BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
This house believes that college is redundant for further studies

As you all know, college is an important milestone in life. Personally, I think that a college degree is worth pursuing regardless of an individual's career goals. First off, Candidates can explore new specialisation fields and experiment around to find their passion. This can actually help students to save money as well- If they are aware of their specialisations in a field of their choice, there is no need to take multiple courses in university. Instead, they can just directly choose to study in their field of choice. Which leads us to the next point. It serves an advantage. When students go to college, they may be unsure of what field to specialise in. however, as students grow older, they may develop sudden interests in medicine, law, economics and etc. When they finally decide what do they want to specialise in, they have a college degree to help them get into schools of their choice. Thirdly, college gives second chances. for those students who didn't do very well in high school, college is a perfect opportunity to earn back the grades they think they deserve. For all education levels above college, they tend to weigh your college degree higher than your high school degree. My fourth point is that college helps us build a strong foundation for future studies. It gives you the basic knowledge you will need for future studies. Students can gain advanced knowledge in the fields that they are interested in and can have a general understanding of the other subjects. It also helps students to exercise their critical thinking skills and make sensible choices as well as help them to express themselves through writing and speech. Another point I would like to use to oppose to the opinion that college is redundant for further studies is that it helps students increase their chance of admission into schools of their choice. Imagine that you are checking 2 resumes from 2 applicants. They both have the same amount of experience, but one applicant gained a higher college degree that the other. Which one would you choose as a new intake? I believe that all of us will choose the student with the higher education background. However, in real life, students are compared with thousands os applicants, so they must have some academic achievements that make them appeal to the university that they are applying for so that they will choose the student as their intake. Last but not least, college prepares students for university life. Students learn to deal with the hardships in life in college. It makes the student strong and practical enough to deal with the hardships that they are going to face in the future. Students learn to adapt to new situations and new environments in college just as they would do in graduate school or university. Overall, I would like to conclude that college is in fact not redundant for further studies but it plays an important role in a student's education. Thank you.
Debaters should not be given the option of mandating a 5-12 question MC quiz for their debates here.

Ever since the opening of debate.org, many debaters have felt that faulty voting has been occurring during their debates. Personally, I agree with this and feel that many voters don't even read the debates before voting. In fact, I am inclined to believe that some debaters merely email their friends, have them make debate.org accounts, and vote in favor of all their debates. In today's debate, I am going to advocate the solution mentioned in the topic. It will be my opponent's job to argue against this solution. With that said, let us proceed. The plan would work rather simply. Before each round, debaters would have the option of creating a Multiple Choice quiz that consist of what the actual information within the round is. Each debater would be allowed to create such quizzes for each round, but would only be allowed to ask a maximum of 12 questions for the entire debate. In order to vote on debates, voters would have to score a passing grade on the quiz(zes) (keep in mind that both debaters aren't obligated to create a quiz)(what qualified as passing grade would be decided by the debater before each round) provided in order to be qualified to vote. I advocate that this solution is rather effective as it could (again, initiating these quizzes are optional) coerce voters to actually read and comprehend debates. With that said, I now stand ready for my opponent's first rebuttal.
Canada sucks.

Excellent, a worthy challenger appears! "It's simply a bay, nothing more and nothing less." That's what those who fell victim to it said... "In addition, our flag looks no different than any other flag that you or anyone else has, it is a leaf." That's the ingenuity of the flag...it looks innocent yet in reality it is a symbol both of Canada's sucking power and the people's rebellious images. People are already being hypnotized by Canada to being sucky too. Look at that pop-star, mesmerized, forced to suck on that banana.... it is evident that not only Canada sucks, it hypnotizes famous people to suck too.Back to you.
Canada sucks.

"As you can see Canada is a dangerous country that sucks." Firstly, let me address that we have no ability to attack other countries and our military is under-funded. Using adjectives like dangourous isn't very smart when you have no reason to do so. The comment on the hudson bay is very strange. We do not use the hudson bay as a symbol to suck all landmasses into, making a dominate statement of rule. It's simply a bay, nothing more and nothing less. We know we are touchable, and the murder of the soldier at the war memorial shows it. In addition, our flag looks no different than any other flag that you or anyone else has, it is a leaf. How is it in your eyes a symbol of arrogance? Maybe it's a sign of not having any good ideas. Your go.
Canada sucks.

Canada has sucked from the beginning of time.Just look at a map of Canada. Its mouth, the Hudson Bay, has been open like thus for I don't even know how long. It is big evidence that it sucks on the water in the bay as well as various objects in the bay. It seems obvious that the towns people know about how Canada is alive and sucking on things. They have thus created an illusionary "toy" for Canada to suck on: The top is sharp to symbolize the fact that they're not completely over whelmed, and that with their weapons, they'll soon be able to defeat Canada. But Canada is arrogant. Canada doesn't mind this. It knows that sharp things cannot harm it in the least, so it lets its people get away with creating such a flag--but forces them to keep the bottom shaft intact, for if it is gone, then Canada's sucking power will be seen to be no more.As you can see Canada is a dangerous country that sucks. What do you have to say to the contrary?
Anthropogenic, catastrophic, carbon dioxide based global warming is a hoax

Since my opponent forfeited the round, I will continue to post my arguments. Peter Taylor, an environmentalist himself , said in his book CHILL, "There have always been uncertainties as to what drives global temperature and the climate feedbacks. It is very obvious that they are cyclic in nature, yet these cycles are all but ignored in the interests of a simple message. Moving on to the impact of CO2 on the planet. In the Arctic, temperature variations are closely related to solar cycles, while being completely varied form carbon concentrations (from researcher Dr. Willie Soon). A UK environmentalist David Bellamy said, 'The truth is that there are no facts that link the concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide with imminent and catastrophic global warming." Peter Taylor again, "The close correlation of global temperatures to the PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation) would suggest that cloud cover and aerosol patterns related to the Pacific Ocean are the main drivers of global temperature." Human emissions, as already shown, are under four percent of total output. Since carbon is a trace gas (only 0.04% of the atmosphere) this is inconsequential. In later rounds I will show why this hoax is perpetrated on America. Con, please post your argument
Anthropogenic, catastrophic, carbon dioxide based global warming is a hoax

Actually, we can't stand on common ground. The source I quoted proves that the earth is cooling and has cooled during the last twenty-odd years. The chart by NASA is factually inaccurate since it omits the warm period during the 1930s. It is also biased because of the anomalies in the placement of the USHCN temperature stations beginning in 1990. An excellent website to show this and other oddities is http://www.wattsupwiththat.com.... This website by Anthony Watts shows pictures of incorrectly placed stations as well as discussing the temperature affects of whitewash vs. the new latex paint. the ultimate outcome is that there is an 85% chance of a 1-5 degree Celsius error--warmer. Mr. Watts is a highly respected meteorologist. Another question--why is the 1880's the starting period? Why don't they include the Medieval Warm Period which was several degrees warmer than the supposed recent warming. Central England temperature records show that the average warming is .26 degrees per century. This is regardless of the actual carbon increase--the temps increase at the same rate even after CO2 went up. Also, the total carbon concentrations are 390 parts per million, with only 15 ppm of human emissions. This is a climatically insignificant sum of 3-4%. It is completely pointless to reduce our 15 parts (we can't stop breathing, so we'd only reduce, say 5-6 parts at best.) After all, if carbon doubled, it would only take a 1% increase in cloud cover to counteract this. Imagine a football stadium filled with 1 million fans, then remove even the liberal sum of 8 people. Big deal! Carbon is a trace gas in the atmosphere, and reducing that paltry sum wouldn't make a difference, even IF it is warming
Anthropogenic, catastrophic, carbon dioxide based global warming is a hoax

Before we begin, we must first define what we mean by 'global warming'. According to several sources, including www.nwrc.usgs.gov, global warming is an increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere - I'm sure we can all stand common ground to that. http://www.nasa.gov... - This picture shows that the average temperature of the Earth's surface has rapidly increased since the 1880s (coincidentally when the industrial revolution occurred) thus global warming has taken place; this is undeniable and has been confirmed by several governmental & non-governmental bodies. Anthropogenic industrialization and its pollution have had direct impacts on our atmosphere. Atmospheric concentrations (exempli gratia water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide or in other words greenhouse gases ) have increased, all of which contribute to the containment of heat near the Earth's surface.
Anthropogenic, catastrophic, carbon dioxide based global warming is a hoax

My opponent will have to prove that global warming is existent, anthropogenic, carbon-caused, and catastrophic. I will attempt to debunk the claims of alarmists. My first argument states that the earth is not warming significantly. From J. Hansen's first testimony in 1988 to 2007, the earth has cooled by approximately .5 degrees. This is from a the UAH MSU monthly global temperatures. The University of Illinois Polar Research Group found that the Antarctic sea ice reached record levels in 2007--at 16.26 million square kilometers, up 1.4 % This is obviously not a sign of warming. There is also no consensus that global warming is real. Many highly educated and reputable scientists and politicians disagree with the alarmist viewpoint. Richard Lindzen and MIT, Petr Chylek at Los Alamos, Vaclav Klaus,t he president of the Czech Republic, and Dr. Nir Shariv at Hebrew University are just a few of the top minds in meteorology, astrophysics, and other related scientific disciplines that disagree with warmmongerism. Unfortunately, these voices are squelched by the liberal media. That little bit of information is just the beginning.
Evolution is a lie!

Sense of Right and WrongFirst I have to say that evolution does not need to offer an explanation of right and wrong any more that gravity does. Natural selection is not about the survival of individual organisms but instead the survival of genes. In the ancient past of our species we lived in very small tribal groups and in this position it makes sense to make sacrifices to further the survival of the tribe as a whole because the tribe as a whole carries very similar genes. Morality also seems to have a component of one person doing something for someone else in the hope that they will return that favour. In a small tribal communing this makes sense but in the modern world it doesn't but as we carry the same genes and aspects of the same culture and so obey rules that no longer make sense (on a survival basis).That is how morality most likely arose. In modern years many people have attempted to make moral systems which benefit all humans and this seems to be how morality will progress in the future.We don't all have the same sense of right and wrong I showed that last time with the examples of me and you. Gopher WoodNo, the worlds biggest ever wooden boat was the Wyoming which was 450 feet in length, the ark (which evidently don't exist) "was" about 500 feet in length, the Wyoming ripped itself apart in the seas because the wood twisted apart.Still Not Addressing EvolutionMy opponent has not addressed evolution through natural selection with mendelian genetics throughout his entire argument and I would guess that he doesn't even know what evolution is.
Evolution is a lie!

Note that I only have 10 minutes left. How long fossils can last: Yes, but...nothing could stay intact for even 5 thousand years! Gopher wood: You have no proof of that. There have been big wooden boats before that didn't rip apart, right? (8 minutes left) Sense of right and wrong: Yes, but people that control other people's body (and other things) know inside that it is wrong. I don't have time to counter the other things right now. I will in my next argument.
Evolution is a lie!

I haven't heard that (scientists said that) the new approximate age of the earth was 13.798 billion years; I read somewhere that it was 60 to 70 billion years. And you said that the approximate age of fossils is 1-1000 million years--you have to admit that you don't think a dead animal's bones can stay intact for 500 million years. This is why evolution isn't only false, but is bad to believe for Christians: If you believe evolution, you doubt Genesis, because you think "maybe we can add millions of years to the Bible...", and if you believe that, you start to doubt that God created the earth because "if the men were right about millions of years, they were probably right about this..." then you doubt the rest of the Bible. Then you doubt that God exists! This is what has brought thousands of Christians to not be Christian anymore. Noah's Ark: The Bible says in Genesis 6:14 (in most translations) that the ark was made of Gopher wood[1]. This type of wood was probably very strong, but it could refer to another type of tree. If it is real, it's extinct. Anyway, it was definitely supported from the inside. As for the meat-eating animals on the ark: Just because they have sharp teeth, that doesn't mean they only eat meat.[2] Like the Panda, which has sharp teeth and eats bamboo. Genesis 1:30 says all animals were originally vegetarian. Bears, which eat meat and berries and other plants. Sense of right and wrong: No, we all have the same sense of right and wrong. But where did it come from? [1]https://www.google.com... [2]https://www.google.com...
Evolution is a lie!

I'm not a troll. I'll be basing my arguments on the Bible. In Genesis, there was a great flood. There were only two of each animal on board--the rest died. And if you look at today, there are millions of dead things (fossils) buried in rock layers that appear to have water damage. You think it happened because of billions of years.* But in the Bible, it tells the generations from Adam down to Jesus, and (because it's been 2014 years since Jesus died) there are about 30, so if you multiply 30 by 100 (100 years for each person, but we know people die young!) and add 2000, it comes out to 5,000. But some lived more than 200 years back then, so it'll actually come out to around 6,500. So, it turns out that you can believe God (the Bible), or the theories of men. So basically, if God is real, then automatically evolution isn't. For the earth to just "appear" out of nowhere, there would have to be like a quadrillion if's! And for it to end up like now, every single one would have to be right! Come on, if an apple can't change into a banana in a billion years, nothing can't change into everything! Last thing: Now, we all have the sense of right and wrong, right? How did that come into us? *It only takes common sense to know that if bones sat in the ground for 70 billion years, they won't still be there!
Evolution is a lie!

Observed SpeciationWe have observed macro evolution (speciation) both in the lad and in the field many times [1].Fossil RecordIn the fossil record we see the transitions predicted in evolution [2].PhylogeneticsThe system of phylogenetics groups organisms by their shared characteristics and common DNA this was a system invented by a devout creationist [3] which shows the branching tree pattern predicted by Darwin. These are just a very brief summery of long arguments but I doubt I will have to post anymore as it seems Pro has not returned to debate.org since posting this debate and appears to be a troll. [1] http://www.talkorigins.org...[2] http://jan.ucc.nau.edu... [3] http://www.linnean.org...
Licensed drivers over the age of 55

"people over the age of 55 should not be allowed to drive, there have been so many unnecessary accidents and deaths because of this" Those aged 16-28 are in a far larger number of accidents, shall you ban them too? Indeed on the premise of amount of accidents, that age group indeed warrant banning more than 55+ age group. [1] 15-20 year olds involved in crashes from the period 1994-2004 had a 5% increase [2] From 1997 aged group 70+ has enjoyed a consistent *decline* in the number of accidents per population. [3] "I don't care how good you think you drive your body and mind are not the same as they were 10 15 yrs ago, there is an age where the state will let you drive and there should be a limit to the age as well" While we could deviate this debate into ethical arguments and maybe in R2 I will, I shall just stick with statistics for now. Reaction times while they do decrease with age are still only differentiated in terms of milliseconds and able to be offset with both physical and mental exercise. [4] Indeed the difference between 55+ and a 20 year old varies from 120 to around 280 milliseconds only. [5] == The idea that at the age of 55 one drives unsafely is unfounded. :) [1] http://www.boston.com... [2] NHTSA data. [3] http://img402.imageshack.us... S. Lyman, S.A. Ferguson, E.R. Braver, and A. F. Williams.Older driver involvement in police reported crashes and fatal crashes: trends and projections. Injury Prevention 8.2 (June 202): p.116 [4] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [5] Challenger Center for Space Science Research
Resolved: Capital punishment ought not be continued in the United States.

I do not intend on using any new arguments, as I feel I have painted a fairly clear picture of the misconceptions and rhetoric surrounding the death penalty. First, the monetary statistics associated with capital punishment are skewed. Yes, even the statistics used by MSNBC. They are an entertainment news source, and used the same studies I already cited in my first round. Again, I ask the voters to use common sense in conjunction with facts. What's cheaper? Keeping someone alive(which is basically what a life term is) or just doing away with them(death)? The death penalty, itself, is cheap. All the red tape and hoops to jump through, is what costs. Remove the tape, and do away with the dog and pony show, and capital punishment is the way to go. As far as needing 100% proof in order to execute someone, I don't necessarily agree with my opponent, but I will accept that notion for the time being. If you look at my opponent stats, you will see that executions in this country are actually declining. This is because juries are taking the responsibility very seriously. Also, my opponent mistakenly shrinks my argument for forensic advancement to only DNA evidence. There are far more advancements, and all of them are helping us be absolutely certain that the inmate being put to death is 100% guilty. Although, as previously stated, if you are convicted, you are guilty 100%. That is the basis of the judicial process. Innocent until proven guilty, then it's time to pay the piper. Again, if you are not deterred by the fear of death, what difference do the laws make? So, whether the capital punishment laws deter these ghastly crimes or not, is a moot point. I would like to thank my opponent for giving me the opportunity to debate this very important issue, and hope the readers have found some insight. Whether the vote goes pro or con, this debate was a lot of fun, and I look forward to another very soon. Good day to all.
The UK School System does not work

Okay, well. You could have given me just a little bit more to work with. So explain your point; why do you believe that the education system works? Why am I an idiot? The education system focuses on teaching useless facts, like 'mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell', or 'Curly's wife has a red dress and red represent danger so Curly's wife is danger', that you're probably going to make use of in something like a pub quiz. Aside from the obvious basics, like a small amount of maths, reading and writing, school teaches you nothing to do with the key skills required to progress with a career; that is, unless you go into the specific field which a subject teaches. But even then, out of everything you learn, only a small amount will be applicable to your career.
The UK School System does not work

The system focuses on 'passing exams' as an indicator of success; there is evidence that students who cram for an exam will hold sufficient information for the next day, but they will forget it quicker, therefore the exam cannot be a true indicator of one's knowledge. Even if students don't cram, they're not being tested for that information after the final exam so they will have no reason to remember it, so they will forget it anyway. It's not just that; I could go on. But I don't want to make it too long as, as much as I love debate.org, I also would love to sleep. So I am addressing all aspects of the education system, not just exams. Over to you.
a blind man seeing aliens is a blind man not seeing aliens

That is an indefinite statement. The definition of seeing is not clearly specified, but as it is not specified I will use that in pointing out that it is possible how "a blind man seeing aliens is a blind man not seeing aliens". To "see" can be defined as: "to perceive (things) mentally; discern; understand"(Dictionary.com). To "perceive" can be defined as: "to recognize, discern, envision, or understand" (Dictionary.com) To "envision" can be defined as: "to picture mentally, especially some future event or events" (Dictionary.com) Therefore, in the possibility that the hypothetical blind man is hallucinating, a blind man can be a blind man seeing aliens. The statement that "a blind man seeing aliens is a blind man not seeing aliens" is false because it does not take this into account. Sources utilized: -http://dictionary.reference.com... -http://dictionary.reference.com... -http://dictionary.reference.com...