BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
High Schoolers Should Start Studying SAT/ACT Freshmen year

Yes, indeed I have studied something for an entire year and forgotten about it, but you can easily relearn it by simply reviewing your notes. Once you learn the concept (not memorize some formula), it will be stored in your passive memory which can be easily retrieved through renewing your neural pathways (studying). Furthermore, although some people do take Algebra 2 or Geometry during sophomore year, a lot of people take Algebra 2 as a freshmen and Precalculus as juniors. From what I know, the SAT only covers Geometry, Algebra 2, and a little bit of Precalculus. If you begin to start studying for the SAT and get familiar with how the questions are presented to you, you will be at an advantage over your peers. To be honest, relearning the material all over again will help solidify knowledge into your head (remove any doubts you may encounter during the exam) and to my knowledge, many schools do allow students to skip classes over the summer in order to take more difficult classes during the year so one might not need to relearn the material (a lot of the material in higher classes simply build on top of what you learned so in some sense, it's also relearning).
High Schoolers Should Start Studying SAT/ACT Freshmen year

Although I do agree with you that time is important when studying, I do believe that there is such a thing as studying something for too much. You can make an argument that people shouldn't waste their time by "doing nothing or playing repetitive video games" and I agree. However, I don't believe that this time should be studying for the SAT. That time should be spent on activities they enjoy. Furthermore, studying during freshman year would actually be counter productive. Have you ever studied for an entire semester or year and forget most of the material near the end? The same would probably happen during freshman year. Then you have 2 summers which I can't see anyone retaining the material. A lot of the SAT material also goes over things you learn from Freshman/Sophomore classes such as Algebra1/2 and Geometry. Might as well learn them in class first and then start studying for the SAT to make things easier. If you study early, you are going you have to relearn the material all over again. That is why it would make sense to start at the end of sophomore year/beginning of junior year.
High Schoolers Should Start Studying SAT/ACT Freshmen year

AHHH The Standardized college entrance exams... The one thing that even the smartest people worry about. The one thing that could heavily influence your chances of getting into your dream university. My parents told me to start studying for the SAT in 7TH GRADE! Can you believe it!? What kind of absurd people would do that? Well I am here to tell you that it is not ludicrous. Studying for the SAT earlier is actually beneficial. I however, do not advise to study more than 2 hours on weekdays... Why do I believe that it is beneficial to start freshmen year or before freshmen year you may ask, and I am going to answer it with 1 word: TIME. Think about it, how much time did you waste doing nothing or playing repetitive video games when you were younger? I am too, guilty of that. What better use of that time than to influence your future? Yes, yes, I know, you can learn others things too but that is already expected from you. Most high schoolers say "You don't need to start studying until the end of Sophomore year." But it is simply just procrastinating for the eventual need to study. If you began studying early, the need to spend more time in the future is removed. Especially starting Sophomore or Junior year, you are probably already taking 3-5 AP classes and the homework load is just INSANE! How are you going to find time to do all that homework, study for the SAT/ACT during the weekend or even weekdays and do extracurriculars? The answer is: ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE. You simply can't balance everything out without over stressing yourself. So in conclusion, if you start studying for the college entrance exams earlier, you will have an advantage over your peers on the exam, have more time to relax (or sleep XD) during your sophomore and junior year, and maintain more extracurricular activities; which should improve your chances of getting into your dream college.
Abortion

Whether or not you're a religious person, abortion is wrong in all ways. Recently, I wrote an Argumentative Essay about abortion. I am stunned by all the evidences that it is wrong. The common argument, "It's the woman's body, she has the right to choose", is scientifically wrong. Every cell of the mother's tonsils, appendix, heart, and lungs shares the same genetic code. The unborn child also has a genetic code, distinctly different from his mother's. Every cell of his body is uniquely his, each different than every cell of his mother's body. If one body is inside another, but each has its own unique genetic code, then there is not one person, but two separate people. If the woman's body is the only one involved in a pregnancy, then she must have 2 noses, 4 legs, 2 sets of fingerprints, 2 brains, two circulatory systems, and two skeletal systems. How then can it be said, "It's the women's choice, it's her body."? Any other views about abortion I will be happy to debate.
Abortion

Thank you, good luck to you too. :)To my understanding, I have not misinterpreted that statement, I simply took it quite literally and disputed the mistaken fact that the baby is not a part of the woman's body, thus disputing the first statement I quoted and the following statement, "Give women the right to do what they want to do with their bodies.." Women already do not have control over their bodies, it is proven by that once a month period of time. I do agree with you that the child is dependent on the mother, but that does not mean she has the right to abort. Children depend on their parents to develop, should the parents simply decide to murder them, get rid of them, because they are not a convenience for the parents? You state that the woman has the right to abort or not to abort. I disagree. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me as if you're saying that if a baby resides in the mother's womb she has the right to abort just because it resides temporarily in her womb. What if I said, "My cousin is staying in my room for her visit, but because it's my room, I guess I'll kill her." Stupid, right? You're probably thinking, "This is a totally different situation", but it's not. Same logic. If people wanted to understand that in the womb a living, breathing human resides, abortion would not be a controversial issue. Consider this true-to-life scenario. Two women became pregnant on the same day. Six months later Women A has a premature baby, small but healthy. Women B is still pregnant. One week later both women decide they don't want their babies anymore. Why should Women B be allowed to kill her baby and Women A not be allowed to kill hers? Since there is no difference in the nature or development of the two babies, why would Women B's action be exercising a legitimate right to choose, while Women A's action would be a heinous crime subjecting her to prosecution for a first-degree murder?
Abortion

Hi there.This is my first political debate on Debate.org and hopefully we will have a nice debate, I wish good luck to Con.I will deliver arguments in round 2 and 3, but I'm already going to answer the question that my opponent has set. Indeed the unborn child and the mother are two separate human organisms, with other words they have a different genetic code and are separate entities.How then can it be said, "It's the women's choice, it's her body."?You've probably misinterpreted that sentence. The woman and the unborn child are two separate entities, however the child as long as it isn't born is dependent on the mother to develop. As such the mother is the person de facto containing the unborn child in her body. The sentence essentially means that we give women the right to do what they want to do with their bodies, especially since they're going to go through the whole pregnancy.The Con should now present his arguments, thank you.
The Right to Own , Keep, and Bear Arms

I Accept Your Challenge! I ask that any and all sources be sited with the arguments. Also, I'd like to para metricize the scope of the resolution to the United States, as i Assume this is what my opponent will be arguing. This will be where i will be negating the resolution. I wish my opponent good luck!Cons BOP should be to just refute pro's case. If Con is missing anything feel free to point it out in the next speech. (Copying Imabench here)
The Right to Own , Keep, and Bear Arms

The Right to Own, Keep, and Bear Arms is an individual right, and one that law abiding citizens should be free to exercise without fear of the government restricting this right. That the right to self defense is a basic human right, and should not be infringed upon. That his right actually makes society safer, not more dangerous, to live in. The first round will just be for acceptance, the following three will be for the actual debate. I accept any challenger, but please keep this a respectful debate.
The Right to Own , Keep, and Bear Arms

Firstly, Pro would like to simply state that, without the right to own weaponry, the United States would not exist simply due to the fact that a motley crew of farmers and small business owners would be marching on the British Army with pitchforks. Secondly, the very fact that the Founding Fathers put the Second Amendment into the Constitution shows that they believed it to be a right. And Thirdly, as to self defense, Pro would like to point out that states and cites that allow the private ownership of firearms are much safer than those states and cities who either heavily regulate or outright ban it. Statistics on this can be found in the book "More Guns, Less Crime" by John R. Lott, Jr. For statistics and stories of how civilians who exercise the Second Amendment are benefited, Pro suggests reading articles from the publication "America's First Freedom". As for law enforcement officers, they not everywhere that they are needed, and are only able to respond to incidents once they are notified. Whereas, a well armed citizenry is everywhere and is able to respond as the incident takes place. Finally, in response to the viscous cycle argument. If I am a law abiding citizen (civilian), and if I kill someone that is trying to kill me or otherwise cause unrest in society through violent means, then I have successfully stopped the cycle of violence because I won, and the aggressor is dead. Any other issues or comments regarding firearms are nothing more than scare tactics an ad hom fallacies.
The Right to Own , Keep, and Bear Arms

Agreed, this will be kept within the scope of the United States. It is Pro's position that the United States Constitution guarantees that the right to weaponry. And I quote, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" (Second Amendment to the United States Constitution as found on archives.gov). Pro believes that this statement reflects both the individuality of the Second Amendment, and the basic ideal that it is one of the "unalienable rights" that the Founding Fathers alluded to in the Declaration of Independence (Second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence as found on archives.gov).
Abortion should be illegal.

For the last round we will post conclusions. Do not read my conclusion until you have posted yours. For your conclusion just make a conclusion for the debate and try to convince viewers of the debate that you won. After reading both conclusions, viewers will vote on the winner. History Con's argument was that abortions will still happen if abortion is outlawed. I have refuted this by saying that adequate law enforcement will fix the problem, although Con ignores this. Research I have also refuted this the same way that I refuted the history argument; the reason that countries with abortions outlawed have the same abortion rate as countries with abortion legal is that they do not do enough to enforce the law. The solution is yet again law enforcement. Back-alley abortions These are dangerous. If women are harmed by them, that is their own fault. Con has not been able to explain why this is a reason to legalize abortion. Right to life Con has dropped this argument. A fetus' right to live outweighs a woman's right to her body. This is the basis of my argument, which Con has not refuted. Summary I have proven that abortion is murder and should be illegal. Con has only said that a law against abortion would be ineffective. The problem can be addressed through law enforcement. Thus Con's whole argument is invalid.
Abortion should be illegal.

In this round I will respond to my opponent’s rebuttal in R3.HistoryThis wasn’t exactly my argument but I will respond to it anyways. The point that I was trying to make was that making abortions illegal would have no effect on the amount of abortion procedures. The only effect of it would be negative, more unsafe abortions. If making murder illegal would do nothing to stop how many murders occur, and there is an added negative on top of that, then I would agree that murder should be legal. But that does not have to do with the topic at hand.ResearchI sadly have no idea what my opponent is referring to here. If Pro is referring to my evidence, this is extremely relevant to my side of the debate.Back-alley abortionsPro directly concedes this argument. And ‘hopes’ that women won’t do this. As I have cited with evidence, they ‘do’.
Abortion should be illegal.

Human DNA is the DNA present in the human genome. [1] It is true that chimpanzees and humans share 99% of their DNA. However, humans have about 100,000 genes, [2] so there are many that are not shared. Male sperm have human DNA, but they are not a human until they combine with an egg, form a zygote, and begin to develop. A fetus is alive and developing, so it should be treated like an infant. [1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [2] https://www.genome.gov...
Abortion should be illegal.

Pro’s only argument against abortion runs like so:P1) A fetus is still a human.P2) A fetus has human DNA, so it is ridiculous that you wouldn't treat it as such.I think what my opponent meant to say was something along the lines of:P1) A fetus has human DNAP2) A fetus is therefore a humanC1) We should therefore treat a fetus as a human.In this viewpoint, a human is defined as something with ‘human DNA’. Yet the problem is that every human has different genes in the DNA that makes them an ‘individual’ and different from every other human in the species. The term ‘human DNA’ is not specified and implies there is a standard for human DNA, when there is not. Chimpanzees and humans share 99% of their DNA [1] According to Pro, would chimpanzees be considered humans as well? Every male sperm contains ‘human DNA’, and every time a male ejaculates 100 million sperm are released and killed [2]. According to Pro, 100 million ‘humans’ are killed every time a male ejaculates, should this be made illegal? Pro’s viewpoint is not logical nor realistic.[1] http://www.amnh.org...[2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Abortion should be illegal.

History This is an irrelevant argument. If history showed that people had a natural desire to murder people, would that mean that murder should be legal? Of course not. You are basically saying that whatever people want to do is what they should be allowed to do. Research This is also irrelevant. The problem can be addressed by enforcing the law. Back-alley abortions "Back-alley" abortions are dangerous. Hopefully, women will have enough sense to avoid these. The ones who do will have direct consequences. For your response, address my original arguments from round 2 and any of the ones above that you want to respond to.
Abortion should be illegal.

PrefaceI trust this will be a short, sweet, civil debate on whether abortion should be legal. Without further ado, my arguments.ArgumentsHistory has shown that mothers have always, and will always, try to get rid of unwanted pregnancies. Research reveals that banning abortions does not actually deter the amount of abortion procedures. [1] In other words, whether abortion is legal or not, the same amount of abortions will occur. Yet when abortions are made illegal, women are forced to seek unsafe “back-alley” abortions instead of a professional hospital. The World Health Organization (WHO) found that about 68,000 women die every year as the result of unsafe “back-alley” abortions, and between 2 million and 7 million women each year survive but receive long-term damage; incomplete abortion, infections, haemorrhages, injury to the internal organs, and puncturing or tearing of the uterus. [2]Making abortions illegal will not deter the amount of abortion procedures done each year, instead it will only force women to get dangerous ‘back-alley’ abortions, leading to the death and injury of millions of women. [1] http://www.thelancet.com...[2] http://apps.who.int...
Abortion should be illegal.

Just to clarify: when I say abortion I am referring to the intentional killing of an unborn human. I will now explain my arguments against abortion. A fetus is still a human. A fetus has human DNA, so it is ridiculous that you wouldn't treat it as such. A woman has a right to her body, but a person's right to life is more important. I don't know what else I need to say. I await your response.
Guns should have stricter restrictions

According the nonprofit project, The Gun Violence Archive, there have been a grand total of 301,797 firearm-related deaths in the past decade, compared to 71 deaths from domestic acts of terrorism in the United States. Of the 29,618,300 violent crimes committed between 2007 and 2011, 0.79% of victims (235,700) protected themselves with a threat of use or use of a firearm, the least-employed protective behavior. In 2010 there were 230 "justifiable homicides" in which a private citizen used a firearm to kill a felon, compared to 8,275 criminal gun homicides (or, 36 criminal homicides for every "justifiable homicide"). Of the 84,495,500 property crimes committed between 2007 and 2011, 0.12% of victims (103,000) protected themselves with a threat of use or use of a firearm. So, yes, you could theoretically withhold the 2nd Amendment right of many people who have already committed crimes, but they aren't the only ones who could commit a murder (or more multiple). The people who could commit such a terrible act are people who own assault rifles, military grade weapons, and weapons bought for the intent of "self defense". America is (for the most part) a country of peace and prosperity. We are not a country that is engaged in war on our own territory, and we are not a country that is without a justice and protection system. So to own weapons of mass murder is completely uncalled for and unwarranted. A majority of adults, including gun owners, support common sense gun control such as background checks, bans on assault weapons, and bans on high-capacity magazines. There is no need for an American citizen to own a gun that can mow down a massive number of people at a time, nor do they need to own an assault rifle. Background checks prevent criminals and other dangerous people from getting guns, and can alert others of a possible mental disorder. In the United Kingdom, the majority of police officers are not allowed to carry guns, and their population is not allowed to own guns (other than for hunting). If a country that is as advanced, if not more advanced, than we are has banned their guns with no problems, then why can't the United States. Gun laws should be tightened and guns used for anything other than recreational hunting should be banned.
Guns should have stricter restrictions

I'd like to remind you that we live in a police state. If I were to Google how build a bomb and start accessing radical Islamic terrorism websites I'm sure someone would take notice. However, I could still buy a gun and go shoot at a crowd. That's bad, so what has our congress proposed to stop this? (Specifically the left) I recall after the Orlando shooting there was a large sit in on the house floor, in support of a bill that would allow the FBI to block gun sales in the same way that there is a no fly list. The problem with both of these is that there is no due process. In theory the FBI or any other agency could just put a large number of people on their list and suspend their 2nd amendment rights. If I were to commit a crime and were on parole. But in order to get on parole I have to be arrested, go to court, be incarcerated and then released. I'll end my argument with a quote as well. "Hitler took the guns. Mao took the guns. Stalin took the guns. Fidel Castro took the guns. And I'm here to tell you, 1776 will commence again if you try to take our firearms!" -Alex Jones debating Piers Morgan
Guns should have stricter restrictions

"We spend over a trillion dollars, and pass countless laws, and devote entire agencies to preventing terrorist attacks on our soil, and rightfully so. And yet, we have a Congress that explicitly blocks us from even collecting data on how we could potentially reduce gun deaths. How can that be?" -President Barack Obama in his speech after the shooting at Umpqua Community College in Oregon Structure R1: Pro makes rules and defines terms / Con makes opening arguments R2: Pro makes opening arguments / Con begins rebuttals R3: Pro rebuts Con's arguments / Con defends arguments and finalizes with his/her concluding statement R4: Pro defends arguments and concludes / Con waives - Misconduct will lead to automatic loss - Refrain from profanity / vile language -There is no forfeiting - Don't be a jerk, ok?
Affirmative Action

Well, to begin this argument, I wish to clear up any misconceptions and to properly define Affirmative Action. Affirmative Action is a system that has been designed to provide workplace diversity by encouraging employers to choose minority employees, and by minority, I mean anyone who is not a white male. Most people look at the race aspect of Affirmative Action and argue that it is a system that gives jobs to people of a certain group, rather than looking at the qualifications of a person. In reality, Affirmative Action just wants employers to choose the equally qualified minority potential employee.