BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Chewing gum should be in allowed in schools.

So in this debate I will be negating the resolution, Chewing gum should be allowed in schools, so I will be arguing that chewing gum should not be allowed in schools. I will state my points, than I will attack my opponents. =====CASE===== For this debate I will have 2 contentions. Contention 1. Chewing gum is a distraction in class. A. Chewing gum distracts the person chewing it The consumer of the chewing gum will constantly be chewing it first of all which means that he will be constantly doing something other than learning therefore lessening his/her focus. They will also be tempted to do tricks with the gum such as blowing bubbles. This is a major distraction to the consumer and it will take away from his/her learning. B. Chewing gum distracts everyone else who is in the class As a stated in Contention 1 Sub-point A, the consumer of the chewing gum will be tempted to do tricks with the gum. These tricks will cause others to watch the consumer and it will also cause them to lose focus. Also tricks like blowing bubbles will make noise, therefore causing a disturbance which will take away from the learning of the class. Contention 2. Chewing gum causes damage to other people's property. Chewing gum can cause lots of damage. Many inconsiderate people are too lazy to get up and dispose of the gum in the trash can so they either spit it on the floor, where it can get stuck to shoes or the floor, or they stick it on the bottom of their desk. Some children think that it is amusing even to play pranks on people such as spitting it in someone else's hair. Chewing gum is VERY hard to get out of hair, shoes, desks, or the floor and it can be a very painful process. =====OPPONENT CASE ATTACKS===== Point 1- Chewing gum does exactly the opposite of help concentration (see Contention 1). Point 2- Be more specific, what kind of problems are you referring to? Point 3- This is the opposite of common logic. If something is banned, why would more people bring it to school? If you wish for this argument to still stand, please expand on your point. =====OVERALL===== I will not deny that gum is tasty. I love gum, but I do not believe it to be fit to be allowed in school. It caused too much destruction. Allowing gum in school would be a PERFECT idea in a PERFECT world, where nobody is too lazy to properly dispose of it, and nobody is so cruel to play a prank with it. =====CONCLUSION===== I have provided my points and I have refuted my opponents attacks. For all the reasons I have stated in this debate, vote CON. Thank You for this debate, I look forward to seeing your response. -S98SAMMAN
Chewing gum should be in allowed in schools.

Chewing gum should be allowed in schools. For the purpose of this debate, we define something that should be banned in school as something that takes away from the learning. Cell phones, MP3 players, etc. fall in this category. But chewing gum? Why??? My three main points are that chewing gum actually HELP concentration in the classroom, that preventing it could cause problems, and that it would simply cause children to bring more gum to school.
Eminem is the best rapper

"Well yo Mr. Pro dude, I mean no offensivebut you stink at rappin'-- your lines've too much syllables and are uncomprehensive,and furthermore, you've yet to give me a good scrappin', I never said you had to rap,I just did it to show you I had the talent,that I ain't a liar and I ain't a sap,but now that you mention it, I guess there's no harm bein' gallant,I tell you I'm the rapper yo,I may be bad at debatin' but at rhymin' I'm pro,in addition you were just "bored", tellin' people to not judge you,in reality you probably can't afford the time or experience to get through!"OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH
Eminem is the best rapper

You say you are the best but wait a minute here has Anyone seen you dear? You need people to know your looks, lest their hideous You think you would have the world in your hands like Eminem? But the world you hold is not bigger than an MNM! I guess the debate has turned into a rap and so There is no reason for straying away to be not allowed, bro! Bro means brother in case you may wonder But if there is anyone like that in the world, I would probably run the White house and kick everyone out Like water out of a whale's blowhole, they spurt out of the spout! So let us get back to the business here Or you want to go there? Well, Your choice Your move
Eminem is the best rapper

Yo dude no offenseBut I think I am the best rapper here,sure Eminem gives his 15 cents, but I have the better rhyme, rhythm and am a whole new tier,I write poems day and night,whether it's haikus or sonnets, they all sound right,Eminem's got talent, and exprience on his side, we all have to agree and abide,but I can make my point across like no rapper can--I don't have to insult anyone, I'll never get banned!
FDR's New Deal

No one can predict the future. FDR did his best, he not only had to get America out of the Great Depression, but also fix the problems that the previous president left. And the Government didn't force anyone to buy anything they just placed taxes. There are still many useful organizations that were created by FDR, one for example is the social services for retirement. Can you imagine what would have happened to America without the New Deal? I have to stop i'm out of time. So yea bye.
FDR's New Deal

So first of all despite the fact i just watched you copy and paste everything from the internet besides the late two sentences most of what you say is ridicules. Its their earned money.... they can do with it as they please. That's why its call bill of rights! How would you like it if the government told you, you could only spend your money on vegetables and thats it! Well, just the same they can use their money for whatever they wanted .... if they had money. One thing i know for sure is that whatever pros came out of Roosevelt's FDR act was nothing but luck. All he did was though things out at the people passed act after act and had no idea what the true result would be. Some people would argue that Roosevelt's "New Deal" advanced socialistic agendas in the United States. It limited personal freedoms in order to advance the well fare of the nation. Long lasting effects of Roosevelt's "new deal," was that it gave the federal government more power. This in turn resulted in a large number of bureaucratic organizations that waste millions of tax payers money every year. Proving that the government was not thinking of the people but only of itself. Poor people suffered from other high-minded New Deal policies like the Tennessee Valley - Authority monopoly. Its dams flooded thousands of acres. Even if the FDR intended no harm to the poor or the country as a whole it happened and we have to base our judgements toward the government on what really happened as opposed to what they wanted to happen!!!!!!!!
FDR's New Deal

THIS VIDEO GIVES MY OPINION ON YOUR OPPOSITION ----> http://www.youtube.com... The New Deal created millions of jobs. This suggests to us that The New Deal was a success because by introducing more jobs through The Public Works Administration people had more money to spend. As well as this by creating millions of jobs it put more Americans in to work. This therefore implies to us that The New Deal was a success because it met the aim of Roosevelt which was to put Americans back in to work. "Our greatest primary task is to put people to work" (Roosevelt's inauguration speech, 1933) supports this. This therefore conveys to us that The New Deal was a success because it met the "primary task" so it achieved one of Roosevelt's goals. This is supported by a source showing the number of unemployed people between the years 1929 and 1942. This source supports the fact that The New Deal put Americans in to work because in 1933( the year The New Deal was introduced) there was 24.9% labor force unemployed but this dropped to 21.7% the next year and dropped to 14.3% in 1937. This source shows that the New Deal was a success because it supports the fact that The New Deal put Americans back to work. This Information shows that the government did in fact gave jobs to the poor to get more money to also spend more. Now about the Taxes, the taxes on mostly beers and wines, was to help support the government. Anyways if your a "victim" of the government why would you be wasting your hard earned money on beer? The goal was simply to create change. I'll stop for now to give you a chance to retaliate on the "bad side".
FDR's New Deal

Poor people were principal victims of the New Deal. Taxes we up from 1.6 billion in 1993 to 5.3 billion in 1940. The most important source of New Deal revenue were excise levied on alcoholic beverages, cigarettes, matches, CANDY, chewing gum, CARS, telephone calls, ELECTRICITY, and even radios necessities for everyday uses. The Treasury Department report acknowledged that excise taxes "often fell disproportionately on the less affluent." Consumers had less money to spend, and employers had less money for growth and jobs. It made it more expensive to hire. Employers did not have money to pay employees therefor the jobs could not have gone up! New Deal taxes were major job destroyers durning the 1930's.
schools should not have uniforms

"Uniforms don't allow the freedom of expression..... Everyone has the right to the freedom of expression"The U.S. supreme court has ruled that public schools can limit free speech rights as long as there is a valid basis[1]. There are some States that allow strict dress codes. [1] This is because even though you have the freedom of expression, you are not supposed to bully others just because they wear clothing that are different. In this case, uniforms prevent bullying, which is fighting words and is not protected by the first amendment. "It would also cost parents a lot of money. they would have to buy new uniforms ever time there kids grow out of them. "Is just buying school uniforms when your children grow cheaper, or is buying tons of different clothes for your children to go to school in cheaper? This argument is flawed in that it does not address the fact that you would still have to buy new clothes regardless of whether or not they are uniforms or normal clothing. "it will only cause the school more problems. kids will more then likely disobey the rules to wearing the uniforms. such as not wearing the uniforms at all."This argument is also flawed. Why make murder and theft illegal if people are still doing it after it is made illegal? Why does the UN sign contracts to ban weapons of mass distruction if they are still used? The point is, just because people would do things purposefully just because you made rules against them or violate the rules you made, does not mean you should not make those rules.[1]http://education-law.lawyers.com...
schools should not have uniforms

Schools should not have uniforms because it uniforms don't allow freedom of expression. It would also cost parents a lot of money. they would have to buy new uniforms ever time there kids grow out of them. which could add up depending on how fast your kid grows and how many kids you have. Second of all. it will only cause the school more problems. kids will more then likely disobey the rules to wearing the uniforms. such as not wearing the uniforms at all. Everyone has the right to the freedom of expression.
I should Kill Myself

This won't necessarily decide if I kill myself or not, but I want to know reason for me to be alive. Therefore, I am saying that I should, and my opponent is saying why I shouldn't. Ok, so I know that a lot of you will automatically vote for con, saying "oh no, you should live!" and all that without looking at the arguments. Doing so will cause disregard towards your votebombing and I will get other debaters to countervotebomb. ONLY VOTE IF YOU READ ALL OF THE ARGUMENTS. This is still a debate, not an opinion. Vote on which arguments are better, not based on your personal opinions. Only accept if you are: 1. An active member 2. Have at least 500 forum posts 3. You must have known me prior to this debate and for a while before that Rounds: 1. Acceptance 2. Arguments (no rebuttals yet) 3. rebuttals 4. continued rebuttals and additional arguments 5. Final remarks (no more rebuttals at this point) Any breaking of these round rules will result in an immediate disqualification. I think that is all, but if there's anything I don't remember I will say it in my 2nd round or in the comments.
My opponent will not win this debate.

I would like to take note of the obvious flaws in pro's round one; namely in regards to his statements on proof. He exhibits some rather fallacious reasoning. He seems to believe that since I cannot prove the resolution false, I lose the debate. But I could just reverse it and say since my opponent cannot prove the resolution true, I win the debate. The resolution is supposed to be paradoxical, which is why my opponent thinks he will win. The resolution is also however, impossible to satisfy; reasons being that it all depends on unknown events in the future. Judging by these facts, the burden of proof is a very relevant factor in this debate. In fact, I think it will be the deciding factor. My opponents logic can be broken down into the following argument. P.1 Con cannot prove that he will win the debate. P.2 Therefore it is assumed that con won't win. C: Therefore con won't win this debate. This fails in a number of ways. Firstly, pro has already put the burden of proof on himself. He is the instigator of the debate and affirming the resolution. It obviously follows that the burden of proof is on him to prove the resolution true. There is absoluely no factor that sugests the BoP is on me. Pro has the burden in affirming the resolution. All I have to do is negate my opponents arguments and I will win the debate. Therefore, my opponents burden is to prove that I will not win the debate. There are two ways to accomplish this. The first is to prove that he will win the debate. The second would be to prove that the debate will end in a draw. Therefore, in order for pro to gain the argument points, his arguments must demonstrate the future voting results. As shown before, this is impossible. The future is unknown. My opponent cannot provide any evidence on what future events will take place in regards to the voting on this debate. Thus my opponent is in for a very tough debate. In order for him to win this debate, he must accomplish an impossibility. Thus, pro cannot win this debate. I'd also like to mention to the voters that even if pro is at one time winning the debate after it is over, that does not mean he should get your vote. Voting is based upon arguments. Therefore my opponents arguments must show that he will win. Even if he is winning come the voting period, that does not in any way mean he has accomplished his burden. The only way he can accomplish his burden is by showing, in the couse of this debate, that he will win. That is what viewers should vote on. As the BoP is on pro, I'll hand it over to him.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument is Sound

I would like to issue an open challenge on a debate regarding the Kalam Cosmological Argument as supported by William Lane Craig which in my experience the opponent does support. The KCA: A.Whatever begins to exist has cause B. The universe began to exit C. .'. the universe has a cause.For clarification: universe does not simply mean whar arises from an expansion- ie spacetime, but essentially existence itself. A creation of existence means the creation of energy which is the basis of physical existence.
All votes by adults should be counted in every poll, everywhere.

As my opponent has essentially forfeited Round 2, I will begin my counterargument. There are two types of polls that come to mind when discussing whether or not the individual votes need to be counted: unanimous ones, and informal ones. Or a combination of both, for that matter. For example, say you are in a room with 19 other people, and you bring up the topic of what to eat for dinner. If you ask the group, "Who wants pizza?" and every single person, including you, raises your hand, it is unnecessary to take the time to count every single person in the room. If you think that number of people is too small, then just generalize the scenario to an arbitrarily large number of people, where the amount of time to count becomes too much of a burden, when taken into account the fact that the vote is visibly unanimous and, again, informal in nature. It is easy to see that not every single poll of all time needs to be counted when you take cases like these into account.
Geographical proximity as a criteria for admission into high school

As you all know, a sizeable majority of my constituents wants the law introduced apart from other criteria. Here is our argument, and may the opposition be wise to give their full support. From what I understand, the resolution is unclear as con did not outline which criteria to be eliminated or adopted by my policy makers. Since the resolution suggests that "geographical proximity as criteria", we will adopt the position of justifying just that and argue how geographical importance justifies as a additional condition in admission policies. Our position is pro so we will start with our argument first while the opposition's duty is to denounce our argument. The addition of Geographical importance EASES student admissions The Henrietta Barnett School's admission policy uses geographical proximity, as stated in their website " In the event that candidates are equally ranked, the following criteria will be used to decide the final placings. .. geographical proximity to the School as measured by the London Borough of Barnet. "(1) I for one, as well my backbenches fully endorse these decisions. If you had to pick between 2 students of which have the same education attainment, same ECA(Extra Curricular Activities) attainments, same physical attributes, which one would it be? Do you judge them because you don't 'like' them in this case, because you don't like the way their personalities are? That"s a very subjective way of evaluating. By using a geographical compass, it is the only way to objectively measure which student to enrol. It will be tough for schools, should they eliminate the criterion, they may resort to social backgrounds, racial profiling, all of which are discriminative in nature. Even if they were to make judgements, it is very subjective as what is indecent to me could not be indecent to you. It is prudent for schools to adopt an objective approach in enrolling students as subjective approaches are nothing but bias. It is important to recognize the value of being objective, as this is the only way to be FAIR. Furthermore, there are thousands of variables to be taken into account. There are testimonies by previous schools to be considered, should one school opted for the discriminative nature, what then, or how do you justify your choice in enrolling them? The easiest way is the obvious, GEOGRAPHICAL proximity. Sources (1). http://www.hbschool.org.uk...
The first ultimate question is "How can we improve the human mind?"

I'm sorry but I've only read your first two paragraphs because I was hoping for a serious debate and you've disappointed me greatly. I'll repost this debate as soon as it is over and hope for a better Con.Regarding the first paragraph... Hippocrates actually said "Practise two things in your dealings with disease: either help or do not harm the patient". Your taking what he said out of context and I believe that the only purpose is to impress with a quote. It's an appeal to tradition, from irrelevant authority, taken out of context. It rarely gets worse than that.Regarding the second paragraph... Your argument seems to be that you have a better Ultimate Question, yet you follow it with what you perceive to be the answer. If that is indeed the answer, then it doesn't qualify as an Ultimate Question because we would already have the answer to it.
The first ultimate question is "How can we improve the human mind?"

This is my first debate on this website and I don’t know what I’m supposed to do when the con forfeits a round. I guess I’ll just add an extra argument in favor of the original topic in order to strengthen it further. Another quite important question is “How do we become immortal?”. Some would argue that it is in fact the most important but I disagree, again for a very straightforward reason. The majority of the humans, although we live in an age where access to knowledge is unobstructed, are still unwilling to improve themselves. Most are not even aware of their heuristics and biases in order to counter-balance them. Do we really want such humans to live forever? No. Entrenched opinions, lack of critical thinking, unfounded believes… these do not deserve immortality. Answering and applying the solutions to the actual ultimate question “How do we improve the human mind?” is the only way to go in order to create personalities that deserve immortality. I submit that the second ultimate question is “How do we achieve immortality?”, yet this is irrelevant until the first challenge is completed.
The first ultimate question is "How can we improve the human mind?"

Please take the word “mind” literary. Definition: “the element of a person that enables them to be aware of the world and their experiences, to think, and to feel; the faculty of consciousness and thought”. I find it obvious that the mind could be improved by, for example, optimizing the brain to remember more things. Still, I am open to the possibility that there could be less obvious methods of improving the mind, maybe even counterintuitive, which would not operate directly on the brain. For example, maybe concentration could be improved drastically by handicapping the peripheral vision. Actual ways of improving the mind is not a subject that I have researched enough and is not part of the original topic. English is not my main language. If there are any mistakes, please excuse them as long as the message can be inferred. I have spoken with quite a few people from UK about the second paragraph and I found it to be intelligible, therefore I regretfully have to ignore the rest of your argument because you’ve misunderstood me. I started this debate in order to discover if my rationale in choosing the ultimate question was correct. I therefore want to make it clear from the start: I will not discuss punctuation, the meaning of words, why there has to be an ultimate question in the first place, why the ultimate question isn’t “How do we convince people to try answering ultimate questions?” and so on; anything mostly unrelated and superfluous. I want results, not trolling and useless narrative, simply because I believe that choosing an ultimate question and justifying it with straightforward reasoning is the first big step towards answering it. The Austrian poet and novelist Rainer Maria Rilke had this advice: “Live your questions now, and perhaps even without knowing it, you will live along some distant day into your answers. […] Believe that with your feelings and your work you are taking part in the greatest; the more strongly you cultivate this belief, the more will reality and the world go forth from it.” I also want to point out that improving the mind of everybody would not just help in answering the next ultimate questions faster, which is the essential snowball effect. It would also solve many political, social, religious, health, technological and even climate issues. The list of advantages is the truly all-encompassing thing. Civilization has reached so far because of science and technology. Science and technology are predominantly… a product of the mind.
The first ultimate question is "How can we improve the human mind?"

I assume by "mind" my opponent means brain. Pro can correct me, if I'm wrong. I'll also ask pro to remove the accumulation of knowledge from his definition of "improving the human mind", because quite literally any sort of progress argued for can debatably require an "accumulation of knowledge", to achieve. This sort of definition, would essentially define the word improve out of existence, by making it too all encompassing.