BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: DDO should Drop The Phone Requirement Needed for Voting Rights

Actually I'm not on any sort of staff on the website. I've been on here for about a year though, so I'm pretty familliar with how things work.I agree that having internet access wouldn't necessarily mean having access to a cell phone, but it seems to me that the more familiar and acquainted with technology someone is (ie the internet), the more probable it is that they would have some sort of access to a cell phone.Perhaps "unusual" is the wrong word, but "unlikely" is true. 78% of teenagers (age 12-17) do have a cell phone (1) though.If my opponent needs to get voting privileges, I would encourage him to ask airmax, or to ask to use his parent or friends' cell phone. I don't personally have a cell phone with texting, but my brothers do, so I asked if I could get the code texted to them.Thank you. ==Sources==(1)http://www.pewinternet.org...
Resolved: DDO should Drop The Phone Requirement Needed for Voting Rights

I am assuming by the way you speak that you are some sort of DDO staff. Thank you for the quick response! I don't have much to say except for one small rebuttal towards your post. I understand your reasoning for the requirements, but one should not assume that having an internet connection means having access to a cellular device. I would not call the lack of owning one "unusual," because factors such as not having enough money or restrictions from parents are very common reasons for not having one.
should we have to go to school or go to work

The con side has given up again. I would still like to build on my case as I am passionate about education. We must understand that education is the great equalizer. It allows those on the bottom to push themselves up. To get rid of it would go against what America stands for. It would destroy the American dream. It would cause job shortage and apathy. The con speaker's idea of not having our children go to school is simply insane. The con speaker has failed to really debate.
should we have to go to school or go to work

Unfortunately my opponent has forfeited the second round. I will still take this time to build on my case. In the first round, the pro speaker mentioned using video games for education. Yes, this games do exist for educational purpose, but having the expectation of every parent to buy their kids a game for every subject of school every year, and be in charge of the whole education of the child. This is too costly to be reasonable and this will just have kids not being educated at all.
should we have to go to school or go to work

Well it seems that the con side is suggesting that all kids not attend school at all. Let us look at what school brings to the table. The basis of mathematics and logical thinking; the knowledge of our history and the ability to critically look at events today; and also to read and write. Now I guess we can make video games for all of these but are we really trusting children with their education and curriculum? Parent can take control but parents have jobs and not all kids can afford the games.
Sex is healthy for pre-teens

First off, it is impossible to "monitor" sexual activity as it is not a sport event where judges are involved. I am not an expert in medicine by any means, but even with "correct" protection, as you would say, there still would be a considerable amount of risks involved, not to mention that most 12 year-olds don't know how to use these protection properly. Second of all, In ancient times, people tend to have shorter lives due to terrible hygiene and diet . Statistically speaking, life expectancy in ancient Egypt is 58 years for men and 54 years for woman. Therefore they tend to marry younger and inevitably, engage in sexual interactions at a younger age. So it is really not appropriate to compare ancient Egypt with modern day America.
Sex is healthy for pre-teens

I believe sex is ok for pre-teens. Idk why adults and other experts don't like this stance. I know it can be dangerous without the correct "protection", possibly even deadly, but if this is monitored then what's the problem? It's just nature, nothing inappropriate, am I correct or not? In other countries now and even during Egyptian times, it's normal for young people to engage in sexual conduct. It is a fact that King Tut married his first wife at age 13. With all the evidence, someone PLEASE tell me what is wrong with 12 year-olds having sexual interactions?!?!?!
Uniforms should be mandatory in all of the public schools of America

Thank you for the quick response and thank you for continuing this debate. At the moment, Finland has the best education system and they have no homework, standardized tests, and uniforms. Yet, America has private schools, public schools and colleges with uniforms and they aren't even on the top ten list for education systems. Sadly but expected, we are #14 with Indonesia as the worst. We have to pay attention the fact that uniforms are just cloth, yes, a piece cloth can have symbolism, but that won't help students pass school. Pro claims that students have to adjust, which I agree with to an extent. For example, everybody learns differently and adjusting to one person's way of teaching may be difficult. America has already proved that passing a test is more important than actually learning how to survive in this world, getting an apartment and proper sex-ed. Maybe America should focus on lowering tuition, student loans and letting students move around more when learning instead of putting them in a uniform. Uniforms won't stop students from getting ADHD, which is caused from expecting students to sit for long period of time. Uniforms won't stop students from dropping out of school and going down the wrong path. Take the police as an example. Police brutality is a problem in America"this country is corrupted in many way"and those people where uniforms every day. You say that uniforms give people integrity, respect and responsibility. More people are killed by the police in America than anywhere else, and some people view their uniforms as a sign of control and wish to show them no signs of respect. If police had integrity from a uniform, shootings of the people in America, people they are supposed to be protecting, wouldn't happen as much. I promise you that regulating a student's clothes, hair, accessories won't help them learn logic. You learn logic from your idols and you learn your smarts from books, teachers, and your parents/adopted parents, not from a uniform. Your argument about intelligence coming from hard work I find hard to accept. To work hard you have to have the will and ability to do so, the wishes to become something. Where does that all originate from? Your brain where all your thoughts and dreams float around. It's up to you that you make those dreams come true, not a uniform. We shouldn't base somebodies worth off of a uniform. This concludes my argument and this debate.
Uniforms should be mandatory in all of the public schools of America

Your first argument, where you say that they can express themselves in the school's extra-curricular classes, doesn't fit everybody. Some schools don't have those courses, once again another personal experience, and what about the kids with learning disabilities? Writing to release their feelings may be a challenge. Art class aren't always provided either, especially in elementary when kids are forced into these classes instead of picking them in JH or HS. What if the kids aren't into art or singing? What if it has the exact opposite effect on them? Plus, some kids don't even have the right assets to go to school, the only way you'll keep kids out of gangs is by doing that, attacking the problem by the source and not beating around the bush with school dress code. On the same not, some schools are different with their dress code, some are too strict. Such as this high school named Trinity HS. Their dress code is very loose, but it's still there and they have very high rates of success. The only things that should matter in a school is what's supposed to happen there: education and preparation for college, I mean that very vaguely. Plus, we need something that works for all learners. The American school system is very outdated, considering they teach every child the same way no matter how they learn and they, as in teachers, expect them to follow their lesson plan no matter what. Everyone learns differently. I also doubt that a uniform makes people bond. Some jobs have a uniform and they could care less about their peers. Uniforms we can do without. Another school example is Harwood JH, a school in Bedford that is #3 ranking school in their county, and guess what, there's no uniform! The dress code is strict as it reads from the website, but no uniform. You don't get logic or intelligence from a uniform, it comes from your brain, The latest fashions is also something a majority of kids like, some stores actually go with the latest fashion so it isn't hard to walk into Walmart or the mall and buy the clothes.
Uniforms should be mandatory in all of the public schools of America

Thank you for your response to my debate. You say that children should be able to express themselves. I am forced to agree, but I personally think that there are other ways for children to express their ideas at school. At most middle and high schools there are fine art electives like: arts and crafts, ceramics and painting. That is the perfect place for people to express themselves at school, on paper or on display, with those who might appreciate their ideas and away from people who probably won't. You also say that implementing uniforms is saying that, "Your clothes are more important than your education." They aren't and I agree with you. But when your clothes begin affecting your education, that's when it is time for change. Uniforms will decrease growth of gangs as members will not have an opportunity to display gang colors or items at school. Uniforms will also decrease the pressure to buy the latest fashions as students who have them will not be able to show them off at school. Thus, students won't have as much attention on their clothes; which will lead to more attention on studies. You also say that children couldn't possibly be happy with uniforms. There a number of things that children have to do that they aren't happy with; they have to take baths, they have to do the dishes, they have to study, and they have to go to school. Most children don't like doing those things. Then why do they do them? Because their parents tell them to; but why? Because it's for their own good that they do those things. Taking a bath will make you clean, doing the dishes teaches you the importance of hard work, and studying and going to give you a education. These are all things that might not seem the most fun to do, but will help you. The point is, parents want to help their children become good and successful people, and if uniforms will increase chances of that happening, parents will be willing to make their children wear a uniform. I am afraid that I have to disagree on your statement that "You can still get dress coded in uniform". The rules of a uniform are simple and straightforward. "You will wear this shirt, you will wear these pants, and you will wear these shoes. In the event that you don't do that, please kindly direct yourself towards the school office." Simple, straightforward, no room for loopholes. If you got dress coded for wearing the wrong color shirt, it's your fault. You could have avoided it by simply wearing the right color shirt. There is nobody to blame for your carelessness but yourself. You point out a legitimate statement when you say that some schools make you go to another place for uniforms and they may not have all sizes. But most schools already sell physical education wear to their students themselves. Thus, most schools would also probably be willing to sell their uniforms as well; and since the school is selling their items, they should have an idea of the sizes of their students. So I think that for most schools, people will be able to get a uniforms of their size pretty easily. So accessibility is not an issue. And I conclude my response.
Uniforms should be mandatory in all of the public schools of America

Thank you for initiating this debate. I believe children should be able to express themselves. School concepts are already similar to those of a prison, adding the mandatory dress code is basically saying, "Your clothes are more important than your education." It isn't! Cool, you want you them prepared for job environments, but parents are always telling their children to not grow up too fast, so why are we forcing them into something that they possibly won't be happy with? I know from personal experience that dress codes are really strict, even without uniforms. Plus, you can still get dress coded in uniform, all because you didn't wear the right color shirt, once again from experience, that's even worse than getting dress coded because you're wearing a tank top. Some schools also make you go to a specific location to buy your uniforms, also from experience, and they don't always sell school uniforms for people of all sizes, my sister was proof of that. It made her even more aware of her size, which made her somewhat depressed and resulted in her putting on more weight. These are all reasons why I disprove of uniforms.
Uniforms should be mandatory in all of the public schools of America

In almost every public school across America, a student has the right to choose what he or she wears to school. Yet some people are now saying that implementing school uniforms in all American schools might be a better option than giving students the freedom to choose their dressing. To most schoolchildren, this notion would probably be one of scorn. But a school uniform isn"t what it might seem at first glance. A school uniform has several advantages that would be helpful in most schools. Some of the most notable include: the fact that a uniform is more economical than the average school dress, the fact that a uniform encourages better academic achievement, and the fact that a school uniform promotes unity and school spirit. These are the three main reasons for which uniforms are a good idea in public schools.
Resolution: Allowing deep water offshore oil drilling is in the best interest of the United States

This debate is to be in public forum format. Round 2 will be speech 1. Round 3 will be crossfire 1. Round 4 will be speech 2. Round 5 will be crossfire 2. If my opponent has any questions, he/she may ask in Round 1. Pro wins by proving that the resolution is more likely to be true than false. Con wins by proving that the resolution is more likely to be false than true.
Should people know about gmo food and the effects on us.

I will make this debate much less formal, and just discuss the issue with you. I don't necessary disagree that I personalty would like to see labeling of GMO products. The problems with that are perception. A good number of people are running on fear with little real solid reason. These foods are not "frainken foods" they are not the work of the devil. If the people working on these crops are impacted negatively solely on misunderstanding and fear, they have a reason to resist labeling. If I look back at your two posted rounds, one example sticks out. "They have tested gmo's on rats and mice and the females got large tumors.". I know what you are talking about, and without beating the point, it is not that great a finding. GMOs have been feed to livestock for a good amount of time now. Most of the GMO crops are feed crops. The "experiment" in the real world is not producing the terrible results. My last (conversational) point for this round is about arrogance. We (the rich western countries) truly are arrogant. We get so many choices that a great number of people just don't get. We get to complain about labeling, and how one study said this or that. There are a great and growing number of people on this planet that need these foods to work. They need them to keep from dying. They don't have the luxury of our hyper concerns.
Should people know about gmo food and the effects on us.

My main concern is that people should know whether they are eating foods with GMO's or not. They don't put "GMO" labels on everything, and how do you know whether it's GMO-free when they are not all ways labeled? Foods that contain GMO's might feed more people, but they might also be more likely to make them sick and kill them. The jury is still out on whether GMO's are safe. Because of this, people should know what they are consuming; they have the right to make informed choices. I am only 13, so I don't always get to choose what I eat, but if I could, I would stay away from GMO's even if it meant I had to give up spending money on something else so I could afford food that I am sure is safe.
Should people know about gmo food and the effects on us.

Well... A FF round.. Tell you what. I will post what I have worked on, and if you make it back we will go on and ignore your FF. We have five rounds so... No harm, and this will lay out the argument anyway, Introduction In an effort to be forthcoming personally, I will say I eat organically raised fruits and vegetables. There are a number of reasons I do and none of them have to do with fear of the safety of GMO foods. It is a true luxury that I live in a country where I am able to have abundance, and a further luxury that I can afford to be so picky. For a good deal of the ever growing population of the planet, my choice is arrogant, and insisting that others should accept limited food for the sake of misplaced fears over GMOs is inhumane. Let me get some sticky confusing issues out of the way first. Selective breeding, cultivating new plant varieties has been common for thousands of years. While some of the goals are the same, this is NOT the same as what is happening with GMO seeds. Selective breeding can take many generations. Hybrid seeds can create first generation cross breeds using “natural” methods, however the seeds produced are unusable for generation two. Now, what is GMO doing? This is where people start to get their irrational fears from. GMO is creating the same effect in first generation crossbreeding using very advanced science like gene-splicing. Further, because of the sophistication of the science, they can splice in very different plants that would be impossible to do with normal gardening techniques. A good example is crossing biological kingdoms. The resulting seed may be something like a corn seed that has bacteria components that make the resulting plant resistant to pests using less pesticides. 1) GMO food help feed more people a) Costs b) Increased production c) Food chain [1] http://biotech.about.com...
Should people know about gmo food and the effects on us.

People should know about gmo's because they are really unhealthy. food places should say oh we have gmo's in are food and we don't because we are gmo free because we care about the human race. If you don't understand the problem with gmo's well it's because they aren't truly grown from nature. They have tested gmo's on rats and mice and the females got large tumors.
Catholicism Is Not a Christian Faith

Let me get this straight. The my position was to show that that Catholicism is not Christian faith, so I did that. Because you didn't like my answer, you decided to leave. That isn't exactly a convincing argument. Seeing as this will probably be the last post on this thread, I will clarify some of the vast misunderstandings you seem to have regarding what I believe. I neither encourage sin nor think it is okay. You completely slander Protestantism and what I believe, so let me clarify. It is only true faith that saves. This true faith is the kind of faith that will produce good works. We do good works out of faith and love, not because we have to earn anything. I am no fan of those who believe faith is a golden ticket to heaven that you just have to punch once and your in. Those of true faith will deny themselves as Christ taught. If you are a backsliding, careless sinner, you do not have true faith, and you will not be saved. The issue is not whether the presence of good works is necessary, but whether these good works contribute any merit to our salvation. If we believe such, we are diminishing Christ's sacrifice. Also, don't misunderstand the length of my arguments with an unwillingness to be convinced. I used to believe that Catholics were saved, but the evidence against it was just too strong. I went down kicking and screaming but eventually realized that, if the book of Galatians is true, Catholicism does not teach a saving gospel. I'm sorry if the facts offend you, but that was not my intent. Please, if you can show me that Catholicism can save, I would be so relieved. On the other hand, I cannot compromise scripture to come to that conclusion.
Catholicism Is Not a Christian Faith

I sincerely believed Pro that he wished to be shown that Catholicism is truly a Christian faith. I did not expect, and I have no desire to engage, the concept that faith without works is not only acceptable, but it is the only way to salvation. And turning the teaching of St. Paul and the writings of Holy Scripture inside out, changing his meaning to substantiate this horrible claim is not what I intended to debate. It is an abominable creation of Martin Luther that sin is encouraged by Protestantism, it is promoted, we are to sate our desire for sin, because we are saved by belief alone. The notion is horrifying to anyone who truly loves God, and desires to serve Him and avoid offending Him. I am vacating this debate. I was very desirous of entering into it with Pro after he expressed a willingness to learn that he was wrong. Yet he has simply repeated the condemned errors of Luther and his followers, giving no regard to the Christian teaching and knowledge of the faith and what is required that existed for 1500 years prior to that apostate. All of Christendom understood the proper interpretation of St. Paul for 15 centuries. Suddenly an apostate monk comes and redefiines what is to take the easy path and everyone happily sees it as he did, because it is easier to follow one who encourages sin without consequence than to follow one who said "If anyone will come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross, and follow me." It's too hard to do good, so I choose to deceive myself and believe and can do evil all my life without consequence, as long as I believe. This was not an argument I have or had any desire to counter. It's devotees are too stubborn to listen to the truth, including the truth of the meanings of the things in Scripture which are misquoted, misapplied, and misinterpreted to serve a humanistic christianity, a protestant christianity. I won't argue with one who isn't listening. There are people I know personally who are intersted in hearing the truth. I will focus on them. I misunderstood you, Pro, to also be one of them. I don't argue with flat earthers. I don't argue with the adherents of the absence of free will. I don't argue with those who insist we need not do good works to serve our Creator. It's just too off center and too stiff necked for me.I hope one day you will earnestly seek the Truth, and, when you are willing to hear, I hope you find someone who will tell you. It lies within the one, holy, catholic, apostolic faith. For now, I know you are not listening. For that, I am truly sorry for you.God bless. May He bring you one day to His Eternal Truth.