BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Women should be forced to wear bikinis in public

Con: "which violates their autonomy and freedom of expression. " We don't care about their autonomy nor their freedom of expression. * Con: "Taking away their ability to choose what they want to wear violates their autonomy which is something we ought to respect. " Says what? * Con: "And since all entities objectively ought to strive to do good, we should not force women to wear beings. " Then we would never reproduce and civilization would end if they could wear no "beings". They have to wear a male from time to time for it to Con:happen. * Con: "And causing pleasure would be a morally good thing to do since its inherently desirable for the individual. " Them wearing bikinis would be pleasurable to me, thus morally good and desirable to me, bronto. * Con: "Suffering is an inherently undesirable state, thus preventing suffering is a good thing to do to an individual. " I am suffering that they are not wearing bikinis, thus it is a good thing to prevent my suffering. * Con: "In short, making women wear bikinis would take away their freedom of expression, which would result in mass suffering. " It would result in mass joy on the male/bronto side, thus neccessary. Besides, it might lift stress off of them not having to work out an outfit for the day. * Con: "Taking away a woman's ability to this would take away her ability to realize her individuality. " Not really. She would have an assortment of bikinis she could choose from, including but not limited to: -Batgirl bikini -Thong -Push up and support top bikini -All different colors and patterns -Coconut bikinis -Victorias Secret bikinis -etc etc It would actually spread excitement, joy, and morbid interest into the world. * Con: "wearing clothes that they identify as artistic, such as scarfs, beanie hats, and coats. " They can wear scarfs and beanie hats. The coat would have to be rather skimpy as to not cover up too much.
Women should be forced to wear bikinis in public

Women should not be forced to wear bikinis in public because it takes away their ability to wear what they want to wear (something else besides bikinis), which violates their autonomy and freedom of expression. There are numerous reasons for why we ought to respect these principles, and thus not violate them. Freedom of expression is essential to individual realization. Individuals who are able to express their inner thoughts and feelings are able to realize their individuality. Individuals are able to project their own thoughts and feelings into the world through their choice of clothing. Evidence of this is the prominence of the fashion industry. Those who identify more as an artistic personality are able to express themselves in that respect by wearing clothes that they identify as artistic, such as scarfs, beanie hats, and coats; trademark to the artistic fashion industry. Individuals who are allowed to express their personality alignment are able to realize themselves, and their individuality. Taking away a woman's ability to this would take away her ability to realize her individuality, which would result in a less satisfied and content population, as well as depression and psychological distress. This is because self-realization is essential to psychological well-being. The lack of psychological well-being can manifest itself in a wide variety of mental illnesses that can range from simple depression, which can result in suicide, or even more advanced neuroses which can significantly harm society. In short, making women wear bikinis would take away their freedom of expression, which would result in mass suffering. Making women wear bikinis also violates their autonomy, their ability to decide what to do in their life. Taking away their ability to choose what they want to wear violates their autonomy which is something we ought to respect. This is because the person's mind/body is their own, violating autonomy violates this principle as we exercise control over them. It is also important because morally speaking, autonomy is a right that ought to be respected. This is because morality is based on individual desires/undesires. Suffering is an inherently undesirable state, thus preventing suffering is a good thing to do to an individual. Thus it is morally right. And causing pleasure would be a morally good thing to do since its inherently desirable for the individual. In the same way, autonomy is something that all individuals inherently desire because of their possession of their own mind and body, which is something that cannot be realistically taken away. Thus, violating an individual's autonomy becomes an immoral thing to do. Since forcing women to wear bikinis violates their autonomy, it is a morally unjust action. And since all entities objectively ought to strive to do good, we should not force women to wear beings. That's all I'm gonna bring up this round. Peace and Love!
education reform ideas

Well, here are some arguments:1. higher salaeries for teachersWe can't afford that, we are already in debt by alot.2. smaller class sizesSmaller class sizes means more teachers, and again, we can't afford that3. more after school programsAgain, this means more teachers or supervisors. Think of how many schools are in the states. We can't afford this.4. have a private tutor for every single studnetThere are hundreds of millions of students in the states. A tutor costs about $40-$50 an hour. If we give every student a tutor, it would cost $5 billion an hour. We can't afford this.5. allow people who work in other feilds like math and sceisne to work in classroomsDo we not have this already? University professors work in fields like science and teach in classrooms.6. longer school yearThis would get too much protest and would never be implemented.7. build new schoolsNew schools cost money. New schools require more teachers. We can't afford this.8. raise the age to drop out to 18This would not do anything. High school ends at 18. Basically, you're forcing students to stay in high school. Poorer familiies might need their children to drop out at 16 to work, to help get revenue. This would never be implemented, too many protests.
education reform ideas

This is like 8 debates in one...Well, I accept anyways. This will be fun.I will allow my opponent to come up with arguments for each of his reform ideas.As Pro has not provided which country we would be implementing these reform ideas, I suggest Canada. Please PM or comment if you disagree. I guess the side who wins this debate is the side that proves or disproves most of the education reform ideas.Burden of Proof:Pro must prove five or more of his reform ideas to work in order to win this debate.As Con, I must disprove five or more of these ideas, and point out the many flaws in those ideas in order to win this debate. Basically, the side that wins on the majority of those topics is the side that wins. If both sides have the same amount of wins on topics, then the debate is tied.I await Pro's arguments for his reform ideas.
if you were alone with someone, n there was no way 2 get food, u can morally kill an eat that person

I do not see the comparison between my opponent's refusal to provide material evidence that her contention holds any validity while I have at least provided a dictionary definition that is contrary to the interpretation that my opponent presents. I would also contend that labeling my argument as "cheap" does not make it so- it merely states an opinion. Opinions are not arguments. I ask all potential voters to disregard my opponent's request to research the validity of this debate by reading the comments. If my opponent had anything to contribute it should have been here, within the debate, and not a referral to someone else's work in the comments. Again, voting should regard only content presented within this debate itself- and my opponent has presented little of that. Saying that my argument is cheap and asking readers to look up something or consider the common vernacular bear no weight in the world of academia and are too hastily dismissive. Perhaps my opponent could have defended her side had she presented any evidence to contradict mine but none of this was done.
if you were alone with someone, n there was no way 2 get food, u can morally kill an eat that person

i'm not going to dignify your contentions about 'look it up' being inadequate, cause your contentions are based on semantics and a 'cheap' argument. if you look up 'alone together' or the phrase i used, youd see it's common vernacular. if you look up in the dictionary, you can see example sentences that use the word the same way i do. or, just look in the comments section that explain and illustrates this more. con says it's best to approach this debate with semantics, but in fact it's best to engage the debate on the substance, which con is clearly unable to bring himself to do.
if you were alone with someone, n there was no way 2 get food, u can morally kill an eat that person

I do not deny that my sole contention is a semantic one- but that does not intrinsically make it a cheap shot. I also wish to remind my opponent that there is an additional round, so making a voting decision at this juncture in the debate could only be premature and potentially misinformed. I also contend that (at least) my sources are superior- as I have provided a valid dictionary definition to support my semantic case, whilst Pro merely requests us to "look it up". This all being said, I will further contend against my opponent's case for the additional chance to gain the points for argumentation (as I believe spelling and grammar and sources to be ((somewhat)) a given)...although at this point, increasingly not conduct. At best it can be criticized semantically (as my opponent points out) which is exactly what I intended. So, we will continue pursuing this line of thought in a semantic way, which is the best possible way I may pursue it (an mutually agreed upon position from myself and Pro). Pro has suggested that semantics and reality are at a disjuncture. This burden of proof is surely unfulfilled while mine is sufficiently offered. I have provided the semantic case against the basic form of this debate, which until countered with compelling evidence is valid. To counter this, my opponent has only asserted that in reality it is possible to do something which is impossible according to the definitions of the terms used to describe such an action. She also asserts that this very real contention is a cheap shot, at which I am somewhat startled. This casual dismissal of serious and academic contradiction to her case seems unjustifiable. I encourage my opponent to reconsider this approach (in this final upcoming round) and to either rationally defend why reality is contradictory to the semantic definition of aloneness, or to concede.
if you were alone with someone, n there was no way 2 get food, u can morally kill an eat that person

Thanks for the debate Pro. In the Merriam Webster Dictionary, alone is defined as "separated from others" or in short, isolated. In the topic, the word you can be reasonably assumed to represent the reader and someone can be reasonably assumed to represent another human being. If I (as the acting "you") were to find myself isolated in the desert I would indeed be quite alone. However, were I to be accompanied by another individual (an acting "someone") I would cease to be alone. My premise is quite simple: because the proposition is reliant on the concept of being alone with someone (which is fundamentally impossible) it cannot be defended logically.
Abortion Is Not Murder

What? Excuse me; you have the burden of proving that abortion is not murder, so far you haven’t shown any evidence for that. On the other hand, I have provided arguments for my claim supported by expert opinion and among others. No wonder, why you don’t care about the life of the unborn, because you don’t care about the moral teachings of the Bible. You accept murder because you don’t believe in the statement"Thou shalt not kill" (Exodus 20:13). Without a doubt, I should win this debate. Thanks.
Abortion Is Not Murder

Abortion is murder. Each abortion snuffs out an innocent human life. Tragically, doctors have deceived the American public. Referring to unborn babies as “fetus,” “ embryo,” or “zygote,” may be scientifically correct, but does not change the fact: These little ones are little human beings. Though called “parasite,” “blob,” or “tissue,” give each wee creature about 266 days after conception and see what emerges from his mother’s womb. It will be a human baby, not a zebra, a trout, frog or an orangutan.1 Another, Dr. Micheline M. Mathews-Roth, Harvard Medical School, referenced medical textbooks that claimed that human life begins at conception. Dr. Jerome Lejeune, "Father of Modern Genetics," stated, "To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place, a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion ... it is plain experimental evidence." Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic, added: "By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."2 These were just a few of the statements made by world-renowned professionals. Whether or not the law says that abortion is murder, the Bible clearly holds the life of the unborn as supremely important. "For you [God] created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb" (Psalm 139:13). "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb Isanctioned thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations"(Jeremiah 1:5). "Thou shalt not kill" (Exodus 20:13).sources:[1] http://www.jesus-is-savior.com...[2] http://www.raptureready.com...
The Shortest Distance Between Two Points Is Always a Straight Line

BornToDebate asks, "How can con even win wtf?" So, I challenge him to defend his assumption. Full Resolution The shortest distance between two points is always a straight line. The BoP for this debate is on pro.Definitions The shortest distance between two points refers to a single path that has the condition that no other continuous, conceivable path would be shorter than it. Pro will be arguing that that distance is always straight, while con will argue that it is not always straight. This debate is not specific to any specific geometry. Rules1. A forfeit or concession is not allowed.2. No semantics, trolling, or lawyering.3. All arguments and sources must be visible inside this debate. 4. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate.Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person.Debate StructureRound 1: Presentation all arguments by proRound 2: Presentation of arguments by con and rebuttal by proRound 3: Rebuttal by con and defense of original arguments by proRound 4: Defense of original argument by con and a bye round by pro (to make for even rounds; only use one line for your final post)
The Shortest Distance Between Two Points Is Always a Straight Line

He expressed a curve as a straight line in the globe picture just whatever.I don't even care about this debate anymore it's so damn stupid that pro side is just common sense tbph. He lawyered so hardcore in round two that if you look at round one he violated his own rule and all 7 points should go to me hahaha.Seirously this guy is a nerd and this debate is full of crap.
The Shortest Distance Between Two Points Is Always a Straight Line

My opponent is using Ad Hominem to make his argument simply because he thinks that non-Euclidian forms of geometry do not exist. I assure you, they do, as can be seen in their applications. For example, spherical geometry is very useful in navigation around the globe, because, as you know, the Earth is roughly spherical. Take, for example, this informative picture: [1]As can be seen from the picture on the left, the distance from Philadelphia to Beijing (roughly on the same latitudinal line) can differ based on the path taken, and a shorter distance (by 3,400 km) can be obtained by making a "great circle" instead of making a genuine straight line. The picture on the right shows how this can be possible. As for the accusation of lawyering, it doesn't mean that I used too many sources. First, I only used five. Three were citations for my pictures (no real "argumentative" value), one was just a proof that striaght lines have zero curvature, and the other was a definition of a "great circle". For the next round, one was just a definition for a line segment in spherical geometry and the other proved that spherical geometry only relies on the surface of a sphere. Of my sources of substance, they were all just there to prove my assumptions. While neither of us is "mentally retarded", my opponent has obviously not been introduced to the intricates associated with non-Euclidian geometry. I understand that a straight line is the shortest distance between two points in Euclidan geometry. Your one source is a proof that a straight line is the shortest distance between two points on a two-dimensional Cartesian coordinate system based off of Euclidian geometry, and therefore does not consider that that theorem is false when other geometries are considered. I haven't stolen a single math equation. Everything in that argument I already knew, but I posted sources so as to prove that I had proof behind my assumptions. It's an ok thing to do. In conclusion, here is a spherical line: [2]This is the shortest distance between two points, but has a positive curvature, and is obviously not a straight line. Also, please remember, no arguments in this last round for you.Sources [1]: http://www.oswego.edu...[2]: Gowers, Timothy. Mathematics, A Very Short Introduction.
The Shortest Distance Between Two Points Is Always a Straight Line

I'm not going to concede this debate just because my opponent puts a ton of pictures and geometric stuff.I'm firmly sure that if you take any two points in the universe the shortest distance between them is a straight line. No sphere involved.My opponent is just cheating by breaking their own rule of not lawyering (which means to use a ton of sources for no apparent reason just to win).Honestly though, if you can't understand that a curve is always longer than a straight line if both begin and end at the same point then you are either mentally retarded (in the literal sense of the term retardation) or you are just a troll who actually does understand it.I can also paste a ton of pics and links such as this: http://www.instant-analysis.com... That doesn't make me a better debater; it makes me a loser who can't debate myself and has to use others' math equations to illustrate my point so that I don't, my self, come up with a half decent debate.Frankly, this is just plain stupid and Con is using purely filthy tactics to win.
The Shortest Distance Between Two Points Is Always a Straight Line

My opponent doesn't understand the geometry here. It isn't as if there is a sphere within Euclidian space that must be gone thorugh, but as if the sphere represents geometry itself. Further, my opponent isn't using true definition for a line. Here is the "natural" definition: "A line segment from x to y is the shortest path within the surface of the sphere." In other words, because three-dimensional geometry requires a different definition for a line because of the added depth component, a line is a one-dimensional object that lies on the surface of the sphere and not in it. Three-dimensional geometry is more two-dimensional as it deals with only the surface of the object and not the interior.[1][2]Sources[1]: Gowers, Timothy. Mathematics, A Very Short Introduction.[2]: http://mathworld.wolfram.com...
The Shortest Distance Between Two Points Is Always a Straight Line

Evryting my opponent just said is only true if there is a physical sphere to block the straight line option. Otherwise you can just cut a straight line from A to B and it would be shorter than the curved one.That is like saying that if there is a big stone in front of you you have to go around it instead of charging through it, it doens't change the fact that, from a bird's eye view, the straight line is the shortest distance.
The Shortest Distance Between Two Points Is Always a Straight Line

I. Lines and Euclidian GeometryA line is the essential one-dimensional object. Between two points, there is a line that provides the shortest distance between these two points, known as a line segment. A line is essentially the extension of a line segment beyond the original two points. "A straight line is a line of zero curvature. " In other words, a straight line contains no curves. [1] Euclidian geometry relies on a two-dimensional flat plane. In such senarios, the shortest distance between two points is always a straight line as a flat plane also has zero curvature. II. Non-Euclidian Geometry However, Euclidian geometry is only one kind of geometry. There are other kinds of geometry that have other shapes as their base and have curvature. This means that the above postulate cannot hold true. For example, there is spherical geometry, and is basically the three-dimensional geometry of a sphere. Here is a visual representation of spherical geometry: [2]Notice how, in spherical geometry, the shortest distance between two points is a so-called "great circle", which is ". .. obtained by taking a plane through the cente[r] of the sphere and seeing where is cuts the surface. " These great circles, of course, have a curvature, and the sphere itself has a curvature of 1. [3]Here is what some "great circles" look like: [4]These lines are not straight because they have a curvature. In another form of non-Euclidian geometry, the same effect can be seen. Hyperbolic geometry has several definitions that have been interpreted over the years, but one constant truth is that the curvature of the surface is -1. Here is an attempted visual representation of hyperbolc geometry: [2]In hyperbolic geometry, the shortest distance between two points is a hyperbola. Hyperbolas have a curvature, and again, hyperbolic geometry has a negative curvature. Using the "saddle" representation of hyperbolic geometry, here is a Euclidian representation of it: [5]These lines are also not straight because they have a curvature. Basically, there are non-Euclidian forms of geometry where the shortest distance between two points is a line with curvature, which cannot be straight since a "straight line" has no curvature. Sources [1]: . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[2]: . http://www.oswego.edu...[3]: Gowers, Timothy. Mathematics, A Very Short Introduction. [4]: . http://spheresandsuch.wordpress.com...[5]: . http://www.josleys.com...;
The Shortest Distance Between Two Points Is Always a Straight Line

Unless you mean that to get from A to B there might be obstacles that are too tall to jump over so you'd have to go around them I don't understand how you coul deny that the shortest distance between pont A and B is a straight line.Any curvature of the line would require it to be a greater distance overall and therefore nto be the shortest distance from A to B.I don't quite see how you could possibly argue this unless you will say that you have to sometimes go around things to get from one place to another, not through them.