BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Impromptu 9

Contention 1: Degrees of knowledge. Parents who home school their kids may not be knowledgeable on the subjects required in the public school curriculum, as they are not required to have a degree. The home schooled kids' learning experience may be hampered by their parent's lack of knowledge on the subject. For instance, math. In high school, most kids will take advanced algebra, trigonometry, and even calculus. The parent may seriously interfere with the child's progress if they themselves do not know the subject. However, in public schools, this will not be the case, as the teachers will be required to have an intricate knowledge on the specific subject they teach. Contention 2: Socialization skills. 1a. Social Health. Home schooling is severely detrimental to a child's social health. They are denied their right of social development, and can become sociopaths. In fact, their parent(s) may subconsciously implant racism, or extremism in them. They may become biased towards people as a direct result of their parent's teaching. If a child, let's say white, comes across a muslim child, and their parents told them that muslim children are bad, horrible people, what would their reaction be? I think it is safe to say it wouldn't be too pretty. This brings me to my next sub-point. 1b.Hidden indoctrination. A child is very impressionable. Eager for knowledge, and are incredibly easy to mold. What's not to stop a parent from indoctrinating the child? Racism, forced religion, and even terrorism can be implanted into a child's mind. 1c. Job interviews. If a child goes to a job interview, or a high school application of some sort, their lack of social development may cause them to do very poorly! The kid may stutter, give awkward responses, or wouldn't know what to say at all, causing them to possibly fail the interview. Contention 3:Abuse. Children can be subject to abuse by their guardians. At home, they can be easily manipulated by the guardian, and since they won't be taught that what is happening is wrong, they will think it is normal. If a child is being sexually abused by the guardian, how will they tell anyone, or even know that they are being abused. They won't. Contention 4:No Child Left Behind Act. "Home-schooled students in the U.S. are not subject to the testing requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act."[1] This means that students do not need to have a mandatory test. In effect, this means that students can be elevated into the next grade without taking a test. Conclusion:They can be incredibly stupid and unprepared, and still pass. List of who opposes Home-schooling Summary: Students being home schooled can be easily manipulated, indoctrinated and abused! The child may not even receive adequate academic and social educations, being totally unprepared for the 'real world.' In short, home schooling, while seeming beneficial, is not, and paves the way for child abuse and inadequate education. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org...[1] http://www.useless-knowledge.com... http://www.examiner.com... http://www.heir.org...
Impromptu 9

TaeKwonDo is as equally valid as Karate CONCUR Rather than citing any number of copy/paste google exercises, I will cite my own personal experience. C-1: Experience. I have personally studied Tae Kwon Do for many years, earning the degree of BoDan or Low Black. Tae Kwon Do is a Korean art of self defense which interpreted from Hangul is "Way of the hand and foot". Tae Kwon Do shares many similarities with the Japanese art of Karate. I have visited several Karate schools and trained with Karate students and instructors. Other than a difference in origin, many of the techniques are the same. C-2: Level Playing Field. It really is not feasible to say that any one art is better than another. Although people may boast as such, it can be neither proven nor resolved. A student in Judo may be more proficient in throws. A student of Krav Maga may be better at working angles. A Tae Kwon Do student is more likely to use foot techniques, and Karate students may prefer hand techniques. This analogy may be helpful. Who is better, the Army or the Marines? The Navy or the Coast Guard? The Army or the AIr Force? It isn't a true test to compare one against another, but rather each is best in what they do, yet all are equally effective self defense arts. CONCLUSION: All martial arts are handy for self confidence, and self defense. On any given day, a black belt in one art may point another, and then lose the next time around. Having personally trained in both Karate and Tae Kwon Do, I certify that both are equally good. It then comes down to a person's choice of which art suits them best, and finding the right instructor.
Impromptu 9

I accept the Con side of Argument One, which is: The average home school kid will score higher than the average public school kid. I reiterate, I am CON. The topic choices for my opponent are: 1)Mosquitoes should be eradicated. 2)TaeKwonDo is as equally valid as Karate. 3)The keyboard should have modifications made to it in the future. I await my opponent's argument, and hope to have a good, clean debate. Also, I wish for semantics to not be used. I am sorry if this limits my opponent or I. Let the debating begin!
Impromptu 9

INSTRUCTIONS: Round 1, opponent will select 1 of the 3 topic choices listed below to present in Round 2. Opponent will also leave me 3 topic choices to pick from for my Round 2 presentation. Judges will decide who made the better presentation. My OPPONENT's topic choices: 1) The average home school kid will score higher than the average public school kid. 2) DUI equals attempted murder. 3) The Rapture will occur before 15 May 2048.
It is very important to, while debating, use correct spelling and grammar.

Note: My opponent forfeited Round 2. To continue against the resolution, 1. People don't always debate via writing (or typing). Most debates occur orally, therefore one doesn't have to use correct spelling at all throughout the debate in order to win or prove their point. A person may also have minimal grammatical knowledge (i.e. not know how to properly place commas); however, in an oral debate this knowledge hardly plays a factor in the outcome, and therefore is not very important. 2. Specifically I will be attacking the word VERY in the resolution. Here's why. I can name several 'very' important factors that play a key role in debate. A. Verbal Techniques - Consistency - Strategic Comprimise - Vocabulary B. Physical Techniques - Hand Gestures - Eye Contact - Posture C. Writing Techniques - All of the verbal techniques - Proper format (opening, argument, closing) - Execution (content) - Clarity (content organization) - Clarity, Pt II (including grammar) As you can see, there are many factors that play a role in terms of persuasion in a debate. Given these examples alone, spelling and grammar (clarity pt II) would not play a huge role. The burden would be on my opponent to prove that spelling and grammar are VERY important; that is, *a lot* more important than most of the other factors. If he cannot do it, he has failed his burden and I have fulfilled mine. Therefore you should vote CON. I would also like to extend all of my arguments from Round 1.
It is very important to, while debating, use correct spelling and grammar.

Wen ur dibating its very impertant to spel corectly and to be use proper grammar, cuz otherwise itt mite be slitely dificilt to read ur argumints. yaou shou;ld also avoid amking typo sin youre argu;ments. A argumint with lotts of errorrs wil be hard to reed and therefore yoor argumint wil seem les credibill. This be why u shood always be use good grammar, PUnctuation., and speleeng? It is vary importint to spel good n ur debayts. Utherwise, u mite sownd like an idiot. Itt is cleer that argumints that are void of errorrs r mor convincin. Also good be eloquent. If sumwun cant reed ur argumint, how you suposed win the debayt. It be esentchil have few erors as be posibil. It nnot be dificilt to see win reeding debayts, thaat bad speld arguments mor prone too loose. If u mayk lot of errorrs, probiblee wont win. Th espelling of words be importint to reeders whin thay r decideeng hoo to vote for. It matter alot. I chalinge u too name 1 ARGument in wich they mayk Lots, and lots uf mistayks, yet still has beter argumint. I think Iv made my point... -Harlan
Banning guns

"It is true that most car crashes are not meant to happen but guns are more fatal than car crashes. " Again, Compare the two statistics and guns are less dangerous than cars. The key to Brazil is poverty and drugs. "The free state" is different from the people. The rising anti-slavery power in the U. S happend and then the civil war. (not defending the South). There is multiple examples that less guns = more crime. Britain banned guns-more violent crime and doubled the crime. Since you used Brazil, Mexico has no guns, HIGHEST crime rate in the world. There is a movement to ban KNIVES in Britain now. You say "School Shootings". But I mean not attempted or 1 to 2 deaths. The first school shooting happened in 1966. This leads to why guns are not the problem. If less than 1% of gun owners resist, It is a near uprising. Back to you
Banning guns

It is true that most car crashes are not meant to happen but guns are more fatal than car crashes. Okay, Fine, I won't compare gun violence to Honduras. But still, There are countries like Brazil that has high gun violence rates. It does say "for the security of the free State" in the Second Amendment but it is not referencing a possible rising power but is referencing criminals. Besides, Only armies and governments can deal with rising powers. Citizens would be petty in stopping the rising power. Again, More guns don't have to do with the decreasing murder rates. It could be the laws or it be because of being more organized. I said "may be" because there could be more reasons other than more justice. Yes, Britain has banned handguns but it did not ban sporting guns which are still able to use for murder. School shootings has existed since the 19th century How to disarm the whole population of the US: Make a law to submit their guns. If they don't, Search their house. Thank you.
Banning guns

So people who drive cars are dangerous. Most car fatalities are accidental. Wikipedia can be cited because it lists its sources and 95% of it are correct. Honduras is an undeveloped country so it is unfair to compare. Criminals will find a way. Mass shootings have been committed with illegally-bought weapons. Banning guns wouldn't have stopped 9/11, The unibomber, Or The Boston Bombing. There are also knives that criminals to use and taking guns away from good people is not necessary. The Second Amendment gave us guns because they feared a rising power in this country. Do you know who did not fear that? Jews in Germany in 1933. Russian civilians under Stalin. More Justice? Elaborate. You also said that it may be meaning you don't know. John R. Lott, Jr. , PhD, Author of More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws-source No Britain banned guns, Saw more violent crime. Sorry but I meant If guns existed before, Why are we only seeing school shootings now? No, You are for banning guns so how de get rid of them?
Banning guns

Yes, Only 0. 25 percent of gun owners may commit crimes, But they are dangerous and people were accidentally shot and killed because of other reasons other than crime. (Wikipedia cannot be cited not because it is incorrect but because it is a gateway source) Yes, Japan and Switzerland may have crime rates but Honduras has 60 in total per 100, 000 people. Also, There are other ways to defend yourself, Like shields. You may say that guns can go through shields but if guns are banned, There won't be any guns to go through shields. The Second Amendment was created to give the right of bearing arms to citizens, Not to face tyrannical governments. Besides, The Second Amendment is flawed because if every one had guns, It would be easier to cause gun violence. The murder rate decreasing does not have to do with guns. It may have went down due to more justice What is your source for the states with the largest amount of gun has the lowest gun violence? About the Britain argument, Doesn't that favor the con? What do you mean we see them now? Also, I never said about disarming everyone.
Banning guns

Now my 1st argument ironically is that guns are not harmful. There are 70 million gun owners in America. Less than 0. 25 percent of those people commit crimes with guns. If you compare that to cars you actually get that you are safer next to somebody with a gun then you are driving. https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Gun_ownership https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U. S. _by_year(Wikipedia is 95% correct) Now my proposals are the same required by Japan and Switzerland. Both countries have VERY low crime rates. Japan has 10 gun murders per year. No one invades Switzerland because of their secret army. Their guns. The purpose of the Second Amendment was to face tyrannical governments. You know why: Hitler took the guns Stalin took the guns Mao took the guns While gun ownership doubled in the twentieth century, The murder rate decreased. States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes Britain took the guns and saw double the gun crime in 6 years and violent crime is going up. Lithuania has one of the world's lowest gun ownership rates (0. 7 guns per 100 people) but its suicide rate (by any method) was 45. 06 per 100, 000 people in 1999, The highest suicide rate among 71 countries with available information. Those are my opening statements. I have more arguments but I would like to see what you have. Two questions for you If guns existed in the past, Why are we only seeing them now? What is your solution to disarming between 325-392 MILLION guns.
Man kind will ravage the earth before it can colonize or begin to colonize a new planet.

Hello, this the first debate I've put out and I'm hoping this doesn't bite me back :P. The topic of discussion is as follows: Man kind is getting closer and closer to a break down point in civilization. no energy, not alternative, no space, etc. I as the Pro am defending the fact that Civilization cannot sustain itself for another 50 years. The burden of the Con is to rebut this statement and explain why. Rules: round 1. acceptance. round 2. Opening arguments. round 3. answering round 2's arguments round 4. rebuttal's and conclusions. No trolling, if you are quoting a source please post the link, as will I. and please distinguish your main points as will I for the purpose of a clean smooth debate. Thank you. I look forward to this argument.
Art Challenge

This is a art challenge between NiamC and ESocialBookworm. The rules are simple: 1st round is acceptance 2nd &3rd round is to show work. To show your work, paste your work on your debate round, to be safe, include a link to the photo of the art in a album on your Debate.org page. The art work can be any theme The art can be any size The art can be from any Material. GO NUTS!
Art Challenge

FIRST WAY TO WATCH:http://www.debate.org...or http://www.debate.org...SECOND WAY TO WATCH:FLIP UPSIDE DOWN click="document.location='/ESocialBookworm/photos/album/3722/24805/'" src="../../../photos/albums/1/4/3722/106131-3722-hmgvw-a.jpg" alt="" />I had a sculpture for this round but unfortunately due to time restraints, I will be unable to finish it for this debate.Instead I leave this painting, Papa Bois.Papa Bois [1] or Dee Baba, is a Trinidadian folklore character. He is said to be the father of wood and protector of the forests. He has horns, hairy legs and a long beard.This surrealistic piece depicts the legend of him. The large tree symbolises his oneness with nature and a hammock [2] hangs from two branches. In the hammock is another little tree. This tree shows the protectiveness and love for nature Papa Bois had. The roots go deep down, showing how he was connected to his “roots” with nature.A face can also be seen: the hammock and branches as the lips and creases in the tree itself as eyes.A horn also hangs on the tree branch. -=0=-On the contrary, Papa Bois was also feared by woodsmen as he was the Protector of Nature. He would kill, harm or punish hunters who unfairly harmed innocent creatures and plant life forms. **FLIP THE PAINTING OVER**The red part, which is supposed to symbolize ‘soil,’ turns into eyes, forms a scary face. This is the angry-protective side of Papa Bois, which everyone fears.MEDIA: Acrylic paints & paper[1]- Papa Bois-http://t1.gstatic.com...[2]- Hammock- http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Art Challenge

Firstly, let me just say wow. That is gorgeous, NiamC! You should definitely pursue a career correlated with art! I had something planned out before but I scrapped it and went with this instead: This is a drawing/painting of a purse, that for some reason refuses to be pasted here. The purse is on a cloth, which has shadows on it. http://www.debate.org... Media used: paint, pencils, watercolour pencils, charcoal pencils, charcoal, watercolour pages, paintbrushes and water. === Don't count me out yet! I am sure I will woo you with out last round!
Overweight people shouldn't be allowed on planes, let alone have to pay extra.

I believe that we should not ban more than 60% of Americans from flying on airplanes. That’s the finding of the latest Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index, which shows that 63.1% of adults in the U.S. were either overweight or obese in 2009.("http://www.webmd.com...) Your first point is that you had an uncomfortable experience flying on a plane. This is unfortunate but this does not really help your point. Banning 60% of Americans from flying to simply for a little bit of comfort is just irrational and bluntly stupid. Your second point about safety. The fact that they may clog up the isles has no examples to make sure that that is real and could really happen. The fact about it hurting the planes is just incompetence in not checking top see if the planes engine could handle that weight. You also say that another cause is the icing.
Overweight people shouldn't be allowed on planes, let alone have to pay extra.

This debate will be about personal thoughts on airline safety- and overweight regulations. I humbly thank whoever has an opposite opinion which I respect and I wish them the best of luck. First, let me be perfectly clear. I do not hate fat people, by any means. But, that doesn't mean I can't dislike the way society tip-toes around them to make them feel good. I am a frequent long-distance flyer. In my time flying, nothing has disappointed, angered, and bothered me more than sitting next to/seeing a fat person on a plane. Let me clarify with an experience. On December 22, 2011 I boarded United Airlines flight 946 from Washington DC to Amsterdam. I received a window seat despite my preferences for an aisle seat, but it wasn't a big problem. For a while, of course. As I look out of my window, I hear grunting and feel my armrest go up. Turning to see my fellow passengers, I see a fat couple. Lifting their armrests, they barely fit in their seats so by this time, I am deeply worried since I always love to stretch my legs by walking to the lavatory. I decided to ask them if I could have the aisle seat since I am tall. Their only response was a simultaneous grunt. I tried to notify a flight attendant, but sadly, the flight was full and no passengers were willing to switch (hey, I don't blame them). So I was stuck next to snoring, loud, fat people for the 7 hours of flying time. Thank god I went to the restroom before boarding the plane. Now let's say we encounter an emergency (ditching, fire while taxiing, etc.). You know why the flight attendants tell you not to inflate your life jacket while still in the aircraft? So you can still fit in the plane and get out of the doors without slowing anyone down. Fat people are essentially people with life jackets inflated. They WILL get stuck in an aisle or exit door killing everyone behind them including themselves. This isn't even the only way fat people can jeopardize a flight. On January 8, 2003 Air Midwest 5481 (Beechcraft 1900D) took off from Charlotte/Douglas Intl. Shortly after takeoff, the plane climbing steeply, up to the point where it stalled and crashed killing all 21 people aboard. Among the causes, overweight passengers was a contributing factor. Small regional planes aren't the only victims. A crash with a big commercial jet would be Arrow Air 1285 (DC-8), carrying US troops to Kentucky from Gander Intl. The plane took off and was unable to climb and crashed into a forest in front of the runway, killing all 285 people aboard. Icing and overweight were the main causes of the crash. http://www.nypost.com... Looking at this picture, another reason to not let fat people on flights is for their own personal comfort. I really hope the U.S. enforces these rules to not allow fat people on planes so it could give these fat people motivation to exercise and lay off those Big Macs. Thank you, and I look forward to a counter opinion.
Overweight people shouldn't be allowed on planes, let alone have to pay extra.

First of all I have no sound in my computer so the documentary are worthless to me. Sorry about that. My opponent admits to his personal experience and his first point to be invalid as the debate topic says overweight and not obese. Even so where do we draw the line? I win the debate as my opponent agrees with my side."Regarding the 60% obesity rate, you are correct. I had not remembered that the majority of the U.S. population was overweight. I should have been more clear as to what I thought overweight was". My opponent agrees to the con side of the debate so I urge con ballot. I recommend to my opponent to redo the debate with better wording.
Overweight people shouldn't be allowed on planes, let alone have to pay extra.

First of all, thank you for the good reply. -Regarding the 60% obesity rate, you are correct. I had not remembered that the majority of the U.S. population was overweight. I should have been more clear as to what I thought overweight was. I did not mean overweight, I meant really obese (nearly impossibly fat, as seen in the photo). Thank you for providing the URL as well. And yes it would be bluntly stupid to reject 60% of the population :) -My first point wasn't meant to be a "point" at all, just a personal experience story to give reason to my opinion. But I do see where you are coming from. -As with the aisles, no, I could not find evidence that people have died for this reason (the closest thing would be people getting caught with life jackets, which I compared to obese passengers). But from personal experience I can say I had to wait to get to my seat because an obese person got stuck in the aisle/seat, which is where I got that point. -As with the obese passengers being the cause of the crashes, there is never only one cause of a plane crash. It is a deadly mix of contributing factors (with one of them being weight). In the Air Midwest crash, most of the obese passengers were in the rear of the aircraft, throwing off the balance. But the pilots were unable to recover because of the plane being too heavy (Documentary: http://www.youtube.com...). An overloaded plane is a very real and dangerous thing (Plane crash due to overload and inadequate lift: http://www.youtube.com...). The Arrow Air crash is very similar to the previous video and it's documentary can be seen here: http://www.youtube.com... -Yes, in general, engines can handle overloaded planes but Newton's Law applies here. Big, heavy plane= slower reaction time/more force needed to takeoff or land (which is what happened to Air Midwest). I thank you very much for this debate (as this is my first one) and I look forward to your next post :) Again, thank you.