonable person is permitted to give away his property to whomever he may wish, but any reasonable person would agree that they would not wish there property to fall into the hands of the person responsible for their death. Courts are bound by the law, the courts purpose is to interpret laws and open or close the scope of a certain law to fit the public need. Just as in the Constitution of the United States. Not all of rights were directly stated but they could be derived. If law-makers did not believe it would be necessary for them to state "if murderer then no rights to the property". In this particular case the court not only used the law but moral judgment in deciding that Elmer had no entitlement to property. Yes but any binding contract but like any contract they are conditions where the contract can nullified. Certainly murdering the testator is a condition which can nullify an existing contract. The courts are made to decide what is best for the public and allowing this gentlemen to benefit from his wrongdoing, would create the wrong precedent.
Riggs v Palmer Case

1)On August 13 1880 Francis B Palmer made a will leaving a small portion of his estate to his daughters Plaintiffs Mrs. Riggs and Mrs. Preston, and the rest to his grandson Defendant Elmer E Palmer. (508.1.1) 2) He knew of the provisions made in his favor that were in the will. (506.1.4) 3) Palmer looking to obtain the provisions immediately he willfully murdered Francis B. Palmer by poison. (506.1.4) 4) Preventing his grandfather from revoking his inheritance under the will which he had shown some intention in doing so prior to the murder.(506.1.4) 5) Palmer is claiming to have rightful ownership to the property on the will. (507.1.2) 6) It was the intention of law-makers that the inheritance in a will be rightfully passed on to the correct correspondents, however not if a correspondent was responsible for the murder of the testator. (507.2.2) 7) No one should be allowed to profit by his own fraud, or to take advantage of his own wrong doing, or to found any claim upon his own iniquity, or to acquire property by his own crime.(508.3.3) 8) Writers of laws do not always express their intention perfectly, usually expanding or shrinking the scope, so that judges could make rational interpretations on how/when to apply these laws. (507.2.4) 9) All laws as well as all contracts may be controlled in their operation and effect by the fundamental maxims of the common law.(509.3.2) 10) These maxims are dictated by public policy and have their foundation universally administered in all civilized countries, and have nowhere been superseded by statues. (509.3.3) 11) The fundamental maxim were applied in the decision of New York mutual Life insurance Company v. Armstrong, in which the person that was entitled to the policy murdered the individual that procured the policy. The court deemed it would be a reproach to the jurisprudence of the country if one could recover insurance money payable on death whose life was felonious taken.(509.3.5-6) 12) If both a will and life insurance are payable on death why should a murderer be permitted to receive one of these benefits if the court has already denied the other. 13) In the case of Owens v Owens, the wife lost all entitlement to support just because she was an accessory before the fact, she did not necessarily kill her husband. (510.3.1) 14) If he had taken the property by force or undue influence had induced Francis Palmer into giving up his property, the law would not permit him to have any right to the property. 15) Therefore Elmer Palmer should have no entitlement to any items in the Will of his grandfather. Non-Controversial 1,2,3,5,7,8, 11, 13 Controversial 4- Implying that the grandfather was in the process of removing him from the will. Was never stated, grandfather may have just said it in passing with no real meaning behind his words. 6- Implying I know what law maker actually intentions are. 9- We do not know if this is accurate and if they are what the fundamental maxims are. 10- What is considered a civilized country and what are they public policies that they speak of. 12- Deriving a precedent set in another case into this case, where the details are not exactly the same.
I'm Pro-Gun: Change my Mind

You truly are dumb, aren't you? Handguns kill more people than guns like AR-15's but in the instance of one shooting between a handgun or an AR-15 the AR-15 will most likely kill a greater amount of people. And also, I just love how most of your pro-gun arguments include facts about people being killed with guns. Also, same thing for the knives one. One knife attack vs. one shooting the most likely outcome is that the shooting will have more deaths. They aren't very strict...there are none for mental health and few for anything else. Besides, conceal and carry is for handguns only... I was hoping you'd bring this up! ;) Gun control in cites are not a good model of gun control in countries because guns can be brought in since there is no security when simply driving into a city. Also, your facts for Ireland and England were laughable. Check Source #1 for Ireland and Source #2 for England to get real facts. (1) http://www.gunpolicy.org... (2) https://www.cnn.com...
I'm Pro-Gun: Change my Mind

Claim: "Exactly, any gun can be used. But with guns like AR-15's there can be a lot more killings." Rebuttal: Actually, like I already said, the majority of gun murders are committed with handguns. In 2016, Over 7,000 are committed with handguns. 374 were committed by any type of rifle. This means 95% are done with handguns! Claim: "Either way, it's guaranteed that if the attackers had knives, a huge amount would still be alive." Rebuttal: 1,600 knife murders happened. That means they happen more than 4 more times than rifle murders. [1] Claim: "Also, that's another reason why we need background checks and if you are going to own a gun it needs to be concealed on your person with a license or locked away from children." Rebuttal: We already have background checks. There have been several illegal gun uses by mass murderers or red flags that should have warranted a police action. That's the only way you can conceal and carry: If you have a license. Yes, parents need to be responsible by teaching their children about gun safety and keeping them safe. Statistical evidence from the Crime Prevention Research Center shows that in places guns were banned, such as England, Ireland, Chicago, and Washington, D.C., homicides went up or stayed the same.[2] 1. http://dailycaller.com... 2. https://crimeresearch.org...
I'm Pro-Gun: Change my Mind

Exactly, any gun can be used. But with guns like AR-15's there can be a lot more killings. Also Santa Fe: 10 dead, 10 wounded. (Source 1) Las Vegas: 58 dead, 489 wounded. (Source 2) Either way, it's guaranteed that if the attackers had knives, a huge amount would still be alive. Also, that's another reason why we need background checks and if you are going to own a gun it needs to be concealed on your person with a license or locked away from children. Also, please elaborate on "Taking away guns has not proven to reduce murders." (1) https://www.nytimes.com... (2) https://www.usatoday.com...
I'm Pro-Gun: Change my Mind

Automatic rifles were already manufactured during the time. Why do you say assault rifle should be banned? Also, what kinds of guns are "assault rifles"? The majority of gun murders by a long shot are committed with handguns. Taking away guns has not proven to reduce murders. People need guns to protect themselves and from a tyrannical government. A few mass shootings by which the majority of guns were obtained illegally or several warning signs that should have been flagged should not take away the right to bear arms from law abiding citizens who want to protect themselves and family. Any gun can be used to kill just as many people, as we saw in the Santa Fe shooting, where a shotgun and revolver were used.
I'm Pro-Gun: Change my Mind

*I am on the side of stricter gun laws and fewer to no assault rifles in the hands of civilians* First let me start off by saying that the constitution is living document. It has been amended 27 times since it was first written and published on September 17th, 1787. "A living Constitution is one that evolves, changes over time, and adapts to new circumstances, without being formally amended" (Strauss). So please do not continue to reference a document that is almost 231 years old. Now there are many old amendments we still follow but that's because they still apply. This one is no longer relevant because guns have changed so much in 231 years. You can reference source 3 for what guns were like in 1878 and source 4 for what guns are like now. Also, yes, people do kill people. But it goes a lot faster and can be more effective with a gun. Yes, I'm sure most concealed gun owners are very law abiding but it can be used to evil just as quickly for good. Also, the whole "only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun" is a sales pitch. Someone's just trying to sell more guns then take away bad people's guns. In the many cases of white shooter, most of them have been disarmed without additional firearms. (1) https://en.wikipedia.org... (2) https://www.law.uchicago.edu... (3) https://www.smithsonianmag.com... (4) https://www.military.com...
The Wanted is better than One Direction.

I am sorry for the delay, since I was on vacation for a few days. Now, back to business: Even though 1D has more fans than TW, there is something I would like to say. The majoroty of the 1D fans are female, while TW has a mix of male AND female fans. 1D may have more fans, but they are eager for their looks, not songs. TW fans are more loyal and are not ashamed of being TW fans. For ex. if you are a male at your typical school, yell out "I love 1D!". The first response you might here is either: "Please bequiet." or "You're gay.". I will explain this next. In addition to the 1D is not mature arguement, they are quite immature than more than TW. As you can see on the web, 1D posted a video of Niall and Harry kissing each other. This has sparked many controversies that they are gay, thus losing support from male fans. Any band who wants to earn fans instead of losing them would not do that. Finally, though TW has songs that are auto-tuned, TW can change the pitches of their songs. You can hear them changing from high to low, while 1D uses the same voice in their songs. Some examples of voice change can be shown in The Wanted's "I Found You" (High) and "Warzone"(Normal). Thank you for your time spent.
The Wanted is better than One Direction.

I would also like to point out that I am not a Directioner, but I believe that One Direction is better than The Wanted. Without further adieu, I will begin my argument. First off, One Direction has more fans than The Wanted, which shows that they are liked by more people. The fact that they are liked by more people shows that they are better than The Wanted popularity wise. Secondly, although One Direction is not very mature, they are more mature than The Wanted. I suppose my opponent has heard of the feud that was going on between The Wanted and One Direction. The Wanted just want to fight. They can't just move on from one insult. One Direction has moved on and forgotten about the insults and immaturity of The Wanted, but The Wanted just keep bringing it up. Their want for an argument and inability to move on shows that One Direction is better (and apparently bigger) than The Wanted maturity-wise. Lastly, The Wanted barely have any songs with strong vocals. Their songs are all auto-tuned, party-style, songs with no powerful, strong vocals that show their true voice. One Direction does have songs that are like that, but they also have some songs that have strong vocals. For example, One Direction has songs like "Gotta Be You," "More Than This," "Summer Love," "Over Again," and many more. This shows that One Direction is better than The Wanted voice wise. As I have shown in my argument, One Direction is better than The Wanted in many categories such as popularity, maturity, vocals, and songs. I eagerly await my opponent's argument.
The Wanted is better than One Direction.

No problem, I understand. I would like to say that One Direction has male fans as well. I know boys who are fans of One Direction, and they don't get teased for it. I would also like to add that the majority of The Wanted's fans are also female. Also, females do not only go for the looks. They go for the complete package: the looks, and the music. This shows that if One Direction has more fans that The Wanted, it's not only for their looks, but their music as well. I understand that it's the music that counts, but this debate is about who is better overall. According to the amount of fans, One Direction is better in both charm, looks, and music. Additionally, my argument was not that One Direction was mature, just more mature than The Wanted. Maybe not all the time, but most of the time. In reality, neither of them are mature (I mean, they're in their around their 20's, they haven't fully matured). Although One Direction have kissed each other, The Wanted has had their immature moments, too. For example, when One Direction had stopped fighting with The Wanted, The Wanted just kept wanting to fight. Not only did they insult them during an interview, but they even proposed an actual boxing match (in which The Wanted "chickened out" of). One Direction knew when to draw the line and move on from one insult, but obviously, The Wanted didn't. Also, The Wanted has a picture of them in their underwear taken at a photo hoot. The only reason One Direction would end up in their underwear would be when they goof around, but not in a magazine. Lastly, One Direction has changed their pitches in their songs, too. For example, in the song "Kiss You," their pitch was a bit high. In "Little Things," it was low. This does not make either of them better, it shows how they can be the same, therefore this is not a valid argument to prove that The Wanted is better than One Direction. The point I was trying to make in my previous argument was that One Direction has more powerful vocals.