BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
History class in high school be optional and not required to graduate

Thanks for an interesting topic. The burden of proof shall be on my opponent to show that history class should not be required for gradution.My opponent argues: "but it shouldn't count to our graduation because it isn't needed in most workforces. If you need to take it because you want to work in that field, that's great but it shouldn't affect your ability to get into college if you want to work in another field."Note the phrase "because it isn't needed in most workforces."Let's put this into a formal argument.P1: History isn't needed in most workforces.C: History should not be required for gradutation.We need to add another premise to make this a valid argument.My opponent's argument formalized:P1: History isn't needed in most workforces.P2: Whatever isn't needed in most workforces should not be required for graduation.C: History shouldn't be required for gradutation.Pro hasn't offered any support for either of these premises. However, the second is obviously false.What is the purpose of education?Is the purpose of education to prepare us for a work force, or to produce well educated citizens? Clearly it is not the first. Highschool is a general education and production of intelligent citizens. For this reason, we don't learn trades in high school. Rather, the purpose of high school is to create well-rounded intelligent citizens who will go on to choose their trades.What about history of your country?If the government requires highschool because it wants intelligent citizens, shouldn't the history of the country be required? It seems that in order to be a good citizen, you ought to at least know the history of your country. Thus, history is needed for completion of highschool.Over to my opponent.
Fortnight is causing aggression in young players worldwide, leading to more aggressive and violence.

Of course, it may seem that games such as Fortnite and other FPS games contribute to violent behavior and aggression, they aren't. I do understand where you're coming from, it would make sense that playing a game involving repetitive fighting and killing would change how someone acts, but that isn't the case. No one in their right mind thinks that since being violent on a game is okay, that duplicating that violent behavior is okay in real life. Most people who play these kinds of games are normal people seeking a way to pass the time, maybe a bit too much or too seriously admittedly, but not to the degree where they begin to adopt a violent behavior in real life. Majority of people who play games understand that games, especially games such as Fornite or GTA, do not apply to real life, and (most of them) know not to be emulate the character they are playing in the game. It's common knowledge and common sense. The reason why many criminals such as the Parkland shooter play these games in my opinion was as a way to escape reality at least for a time being, and being unable to realize that the things shown on games are not examples to follow. If he wasn't able to get the right treatment or help then he would likely have maintained those beliefs up until the shooting. He didn't have much else to fall back on or rely on, and so adopted the beliefs of the game because it was a way to escape the harsh reality he lived in. He had development issues, lost his father at age five, and felt separated from everyone else. It would only make sense then, that games attached to his personality. Now, I am not a person with any of these kinds of problems, so if my guess is wrong, please let me know, but this shows that it isn't the games fault, but rather the player's mental status, and shows that games may just be a result of the actual problem at hand. Mental illness gives people a higher chance to adopt violent tendencies, video games have not been shown to increase that same chance. Cruz was diagnosed with plenty of these disorders alongside anger issues and depression. He had trouble making friends and was bullied himself. He wasn't provided with the help he needed and therefore, developed aggressive tendencies because of it. Video games likely were only a minor stem of the problem. People need to be able to trust that people know what's wrong and what's right when playing video games. It is only when someone may feel lost, depressed, or mentally ill, that violent behavior is more likely to be adopted. We can't shift the solution from helping those with these issues to banning video games because they are violent. Sources: https://www.forbes.com... http://www.sun-sentinel.com... https://www.theatlantic.com... https://www.nbcnews.com...
Should schools have video games

I am against this because it would deprive the kids of there learning. I could see a laptop or an Ipad for learning things, but not as a daily ritual. Also if you are at school playing video games you will not get a good job and will be forced to live without a job at all. Another thing is if you have video games, at school, you will not be as advanced as you may be when you are a grown adult. You would be playing video games all of your life. When I was a kid, there were no video games, except maybe the Game Cube, and I didn't have one. Video games would just deprive the kids from learning and no kid would learn because all they would want to do is play video games.
Outlawing guns will not stop terrorist attacks.

Hello, I'm looking for a classic gun control debate here. If you accept my challenge, your job will be to defend the theory that banning some/all guns will stop mass killings. My job is going to be explaining why a gun ban will stop nothing. As far as debate format or structure, I'll just let it play through. I'll go first, then you, then me... and eventually, you get the last word. So, to start off my argument, banning semi-automatic rifles with a lot of ammo will not stop terrorist mass killings. There's plenty of ways to get these, and automatics, illegally. And if there wasn't a possible way to access them, they would resort to, for example, 1.) a bomb strapped to their chest, 2.) 30 terrorists, each with a bolt action, 3.) Running over people with vehicles. There are many more ways to kill hundreds than with a semi-automatic/ automatic gun, that is just the most convenient. Taking guns away though will not stop terrorists, it would be a mere inconvenience. They will find ways to kill.
cause and effect is logic

I have no intention of jumping off of a cliff, thank you. I don't have to experience something firsthand to know it's logical. I have never been to Japan, yet I still acknowledge the fact that there is a Japan. I know it exists because of images taken in Japan, Japanese people that come to the U.S, and lessons from history. Therefore jumping off of a cliff is logical, since the same logic applies to both. I've fell from some sort of high heights before, which is just a less painful version of jumping off of a cliff.
cause and effect is logic

"It is illogical to jump off of a cliff, unless that is the point and I have a good reason." That makes absolutely no sense. You don't back up that claim with any sort of argument; this is assumption at its finest. What do you mean by illogical? Jumping off of a cliff is a real action, thus, it is logical. You can see it happening due to light, you know it happens by seeing it, and logical gravity pulls you down as you jump off of the cliff. The only way jumping off of a cliff could be illogical is if it were some sort of illusion, and nothing were to happen if you jumped off of a cliff. If you do jump off of a cliff, and nothing happened, that would be illogical. That would mean that there is a cause, and there isn't an effect, meaning there's no logic. The cliff scenario plays out like this: Cause: Jumping off of the cliff Effect: Falling down into the surface of the Earth And if cause+effect=logic, this means that jumping off of a cliff is logical. And no, you do not have a good reason to support your claim, I do. Thank you for posting.
Love can be felt between two machines

In this debate, I will be on the Pro side for the statement: love can be felt between two machines. If you choose to accept this debate, you must abide to the following rules set out by me. Rules: 1. You must defend your position 2. Make sure to use proper grammar 3. You are Con 4. Stories are allowed but if you choose to write a story please just give a final sentence that relates back to the point. 5. You are allowed to use some words from other languages but please remain mostly in English. If you do choose to use words from another language please provide the translation into English. What I mean by love can be felt by two machines, is that there can exist an emotional connection of love between two machines created by humans. For example a car with another car, or a washing machine and a drying machine. In the first round, all you have to do is clarify your position and accept the debate. Your main point must be that love cannot be felt between two machines. Do not post any arguments in the first round. The second and third rounds will be our debate. The fourth round will be any last rebuttals and then a conclusion to the debate. If you are wondering what the definitions of the terms I have presented here in the debate are, you can use any dictionary's definition of the word in its proper context within the debate. I hope you remain cordial and respectful throughout this philosophical journey into the world of love in machines. If you do not believe this is the case, you can accept my challenge and we will talk it out. Also one last rule: please do not conspire with the voters to vote against me. I have lost many debates which I should have won because of this. Please don't do it. With Regards, provideoman123
Vangelis is better than Hans Zimmer.

Hans Zimmer is a particularly original composer, notable for his compositions of the Lion King, Inception, Gladiator, and many others. He has won, and been nominated for quite a few awards. Based on this factor alone, Zimmer is superior to Vangelis; he has won 109 awards and been nominated for 159 [1]. Vangelis has only won 6, and been nominated for 6 [2]. If you look to nothing else in this debate, this should be the greatest indicator of who is better at composing. Another talent that Zimmer has is one of diversity. He is capable of composing scores that sound completely different from one another, think of Interstellar, Inception, The Dark Knight, The Lion King, and many others. Probably the most notably unique of these would be Interstellar, with it's organ swells and ethereal themes. Then take a look at Inception, whose soundtrack "Time" has been re-used thousands of times by other people. Also, look to his unique use of the foghorn in this soundtrack, which has become a staple in trailers. Vangelis is the exact opposite of this. While his soundtracks are certainly unique, most sound very, very similar. Additionally, he has composed almost nothing of note in recent years, and the style of his compositions have long been discarded as outdated. An enjoyable quality of Hans Zimmer's is how close he tries to be to what the movie is expressing. When composing music for "The Last Samurai" he attempted to be as close to actual Japanese music as possible, and when he went to Japan to get some advice they were impressed with the depth of his knowledge [3]. Hans Zimmer always tries to find a connection with the source material and it comes out in his work. Vangelis makes absolutely zero effort to do this, and as I think I mentioned earlier nearly EVERYTHING HE COMPOSES SOUNDS THE SAME. [1]-http://www.imdb.com... [2]-http://www.imdb.com... [3]-https://en.wikipedia.org...
Vangelis is better than Hans Zimmer.

Side note: I only put in two rounds just for ease of completion, or in other words, being lazy. Therefore several aspects of debating, like countering arguments and rebuttals, are not really going to go into play. Now, get on with it!____Vangelis is well known for his musical style, for he is his own orchestra. Every composition of his is, for the most part, played by himself. Besides vocals. Other people do vocals. But the vibrant synth noises in Chariots of Fire as well as the dreamy droll of an electric organ in Blade Runner is all him. No violins cranking out soothing noises in any of it. Just a Yamaha CS-80 and a Zyklus MIDI Performance System. So original. ____Often critiqued negatively for being so repetitive in his music, Vangelis compositions still sound great. Go ahead and listen to "To the Unknown Man". Repetitive, but kick-@$$. Same with "Hymne".____Vangelis also has been making music a decade longer than Hans Zimmer. I know, it's a cheap shot to factor in age, but oh well. Sue me.____Hans Zimmer's compositions for The Pirates of the Caribbean Trilogy (oh wait, they also made that bad mermaid one) sounds like Gladiator. But I guess one can say the same of Vangelis's "Heaven and Hell Part 3" and the "Chariots of Fire Theme". ____Vangelis is a better father than Hans Zimmer. Ha. Ha ha ha ah he. Haaa haaAA HEAAAH HEAAA! HAAAA HAAAA HAAAA HAAA!!!!! ____I'm done. Have a nice day.
Vangelis is better than Hans Zimmer.

Evangelos Odysseas Papathanassiou (better known as Vangelis) is a Greek musical composer known for his works in movies like Chariots of Fire and Blade Runner. Hans Zimmer is also a musical composer, but from Germany. His works include the soundtracks to The Lion King, the Dark Knight Trilogy, Interstellar, and more. I will be supporting the opinion that Vangelis is better than Hans Zimmer, but it (of course) is debatable.
Evolutionary science is a metaphysical research programme

I accept and I want to clarify some things."I will take the PRO position and BoP is 100% on me." Okay."In accepting this debate you are conceding to the fact that we live in an entirely physical realm and that through science, it has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt that nothing else exists" Agreed, but just to make sure: I also believe in the conceptual (which does not really exist in the way physical things exists). I believe that the conceptual is based on the physical (no concepts can exist without a brain to contain them)."as your CON position asserts that we evolved from the simplest organism to the most complex being imaginable." I get your point, but let me just say that we are not the most complex thing IMAGINABLE."You also concede good science relies upon there being an existing order of logic so that we may know truth, and the presupposition of mathematical truths" Agreed."In your opinion, these must be purely physical entities, otherwise you have defeated your own position." No, they are conceptual. But if you're going to say that I concede defeat by saying this, then simply disregard what I just said. This should not be a problem since this debate is about EVOLUTION, not the physicality of concepts."Good luck with proving logical and mathematical truths are material in essence and being able to prove that to me." Once again, this debate is about EVOLUTION, isn't it? Moreover, you agreed to take 100% of the BoP.Let's get this debate started!
Evolutionary science is a metaphysical research programme

Hi, I want to argue the position that evolutionary 'science' is really a metaphysical research programme, and consequently should and cannot be considered or taught as science in state sponsored education. If it is to be taught, it ought to be confined to religious studies along with creation. I will take the PRO position and BoP is 100% on me. In accepting this debate you are conceding to the fact that we live in an entirely physical realm and that through science, it has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt that nothing else exists, as your CON position asserts that we evolved from the simplest organism to the most complex being imaginable. They don't make computers as powerful as the human brain. The metaphysical entities presupposed in science, you therefore understand to be 100% of material origin. You also concede good science relies upon there being an existing order of logic so that we may know truth, and the presupposition of mathematical truths. In your opinion, these must be purely physical entities, otherwise you have defeated your own position. Good luck with proving logical and mathematical truths are material in essence and being able to prove that to me. I confirm my position that evolutionary 'science' therefore is tautological (in terms of rhetoric) in it's nature and cannot even justify it's own existence using good science.
Shakespeare was a FRAUD

- Ok even worse than. Tell me how a man in the 16th century knew nearly 30, 000 words and invented 1, 700 words. Words that we still use today like addiction, Assassination, Belongings, Admirable, Or accommodation. - While I did find that John Shakespeare was a bailiff and that he did home school Shakespeare, This still isn't a high enough education for Shakespeare to invent 1, 700 words, Use nearly 30, 000 words, And have a vast knowledge of philosophy and the human body. - "The internal bleeding inside Shakespeare's brain could result in many things, Including the poor handwriting. It also could explain the inter-lineated clauses of Shakespeare's will". - While this does explain why Shakespeare's handwriting was off, It does not explain the inconsistency's in his handwriting, Or the fact that his will mentioned he and his wife's " second best bed" or his silver plate, But not any of his unfinished plays or poems. Surely a man whom was a play write would at least mentioned whether or not his unfinished plays would be released or destroyed?
Shakespeare was a FRAUD

* "Shakespeare's plays includes almost 29, 000 words which is more than we use today" You forget that out of those 29, 000 words, Shakespeare invented 1700 of them. * I will concede on the fact that there was not a editor while Shakespeare was alive. * Yes, John Shakespeare was a leather maker by trade. However he was appointed to high baliff in 1568 which entitled him to be referred to as Master John Shakespeare. (Source, S. Scheonbaum, 1987, ). This is well known information, And is one of the first things you'll learn when googling John Shakespeare *According to Dr. John Hall, Shakespeare likely died of a cerebral hemorrhage. The internal bleeding inside shakespeare's brain could result in many things, Including the poor handwriting. It also could explain the inter-lineated clauses of shakespeare's will.
Shakespeare was a FRAUD

- Regarding your first point I will concede on the point that Shakespeare wasn't educated at all and I am sorry for my mistake. However as that article points out, There is no official record for Shakespeare attending a school. Even if he did attend a grammar school, It is unlikely he would be able too write at that high level of vocabulary that he writes in when he only attended a grammar school. To give you some perspective Shakespeare's plays includes almost 29, 000 words which is more than we use today. - Now regarding your second point, I have not found a single article or study proving that Shakespeare had editors whom edited his plays while he was still alive. Even if he did it is a bit suspicious that a man whom had that high level of vocabulary had poor hand writing and poor spelling. - Your 3rd point isn't true as Shakespeare father was a glove maker. On that note neither of Shakespeare parents knew how to write as evidenced by this article. Http://www. Shakespeare-online. Com/biography/shakespeareparents. Html - While it could be reasonable that he found his unfinished plays to be embarrassing, If he found his unfinished plays that embarrassing than he would instead ask that his unfinished plays be destroyed. Even if he was embarrassed and didn't ask for them to be destroyed, It is however suspicious that Shakespeare didn't write anywhere in his will anything about his unfinished plays or his actual plays.
Shakespeare was a FRAUD

* This statement is incorrect. We do not know HOW educated shakepheare was, But we all know that he had some sort of education. He learned poetry and literature from a horn book framed in wood. (http://www. Shakespeare-online. Com/biography/shakespeareeducation. Html) *No. Shakepheare did not have decent handwriting. In fact, He didn't know how to properly spell. Shakespeare's play's had editors that brought the writing into proper form *Shakepeare's father was a Alderman, A cheif magistrate, And a baliff. This probably taught shakespeare's at least something about court and nobility. Also, Shakespeare's main audience included church officials and nobility who loved hearing about themselves. Why wouldn't Shakepeare target his plays around nobility? *I'm not sure why shakepeare did not give away his unfinished plays. Maybe he was embarresed with them? Maybe he would rather they were left unfinished then other incompetent authors finish them?
Shakespeare was a FRAUD

My argument is a rather simple one so to make it clear and precise, Ill divide my reasons up. 1. There is NO document proving that Shakespeare had any level of education, Surely a person who used around 29, 000 different words in his plays would AT LEAST have a basic education if not a college degree. 2. Shakespeare's signatures are sloppy and inconsistent, I mean surely a man who wrote many plays and sonnets would at least have decent hand writing right? 3. Shakespeare's settings in his plays are normally centered around royal families or nobles however as we know Shakespeare was very poor and most likely knew little to nothing about royal life. 4. Shakespeare's will mentions nothing about his plays, Poems, Or sonnets. I mean surely a man wrote that many plays and poems would at least mention what he wanted to do with his 18 unfinished plays right? Guess not apparently. I would also like to say for the record that I am not normally a conspiracy theorist believer in fact I despise many conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones. However this is the first conspiracy theory ive seen that has sufficient evidence and shear facts to back it up.
More non-politicians should be running for political positions.

None of my arguments were pushing populism; government should be concerned with everyone; not just the ordinary person, not just the elite with the most money, EVERYONE. What do you mean by "actual politicians"? because whatever you mean by this, we do not have many of them since we are not a successful country; unless you think success means being in trillions of dollars in debt and slowly taking away the freedom of your people. "This also leads to difficulties with working with the other politicians in your government." You mean like most of the people who are in government right now? We need more reasonable people! That is precisely what Ive been arguing. Many politicians are unable to reason ethically because their motives consist of increasing their personal financial profit and the profit of those who they are paid by. This has been obvious with the health bill that republicans tried getting passed. The people that I want in government are not those who see themselves as the voice of the people. What we desperately need is people who will be voices of THE TRUTH. The reasonable people that I want in charge of our country are people who will listen to all sides of an argument; so if most of the people in government were voices of truth, then there would be no gridlock and more would get done that actually matters, like improving education and health, not increasing hate and fear. So far you haven't answered any of my questions; you've merely stated that people who have experience as politicians should be politicians. But what is so special about this experience that a philosopher or economist could not do? Politicians are people who can debate ideas and are good public speakers with good rhetoric. Please tell me why people who are reasonable, professional, respected, and aware, of themselves and their fellow beings, could not debate ideas and be voices of truth?