BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The US should introduce a system of ennoblement

Distinguished gentlemen in Britain do not go by the common-or-garden titles of Mister and Missus: rather they are addressed as Sir, Lord, Baron, Earl, Duke, Marquis, Count or Viscount and distinguished ladies are addressed by those titles' female counterparts. Meanwhile, across the Atlantic in one of Britain's former colonies, distinguished Americans are not set apart from ordinary citizens by their titles and A-list celebrities, former politicians, captains of industry, financially-privileged socialites and other notable worthies are still called plain old Mister and Missus. Of course, it wouldn't be appropriate given America's history to adopt the British titles – rather all-American titles such as Pioneer (-ess), Dude (-ette), Patriot (-ette), Honcho (-rita) and Gunslinger (-ess) should be used. And rather than the Queen ennobling outstanding citizens, it would be within the President's gift to confer titles upon the nominees. That way, at high society functions American VIP's will be introduced with the respect they are due and thus a typical guests list might read: Pioneer Tom Cruise Pioneeress Britney Spears Dude Jerry Springer Dudette Venus Williams Patriot Rupert Murdoch Patriotette Barbara Streisland Gunslinger Donny Osmond Gunslingeress Paris Hilton Honcho Tiger Woods Honchorita Sarah Palin Much more befitting their elevated social status, I think you will agree, and that's why I affirm that the US should introduce a system of ennoblement. Thank you.
Extra Activites should be added to primary classes every week.

I will be attempting to negate the resolution that 'extra activities should be added to primary classes every week'. Even though it may be true that adding extracurricular activities may be a way to allow children to socialize and may reduce stress in the students, extra activities should not be added to primary school classes every week as the funding is not currently available to a lot of public schools and would lead to budget cuts in more important areas such as supplies and teachers' salaries. When looking at this topic one has to remember the main purpose for primary education, which is to educate and prepare students for secondary and post-secondary school through the use of studies, exams and homework. Due to the recent economic downturn many schools have found it difficult to do just that, causing them to make cuts to their already lean budget and forcing them to find ways to save money. [1][2] Adding activities to primary classes would only make it harder for schools to make ends meet and would in the end hurt the education of the children. In conclusion, extra activities should not be added to primary classes every week as the money simply isn't there. Sources: [1] . http://www.csmonitor.com... [2] . http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
Extra Activites should be added to primary classes every week.

Every week in primary school there should be a fun activity based on education added to the class. School is not only about learning in Physical ways but also in mental ways and the average student says they get bored in class. Adults will think they dont deserve it but it depends on the way you target it. Ive got some ideas of way they could earn this: - A weekly goal - A quiz - Attendance and Puncuality - Behavior chart (Individual who gets it and who doesnt) Extra activities: - Going on Educational sites - Games - Real life activities related to the subject. What I am stating is children need discipline but they also need a bit of fun in the curriculum.
Extra Activites should be added to primary classes every week.

"They are encouraged to play games and activities. Think of it like this wouldnt it be good to get some of that in the classroom that is educational and helps you learn. Children are not robots and you cant organize there day into slots the same all the time!" This is just a repetition of the arguments she made in rounds 1 and 2, which I have already countered with arguments that have yet to be addressed. With that being said I extend the arguments I have already made. I heavily urge a Con vote.
Extra Activites should be added to primary classes every week.

With that said I am going to try and negate the resolution 'extra activities should be added to primary classes every week' in this round. In the previous round I argued that having weekly activities for elementary schools would be impractical due to the dissipated budgets schools are faced with because of the economic downturn. My opponent responded as follows: "This is not a matter of money its a matter of knowledge. You dont need to buy you could use your imagination to create a game. Just a simple activity for some time whether its 5 minutes or 30. A simple arguement. " I would at this point like to call the reader's attention to the opening argument my opponent made in round 1; in a list of what can be considered 'extra activities' my opponent listed: "going to educational sites", "games", and "Real life activities related to the subject". Now my opponent by his own omission ruled out going on educational trips and doing real life activities when he contested that only extra activities that cost money are impracticable. I will now argue why the extra activities that do not cost money are impractical as well. As most of us are aware elementary schools forward students a designated period of time where they can step away from there studies and play; this is known as recess,[1] and most recesses last anywhere from 15 to 30 minutes. [2][3] During recess children are encouraged to play games such as tag, capture the flag, jump rope and Simon says. [4] Recent studies have also suggested that recess can help improve a child's academic skills as they are using what they have learned in a physical way. [5] Seeing as recess already gives children 15 - 30 minutes of activity and has all the benefits that Pro suggests that extra activities would, extra activities would be pointless and a waste of time for all parties involved (teachers, students and parents). In conclusion: extra activities should not be added to primary classes every week. Thank you, ----------------------------------------------------- Sources: [1] . http://www.google.ca... [2] . http://www.welltrainedmind.com... [3] . http://answers.yahoo.com... [4] . http://www.heartandstroke.com... [5] . http://well.blogs.nytimes.com...
Bush Lied People Died? Part II

My opponent has argued that since Bush didn't cite intelligence reports that stated that Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction is evidence of his intentional deception to get us into Iraq. If President Bush believed Iraq had WMD's, why would he cite intelligence that he believes to be incorrect? Obviously, any President is going to go with the intelligence he believes is correct, and when he does this, he is not going to cite the reports that contradict them because he believes them to be inaccurate! Even so, Congress still had access to the intelligence that said Saddam did not have WMD's. Whether or not they chose to look at it is unknown, but even ordinary citizens could have known that there were intelligence reports that contradicted the President's assessment. I know this personally because I was against the war before we went in (now I'm not sure!), and those reports were one of the reasons why. Obviously, I couldn't go and read all of those reports, but I was aware of the existence of intelligence saying Saddam didn't have the WMD's. The fact is, the majority of the intelligence pointed to Saddam having those weapons. My opponent's statement that other nations were against our invasion of Iraq is completely irrelevant. I argued that these countries' own intelligence agencies' findings regarding Saddam's weapons programs were the same as ours. This was refuting my opponent's earlier argument that these other countries' intelligence agencies only reported the same findings due to US pressure on them. France and Russia were both against our invasion, but they still agreed that Saddam DID have those weapons, so obviously they were not subjected to any "pressure" from the US. My opponent has not given any solid evidence of intentional deception on the part of President Bush regarding the Iraq War. It is clear that President Bush believed Saddam Hussein had WMD's because of the intelligence reports of the CIA, as well as the intelligence agencies of five other countries. If President Bush lied, then one would have to say that these five countries lied as well, which is obviously not the case.
Bush Lied People Died? Part II

First and foremost, I would like to say that the statement that for every report for WMDs, there was one against was more of a figure of speech than anything else. The reports claiming that there were WMDs may have outnumbered the reports claiming that there weren't. But, at the same time, it may be the other way around. At the moment, I have been unable to find any numbers on the amounts of reports. I'm guessing that either no one knows, or it's classified. Intelligence reports usually are. But, my opponent did say that there were reports. His words were, "That being said, there isn't a single major report that doesn't have reports that contradict it. This also does not prove that Bush intentionally deceived the US into invading Iraq." But, were we, the American people, ever told this. No, he did not. In fact, he did the exact opposite. Here are two experts from speeches that he made: United Nations Address, Sept. 12, 2002: "Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons." Radio Address, Oct. 5, 2002: "Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons." "We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have." So, we were told, despite the fact that he had reports contradicting his words, that Iraq had weapons. My opponent said that, since Bush believed what he was saying, he couldn't tell a lie. That is not so. He lied not only in telling the American people that there was positive proof that Iraq possessed WMDs, but also through omission. Two different types of lies, but lies nonetheless. For the argument about foreign countries having the same information, it should be known that neither France nor Russia, the two countries that my opponent cites as objecting to the war, participated in the war. In fact, the invasion occurred without the permission of the UN Security council. The French ambassador to the UN stated merely hours before Bush gave the infamous ultimatum speech, ordering Saddam Hussein to either leave or be forced out, "the majority of the council confirmed they do not want a use of force." The countries that did invade were under the pressure from the US. So, Bush did lie, and he was not supported by other countries in the Iraq invasion.
Bush Lied People Died? Part II

My opponent claims that for every report that said Saddam had WMD's there was one that said he didn't. I for one, would like to see the evidence of this. Even so, I will concede that there were SOME reports that said Saddam didn't have WMD's. That being said, there isn't a single major report that doesn't have reports that contradict it. This also does not prove that Bush intentionally deceived the US into invading Iraq. The statement that the Congress was only exposed to the intelligence that said Saddam DID have WMD's is completely false. Congress had access to the same intelligence President Bush did. They could have easily seen the same reports Bush did. My opponent has also conceded that Bush sincerely believed that Iraq had WMD's, which confuses me, because this means that my opponent is admitting that I win this debate! This debate is over whether or not Bush intentionally deceived the American public into believing that Saddam Hussein held Weapons of Mass Destruction. My opponent has also asserted that the agreement of other countries with our intelligence's findings happened because of pressure the Bush administration was putting on them to go along with what he wanted. Here is the main problem with this argument: The intelligence agencies of England, France, Russia, Germany, and Jordan all independantly came to the same conclusion. Russia and France both agreed that Saddam had these weapons, but still voted against our invasion of Iraq! Obviously, they were not being pressured to do anything at all. This proves that President Bush did NOT lie in order to invade Iraq.
Bush Lied People Died? Part II

Well, I hope that this is a good debate. While it is true that Bush had information that claimed that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, there was also information that directly said that there wasn't. According to The Dark Side by Jane Mayer, Bush asked to receive raw intelligence reports from the field, and for every report that claimed that there were weapons, there was a report that there said there wasn't. However, when he went in front of Congress to petition for the money and permission to invade Iraq, he only presented the reports that claimed that the WMDs existed, and Congress couldn't see any of the other reports because they were classified or still being sorted out by the various intelligence agencies. So, even though it IS true that Bush sincerely believed that Iraq had the WMDs, he did in fact possess information that claimed otherwise. As for the other countries invading along side the US, that is more from Bush pressuring their leaders than anything else. In the biopic "W.", Tony Blair, the Prime Minister of England, is shown going to President Bush in person to ask that, whatever he does, he does not invade Iraq. Bush claims that he has pictures of the weapons, and continues to pressure Blair until he finally agrees. After that, all of the other countries assume that the information is true, and follow along side.
Bush Lied People Died? Part II

Okay, so I tried this debate once, but didn't get a good opponent. Hopefully this one will work better. Here is my opening argument. In this debate, I am arguing that President Bush did NOT lie in order to justify the United State's invasion of Iraq. Whether or not the United State's invasion of Iraq was justifiable or not is irrelevant to this debate. I am arguing against the popular belief that Bush used deception in order to justify the US' invasion of Iraq. The reason we went to war was because President Bush as well as many others sincerely believed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Not only that, Saddam Hussein was in violation of past agreements with the UN and has never indicated that he wanted to comply with the rest of the world. The intelligence that the US had led Bush to believe Saddam Hussein DID have Weapons of Mass Destruction. The US, along with England, France, Russia, and Jordan had all come to the same conclusion. If my opponent believes that Bush lied, then he must also believe that the rest of these nations lied also. My argument was the Bush may have been WRONG about the WMD's, but this report is NOT evidence of intentional deception. On top of all this, all of the Democrats who voted FOR the war had the exact same intelligence President Bush and the leaders of the other countries went on. If the President was lying, one would also have to argue that Congress was lying as well, since they saw everything that Bush saw.
The instigator, affirmative or negative, ought to post an oppening argument in the first round

This debate has devolved into a debate on semantics. Once again, this underscores my point of the importance that the instigator provide an opening argument in the opening round. Due to the devolution into semantics, I will provide a few key definitions. ======== Con's definition of 'ought' was indeed lacking in accuracy, as seen by the Merriam-Webster definition: --------- Ought: used to express obligation , advisability , natural expectation , or logical consequence . http://www.merriam-webster.com... As we can see, the interpretation I made of 'ought' falls within its real definition. Under this definition, 'ought' is by no means limited to 'obligation' or 'duty'. Con could easily have avoided this confusion by posting an argument in the first round. By the definition of 'ought' I have won this debate. I will continue: ---------- Duty: 1: conduct due to parents and superiors 2 a: obligatory tasks, conduct, service, or functions that arise from one's position (as in life or in a group) 3 a: a moral or legal obligation b: the force of moral obligation 4: tax 5 a: work . http://www.merriam-webster.com... ====== DUTY ====== Let us examine the second definition of 'duty' as it relates to the current debate. By this definition, then, duty is the obligatory task, conduct, service, or function that arises from position. Our duty as members of the debate. org community is to seek truth. Con has agreed that the purpose of debate is for seeking truth, and that providing clarity is one aspect in the search for truth. If we can conclude that truth is the purpose of debate (as Con readily agrees) then it follows that, by their position as members of a debate website, DDO members have a duty to find truth. Con concedes, "it [first round argument] offers clarity, benefits the instigator, and (slightly) helps the debate seek truth. " He has also conceded that not providing an opening argument may be harmful to finding truth (due to the lack of clarity and confusion it can cause). Therefore, the instigator, in his capacity as a member of DDO has the duty to truth (DDO's ultimate authority) to provide an opening argument. ======== CONCLUSION ======== I have shown that the instigator ought to provide an opening argument in the first round on two fronts. I have shown its benefits based on the true definition of 'ought' (to provide clarity, avoid confusion, and to better seek truth). I have also shown that it is the duty of each instigator, in his capacity on DDO, to provide an opening argument. The resolution is affirmed on both fronts, using both definitions.
The instigator, affirmative or negative, ought to post an oppening argument in the first round

I would like to note that Con's R2 post outlines my argument well. The confusion in this very debate was brought about by his failure to provide an opening argument in the first round. Because he failed to provide one in the first round he is obliged to debate the topic as I have seen fit to interpret it. As we can all clearly see, he has conceded to all points and agrees that the instigator ought to (should) provide an opening argument in his first round. I have already won this debate. However, for the sake of argument I will take up the point made by pro using his fallacious definition of 'ought': ======= Con declares that the instigator is under no duty or obligation to provide an opening argument in the first round. To support this he cites the DDO ToS, which do not prohibit omitting an opening argument. He is, of course, correct in this latter statement - the DDO ToS do not prohibit such an act. However, people have more duties than to authority (in this case, the DDO ToS). Con has readily agreed that the purpose of a debate is for seeking the truth. He also agrees that clarity and the avoidance of confusion are of the utmost importance in seeking truth. Then it follows that it is the duty of every member on this website to his fellow users to be as clear as possible in his debates. Since Con has conceded that an R1 opening argument is included in this "as clear as possible" then we can affirm the resolution: that the instigator, affirmative or negative, ought to post an opening argument in the first round. Thank you for reading, and Good Luck to Con in the final round of debate.
The instigator, affirmative or negative, ought to post an oppening argument in the first round

When reading your points, I find myself agreeing with them for the most part. Let's review them: 1. CLARITY I agree that this would help clarify and avoid confusion. This would be a good thing. 2. INSTIGATOR This point only affirms the fact that it is beneficial to the instigator to post an opening argument, and hurts him if he refrains. 3. CONTENDER I agree that a debate should be a seeking for truth. It should not be a quest for an easy win. Yes, posting an opening argument also increases effectiveness. I am not going to argue the suspense factor, while it can be amusing at times. http://www.debate.org... While all of his points are true, posting an opening argument is not the only way to achieve a good debate. There are (usually) plenty of rounds to fulfill clarity, and seek out truth. There are also comments and forums where clarity can be offered. While you are reading these points, keep in mind that an opening round argument is not necessary to achieve a worthwhile debate. When we look at all of my opponent's points, we see why it is useful to the instigator, the contender, and the readers if the instigator posts an opening argument. We already know this. As my opponent says, it offers clarity, benefits the instigator, and (slightly) helps the debate seek truth. We also know that these are good things. Good things they may be, but nowhere have I found them to be required. When I signed up for this sight, nowhere did it say, "You must swear to offer clarity, support yourself in your debates, and seek out truth in all of your debates..." Now that I am a member, nowhere does it say that either. We are arguing whether not I have an obligation to post an argument, not if I am encouraged to post an opening argument. Yes, I am encouraged to post an opening argument. Am I under any obligation to do so? Absolutely not. The resolution is negated.