BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
bullying

The Resolution:As Pro, I resolve that bullying does not have a negative effect on everyone connected to both the bullies and the victims. "Yes I did not meet my resolution well and the "everyone" part of it was not well researched and poorly said. ". .. says my opponent, without providing a new resolution to go by. Because my opponent has not provided a different resolution is round, I am binding his original resolution to him for the rest of this debate, as changing it in round four or five would be unfair. My opponent still has to prove what he said he would: That bullying has a negative effect on everyone who is connected to both the bullies and the victims. See contention three where I explain how he is not doing so, and therefore losing the debate. The Inaccurate Sources"I meant that 10 percent of high school students who drop out do so because of bullying. "This is not an argument that my opponent can defend, as his source says, word for word, that "one in ten students drop out due to bullying. " Until my opponent can find a statistic that proves what he's saying, his burden of proof is not met. Not Meeting Terms of His Resolution"I notice that he is not defending the heinous act that is bullying. "Perhaps. But I have never been explicitly told by Con that "Bullying is bad. " If that were his resolution, I would defend it with "Bullying is good. " But that is not the case. In the following instance, I have gone this entire debate defending the resolution at the top of this argument. "71 percent of students who are bullied say that it is an ongoing problem and a study at Yale has reported that the total number of adolescent suicides has increased by 50 percent in 30 years. "71% is not everyone. This, if anything, is proof that not everyone is negatively affected by bullying. at least 29% are not. Once again, Con deteriorates his own resolution. "There is evidence that due to cyber bullying, bullying has increased and according to Harvard medical school, physiological effects are severe. "On everyone connected to the bullies? That seems a bit far-fetched. "This would indeed mean increased amount of kids are committing suicide due to bullying. "Everyone connected to the bullies are committing suicide? That seems a bit far-fetched. "My thoughts and sympathies to those who are bullied. "Mine too. But that is not the premise of this debate. ---Bottom Line: Con bit off more than he can chew with his original resolution, and did not state a new one in this round. Bound by the unspoken "no more in the 'four'" rule, it is too late for him to make a new one. See resolution at top if you're confused.
bullying

This being my first debate and i'm learning much already. Perchance I did not specify certain points in my argument and yes, my argument had terrible structure. Let me "clear up any confusion" as it were. Indeed I meant that 10 percent of high school students who drop out do so because of bullying. Yes I did not meet my resolution well and the "everyone" part of it was not well researched and poorly said. Forgive me for such dumb mistakes. Moving on to my rebuttal and argument. Pro finds many things wrong with my argument, yet I notice that he is not defending the heinous act that is bullying. Moreover, he does not add any statement that would seem to say that bullying is somehow not a problem or that it is not a terrible act to commit. 71 percent of students who are bullied say that it is an ongoing problem and a study at Yale has reported that the total number of adolescent suicides has increased by 50 percent in 30 years. There is evidence that due to cyber bullying, bullying has increased and according to Harvard medical school, physiological effects are severe. This would indeed mean increased amount of kids are committing suicide due to bullying. A solution to this problem would be teaching kids to when kids say and do mean things to them and to ignore them and to add punishment to those who do bully other kids. My thoughts and sympathies to those who are bullied. Vote con! my sources . http://www.health.harvard.edu... . http://www.bullyingstatistics.org...
bullying

ClarificationIn his last argument, Con stated, ". .. bullying has harmful effects on everyone who is connected to both bullies and victims. " In reading so, and seeing no evidence of a different resolution, I will assume that this is the resolution of the debate. Invalidity of My Opponent's StatisticsMy opponent made the claim that one in every ten students drop out of high school because of being bullied. The following quote from USA Today in January 2013 explains why this is false:"The national high school dropout rate fell to 3.4% (514,238 students), down from 4.1% the previous year. That's the lowest it's been since at least 2002-03. "[. http://www.usatoday.com...] The article goes on to mention that even in the state of Arizona, the state with the highest dropout rate is only 7.8%. So the question is: how can one tenth of students be dropping out because of being bullied, if one tenth of students aren't even dropping out? Perhaps my opponent would state that the source means, "1 in 10 of students who drop out do so because of bullying, and that would be nice and relevant. But that's not what the article says. It just says that one in every ten students drop out because of bullying. So, the accuracy of the arguments my opponent makes is questionable. But even if these statistics were true. .. My Opponent Has Not Met the Terms of His Resolution The resolution, once again:"Bullying has harmful effects on everyone who is connected to both bullies and victims. " Guide your eyes to the words "everyone" and "connected" for a second. First of all, my opponent provides no clarification what he means by people who are "connected" to bullies and victims. A semantics fan would argue he meant physically "connected". A common person would say that "connected" means friends and family of bullies and victims. Heck, Mufasa teaches that everything is connected. So what does he mean? Let's assume for a moment that he means the common person definition, as it's the most logical. My opponent would be arguing that bullying has harmful effects on all friends and family of the bullies and the victims. The victim? Maybe. The friends and family of the victim? Maybe. The bully? Sure, why not. But this is where the word "everyone" comes in. "Everyone" would include the friends and family of the bullies as well, and my opponent has done nothing to prove how. Therefore, my opponent has not met his burden of proof, has used innacurate statistics for his sources, and all after offering a vague resolution in the firts place.
bullying

Bullying, to be clear, is the recurrent harm of someone through physical and verbal means. This debate will be focusing on schools. Over 3.2 million children are victims of bullying every year and 90 percent of 4th through 8th graders say they have been bullied. Over 56 percent of all students have seen clear instances of bullying and 10 percent of kids drop out of school to avoid bullies. This is an unacceptable trend to the reasoning of that someone's education should not be in jeopardy because of someone wants to feel empowered and that people who have valuable skills to offer to the world don't because bullies have destroyed their confidence. Suicide rates have skyrocketed among teens, with over 4,400 deaths a year. Over 7 percent of all high school students have tried to commit suicide. In short, bullying has harmful effects on everyone who is connected to both bullies and victims. my sources http://www.bullyingstatistics.org... http://www.dosomething.org...
prostitution must be banned

Your somewhat offended me Mr. Debater Sir...But just basing on the status quo we can say that prostitution should be legalized to increase our employment rate sir...aside from the fact that it is not really an issue whether you sell your body for money for as you can see it's only a matter of choice...Prostitution Sir is just the same with watching those porn stars on tv exposing their private parts to earn money...About that sex paradise thingy we Sir on the opposition side want to clarify that legalizing prostitution will at the same time increase the income of the Philippines and its tourism rate but not to the extent that our country will become as what you called it a "sex paradise"....Mr. Debater Sir...As the Leader of the opposition we need to face the fact that we are suffering from unemployment and we need to legalize prostitution to solve it...Aside from the fact that the people who will be involved in this kind of job will be the one deciding about what will happen to them....Hmmm....With this I will finish my arguments by saying that prostitution is the oldest profession we have since time immemorial...So people only thinks its bad because the law and the religion says so but if we will legalize prostitution people will then think that it is okay because at the first place it is already legal...and with that the opposition should win this debate...Good Night and sweet dreams Sir....
prostitution must be banned

A pleasant afternoon Mr. Debater Sir..As we know we are now facing on the motion that Prostitution should be banned...and as the leader of the opposition I agree to your definition but I don't like your argument...As we can clearly see Mr. Debater Sir you don't even set the parameters of this debate...Sir as the Leader of the Opposition I would like to rebut your one and only argument Sir...First sir when you say that it is unlawful...NO sir actually it's not when we legalize prostitution on this country...sir we don't really need to ban prostitution because at the first place it's not legalized yet...Thank you sir and good day...
Facebook

Well, let's have at it. "Think about it...too much studying can cause one to become stressed, too much eating can cause multiple health problems, spending too much time watching TV can cause one to become inactive and they may even develop eye problems. Does this make doing homework or eating bad? No. It just simply means that too much of one thing is usually not good." "I use Facebook and have all A's. Practically every student at my school has a Facebook, a majority being kids with exceptional grades. While this does not account for the rest of the world's student, it is a good representation of Facebook student users. I will refer to my point from above. If you use Facebook too much, then it may cause a decrease in grades, just as if you spend too much time playing a certain sport or watching tv. This does not make playing a sport or watching TV bad though!" Yes, you are right, too much of one thing can cause a problem. However, what I think you fail to understand is, just because you and your friends aren't having a problem with Facebook doesn't mean others aren't. As I have previously shown in round one, Facebook is causing a problem, regardless of whether or not you want it to. You seem to be a casual user of Facebook, and I applaud this. However, there are others who abuse the site to the point of addiction. (3) Now, the undeniable truth is that Facebook is a problem. 264 million USD a day is a large sum of money to most. I think the problem is you don't understand the sheer magnitude of that number. USD lost a day at Peninsula due to Facebook: 264 million USD, or $264,000,000. USD lost a month at Peninsula due to Facebook: More than 7.9 billion USD, or $7,900,000,000. USD lost a year at Peninsula due to Facebook: More than 95 billion USD, or $950,000,000,000. To put it in perspective, $264 million USD is equivalent to about 2,468 iPhones. (4) I think I have established that $264 million USD a day is too much money to be wasted. Keep in mind, this is only for one law firm in the U.K, there are probably even more statistics to be uncovered. Not to mention, I haven't even crunched the numbers on the statistics showing that Facebook usage is inversely related to one's grades. You wrote a pretty weak resolution, so if I may so bold, I will try to interpret what you meant. My argument was to prove that Facebook is not good. Well, I think I have done just that. At the end of the day, Facebook is hurting people. While it may not be harming you, it's harming others. And while we can argue the worth of $256 million, the simple truth is that that's $256 million down the drain. I am not here to say I want to eliminate Facebook. I am here to say Facebook is a problem, and truth be told, I did just that. (3) http://www.addictioninfo.org... (4) http://www.apple.com...
Facebook

Well, let's skip the formalities and begin. First off, I would like to illustrate that Facebook can be bad for one's mental well being. Students who use Facebook receive, on average, lower grades than their peers who do not use Facebook. (1) If you're not a student, and you use Facebook, you are most likely a citizen with a job. Well, if you use Facebook while you are at work, you are causing a dramatic loss of productivity for your company. One major law firm in the U.K looses an estimated $264 million USD a day in lost productivity due to Facebook. (2) Yes, not doing your job can actually affect your companies success, directly affecting your paycheck. Pro says that Facebook is "a wonderful way to reconnect with people from your past, express yourself, and just have fun!" While that may be true, there are a couple other ways to do the above without screwing yourself over. Reconnecting with people from your past: If one truly wanted to do this, one would not have to use Facebook. You could simply use another tool which has not been proven to cause any of the negative "side effects" previously explained. This tool is www.anywho.com. You can simply type in the persons name, and wait for the results to show up. Technology is amazing, isn't it? Express yourself: Personally, I am a firm beliver in not "expressing myself" over the web. When I am asked to fill in the about me sections on websites, I almost always don't, simply because if a person wants to know about me, they would talk to me. I express myself through actions and communications, not through websites. Regardless, one could express themselves in a multitude of different ways, and through many different mediums. These include, but are not limited to: music, art, other liberal arts, verbal communication, and recreational activities. Having Fun: Yeah, Facebook is fun, but I can think of many more hobbies that do not have negative side effects, and are more productive. For instance, one could write in his free time. This is both productive and fun. If one does not like writing, one could join a softball league. Softball is good for one's health, and it is fun. I really don't think I need to continue. Well, I eagerly await your response, Pro. Oh, and as a side note, if you're creating your own debate, you have to write out your own opening statement. It's proper debate etiquette. You cannot simply dump your opinion on a subject and expect your opponent to write an opening statement so you don't have to. It's a common mistake though, so don't feel bad. Just don't do it again. (1) http://www.cbsnews.com... (2) http://www.switched.com...
Interpretation of the U.S. Constitution

Although health care and education have not been specifically stated in the U. S. Constitution, the interpretation of the Supreme Court has seen it to the contrary. For some reason their is a Department of Education. The General Welfare Clause has been interpreted loosely in the establishment of the department as well as the Federal Reserve. In terms of the Copyright Clause, the U. S. Supreme Court also saw the useful arts and sciences as not only applying to inventions, but all knowledge and philosophy related things, including scientific research. [1] My argument is how the Supreme Court will rule, not my personal opinion or what I want them to decide. My opponent is arguing that the U. S. Government will decide what is best is a loose interpretation, not a strict interpretation. . http://www.wisegeek.com...
Interpretation of the U.S. Constitution

First I would like to restate my position, which, is a basic response to his Round Two reasoning. As my definition of strict states, anything that that constittuion says they can do, goes. It Word by Word states that the governemnt my use the Nessary and Proper Clause and therefore when they decide to use it, they are uding it by means of strict interpretation.... Responces to first Bullet. -My first responce is that I explicitly stated in the first round that the "strict interpretation" of the constitution now doe not have the same meaning as it used to aka during the times when Hamilton was using it. -Second, this bulet actually helps my side of the debate. As we can see in the quotations it keeps saying that we must do what is right and proper but we must do it within the bounds of the constitution. This means that they want to do what is right as long as they are in the bounds of the constituion Second Bullet -Again, This bullet falls to my side of the debate because it shows how the constituion, but using the exact words in text, are able to govern theunited states without breaking any constitutional laws. Third Bullet -Same argument applies to this bullet as the two before me. Now I would like to reiderate my stances. -First of all, we must keep in mind that times have changed since the 1700's and our interpretations have as well. But, one thing that hasn't changed is the words in the constitution. By my defintion, the anything the Constitution says the government can do and it would become a strict interpretation. By this notion, they can use the Nessary and Proper clause and it still be considered a strict interpretation because is it explicity written in the text. -As for the healthcare bill, we must keep in mind that Hamiltion and other leaders such as him did not know of things like "universial Health care" but they anticipated things such as for the future. They made provisions for this in the constitution, aka the elastic clause. -I would like to point out that my oppenet has not attacted my defintion and it still stands in this round.
Interpretation of the U.S. Constitution

First of all I would like to state that times have changed since the constitution was written and so has the interpretation "strict" and "loose" have both changed since those times. Secondly, for my part of the debate, I wil define a "strict interpretation". A strict interpretation of the constitution allows for the Federal Government to have the power to do exactly as the constituion says. -Other wise known as the "Elastic Cluase" the constituion in Article One Section Eight states....."To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers..." Now, although The Nessary and Proper clause is typically considered a loose interpretation aspect, considering it is listed explicitly in the constituion, it applies to my side of the debate. My arguement Is that is the National Government sees it fit to give people in the United States then they are allowed to do so. They have not broken any laws passing this health care bill. You can't really argue that it doesn't say "Thy Governement shall give permission to dictact Universial HealthCare in the united states..." because back when it was written, health care to them was a local doctor or thier wife. The Elastic clause allows them to stict to the words of the constitution and to help people for what they see fit.
Evolution is less viable than Creationism

DICKNIGANIGANIGAIJOFAEFJOWIEJFWJFIWJFIOWJFUCKYALLNIGASKDWNIBWFHBEWHFRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaabiehwfnefwnwefnwelowercasemomactualyuppercaseMOMbecausesheabigasspart
Evolution is less viable than Creationism

My opponent completely dropped my arguments (Which I derived from sources (Hence, definition)), negating the resolution that Evolution is less viable theory than Creationism. Just notifying my opponent not to do so. But otherwise, they remained uncontested.Rebuttals1, 2, and 3) Points (And I deliberately put in plural form, seeing as these are 3 I am replying to) conceded to by opponent.4) ""If animals rarely mutate other animals (Thus, not removing any kind), then don't all 16 million different species remain?"Not really. Evolution doesn't state that there were 16 million species at all."Yes, indeed; They (Developers of the theory of evolution) don't affirm said resolution; They don't deem said claim true. However, neither do they NEGATE it; We may have originated from a single-cellular life, growing/evolving overtime into what we are now, while there are 16 million different species in total.Also, question isn't relevant.I await my opponent's next set of arguments.
Evolution is less viable than Creationism

Presentation 1) The universe and solar system were created spontaneously. We can prove this by the 1st and 2nd law of thermo dynamics. The 1st law of thermo dynamics simply states that energy can change forms however energy cannot be created or destroyed[1]. The 2nd Law of thermodynamics states the energy is going from order to disorder[2]. This would show that the universe could not have created its self or lasted as long as what evolutionist claim, if it had lasted this long the solar system would have depleted itself of usable energy by now[3]. 2) How could I argue creationism if I do not make the claim that Life appeared spontaneously? If you look at the fossil record you will notice that there are gaps and then all of a sudden complex life comes around[4][5][6]. How can you discredit an explanation as to why there are gaps in the fossil record? 3) According to the 2nd law of thermodynamics would make it impossible for DNA and RNA to form. As stated earlier the 2nd law of thermodynamics states that energy and matter are headed to a state of chaos and disorder. How would a very well organized molecule such as DNA or RNA form knowing this law of thermodynamics? 4) Mutations are just about always harmful in living organisms in the wild. With mutations being so rare is It really logical to think that it is possible for at least 16 millions different species to evolve based on a mere chance[7]?