BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Impromptu 14

3. Against: - These bodily decorations draw attention to reserved areas. OFTEN VERY UNATTRACTIVE. Many corpulent women pierce their fat belly button flesh or imprint a tattoo just above their but crack. Society has developed laws of decency, urinating in public is illegal, so why should a big fat behind be able to hang out with a pictorial image stamped on it? - Perhaps stereotypical, but who do you see with lower region tattoos and belly rings? Biker chicks, hormonal adolescent girls, prostitutes. Are those people trashy? Yes. - People with those decorations expose those regions. For example, a woman with a belly button ring would often where a short camisole, flaunting off her mid section. A person with a lower region tattoo would yank their pants down, exposing their tattoo, thong and large behind. The less clothing you are clad in, the more you are categorized as 'trashy'. - Lower Region Tattoos are often not tasteful, lacking meaning and significance. - Trashy, not classy - normally unintelligent. Who would etch designs permanently onto their skin? For example, a young immature girls gets a playboy bunny on her lower back. Flash forward a few years - she's thirty with two kids. "Mom, what is that on your bum?" "It's a bunny" "Oh, the same one I saw in daddy's magazine?"
Impromptu 14

Round 1: Opponent chooses 1 of the 3 topics listed below. Present either side. Opponent leaves me 3 choices. (Please nothing totally OTF) Round 2: Both our topics are presented without rebuttal. Judges choose who made the better presentation. OPPONENT's Choices: 1) NASA / Space exploration is too expensive 2) Wood bats should be used at all levels of baseball 3) Pierced belly buttons or lower back tattoos are not trashy
The Beatles are the most influential band ever.

Coming from a fellow musician, I can see how they were not at all musically informed. For instance, only one of them ever actually learned how to read music. Yet at the same time, It is almost impossible to name a singer or group of musicians that came after them that was not influenced by them (one example being the popular band Oasis). From the period known as "Beatlemania" on, rock music was greatly changed. Along with this transformation, the Beatles inspired brand new types of music. Their own music was revolutionary at the time, a mix of rock and roll, pop, and blues was brand new and completely unusual for the music world. Along with this, the Beatles presented unusual fashion statements. The Beatles rocked the video world too, making movies based on their songs, and creating completely original music videos, the Beatles changed life as the world new it. Referring to the topic statement, I believe that the Beatles were most definitely the most influential band ever, as they were the first band to really make it big. The Beatles becoming popular paved the way for other bands to have great success, instead of just solo artists like Elvis or Sinatra. Along with being the first band to really make it big, the Beatles were also the first British musician/s to be popular in the US. Part of the reason for this success was the way they used instruments to play a part that it would not usually play. The instrument choices were unusual as the record companies generally wrote the songs for each musician. The Beatles chose to rebel against that though, and found a record company that would let them write and perform their own original music. I now restate my thesis that the Beatles are the most influential band ever.I challenge you to find a musician or group of musicians that was not affected by the Beatles in some way, and to present to me a band that was/is more influential than the Beatles.
make up a hero to beat my hero

SkrinkkAbility 1: can see toph style, but also with air vibrations.Ability 2: Becomes invisible when pet mouse climbs into his maskAbility 3: Has highly intelligent pet mouseAbility 4: can shrink and grow things at willResistant 1: Cannot be easily outwitted because of mouseResistant 2: Is hard to kill in general, due to a bull headed nature.Weakness: Is blind, and even through the vibrations it still affects him, as he cannot see color.Weakness: If gotten angry it blurs his vision. Is that better?
make up a hero to beat my hero

rules: no invincibility or any of that bs 4 ability's 2 resistant 1- 99 weakness Maze man Ability 1: can spawn a football field sized Libreville that is in destructible with traps to immobilize you Ability 2: can see through his own walls and knows the lay out Ability 3: can go though walls Ability 4: hurt you when he looks at you. resistant 1: cant be mind controlled resistant 2: cant be killed until you find his weakness weakness: the gun at the end of the mazes
Jobs are not hard to find in the US

BRAVO for taking on a position you don'? T fully agree with. It is greatly apreciated, Believe that. Ok I can't argue against biggotry as that point is valid especially when a President political assumes a hypethetical view (cough) so i find flaw in 2 things to regain grounding on my premise: ecommerce and the heart of the american people ( dont laugh ) 1. The u. S. Proves in its history that it is a land of over coming challenges. Especially challenges inflicted by hatred. This is because we have a semi open market. If everyone decided to hate awesome debators and no one would hire me for anything at all, I could beg my way to a laptop, A studio, Internet and sell "iHateGr8deb8tors" shirts and capitalize on my struggle. But i admit you are correct the stuggle is there. 2. Is tricky, Non for profits are very useful in this country. They get tax write offs and at times they care. They are probably the smaller group of citizens that do, In a general sense.
Jobs are not hard to find in the US

I agree with you in many ways. Generally, Getting a job isn't hard. It may be a pretty rubbish job however actually landing that job isn't hard to do. You can do it without good grades since all some jobs require is manual labor and a good work ethic. But to say jobs are always easy to find in the US is a massive generalisation. Certainly it isn't historically true. Nobody could seriously claim that during the great depression jobs were easy to find especially if you were an African American or a woman. I still think that currently, Although the economy is now improving, Discrimination still prevents a lot of people from getting a job. E. G. Muslims may unsurprisingly find it really hard to find work in a country where views towards them can hardly be seen as friendly. The reality is that racist and bigoted employers still exist. That's just a fact. All the time there are companies getting sued for discrimination. This means that some people DO find it hard.
Education is Development of the person

" You state that schools use the banking concept of teaching their students. "The banking concept of education does not fail because it does not develop students' character, it fails because it actually fails to educate its students. ""The students are not called upon to know, but to memorize the contents narrated by the teacher" (Friere 5.2). "This is not what an educated student should be. "An educated student should actually know and understand the information they are taught and be able to apply it to their lives. "If a student is not able to understand the information they are taught they will never be able to communicate it to others. "This is the true overall goal of education, having individuals that are able to effectively communicate information amongst one another. "However, communication is only possible when there is shared knowledge. "School is the only place where this shared knowledge can be taught. "The development of ones character however, can happen anywhere. "One does not need to attend school to be a developed person, with a personal identity. "Since ones character can be developed outside of the education system that means it should not be educations concern.
Education is Development of the person

You previously stated that, "Schools need to stop focusing on development of their students' character and only focus on development of their shared knowledge." This is not true because Freire argues against the banking concept of education, which is what schools actually do. Schools do not necessarily focus on the development of their students; they focus on depositing knowledge into them. What is happening in school systems is a teacher-student dichotomy. The students are viewed as being empty vessels that are in need of being filled with knowledge rather than being active learners, which makes the teacher the oppressor. The student's pre-existing knowledge is ignored because they are passive students who only get knowledge deposited into them, which is considered to be teacher centric learning. Freire states, "Education thus becomes an act of depositing, in which the students are the depositories and the teacher is the depositor. Instead of communicating, the teacher issues communiques and makes deposits which the students patiently receive, memorize, and repeat. This is the "banking' concept of education, in which the scope of action allowed to the students extends only as far as receiving, filing, and storing the deposits." (1.5) Indeed schools should focus on students' shared knowledge because that is the basis of literacy and a factor in the development of the person. Being literate and educated is development of the person because it helps people not only understand the world, but also understand themselves and who they are in this world. Understanding one's self is what development of the person is. With this understanding, people are able to make logical decisions, think rationally, and so on. This is why education is development of the person. For instance, how can one vote without being knowledgeable about whom they are voting for? In order to have a just society, people need to be literate in order to understand the world and many issues in the world. All of this education that is needed is important for change in the world and vastly important in the development of the person.
Education is Development of the person

" You say that "Education can profoundly develop one's character". "This desire to use education to develop people's character is what is weakening the education system and causing there to be a lack of shared knowledge. "Many people have decided to make one of education's goals the development of an individual's character. "This is seen when Hirsch discusses the cafeteria style education. "Schools try to tailor their curriculum to each individual's personality to help stimulate their character development. "This has left a disjointed population that no longer has a shared knowledge. "The education one individual gets is different from the one another gets. "When there is a lack of shared knowledge communication amongst people because impossible and futile. "This shared knowledge can only be obtained in school. "Schools need to stop focusing on development of their students' character and only focus on development of their shared knowledge. "Their character can be developed through other means and do not have to fear that it will be stifled if they do not develop it in school.
Education is Development of the person

You stated that, "The purpose of education is not development of character but the development and expansion of one's knowledge." Education can profoundly develop one's character; however I did not imply that it was the only thing that develops one's character. Education is an immense part of a human being's life. Education is in an individual's life from the age of five or even younger to a grown, young adult, which therefore makes education an immense component to one's development. Through the education of factual and traditional materials, as Hirsch proposes, individuals are able to run a smooth society, which all factors in to their development. This is solely because in order to run a smooth society, education is the basis to a smoothly run society. One's character development comes from education because when educated and knowledgeable, there is understanding of the world and its complexities and contradictions.
Education is Development of the person

The purpose of education is not development of character but the development and expansion of one's knowledge. Hirsh has also stated that "the chief function of literacy is to make us masters of this standard instrument of knowledge and communication, thereby enabling us to give and receive complex information orally and writing over time and space" (2.2). You stated that "Hirsch, an American educator, advocates that universal literacy is a necessity in life because it leads to effective communication". "Education leads to effective communication not because it has developed people's character but because it has developed their knowledge and has given them a shared collective group of information. "Ones character can be developed by means outside of the classroom and the education system, however the shared knowledge that one needs to effectively communicate with others can not be learned out side the classroom, and therefore the chief goal of education should be to develop this knowledge. "A person's character development should only be secondary.
School Uniforms Should Not Be Required in Schools

Argument 1: "School uniforms do not help students an any way at all" My opponent stated that I was being contradictory by saying "School uniforms do not help students an any way at all" and "Yes, by having everyone dress the same it may reduce some bullying" but I also stated that it would effect bullying in such a little way that it doesn't matter because barely any bullies bully people on what they wear. (And btw, I'm a girl) Argument 2: Expression of one's true self My opponent has stated "School uniforms do remove the expression threw clothes; however, children find many other forms of expression: threw gestures, action, and voice." And yes, people can express themselves threw their gestures, actions, and voices but most people express themselves the most they dress with the different colors and styles. Argument 3: Identification I stated: "In the events of natural disasters or emergencies, such as earthquakes, tornadoes, fires or terrorist attacks, it would be really hard for parents to identify their child from the midst of a milieu of similarly clothed children." Their are conditions where the parents would need to come to the aid of their children and they would need to identify their children. Like if their was a bad earthquake, fire, tornado, or terrorist attack and some people got killed or stuck in the rubble and the parents would then leave their work because they really care about their children. Argument 4: "And kids that are forced to wear uniforms will just be bullied by kids in other schools for having to wear uniforms." Maybe the home schoolers would bully the public schoolers. Dress codes just state light restrictions. At my school the dress code is "No butt, no boobs, no belly". Whereas school uniforms say exactly what you have to wear. As I stated before "University of Missouri assistant professor, David Brunsma. In his 2004 book, The School Uniform Movement and What It Tells Us About American Education: A Symbolic Crusade, Brunsma reviewed past studies on the effect of uniforms on academic performance. He also conducted his own analysis of two enormous databases, the 1988 National Educational Longitudinal Study and the 1998 Early Childhood Longitudinal Study. Brunsma concluded that there is no positive correlation between uniforms and school safety or academic achievement." Also, 98% of students that I interviewed said they would be unhappy to be forced to wear uniforms. If kids are too unhappy they will be likely to drop out.
School Uniforms Should Not Be Required in Schools

Okay, yes, by having everyone dress the same it may reduce some bullying. But, guess what? It would be such a small difference it wouldn't really matter. The most common reason people get bullied is their body size or how they act. Uniforms wouldn't help that at all. Also, uniforms DO take away children's privelege to express themselves and be who they want to be through their clothing. If you don't allow them to be who they are, how will they ever learn to just stand out and show their true colors? Bullying is intolerable, yes, but when kids are bullied sometimes they learn to ignore it and be wo they are. Some people take the bad with the good and learn to stand up to bullying. When people are bullied, they often learn things from it when they're older. They learn to, ignore it, stand up for yourself, etc. School uniforms just take away children's voices even a little bit more than they already are (as stated by Ducttpaeoverthescars). Some parents feel that the safety of students is compromised by uniforms. In the events of natural disasters or emergencies, such as earthquakes, tornadoes, fires or terrorist attacks, it would be really hard for parents to identify their child from the midst of a milieu of similarly clothed children. Contrary to popular belief, even with uniforms on, certain children will get picked on by others. Cliques will still be formed and students will find ways (such as weight, complexion, financial status) to pass judgment upon their peers. School uniforms are very often unflattering, and it can damage a child's self-image. Also, school uniforms are just a Band-Aid on the school violance. And kids that are forced to wear uniforms will just be bullied by kids in other schools for having to wear uniforms. You said that $30-40 isn't that much. But for some families that is just way too much money. And we are entitled to a free education. They can still have dress codes because those do good, but telling students exactly what to wear is just too far. Here is one of those studies I was talking about: University of Missouri assistant professor, David Brunsma reached a different conclusion. In his 2004 book, The School Uniform Movement and What It Tells Us About American Education: A Symbolic Crusade, Brunsma reviewed past studies on the effect of uniforms on academic performance. He also conducted his own analysis of two enormous databases, the 1988 National Educational Longitudinal Study and the 1998 Early Childhood Longitudinal Study. Brunsma concluded that there is no positive correlation between uniforms and school safety or academic achievement.
School Uniforms Should Not Be Required in Schools

In modern-day society, school uniforms provide many advantages to student"s education. First off, school uniforms diminish the amount of bullying within schools by removing the opportunity to judge someone, by their appearance"everyone is dressed the same thus, judgment is forestalled. As my opponent has stated, school uniforms do remove the expression threw clothes; however, children find many other forms of expression: threw gestures, action, and voice"the implementation of school uniforms will not remove their individuality. If school uniforms were to be used throughout all schools worldwide, test scores probably would sky-rocket; due to the removal of such distractions as fashionable apparel. In addition, though school uniforms do cost money to begin with, it really is not all that much. We are granted the right as Americans to a free, public education; but this is only true to a degree. Each class has its own fees, advance placement classes require you to pay a bit of money in order to take the tests to receive credit; what harm would thirty to forty dollars do? Where it is true that school uniforms are not necessary, they could provide such advantages as higher academic achievements, and a decrease upon what bullying does exist. Note: My opponent stated that there were studies that were preformed, that indicated that school uniforms have no direct impact upon academic standings; I would not mind seeing these studies, in the next round.
School Uniforms Should Not Be Required in Schools

School uniforms do not help students an any way at all. The take away students ability to express themselves through their clothes and how do they reduce bullying at all? Also, we are entitled to a free education. Therefore, students should not be required to buy uniforms. There have been studies done on if uniforms help kids academically at all and almost all of them have shown that uniforms have absolutely no effect at all on kids academic performance. That's why school uniforms should not be required in schools.
Resolved: Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law.

Granted, the affirmative has a ton more space to argue here than in a round, but whatever. I don't care about who wins because I doubt many people here are acquainted with LD format, but they are acquainted with odd philosophy etc, so perhaps it won't be so bad. I'm negating, so I speak second. You post your case whenever. (Since it's text, feel free to write a super flow case. That'd make the debate easy to follow as I'm not flowing on a legal pad. .. )
Socialism will make a come back

I know it doesnt look good for any sort of big government statist governmental or economic structure. . However. . Things go in cycle in history. . And it think the world ecomomy and global order is headed for a crash. . And I know the first time out Socialism did not do so good, How good did you do on your first date? Your first attempt at swimming or driving a car. . We are evolving and that means growing pains, Remember them? It time for round 2
Socialism will make a come back

I think you will find that democracy has been with us for approximately 2500 years. True Socialism is non-hierarchical and non hierarchy is the antithesis of human nature. That is why so called socialist systems have always descended into either, Despotic chaos or ironically naturally reverted back to a democratic type system. There will always be those that will lead and there will always be those that will be led. Consequently there will always be some level of disparity in the distribution of wealth and resources. Ultimately, Fair social governance relies on the integrity of the people.
Socialism will make a come back

We live in an ever chaging world, Everything is changing technology womens rights, Atittude towards race and gender, 200 years ago democracy, Or representive government was considered a nice idea that would never work. . leaders we were reminded we ordained by god. . Times change. . Call my insane. . But i say socialism is worth another try, It wasnt all as bad as the propoganda says and we learned from our mistakes. . If at first you don't succeed try try again
Socialism will make a come back

As ever: The reality of the human condition versus the unreality of socialist dreamers. Yes: Socialism is a wonderful theory. But the trouble is: We are a society of vastly differing individuals. Different in thought, Different in ability and different in aspiration. We also live in a World that is united under the worship of one God: Money. (Best not to forget that given the rise in technological communication we are now more than ever a Global Society). A society that is fundamentally driven by money and separatism will always have a tendency to become selfish and hierarchical. Which will always inevitably lead to the collapse of socialism. Or to be more accurate, Will always inevitably prevent true socialism from ever getting of the ground. Comparing socialism with individualism is a poor analogy. And how long does Pro need for society to evolve for their socialist utopia to become workable?