BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Public Schools Should not Fund School Bands.

My opponet gurantees that band would be the first to go if the goverment cut funding to schools. Is this really true? There no evidences to support this claim. My opinion is if Federal government cut funding it gives to schools the first thing that would good would not be band but maybe a smaller extracurricular activity like the chess clubs. What I am trying to say is that many students participate in band. So why cut funding for something that many students seem to enjoy and help them mentally more than other extracurricular activity. Another reason schools should fund band is because it would good on your college application. Ofcourse academics is one of the most important things colleges look for when students are appling for college but colleges also look at what extracurricular activities ,like band, students participant in. Students that are involve in extracurricular activities shows colleges that they can make a worthy contribution toward something, maintain a long commentment, and shows that a student can manage their time and priorties [2]. My opponent miss understood the music help students smarter. My opponent said "They can listen to music in their free time." which he thought listening to music help improve people intelligents like playing music. What I meant in my first argurment that playing music like singing or playing an instrument improves your knowlege not just listening to it. Learning how to play music is quite difficult, you have to learn the different notes, technique, how to read time signiture, and etc. After learning quarter, whole, half, and eight notes 2nd and 3rd graders scored 100% higher than their classmates in fractions [1]. And in your arguement on "Acticile 1 Section 8 U.S. Constitution states what the Federal Government has the right to fund" which I could not find in the source you gave us. How schools funding band uncontititonal? [1]http://oakleafband.com... [2]http://www.collegeboard.com...
Public Schools Should not Fund School Bands.

Reasons not to cut funding for band are provide students scholarships to college, one of the more popular extracurricular activities, teach students a talent they can use in the real world to get a job to make a living, and even make students smarter. Band is costly but schools do not fund all the cost to run a band. Some bands make students pay to get in and many fundraisers are use to raise money to supply the band needs. Band is not just a hobby, it is one of the many extracurricular activities (activities performed by students that fall outside the realm of the normal curriculum of school or university education[2]) most schools provide. Band is one of the more popular extracurricular activities in public schools today. Hundreds of students participate in this activity. Out of all the other extracurricular activities why does band have to be the one cut in funding. I know schools can need more teachers and supplies but band helps students become more smarter in core classes. Band help students more mentally than other activities like sports or cheer leading. Studies at the University of Sarasota and East Texas State University both found links between the number of years of band instruction and significantly improved academic achievement as measured by standardized math, science and language tests (3). In this link (http://oakleafband.com...) study shows music make brain grow, show students get higher SAT scores with a music background, and it raises students math conceptual scores. The reason why schools fund band it is not because so they can teach students how to play a noise maker but it help students develop their minds so they can become smarter. Another reason why band should be funded because students can use these opportunity to gain a scholarship to college. A scholarship that can help someone advance their education to set them up for the best possible spot to get a good career. My opponent opinion is that it is very hard to make a living off playing a musical instrument. But the fact is, people can make a living off their musical talents. There are many jobs out there where someone can make a living off playing a instrument. Musicians can find jobs at churches, in the entertainment industry, music teacher, or join the military band where they can make a salary from $24,605 - $65,693 (1). Becoming one of these occupations is not easy nor is it any easier to become any other occupation. For any one who wants to work in their preferred career has to work very hard. Just like athletics have to practice to become a professional or a student studying hard to become an engineer, musicians have to practice and study and get a degree to become successful. (1) http://www.payscale.com... (2)http://en.wikipedia.org... (3)http://oakleafband.com...
Public Schools Should not Fund School Bands.

First of all, band is an extra curricular activity for those with interest in it. It is not a hard science or mathematics or course nor does it have the importance of one. It is very hard to make a living off of playing the clarinet, flute, trumpet, piano, etc and only a few ever become great and do make a good living off playing an instrument. Cutting funding for band would allow the school to spend that money to hire more teachers to teach worthwhile classes such as Physics, Calculus, Biology, Chemistry, Statistics, and so on and give students with promising futures to learn a much more valuable skill that could greatly benefit society a better learning environment with less students in a class and more available positions to take such a class. Band on the other hand requires that students have instruments, music books, uniforms, band teachers, etc. And if the students don't pay for it, the school ends up doing so. All of these can cost up to several hundreds of dollars per student. Playing an instrument is a hobby one does in their spare time more than it is a worthwhile trade or skill to learn while making a living like mathematics, science, language, etc and the school should have no buissness using tax dollars to fund a hobby. If school bands should continue to exist and be funded then it should be on their own accord and should either be funded by parents of the students, charities, performances, etc. The people of the United States should not be funding a hobby that is not a likely skill to need to make a living except for the exceptional few when the purpose of a school to equip and train the youth the necessary skills and know-how to become valuable members of society. While there are still crowded classes for hard science courses and mathematics or schools were such classes aren't even offered, the bands at those schools should be cut and the money should go to a worthwhile course that students have a much greater chance of taking advantage of to get into better schools and eventually earn better jobs. Band classes serve little purpose other than train students to play a noisemaker, a skill that nearly all of them will never ever need throughout their lives. Solid science and math courses should have number 1 priority and since schools across the country are having severe budget cuts one of the first things to go should be band classes in order to make sure more valuable classes are available and well equipped
Public Schools Should not Fund School Bands.

I will be arguing that school bands should not be funded by public schools and Con will argue that school bands should be funded by public schools. No semantics here. When I mean public school I mean a school funded by tax dollars and when I say school band I mean a band that practices at the school and plays at school events. I don't think that the school should be using money to fund school bands. Whoever accepts this will argue that schools funded by tax dollars should fund school bands and all of their uniforms, instruments, etc.
I am a black man trapped in a white man's body

In my last round I provided proof that there is a noticeable difference between the brain of a black man and that of a White man. This is a non-issue. Thus, my trans-guy-is-still-female-despite-lack-of-female-privilege analogy is valid. My opponent has responded by questioning whether or not women trapped in men's bodies are actually women, but that only proves he's an evil bigot homophobe. Thus, I have proven the resolution at hand, that I am a black man trapped in a white man's body.
I am a black man trapped in a white man's body

My opponent has pretty much dropped all my serious arguments with the exception of 1. "My opponent assumes that all people of a certain skin color share in the privilege of that skin color. That cannot be true, for the "men" who know themselves to be women deep inside have not shared in female privilege." This is a false analogy, but besides that. My opponent has not shown what the mental differences between a black person and a white person are. All he has shown here as that, there exist some people who believe they are a woman stuck in a man's body, but that proves nothing. There are also people who believe hey were abducted by aliens or the government is hacking into their brain. I am not required to disprove things, which have not been adequately proven. Sorry this is brief, but there isn't much to say about my opponent's absurd arguments this round.
I am a black man trapped in a white man's body

1. Privilege My opponent assumes that all people of a certain skin color share in the privilege of that skin color. That cannot be true, for the "men" who know themselves to be women deep inside have not shared in female privilege. Here are some examples of female privilege (listed after the "male privilege checklist"): http://www.the-niceguy.com... Trans men do not enjoy these privileges, and yet my opponent is unlikely to say "See? They're men after all!" Argument Negated 2. Proof of Black tendencies My opponent is asking for video footage of me playing basketball, rapping, or dancing. If he associates such behavior with blackness, then... RACIST! YU EVL WHYT SUPREEMUSIST RACIST STEERIOTIPPINGER RASIST I AM VICTEM BLAK MANN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I have cried racist, and thus...Argument Negated 3. Neurological differences between races Blacks are more likely to possess Monoamine Oxidase A, better known as MAO-A, better known still as the "Warrior Gene". Possessing this gene has an effect on your everyday behavior; it makes you more aggressive. That's one. Second, lifestyle wires your brain. A distinct "black culture", such as the one that exists in the United States, would result in a different wiring of the Black brain, or at least to some degree. Finally, my opponent has failed to respond to "the testimony" that I posted during the last round. I await my opponent's next set of arguments, though I doubt he'll be able to disprove my blackness.
"Natural" is just a social construct.

I accept. To clarify. Natural order is the moral foundation from which natural law derives its authority. Natural order is the natural emergent relationship of beings to one another. As the source of natural law, it is arguably (to some extent) the foundation of the legal system. I will argue against a Social Constructionist view of natural order. I will argue that like much of these quasi-Marxist philosophies, Social Constructionism in all its guises is emperically false, and argued merely by assertion (supported by ad hominem attacks). In this debate Pro has set himself a big task. He is making the claim that all that humanity regards as natural is a social construct not that it is mainly or partly a social construct. He is thus claiming that what we regard as natural varies independently of a natural order and that this in turn varies independently of nature (facts about ourselves). He must demonstrate (and evidence) that no part of the natural order emerges naturally and that removal of "social constructs" would lead to a "blank slate" society, in which we could arbitrarily re-write all natural order (social behaviour, human interactions, expectations etc) . As Con, I have a lesser burden. I need only point to examples of where facts about ourselves, lead inexoribly to certain repeatable and predicatble patterns of natural order wrt human societies. As we are also members of the animal kingdom I will also draw on parallels in non-human societies for emphasis (ie ostensibley spontaneous, instinctual and natural societies). Thus my aim would be to defeat the views of Social Constructionism through the use of empiricism. I leave it to Pro to make an opening argument, mine will start in R2.
"Natural" is just a social construct.

I am in no way calling into question the differences between men and women. I do question my opponents belief that outside of the scientific proof of said difference, the social additudes and expectations toward each gender are not manifestation of society. My opponent seems to know the work of Ayn Rand well, so he should appreciate that we are individuals with individual social concepts. Ayn Rand denied their was any such thing as a "universal mind". My opponents social views (at least from what can gather from this debate) seem to be claiming that social attitudes are a naturally occurring situation, but that (in my opinion) leaves no room for changes in additudes, as if to say that social attitudes stem from a fixed point and any additudes that don't correlate with common additudes would have to be considered "deviant". Take for instance, homosexuality. Seventy five years ago, that was considered evil, and the majority of society didn't seperate homosexuality from pedophilia, it was considered just as sickening, it was sexual deviance. Today, homosexuality is becoming increasingly mainstream and exepted in society. In Greek and Roman society, the only sexual taboo was when a peasant had sex with a person of stature. Social additudes are a fluid situation, and that tells me that social attitudes did not derive from some transient cosmic force, it is not set to a fixed point, it is relative. What I was trying to convey in the GMO segment was that neither genetically engineered farming nor traditional farming are synthetic, or from a different perspective, neither is natural, but the additude that one is natural as opposed to the other is fallacious. If we were to have a debate on "natural vs synthetic", all we would really need to do is replace the word "natural" with "old way" and replace the word "synthetic" with "new way", and the abstract nuance of the meanings would not be affected, it would all mean the same thing. Unfortunately, my time is like a teenaged boy who just got a new car, it's gone! !!
Jim Carrey or Adam Sandler? Carrey-pro Sandler-con

$150 million "Jim Carrey Net Worth- Jim Carrey is hosting Saturday Night Live for the third time. The $150 million Hollywood standup comedian, actor and a producer has all the luck in his hands, and perhaps no one could ever imagine how the multi-million dollar actor once lived." (1) From this net worth it is clear to see that he has had a pretty successful career up to this point. I would invite my opponent to look at this website and just glance at the movies that Jim Carrey has been in. These movies are some of the funniest movies that I have seen. He has also been in countless TV shows and only continues to make great movies. "Bruce Almighty (2003) " In this inspirational farce, Mr. Carrey plays a Buffalo, N.Y., television personality who feels unappreciated as the human-interest reporter on an "Eyewitness News" team. Suddenly divine intervention salvages his career and personal life. The film became Mr. Carrey"s biggest box office hit worldwide, grossing $484.6 million." (3) "Dumb and Dumber (1994) " How dumb can you be? Very, very dumb, if you are Mr. Carrey. This buddy-film follows the cross-country trek and misadventures of two slow-witted pals, Mr. Carrey and Jeff Daniels, who are on a pilgrimage to return a briefcase full of cash belonging to Lauren Holly. The film exploited Mr. Carrey"s talents to the extreme and was very successful at the box office, grossing $247 million worldwide." (3) "Liar Liar (1997) " Mr. Carrey plays a schizoid, smug young lawyer named Fletcher Reede who is a compulsive liar. Suddenly, due to his son"s birthday wish, Reede finds it impossible to lie, which becomes very inconvenient for the shyster. Mr. Carrey was nominated for a Golden Globe Award for Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture " Comedy/Musical. The film was a box office hit pulling in $181 million in the United States and is his fourth best-grossing movie." (3) These are but a few of his greatest movies and how much they made worldwide. These blow Adam Sandler"s movies out of the water. "Recently Jim Carrey himself launched a website dedicated to his charity 'Better U Foundation'. Working on a Global level the charity aims to support and provide clean water initiatives through 'Life Straw', cheap wheelchairs for the disabled, educating farmers in poor areas and at home supporting Generation Rescue." (4) He is doing great charity work for his community and to help support kids in need. (1)http://www.foodworldnews.com... (2)http://en.wikipedia.org... (3)http://www.washingtontimes.com... (4) http://www.urok.com.au...
Alternative energy methods should be proposed with total costs

My opponent makes numerous claims about my arguments. He calls them childish and irrelevant. If they are so irrelevant and childish I would ask my opponent to actually engage my points and prove them wrong. Saying, "I dislike your arguments so I shouldn't have to debate them," is not an argument. There is a clear link to this resolution. The resolution says to say the real cost and so I offered a view of a world where we don't and showed the benefits. Just because it's not the first thing you think of doesn't mean my points are not sufficient to negate. And sure, I do not facilitate public policy debate. And yes I realize they can have value. But I also believe that the value of public policy debate is not as big a deal as extinction. You might think that point of extinction seems ridiculous, or what have you, but if it's that ridiculous you should of responded and won easily! The third argument seems to be just insulting me because I offered creative arguments. Yes, I offered a point that was different and not what you wanted to debate, tough luck. And on the last point again extinction>practical alternatives. All my points have survived the round and gone un-refuted. And as a new voter, ask yourself: Do you really want to live in a world where people can just not engage arguments they dislike? Yes I find denying the holocaust morality repulsive but I'll engage those who claim this in a debate just to show how wrong they are.
Alternative energy methods should be proposed with total costs

The is no need for me to discuss points that are irrelevant to the topic. Con rambles about social stability, nuclear war, dynastic stability, and numerous other obvious irrelevancies. Since there are no claims relevant to the resolution, there is nothing to refute. Con concedes that his alternative does not facilitate public policy debate and avoids real issues. He says, "I answer with a simple, so what?" Since Con is participating in a public policy debate, he implicitly recognizes the value of such debates. therefore his argument is sophistry. I cite Con for bad conduct in accepting the debate challenge then wasting my time and the reader's time with irrelevant childish arguments. Moreover, Con killed the topic, which might have otherwise been accepted by someone who could explain why the practice of ignoring the total costs of alternative energy is so widely ignored. Even if one does not believe CO2 is responsible for climate change, we should be concerned with energy independence and with the inevitable depletion of fossil fuels. Therefore, the resolution should be affirmed to help develop practical alternatives.
Alternative energy methods should be proposed with total costs

Con's counter proposal is defective because it does not facilitate public policy debate. The reason why total costs should be disclosed is to get all the facts on the table to facilitate an honest debate. Had that been done, for example, with ethanol or wind power, we might have greatly improved the laws pouring large sums of the taxpayer's money into subsidies. On the other hand, we might have focused more effort into using solar power for demand peaking in the large cities of the American Southwest. Con's counter proposal is another mechanism for ensuring that none of the real issues are avoided. Con's case contains numerous irrelevancies. For example, whether or not global warming is, overall, favorable to human affairs is irrelevant because alternative energy source are sought to reduce foreign dependence on oil, and because it is inevitable that fossil fuels will run out. In addition, most utilities are tightly regulated by government, so there should be an ongoing discussion of the cost-effectiveness of alternatives. If there were no global warming and no foreign dependence on oil, we would still be concerned with obtaining energy at the lowest cost and with minimizing pollution. The resolution is affirmed.
IVF Debate

The In-Vitro Fertilization development in the medical field would always bring dilemmas up in the surface. Many might see this as something that's acceptable to today's society, ergo, many also would still see this as ruining the whole concept of the "Miracle of Life". To find out that he or she were created in a test tube and that there were chances that they were just supposed to be thrown away if not needed, isn't really the good news anyone would like to hear. People overtime always find new ways to change something natural to something manmade. From lakes to test tube babies. There will always be those with plans to take full advantage of this new development. More than likely that one day, someone would use this development to reproduce and start creating an army without worrying about the number of death casualties due to the knowledge of having "extra embryos" to use. Living a long healthy life is one of the things that many people dream of. However, what if someone discovers through this development the possibility of recreating someone who can live eternally. Those people can either bring prosperity to the new world or a complete disaster.