BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Schools should start later

I will start this by 8.00 is the average school start time in the US per source bellow. The US has a start time for school for a reason. like your local bank has a start time for the most part school start times are around 8. What brings up a question why then? 8 is a time parents can drop their kids off in middle school and so on. This is one of many reasons I will bring to this debate. A average American worker checks into his office around 8;18 according to survey. If the school time were to be pushed back it would disrupt all involved. This does not just include parents but the company they work for. By moving school time you would force the average American worker to go to the office later. Companies would not like that in return and ether the company office hours will move or you the parent could be fired. Not every average American can afford to check into his work later then he or she needs to be. Not every American worker is a boss or is at a stable job. Only 47% of Americans have a full time job, out of the 49% their is workers who are just making it. In a oil crisis of the past few years a late employee every single day might just brake the string for him/ her to be fired. A oil company will refuse in most cases to move their office hours back just because of a few schools. It would take a National move by the government what says "all schools must start at blank time" in order for this to happen. Two questions for my opponent Do you see this being a nation wide change? Will moving school times back result in less jobs? Look forward to your points. . https://www.livescience.com... . https://www.cbsnews.com... . http://www.businessinsider.com...
Jim Morrison was more of a legend than a loser

Con, thanks for posting this strange and original debate topic. Con is against his notion that Jim Morrison was more of a legend than a loser, so I assume I am arguing in favor of Morrison's legacy as a legend. Artistic OutputWhile Jim died in Paris at the young age of 27, and had the reputation of a heavy partier, his artistic output with the Doors and individually was extraordinary (and he even graduated from UCLA on top of this). He published two books of poetry, and wrote the lyrics to the vast majority of the six Doors' studio albums.Innovations in Rock and Roll Moreover, Jim applied an intellectualization to his influences that was unprecedented by rock and roll musicians before then. Most musicians in the 60's were primarily influenced by other musicians and other genres. Morrison's lyrics draw less on prevailing trends in pop music, and more on obscure and eccentric poets and philosophers. The influence of poets and novelists like Arthur Rimbaud, Celine, William Blake, Jack Kerouac, and Charles Baudelaire is overwhelming in Jim's lyrics and poetry. One can even see the influences of anthropologists and philosophers like James Frazer and Friedrich Nietzsche in Jim's work. In addition to the unique spectrum of influences Jim brought to his art, his innovation to the roll of the front man is legendary as well. His baritone voice, shamanic dancing, and psychotic antics, took the Doors from a small band formed in 1965 to a world famous rock band, selling out shows on both sides of the Atlantic only two years later. Even Jim's craziest moments, ie. the New Haven arrest show and the Miami arrest show, are the mark of a good front man: extremely entertaining. LegacyWhile my first two arguments attempt to show why Jim has gained the status of legend, the mere worship and respect people still hold for him is the greatest testament to Jim's legacy of a legend. If anyone has been to the Pere Lachaise cemetery in Paris, and seen the hundreds of people who flock to be in the presence of Jim's remains daily, Jim's status as a legend is pretty secure. The sheer number of visitors deems Morrison almost a sort of secular saint. Almost 50 years later, Jim Morrison is a folk hero to thousands of people, which by nature makes him a legend.Concluding Thoughts: Jim was by no means perfect. He was often very bad to his long time girlfriend, Pamela, we was a violent alcoholic, and favored the drugs that ultimately killed him. But this, I would like to assert, does not make him a loser. When someone's life is defined by their infidelity, that may make them a loser. But Jim's contributions to rock and roll, and his legendary life were achieved in spite of his personal flaws. This strange relation between his personal problems and his public successes, almost makes him a tragic hero. His infamy makes his status as a legend even stronger. Thank you
Jim Morrison was more of a legend than a loser

Notion : Jim Morrison was more of a legend than a loser. In this debate I will be questioning this symbolic status of the "Lizard King". I expect my opponent to defend it. The terms legend and loser are defined as under, and so is the name Jim Morrison. Legend : a person whose fame or notoriety makes him a source of exaggerated or romanticized tales or exploits Loser : a person or thing that seems destined to be taken advantage of, fail, etc Jim Morrison : James Douglas "Jim" Morrison (December 8, 1943 – July 3, 1971) was an American singer and poet, best known as the lead singer and lyricist of the rock band The Doors. No semantics. Facts will help. Individual opinion shall also be respected provided it is backed by concrete argument. My opponent goes first. As a rule I request my opponent to leave his/her space for argument in Round 3 blank. Looking forward to debating over this issue.
The internet does more harm than good. Do you agree?.

Parents are able to ban their kids by taking the computer or laptop or either close the WiFi. Eventhough they play computer games till midnight, they are still able to listen in class. Do you realize how internet has bring everything forward, more advanced? Without internet, i am sure you might not even able to debate about this topic. You see how internet makes a change to the society. How are you going to reply if there wasn't internet in the first place?
The internet does more harm than good. Do you agree?.

Nowadays, distance has been shortened and communication improved thanks to the internet. Internet allows the world to be in contact with the latest current news. Another advantage is that communication with friends has been enhanced. Students uses internet for research and project work. Students uses the internet for school works in such cases in Singapore is lead.com.sg or mconline to do online school works and teachers can just check if they have been paying attention in class. Students who do project works may refer to video or pictures. Students refer to video or pictures to get more idea on how to do their project work and also to get more marks. With the internet, people communicate better and easier than posting letters like the olden days which takes the letter 2-3 days to be received. Therefore, internet brings more good than harm.
The internet does more harm than good. Do you agree?.

Do you often use the internet? What and which website do you go when you surf internet? The internet is very useful when it comes to study. People don"t realize how good internet is. People tend to neglect the internet and hear what their friends or family say. Nowadays, they tend to hear rumours and then they start to think internet brings more harm. They don"t realize how good and lucky they are to have the internet compared to the olden days.
Gay marriage

Yes, laws are made but they can be changed when circumstances arise.That is why we have amendments to our Constitution. Laws are made and amended over time regardless of the number of people affected. Equality means=the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, and opportunities. According to www.people-press.org, A majority of the public continues to support the legalization of same-sex marriage (57%). With this in mind, gay marriage should be approved since majority rules! This is what makes America strong.
Gay marriage

The institution of marriage is traditionally been with a woman and a woman. Changing a law and tradition for only about 780,000 people in the United States (out of about 323,944,051 people who live in the U.S.) is like changing a rule in school because one student doesn't like it. This isn't right because instead of this changing of laws affecting those who are gay, it affects everyone in the United States of America. https://www.washingtonpost.com... (used for number of people who got married to the same sex ( # of marriages times 2)) http://www.worldometers.info... .
Gay marriage

Would those children of a broken marriage be any less confused when exposed to their parent's new mate? NO! Talk about weird and uncomfortable! Same sex parents are not aliens. The uncomfortableness people feel in public when same sex families are present is only felt by those with close minded views and those unwilling to look outside of their religious and prejudice shortcomings. Children want to be loved and supported and if allowed to be in a family regardless of the structure will only make this world a better place. There's so many children living in foster care. Legalizing gay marriage will allow these children a chance at a loving family life that includes all the rights we as Americans are entitled to according to the Constitution.
Gay marriage

But when a child's parents get a divorce they live with one parent. Living with two of the same gender parents will make the child(ren) wonder. They will compare their parents to their friends parents. This will make them fell even more weird or uncomfortable. When gay couples are seen in public it makes the whole community ,old and young, feel uncomfortable. Also, in the Bible, Qur'an, and the Torah they all say that a man marries a woman and a woman marries a man. The Torah, Qur'an and Bible considers a homosexual act between two men to be an abhorrent thing ,punishable by death"a strong prohibition. Also in the Qur'an, Bible, and Torah, God created Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve or Eve and Jane. This is why gay marriage is wrong.
Gay marriage

Gay marriage SHOULD be allowed in the United States! People should be allowed to be with who they want. The 1st amendment of the Constitution states that a person"s religious beliefs or a lack of thereof must be protected. Legislatures cannot discriminate against marriages of the minority party which, homosexual people fall into that category. There is also an amendment stating there is separation of church and state, so you cannot declare that a marriage is a gift from God. ~ teensink.com Marriage definition ~ The lead for formality to recognize union of a man and woman (or in some jurisdictions, to people of the same-sex) as partners in a relationship.
primary education is important for children.

So my con has forfeited his second round.So this is my last round of this debate.So in this round i would like to conclude up my points about the benefits of primary education.From all the points i have said above one fact is clear that primary education is important for children to grow and develop themselves.So primary education should be promoted in schools and the children should develop a desire to go to these schools and also the parents should urge their children to go to these primary educational institutions.It may help the child to grow faster mentally.Here i am showing some of the other benefits............ http://education.reallusion.com... So i hope my con understood about the benefits and importance.Here my con has also not provided any disadvantages of this primary education.Since this is my last round i would like to thank my con for accepting this debate (since you have not argued with me).I think everyone should be in the pro side. THANK YOU
primary education is important for children.

You are the con in this debate.That is, you should go against the primary education.Here i am the con and i am the one who should support this primary education in schools.As i have said earlier primary education is the base of studies for every children.A child cannot be a man unless he studies.This is an effect of primary education.This primary education has a significant role in building up a well literate person.It is a necessity that every child should be literated and hence be promoted into primary education not only for the child but it can be sometimes useful for the entre community.Another importance is that when a child studies in primary schools he or she develops an interest in studying.If the children are not going to primary schools they would not be willing to go to school and study.Thus from all these reasons it is evident that primary education is important.So i hope that con will be back with some defects of these primary education...............................
primary education is important for children.

In this debate i would like to say about the benefits of primary education.Some people around us may think that children do not need primary education.They may believe that primary education is simply waste of money and it brings no benefit to children.But the true fact is that a child could not develop without primary education.The children should be taught the base of the studies and this only happens within primary school and with primary education.So for children to know about the base of studies primary education is important and it should be therefore promoted in schools.
Lelouch's plan to aid Japan is better than Suzaku's.

While my opponent correctly states that Lelouch's method of liberating Japan involves much more bloodshed than Suzaku's in the short run, there are many important factors he has not taken into consideration. The first is Charles Di Britannia, Lelouch's father and Emperor of Britannia. As top Knight of the Rounds, it is true that Suzaku would be able to, in a way, liberate Area 11 but he would still be under the control of Di Britannia. We know from R2 that Di Britannia has the mystical power known as Geass as well, given to him by V. V. The contract that they drew up was to "slay the gods". We can assume that this man is not only very dangerous, but also very evil. Suzaku's "reign" will be short lived and useless in the long run so long as this man exists and Lelouch is not able to wipe him out. The very world may end if Di Britannia finds a way to fulfill his contract. The second is the Chinese Federation. For quite some time, the Chinese Federation has been trying to conquer Area 11. Now, they are in negotiations with Britannia. We can assume that Britannia will never give up Area 11 because of the massive amounts of sakuradite in Mt. Fuji. In addition, it also serves as a good buffer zone geographically between the Britannian empire and the Chinese Federation. If Lelouch succeeds, he will probably cede Area 11 over to the Chinese without a fight, because his goal is not political power, rather, it is a world in which Nunally can be safe. If Suzaku goes through with his plan, Lelouch will lose everything, and The Chinese Federation will eventually go to war with Britannia over Area 11, causing much more bloodshed. Thus, while a Suzaku triumph may provide temporary relief without any bloodshed, a Lelouch triumph will ensure political stability in the long run.
Lelouch's plan to aid Japan is better than Suzaku's.

For those unfamiliar, this is a debate over Code Geass. Anyway, my opening argument shall be swift. It must be noted that Lelouch is an advocate of "the ends justify the means." This has led him to let countless innocents die in order to strategically win battles that would help in liberating Japan. It must also be noted that Lelouch's real goal isn't necessarily about liberating Japan, but upon taking over Brittania so that his sister (Nunally) will have a nice world to live in. However, Lelouch has gone so far to achieve this goal as to abandon the Japanese liberation (Black knights on episode 25 of season 1) in pursuit of his sister's survival. Clearly, Lelouch's plan is a plan that can easily jeapordize the lives of the Japanese at any time and perhaps even send them all to their graves. On the other hand, Suzaku's plan involves no bloodshed for Japan. His goal is to protect Japan through becoming the highest ranking Knight. For in becoming the highest ranking Knight, he is permitted reign over one section of Brittania (which he has chosen as Japan). This involves no bloodshed of the Japanese, involves the safety of the Japanese as the highest priority, and is a plan which Lelouch's own sister prefers. Given that this is the case, it is quite clear who has the better plan. With that said, I now stand ready for my opponent's rebuttal.
Religious Objective Morality is a Might Makes Right Argument

You are saying Omnipotence+Omniscience is so mighty that it overwhelms a might makes right argument. That's at least an interesting assertion. If someone knew everything there was to know, Would he necessarily operate in a way that would be to the benefit of all, Or just the way that best benefits himself? There's no way for us to know that, Even if one knew everything that could exist or could change the world's rules to what you fancy, That that person would have all of our best intentions at heart. You can say that God might KNOW of what would be objective truth, But he could also know that the best way to serve him is Scenario A. Scenario B would be the best way to serve man. Scenario C would be the best for both, But less for either. Unless we gained access to omniscience ourselves, How could we know that this is not just an intelligent person taking advantage of us? Why does omniscience, Even if I grant you that it exists, Mean that you are going to be good? I submit that it doesn't. All I have to do is find the most morally reprehensible thing that God allows to exist and have you try to argue a single point in defense of it morally. If you can't provide even one, Then God's universe that he created with his access to this objective morality would only be acceptable in a world where God could explain to me why children die of cancer after a few short years of suffering. Why they're allowed to starve and die when a hundred other better systems than the human body can exist. God was omniscient and omnipotent before he created the universe. If this is true, He would have had the ability to choose which universe came into existence. If this is true, And he chose this one, Then this must be the most moral universe that could exist (if he's morally good). There is no reason to think this is true. God's morality is entirely might makes right until he explains to us why the most evil things in the world create the best moral outcomes from a consequentialist's perspective. May your thoughts be clear, -Thoht
Religious Objective Morality is a Might Makes Right Argument

Might makes right: Even if someone might actually be correct, Those with power are often able to impose their beliefs on others through force, Rather than logical persuasion. Religion is a set of system of beliefs that can have a God in them. Going by the many title given to God. Omnipotent and all knowing for two. This is enough that surpasses might makes right. If he can predict the future surely he would know what is best for us and realising the scenarios that can take place he can find the best in doing it. All knowing can get his point across to all fringes and can bring everyone in for a common goal. One point of contention that you might have is that maybe we percieve God acting out in a bad way. The way I see it God is a more powerful being and does know more about humans and his idea of good or bad is more knowledgble and more then likely be objective. Since he can predict the future and does know everything he can determine what is right or wrong given the scenario. In the short term it might look bad but given enough time you would realise God's was right doing that. I don't really know where you can go with this so I'll leave it at that. Good luck
Religious Objective Morality is a Might Makes Right Argument

Rebut is fine in R1 as well by the rules I set. The problem we're having is that you are having a different debate than I am. I am assuming that their god exists already in the debate topic. I'm allowing this and trying to state that even if he is known to exist (even which one he is) his morality is still not objectively true. If the universe could possibly have been created by an evil omnipotent entity, Then there is no reason to make the assumption that a God's morality would be objectively true. That god could indeed know what objective morality is, But he may choose to go against it. God, Being a conscious entity, Would always have subjective morality. If he had no power to do something that was immoral if he so chose, He is no god. He is a being ruled by morality, Not the other way around. If morality doesn't exist outside God then that makes everything he does correct by no more justification than he is powerful, So that is what it is. In this case, The argument would be that Human Morality should supersede what "objective morality" has been defined as, And objective morality isn't so moral in the first place. In either case, We cannot assume that objective morality will be what any God presents us with. Humanity then, Should strive to overpower God and rebel against its tyranny. The debate topic is more of a metaphysical one. You, As con, Have to argue that religious objective morality is not a might makes right argument. If you're only interested in dismantling the theory that the Bible gives Christians the right to say their morality is based on objective morality, We agree. My point on the matter is that "If the Bible is open to interpretation, I. E. If you have a chance to be wrong, If there is a discussion among Christians as to what the right view is, Then your morality is as subjective as the rest of ours. " I'm not including a Biblical discussion in my arguments. I'm arguing about whether or not objective morality stems from god in a universe where he is known to exist. I. E. Imagine God proved himself to exist. This could happen at literally any time and would require zero effort on God's part. We would need to answer to ourselves whether or not to accept his morality. If we did not, Then we would have to attempt to rebel, However many millennia that took. May your thoughts be clear, -Thoht