BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Friends are fun to be with than our own parents.

Friends are fun than parents because friends accept who you are, friends understand what we feel, friends entertain us and friends convince us to play. Friends are open to hear our feelings and they also realize and appreciate it. Friends can definitely be better than family sometimes. Friends tend to understand you, and see what you're going through better than one's family does. But not all friends are better. Friends come and go, where family stays the same no matter what. They still love you and won't change, as friends do. Sometimes it's easier to have our friends around, rather than having our family around. But all in all it's good to have both our friends and our family there to support us when we need them most.
IQ level schools

Con point 1) An IQ test does not analyze an child's rate of learning, mental capacity, or emotional maturity Rebuttal: I have two key issues. you have deviated from the absolute purpose of the debate as this is bringing into question the validity of the IQ test. I am not here to defend the honor of a probably flawed IQ test because in reality they have not been around long enough and have not been a key factor in education long enough to have been given a proper evaluation or proper alteration to assure its correctness. I touched on this before when I said "As for the accuracy of the test; it is true that some tests may be slightly inaccurate if a switch was made to this system I'm sure time would prove a beneficial factor in boosting the accuracy of said tests." Counterpoint: this being said I would like to point out that nothing is perfect to start out. You never jump into a new system without experiencing some flaws but that is how we learn as humans and as society. Humans are based on a system of striving for truth and perfection; where there is a need for improvement improvement will be made. Con point 2) A child who is exceptionally bright and smart is placed in a class with kids older than him or her, he is an easier target for bullying... Rebuttal: Well assuming you took what I said to heart and now are claiming the youngest in a range of children would be the target let us take a deeper look at this issue. This may get a bit complex but try to bear with me and keep an open mind. There is something you need to understand. You are stuck in a static paradigm. You attribute age based bullying to itself meaning that it is a self sustaining idea that needs no outside force or fuel. However it is not self sustaining. The only reason age based bullying exists is because of the emphasis we put on age. specifically in the department of education so what you think would perpetuate it could in fact end it. Our schools even label every child with how long they attended school. it is a simple case of 3 is better than 2 is better than 1.
IQ level schools

An IQ test does not analyze an child's rate of learning, mental capacity, or emotional maturity. Although we can argue that school is not a place for social action, a child who is exceptionally bright and smart is placed in a class with kids older than him or her, he is an easier target for bullying. The child being bullied may not be able to keep up with their schoolwork because of the torment they are receiving from their peers. Which might cause suicidal actions or thoughts on behalf of the child being bullied.
IQ level schools

Alright, let me start by expressing my concern with your comparison of this topic to genocide. though I feel strongly about this subject let us not start this off with a hyperbole. I, as Pro, will debate that not only that IQ divided schools are not bad, they, if properly implemented would be better than the current age based system. Con point 1) IQ tests evaluate just a few abilities that an individual has Rebuttal: IQ tests are not at all subjective in fact they are quite the opposite. They are made to test an individuals ability to learn and understand. Counterpoint: The current system tests how long you have been alive to place you. so which one is the better measurement. it is not a feet of personal achievement in this day and age to reach the age of 6. Con point 2) A 10 year old in a class with 14 year olds would feel left out. Rebuttal: The statement "A 10 year old in a class with 14 year olds" is a fallacy of omission. You claim that this child is the only one affected by the change of school system. You then continue to draw your conclusion from that saying he would feel left out. The premise is false so thus it does not necessarily follow that the conclusion is true. However,to refute the latter, all of the students would vary in age putting a range of different aged students with similar learning abilities in the same class. If anything the students would all feel more like a group, rather than individuals that share a birth year, because they would share something on the most fundamental level. Counterpoint: I can tell you from personal experience that a child with a higher IQ in a class the does not suit him most certainly does not feel like part of the group. As this student dredges through the menial tasks that make up the third grade questioning why they are still on such a simple subject he will be reprimanded for growing bored. Con point 3) IQ test are not very accurate; so a very smart person may not have a good memory thus getting a lower IQ and in a worse class. Rebuttal: IQ tests are not based on memory they are based on problem solving. As such a smart person with bad memory would not do poorly on an IQ test. As for the accuracy of the test; it is true that some tests may be slightly inaccurate if a switch was made to this system I'm sure time would prove a beneficial factor in boosting the accuracy of said tests.
Right wing values are more just to the individual and more beneficial to society than the left wing

I don't agree with this statement. Individual freedom is not something that human beings are born with. It is something that a human being can be lucky enough to possess, in some measure, at different stages of his/her life. Therefore, the ideal government is one which provides the best possible basis for individual freedom. This is not acquired by doing nothing, as neoliberalism would have it, but by doing quite a lot. One example is education - in a given liberal capitalist society it may be possible to choose whatever education you like, as long as you pay for it. If your parents are not wealthy enough to finance that education, you may still be "free" to take a loan. However, when you finish your education you are no longer free, because you are bound to paying back this loan within a relatively short period of time. Now you cannot necessarily choose the job that would make you the happiest, or the job that you are best at. You have to choose the job that will allow you to pay back the loan in the shortest possible time so that the interests won't be too enormous. In this way you are now bound by the free market, rather than by the state, and in this way the free market turns out to be potentially much more oppressive. Another example is media. The right wing would say that media should not be regulated or subsidised by the state, that the media should be "free" from the meddling state. However, journalists working at state owned public service networks are in many ways more free, in the sense that they can take risks and spend time doing thorough research without the risk of losing to the competition. Winning the competition does not always mean doing the best job. In the case of media, it might mean bending the truth more effectively, or bringing the news first without having researched them properly. These are just examples showing how the right wing ideal of individual freedom is actually best obtained through left wing methods of regulation and collective financing, especially of public areas like media and education.
Right wing values are more just to the individual and more beneficial to society than the left wing

Round one - acceptance only Round two - Opening arguements (no rebuttals) Round three and four - Rebuttals Round Five - Closing statements (no rebuttals) I will be Pro arguing that The Right Wing is more just to the individual and beneficial to society than the left wing. Con will be arguing vice versa. BOP is shared Rules : - No cussing - No forfeiting - Unreliable sources result in an automatic victory to the opposing side
Proposed improvements to Debate.org

"I did not intend for it to be a debate" Then why did you create a debate? "stated very clearly that I desire to have a function on Debate.org where we can make suggestions" There is a function. You can find it here: http://www.debate.org.... "Well, which is it?" It is a debate with a non-debatable resolution, which is why I should be considered the winner, as you have provided me with a resolution within a debate that you cannot debate. "But since you feel that you have proof that it isn't muddled or disorganized " More bias. I never said I have proof that 'it' isn't muddled or disorganized, however, I was pointing out your lack of proof. "I expect facts" Then why don't you start by providing us with facts yourself? "Do you want to actually critique my contentions or do you still want to focus on asinine things?" I prefer the latter. Yea, I'm that kinda guy.
Proposed improvements to Debate.org

"My opponent says that this is not a debate, but rather a list of suggestions. This is wrong, however, due to the fact that I am able to post my argument" I listed my intentions right from the beginning, meaning, because I did not intend for it to be a debate, doesn't somehow detract from your ability to respond to it, nor did I claim that it would. That was the WHOLE point! I stated very clearly that I desire to have a function on Debate.org where we can make suggestions. As it stands now, in order to get your point across, it all but forces you to debate in order to do so. I want to change that. "You cannot debate the subject of "Proposed improvements to Debate.org"." EXACTLY, which is why in the very first opening statement I said that very thing. Thanks for corroborating me though, right after you stated, quote, "My opponent says that this is not a debate, but rather a list of suggestions. This is wrong." Well, which is it? Is it a debate, or isn't it? You seem to be quite hung up on this minuscule aspect dealing with semantics. So please oblige us. "My opponent is also biased, saying "As it stands now, the debates are very muddled and disorganized" and "Many eloquent and strong debates have not gained the respect they deserve", but he provides no proof, only opinion. To win this debate, I could simply say "You are wrong, and I am right.". As my opponent has not provided proof for his comments, and it is still only his opinion." I never claimed that it WASN'T an opinion of mine. These were pretty much all opinions of mine. That was made quite clear. I was asking other people to give their OPINIONS as well. Did you actually read my post or did you just skim through it? But since you feel that you have proof that it isn't muddled or disorganized (all of which is a matter of opinion anyhow, and can't be proven with some sort of empirical test) please oblige all of us why it is clear, concise, and not muddled. And of course, I expect facts, not opinions, since this apparently what you wanted. If you are not going to follow my premise then why did you even bother accepting? I asked someone who disagreed with my points to debate, and then welcomed every one else to add their two cents. Do you want to actually critique my contentions or do you still want to focus on asinine things?
Proposed improvements to Debate.org

My opponent says that this is not a debate, but rather a list of suggestions. This is wrong, however, due to the fact that I am able to post my argument, I was able to accept this debate, and this debate is going go to the voting stage that all debates do. I should also automatically be considered a winner due to my opponent not providing a debatable subject. You cannot debate the subject of "Proposed improvements to Debate.org". You can debate similar subjects, but not this one. My opponent is also biased, saying "As it stands now, the debates are very muddled and disorganized" and "Many eloquent and strong debates have not gained the respect they deserve", but he provides no proof, only opinion. To win this debate, I could simply say "You are wrong, and I am right.". As my opponent has not provided proof for his comments, and it is still only his opinion.
Banning Guns using anti-gun laws

I personally believe that guns should not be made illegal. As an active hunter, I do use guns a lot, but I use them correctly. What we need is more background checks. The problem is that I can go to any local gun show and but an AR-15 for 200 dollars without any background checks or data. And let's not even mention all of those games like Call of Duty and especially Grand Theft Auto, or GTA. It is these games that are having a huge effect on the generation of Centennials, or Gen Z (People born from 1996 and up). If anything, we should ban these violent games.
Superstition, Luck, and Karma aren't real

Since this is such a different debate I will use real life examples and theories to prove that superstition, luck and karma are real. Let me start off this debate with some key definitions. Superstition- belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge, in or of the ominous significance of a particular thing, circumstance, occurrence, proceeding, or the like. Luck- the force that seems to operate for good or ill in a person's life, as in shaping circumstances, events, or opportunities Karma-the cosmic principle according to which each person is rewarded or punished in one incarnation according to that person's deeds in the previous incarnation. All these definitions came from . http://dictionary.reference.com... Contention #1- The lottery proves that luck is real. Lottery-a gambling game or method of raising money, as for some public charitable purpose, in which a large number of tickets are sold and a drawing is held for certain prizes. Also from . http://dictionary.reference.com.... Well when 10,000,000 people play the lottery and only one wins that one person was lucky. There was a force the operated for the good of that person. How that persons number picked out of the 10,000,000. Well a force helped it get picked. Like everything in life you can be lucky or not. Say 500 are swimming in Florida. Out of the 500 1 person gets bite by a shark. That person was unfortunately not as lucky as the other 500. Contention #2- Because we acknowledge it to be there it exists. How do we know that wind is real. We know this because the leaves move. You feel it on your skin. Well superstition why do people not walk under ladders, throw salt behind there back when they spill it, or get scared when they see a black cat. They do this because of superstition they believe its there so it is real. Contention #3- Because people do deeds karma is real. Karma is the belief that if they d something good something good will happen to them. Also if they do something bad then something bad will happen to them. If you kill someone in society it is immoral. Well because of that karma puts you in jail thus proving karma is real.
If a person does not believe in a god they will not act morally

I am an agnostic-athiest however I consider myself to have reasonable moral standing, for this reason I would be interested to debate with someone on this matter. I'm not bothered on what specific religon you follow. I only care that you are happy to debate the matter. Note - Claiming of specific individuals e.g. "They were bad and didn't believe in god will not be counted as an arguement." as it doesn't apply to a full group. I am looking for the arguement that all people who do not worship a being cannot have stong morals.
If a person does not believe in a god they will not act morally

I guess my best approach is to take the Rogerian procedure. You're definitions are thorough, and your logic is excellent, yet your argument is very broad. If a person does not believe in a god, they will not act morally...morally according to what? The law of the US, UK, China, Russia, Christianity, athiests, or even a robber's morals. See, at this moment, my question is for the lackness of description of the claim. To help you out, let's say that a robber comes and steals your favorite necklace. You may say, "Oh gosh, what an unmorally acting person." Yet, according to the robber's lifestyle, which "defines their own moral compass," his action was totally moral to the average robber. In other words, what may be moral to you may not be moral to others. In this sense, I believe that religion takes a small part of morality and should not even be included in this conversation unless need since religion is only a factor that shapes a form of morality for some but not others. In the same way, the US law shapes the citizen's view of morals but, for example, accepting the act of abortion while the majority of Christians argue that this act is considered to be murder--a difference of morals. In conclusion, I believe that this argument is too broad to be debated upon further since no mater what action you take "good" or "bad," such as abortion or robbing, the diversity of the "morality," allows almost any action to be accepted in at least one person's eyes in the world and maybe not another's. (A better argument, for example, but obvious alternative may be: If a person does not believe in a god, they will not act morally according to religious standards.)
Terrorism is healthy.

There are better ways to solve issues in this world than genocide, fear tactics, and everything else terrorism encapsulates. Fear is certainly one way to get a reaction. Apathy is the natural state of humans and we avoid such conflict that terrorism inspires at all costs, so I do understand where you're coming from in believing that perhaps terrorism is the only way to get humanity moving on society-improving projects. I also am not against people dying in large numbers--The world is overpopulated and from an entirely clinical point of view, murder is practical. However, the emotional effects of mass-killing are such that people may lose any motivation they might have had to change their circumstances. Depression, frequently caused by severe grief (especially when that grief is paired with a fear for one's own life, as would be the case in a world of frequent terroristic threats and actions), can cause a loss of ambition, motivation, and eagerness for life. Speaking from personal experience, when motivation is lost, any beneficial action can be counted upon to not happen. There's even a particular symptom called "self sabotage," in which one might try to not do anything that could help. You also mentioned that people are becoming divided again--You're quite right, they are. But in a divided world, disagreements (often simply for the purpose of disagreement) would cause change to happen at an even more sluggish pace than it is now. Besides, humans are also almost guaranteed to be wrong in their decisions, and in a system without cooperative collaboration, they may not be corrected in their poor decisions. Conflict is beneficial in small doses, but uproar and a complete state of unrest would not allow for conflict to reap the helpful conclusions.
Poem Battle

I haven't had my computer for a while, luckily, I already had this prepared. (Chappie is the plural form of chap, the British slang for friend[i was not referencing the movie]) What If... What if the world was filled with dread What if there were voices in our heads What if everyone was happy What if people were called chappie What if people had no worth What if too many were buried in the earth What if people cheered each other up What if there was more happiness than to just fill one cup What if people put each other down What if only bad people put on the crown What if good people filled the world What if on the dance floor, people twirled What if hatred was in our core What if everyone was in a war What if joy was in our soul What if in terms of kindness, we were whole The world would be a lot different But I am unsure as to if it would be efficient
Poem Battle

'ello there.Now, I am quite sorry for such a late reply!By golly.Anyway here is my poem.I call it Bleach.BleachBy noobdebatr123Bleach, Bleach, Bleach.Tastes like a ripe peach.Bleach, Bleach, Bleach.Sticks in your stomach like a liquidy leech.Now, now as you can see,Bleach is good for you and me.When you drink Bleach,you get Vitamin D!And of course,everyone knows,Vitamin D is good for you and me!Bleach, Bleach, Bleach,Its in a blue bottle and you pour it in the washing machine!But of course, you can pour it into your mouth,and its easy to do, since its everywhere in the house!Bleach, No need to drink and waste,No need to make such haste!After all, you should savor it,because if you drink too much,you'll fall with a clunk!and fall down drunk.Bleach, Bleach, Bleach.Tastes like a ripe peach.Bleach, Bleach, Bleach.Sticks in your stomach like a liquidy leech.Bleach,Even your enemies,shall love it!
Poem Battle

dank as in awesome, use any type of poem, freeform is allowed but not advised, I will be doing a recipe poem first Recipe for victory take 3 cups of spirit, 4 ounces of hope, 1 gallon of awesomeness, and 11 lines of a poem put the spirit and hope into a bowl mix with your passion until it has a reddish color drop some awesomeness into a pan cook in a deep fryer at 30 degrees Celcius until it is light blue put all cooked items into a pan cool until they seem ready add the 11 lines of a poem cut into the shape of a French flag tastes satisfactory (note, I am American, however, I love France)
Abortion is murder

Abortion should be illegal and considered murder. It comes down to is the fetus living or not. And that answer is yes. Abortions are being performed later than 21 weeks of a pregnancy, at the nine week mark the embryo is officially a fetus and has a strong enough heartbeat to be detected by a fetal doppler. At ten weeks the mother of the child is able to feel the baby moving and the baby actually forms a bulge on the forehead due to rapid brain development, which having a developing brain is a sign of life considering the brain is still developing after birth. At this week the babies genitalia is also starting to be formed, deciding the child's gender. The baby also begins to have sleeping cycles, and the babies own blood supply starts to act and the child starts to produce insulin.Through these first weeks the baby's ears have developed and at week 18 are able to hear sound and at week 24 the sound becomes sensitive. By week 8 the fetus has started to develop pain receptors and is shown to be able to feel pain by week 20. The babies face starts to take shape by week 12. In the womb the child makes breathing like movements as if practicing when he or she is on her own. The baby's sex is official between 16-20 weeks. These are all evidence of a living being and make an abortion an intentional murder which is a charge of first degree murder.
god is false

There are two different types of a god in the bible; which do you conclude is false? The title of your debate states "god is false". The scriptures say; (Psalms 82:6) "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High." (John 10:34) "Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?" So according to scripture you are a god (little "g"). Which makes YOU false. And I agree! However, if you would like to discuss the truth, the God of the bible (Big "G") Then you may want to redefine things. Because according to scripture every jot and tittle makes a difference in deciding truth. (Matthew 5:18) "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."