BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
students should not were uniforms in school

"Uniforms prevent originality of a student. If you wear the clothes you want, it might show your personality and give you confidence. Some students want to be different than others. Uniforms makes you blend with others. The people who are different than others are usually the creative ones."-Pro I actually say the opposite, if you have to buy one outfit instead of a wardrobe full you'll have more money to spend on clothes at the weekend. Imagine all the nicer clothes you could get instead of cheaper replicas of converse and all the other things teens prefer to purchase these days. "I do not prefer uniforms because they are uncomfortable. If you are uncomfortable during school, it would be hard for you to study. It would be difficult to play sports and games in uniforms. In your casual clothing you have the freedom to wear clothes of your own choice. This is why many people prefer normal clothes"-Pro Obviously outside of school I prefer my own clothes-they're much more comfortable however in school a uniform is more useful. During PE and other sports we have a PE uniform which is better than playing in our clothes and staying in them all day, staying in the same clothes after PE is smelly and unsanitary. Especially considering that it is very likely you won't get changed when you return home.
students should not were uniforms in school

The bullying is still going to go on. Are school uniforms good or bad? This question has created debates in many schools. There are many different reasons for school uniforms. Some say that school uniforms represent discipline and obedience while others say it prevents creativity and individuality. The following essay will explain the advantages and disadvantages of uniforms. If your school doesn"t have uniforms, you have experienced those days when you couldn"t decide what to wear. With Uniforms, you wouldn"t spend time in the morning choosing what to wear. You will pay less attention on clothes and you can concentrate more on your studies. Uniforms help us to develop self-discipline and obedience. If you go to a job interview wearing baggy clothes, most probably you wouldn"t get the job. Another advantage of wearing uniforms is that students won"t buy fashionable and expensive clothes which will save money. Also, wearing uniforms can help some students to avoid uneasiness from the side of their classmates. Sometimes students feel embarrassed if they are wearing cheap clothes. They will feel comfortable if everybody is wearing the same thing. It might be annoying for some people if they wear the same thing everyday. Uniforms prevent originality of a student. If you wear the clothes you want, it might show your personality and give you confidence. Some students want to be different than others. Uniforms makes you blend with others. The people who are different than others are usually the creative ones. I do not prefer uniforms because they are uncomfortable. If you are uncomfortable during school, it would be hard for you to study. It would be difficult to play sports and games in uniforms. In your casual clothing you have the freedom to wear clothes of your own choice. This is why many people prefer normal clothes
students should not were uniforms in school

I accept School uniforms are important as students don't worry about being judged for their clothes, they are all wearing the same uniform and therefore there is one less thing bullies can use against you: "In America, where a majority of schools do not have a uniform, roughly 160,000 children miss school every day due to fear of attack or intimidation by other students. This might not be directly linked to what they're wearing, but having a uniform can be a safety net for many students who might otherwise suffer from bullying. A strict uniform gives the impression that rules are strict too, perhaps helping maintain a sense of order at school."-The Guardian Sure, the bullies will pick on people for different reasons but this is one less reason for them to pick on people! There have also been many non-uniform days for charity here and everyone gets distracted when we have our own clothes, uniforms stop us from getting distracted. It's also great to clean as you can have it cleaned at the weekend ready for the week whereas with clothes you might not even find something you can wear and can't even go to school due to having no clothes to wear into school. That's when you could be bullied for many of the reasons Pro has posted. Additionally, wearing a school uniform identifies you with your school; it's really useful on field trips and other events where pupils may be lost! To sum up; Uniforms are essential as they can reduce bullying and create a sense of identity to the school Source(s): http://www.theguardian.com...
We should find the Lost City of Atlantis

If the purpose of finding Atlantis is to benefit one (or only a few countries), then it has gone to waste. The possible technology should be used for the world, to bring peace and better living, but it wont be, so that is my final arguement to not go and find Atlantis, even if it DOES exist. Death and destruction is not good for any country, to fight over a lost city that surely would have looked down upon it.
We should find the Lost City of Atlantis

So basically your saying the problem is America? Well, sadly i would happen to agree with you. We are too self concerned with things like this. But you see, what happens will the Russians get to it before us? world war 3, the only difference is they have the advanced tech, not us. They have the advantage. So then who is going down? us or Russia? I like Russians, I have never met a Russian i didnt like. But if it comes between us (America) and them, i pick us. Thank you
We should find the Lost City of Atlantis

Hm. I see your point, but there is still the risk of it not being there. And also, if it is there, imagine the wars... If it contains technology, America, Russia, China, Germany, Britain, all the worlds superpowers would form teams and... basicly, it could be World War 3 just to gain control of the secrets of technology in Atlantis... The Americans wouldnt give it to the Russians no matter what. So either way, if it does exist or it doesnt, it should be left alone and money should be put forward funding more important expeditions, like a manned mission to mars, I think we should look to the stars for answers and technology, not the sea.
We should find the Lost City of Atlantis

At one point of time we thought the earth was flat. We had no evidence that it was anything but, but now we do and we know. We never knew about nuclear energy, now we do. We never knew about energy, now we do. How do we know these things? Because we got off our butts and figured it out. So thus, i believe that we should try and find it. How else will we learn? Thank you :)
We should find the Lost City of Atlantis

I would like to argue why we should NOT fund a expedition to Atlantis. I'll put it plain and simple here, quick to the point. It would be a giant waste of time, effort and money (government money most likely!) to go to it's APPARENT location, just to find out it doesn't exist. I'm not saying it doesn't but, we have no solid evidence of its existence. It was only thought to exist because Plato wrote about it. But nowhere else before or around that time approved of its existence, especially if it did conquer many parts of Western Europe and Africa in the 10th Millennium BC. As continental drift became more widely accepted during the 1960s, and the increased understanding of plate tectonics demonstrated the impossibility of a lost continent in the geologically recent past, most "Lost Continent" theories of Atlantis began to wane in popularity. Plus, Plato made up alot of things... I would like to see your rebuttal.
We should find the Lost City of Atlantis

Hello, my name is Orion. I have always been interested in the idea of the lost city of Atlantis. It is said to be a highly advanced society destroyed a few thousand years ago. It is said that it has technology that even us now do not have. For the act of science and historical value i urge a debate on whether or not we should fund people to go down into the sea and look for the lost city. Thank you
why save energy

My opponent lists several reasons why we should save energy... However, some of these reasons are somewhat flawed. I'll respond to them and provide some commentary... 1. Saving Animals I'm not sure how animal deaths and energy consumption are related... 2. Pollution More energy = need for more efficient energy = nuclear power = less pollution. 3. Research More energy = more capacity for complex studies/machines like particle accelerators. 4. NY Blackout More energy = less frequent blackouts. 5. Taxes More energy = need for more efficient energy = cheaper energy. *********************************** Consuming MORE energy and building nuclear power plants to replace aging coal plants will provide more, cheaper energy, as well as remove a terrible source of pollution. The answer is clear - consume more energy. **For the record, I would not have taken this debate if I'd known it was 1000 characters... **
why save energy

We should save energy to help those poor animals(humans are also animals). Saving energy benefits us by: 1.Saving animals and if your a carnivore it also helps you eat meat so you won't have to resort to vegetables. 2.We could also stop polluting the enviroment which helps us not absorb the toxins so we can lose weight caused by toxins and live longer and healthier. 3.Making reasearch easier like studying atoms which end up contaminated. 4. Stopping another power surge like the blackout in New York. 5.Making us pay less for our taxes while helping us save money for food, clothes, toys, games, etc. So now it is my opponents turn to speak so liste n carefully to his words also JustCallMeTarzan please go easy on me im new and in Middle School.
Fun. is better than One Direction STRIKES BACK!!!

You say that "Moments" is obviously about love, which is false. "Moments" was written by Ed Sheeran, British singer/songwriter. Many of his songs are about self harm/confidence/suicide, and yes, love. He is close friends with the members of One Direction, so it makes sense he would give them the song. It is indeed about self harm. There are many interviews and videos you could look up to prove it. Or simply, just Google the meaning of the song and you will find what it is truly about. I am not denying that most of the fandom is indeed teenage girls. But even so, what is the harm in that? Those girls make them money and provide love and support. Also, One Direction is obviously more popular than "Fun. ", so they seemed to have succeeded in the age group they were going for. As for your own arguments, Niall from 1D also plays the guitar, and Harry has even leaked his own song called "Don't Let Me Go," featuring Sam McCarthy. And now onto my own arguments. One Direction weren't even always a band. Each boy (Harry Styles, Niall Horan, Liam Payne, Zayn Malik, and Louis Tomlinson,) auditioned separately for the X-Factor in the year of 2010, in different locations. Obviously, they were all talented enough to pass through, but when they were going to be kicked off, Simon & the other judges decided to put them into a group. And by sudden chance, One Direction were formed. So that crushes any argument you may have against them as being "given" their fame by Simon. They have worked hard for the 3rd place they earned in the X-Factor.
Fun. is better than One Direction STRIKES BACK!!!

My sister is an UBER directioner, and she knows that Moments is not about self-harm, and is about love. Plus, I googled the lyrics. Some big evidence as to why this song is about love is these lines, "I wanna be with you I wanna feel your love I wanna lay beside you I cannot hide this Even though I try"How is that not about love? The whole chorus and song is about love. I see no way how it is about self harm. I am not saying that it is bad for a song to be about love. I'm simply saying 1D's songs are mainly about love in the majority of songs, and that can get in the way sometimes. Most people agree that most of the 1D fandom is teenage girls, and that is a fact. What is the majority of people at their concerts? That's right: crying, screaming, teenage girls. Adults and males are a rare sight, if it even is one. You argue that some male youtubers like 1D. However, Youtube is a vast community, similar to Facebook or Twitter. There are practically billions of users on youtube, so it is practically impossible for none of them to like One Direction. This is the same case with Tumblr. Nice pun, I guess. Now time for my own arguments. First of all, Fun.'s band is pretty small, as Jack and Andrew are the main sources of instruments. Andrew Dost is a multi-instrumental member playing instruments like the Glockenspiel, drums, and the trumpet. Jack plays the guitar, and has done vocals once or twice like Andrew has, like in songs "Believe in Me", and "Walking the Dog". More arguments and counters next round. Until then, bye.
Fun. is better than One Direction STRIKES BACK!!!

"All 1D seems to sing about is love. " I agree with you that many of their songs are based on love. But what is wrong with that? Love is a powerful emotion and many people enjoy hearing that in lyric-form. Besides that, they do have some songs that are not about love. For example, their song "Moments" is about self-harm, something widely important in today's society. "1D seems to be largely targeted and accepted by mostly teenage girls. " A very common misconception. I know many guys who actually love One Direction. For example, Tyler Oakely, famous Youtuber, adores them. Another example would be Youtube user "lohanthony. " Also, there are many people over the age of 20 who enjoy One Direction. Tumblr is home to many fans from ages 13-25. Also, hey, One Direction's name is pretty catchy, too. .. I mean, good music can only go in "ONE DIRECTION" right? Ha. Get it? No? Okay.
Fun. is better than One Direction STRIKES BACK!!!

Alright, here we go. SEQUEL TIME!Fun. tells the TRUTH! One Direction is making teenage girls lose their minds with their repetitive, consistent love songs. EVERY one of their songs involves or is about love in one way or another (please don't mention that song). Fun.'s songs, however, are about WAY more emotions than just love. Fun. expresses not only love (The Gambler, Take Your Time, Sight of The Sun, etc). But also fear (Some Nights Intro, Some Nights, One Foot, Be Calm, etc). And even anger (Some Nights Intro, One Foot, etc). And let's not forget the life of the party (We are Young, At Least I'm Not As Sad As I Used to Be). What I mean about Fun. telling the truth is that they explore truths of life and life's other emotions and events besides love. All 1D seems to sing about is love.Fun. is for everyone! 1D seems to be largely targeted and accepted by mostly teenage girls. A large majority of teenagers of BOTH genders like Fun. A lot of adults like Fun. and I'm sure plenty of our elderly folk like some Fun. tunes. MORE NEXT ROUND!Also, Fun's name is FUN. Who doesn't like having fun?
barack obama is a bad preisdnet

It seems my opponent has forfeited. I sincerely ask my opponent to not forfeit the next round and thus the whole debate, because lately alot of my other debaters have completely forfeited, and it is getting irritated.Nonetheless, I only have to show one way that Obama is good, and thus negate the resolution.Simple.Obama has done several good things, and thus, is not bad.Here are some good things he have done:- He has advanced Women's rights in the workplace- He has expanded access to medical care and provided subsidies for people who can't afford it. - He has invested in clean, renewable energy and has help sponsorred it. - He's helped vegetarians, too :)Boom. 4 ways Obama is good.Obama is good in some degree. Because he is good in some manner or degree, does not have a wicked character, he is not a bad president, effectively negating the resolution and giving me the win.I thank my opponent for instigating this debate. I ask that he come back next round and establish his case, as I will allow new arguments for him in the last round.Conclusion.That was pretty short, but I do feel it should be enough to give me the win.Sourceshttp://obamaachievements.org...;
barack obama is a bad preisdnet

I will be arguing that Obama is indeed not a bad president. My opponent has not specified anything about the round layout, so I will assume that the 1st round is for acceptance only. I will "bad" for this debate. Bad: Not good in any manner or degree, having a wicked or evil character, morally reprehensible. . http://dictionary.reference.com...I hand over the next round to Pro. Other than that,
Foreign affairs, specifically wars, are not our responsibility. ( United States)

Rules: 1. Use reputable sources- preferably by credible authors with relevant education and/or credentials- which can be tough, no doubt, so I understand if you cannot find a source that meets this rule- as long as you can find good reason to have a source, it will be acceptable. Be sure to state these sources with a link or at the very least, a title, publisher and author. 2. Political views are welcome, as this is a debate that is meant to persuade or convince everyone of your argument. However, I want to make sure we aren't bashing each others views, as this is meant to be a respectful and welcoming debate- not a brawl. Bipartisanship is my goal, here. 3. Feel free to be as creative as you'd like with your arguments. Also, I encourage you to keep informal if you'd like- I intend on this debate being clean and easy-going, not a "hardcore political debate." I emphasize how this is meant to be a informal, clean and easy-going debate. 4. Anyone is welcome to debate with me, so long as they have completed one debate- simply for experience reasons. Other than these rules, I welcome what you can present to everyone when it comes to your argument! Thanks for considering this debate! Setup: Each round gives 72 hours with a 8,000 character limit. 1st round) acceptance=> claim 2nd round) points 3rd round) counterpoints 4th round) conclusion OPEN, no comment, voting for two weeks. My claim is that our responsibility does NOT lie with foreign wars- to which we have been rather irresponsible by fighting in- but instead on issues back at home. Thanks for considering everyone, have a good week and feel free to message me or comment at any point with thoughts, questions and/or suggestions!
The Kalam Cosmological Argument is sound

The Kalam Cosmological Argument 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. [1] StipulationsSince the burden of proof is on Pro, Pro will make the first argument in this round (the first round is not for acceptance, but for my opponent to present an opening argument). My burden is to falsify, and/ or undermine at least one of the premises of the argument in question. In round 4, my opponent will simply put:"No argument will be posted here, as agreed" This means, that we both give up a round (I'm giving up this round, and Pro is giving up round 4) to ensure that Pro gets the first say, and I get the last say due to the burden of proof. Logical ValidityThe logical validity of the Kalam Cosmological Argument will be assumed. This will be debate over the established truth of the premises (or at the very least, one of the premises). Source[1] http://www.reasonablefaith.org...
Gay marriage should be allowed

I want to first start off by saying that I'm am not opposed to homosexuality, I'm just opposed to the word marriage in this debate. Merriam-Webster Online defines a marriage as "the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law." Similar definitions can be found across the Internet and in many books, such as the Bible. Now, I'm a fairly religious person, and as such, I do not feel that the sacrament of marriage should be changed just because some people are different. That's just like saying a person is going to go to a movie theater, go into a movie and just because they don't like what they see, they go get the manager to put a different movie on. Other people came to see that movie. And those who are trying to change the movie, forgot what a movie really means, being together as friends, significant others, and family. The reason for marriages is so that a man and a woman could be together for the rest of their lives as they live and love together. As long as homosexuality is legal, two men or two women can live and love together, the government has even gone so far as to institute the idea of civil unions to unite two homosexuals, but still, people continue to make a fuss when what is truly important is being left behind. So, I'm curious to hear, why is it such a fuss for the terminology "to be together?" Thank You
Gay marriage should be allowed

The only real argument you have is why shouldn't it change. But you still have yet to answer my question, why should it change? Two homosexuals can be together under a civil union, the same basic thing as a marriage, but not changing it because a few people want it to. Go back to my movie theater example. I also have a better example. Person doesn't agree with the layout of a building, but he's the only one. The structure has been there for several years, should they destroy the whole building and start from scratch just because of that one person. No, the building is functional and the extra costs and labor would be all just to satisfy a single person. Also, we wouldn't be cutting homosexuals out of the term "marriage," because they were never there to begin with. Furthermore, you still have yet to respond to the fact that this whole fued between civil unions and marriage is quite pointless, when people should be concerned about being together. Homosexuality is legal, right? So then what is the big argument. Society has become more accepting of the homosexual population, but this is a sacrament of religion between a man and a woman. The only reason that the government recognizes this entity is for tax purposes, exactly what a civil union does. *I'm not entirely sure where you were going with the economy argument. I hope that anyone viewing this debate can see that my opponent is just using vague arguments and evading my direct arguments. I believe that it is okay for two homosexuals to be together, I just don't think it is okay to change a sacrament of religion that is among the most important for a few people. Civil unions still allow two homosexuals to be together, so what's the problem with that? And with that I highly anticipate your final speech. Thank you.
Gay marriage should be allowed

i dont see why it shouldnt change? why not? why shouldn't gay couples be included in that catatgory? Our economy is based on being straight and being the way " were supposed to be" why should gay couples be cut out of the definition of marriage? Sure there will always be people who disagree about the matter.... but why does that make it any different? It's the same choice as the right to sit where you want at a movie theatre, stay at any hotel etc. you should be able to have the right to be or be with whoever you want.. regardless what people think Best regards!