BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should homeschool be allowed in the US

First of all i would like to address the claim that you said in round 1. Homeschooling is not a constitutional right. The supreme court has ruled on this issue and when it has they have ruled in favor of both sides.So you have no arguement when it comes to the constitutional legality of homeschooling. http://education.findlaw.com...Now lets focus on the meat of the issue1. TimeHomeschooling takes alot out of a parents regular schedule. The average school day is about 7.5 hours. Many homeschooling parents just dont have that time and rarely teach that long. Many parents opt for 4 hours or 5 hours of teaching. This hurts the child because it puts them at a lower quality of education because of this time problem. Pro might state "Well some parents might do more time than the school" however this statement looks at the best of the homeschoolers and not the worst or average. We need to focus on getting children education they need.2. Misinformation As we can see about 35 percent of parents homeschool their kids because of religious reasons.Religious studies can be good however parents sometimes shove misinformation down their throat. They teach that evolution is wrong or that climate change is a hoax. Because of this children are negativley effected because they are being taught wrong things. Many of them dont know basic things such as addition or substraction at ages 9 or 10. 3. Some arent being taught at allIn many cases some kids arent being taught at all due to the lunacy of their parents.There are cases where children are literally staying at home doing nothing because parents dont care or they think theres no point. A case where a farmers child was being taught nothing but how to draw becasue the child's parents thought the apocaplypse was coming so theres no point to teach.Look ive seen the success of homeschooling. Some of my best scoring peers are homeschooled but that does not make up for the fact that there is a large amount of the homeschooled population that arent being taught right or being taught at all. They need to attend either a public or private school to get their education. Sources: http://education.findlaw.com...https://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.middleschool.net...
Should homeschool be allowed in the US

So you think that we should not be able to homeschool is right? well, I am going to show u that u have the wrong thought. Our economy, the world and many things(such as our dollar have almost been destroyed. Why is that because we have not had good smart people in the government system. Which brings us down to school. Kids in the public school system have so many other activities in the day that they are not having but maybe 3 hours of school. Well in the past 10 years homeschoolers have ranked higher than the average kid. Why is that because we don't fiddle around and we do school the way we are supposed to. We want to learn we don't want to become lazy bums all our life and sit around and waste our life and education. Am I saying that all kids waste their education? BY no means at all, I am saying that people get into so much debt and then waste their education on what is not important.
Liberals accusing Republicans of "fear-mongering" is getting annoying.

"abolish the ridiculous 3/5 comprimise which reduced African Americans to the equivocal of 3/5 a person in terms of calculating population for voting purposes." --You do realize that if the 3/5 compromise was never enforced, the South would have had more power and more voice in Congress, giving them an opportunity to expand the institution of slavery. "It is not a sacred text. It is not the be-all and end-all of literary salvation." --No, but it's a document that has enabled our country to become the worldwide superpower and global economic leader. "Republicans wish to legislate morality based on RELIGION." --No, we just adhere to the Judeo-Christian principles this nation was founded on. "Thomas Jefferson also insisted upon "building a wall between Church and State"" --Absolutely WRONG. The complete discussions of the Founding Fathers vis-a-vis the First Amendment is contained in the Congressional Records from June 7 to September 25, 1789. Nowhere in these documents is the term "separation of church and state" ever mentioned. The term "separation of church and state" originated primarily from two different sources--the Danbury Letter and the Supreme Court case of Everson v. Board of Education. The Danbury Letter is a private letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Association of Danbury Baptists, eleven years after the ratification of the First Amendment. He used the term "a wall of separation between church and state" to assure the Baptists the federal government would not establish a federally recognized "state" greligion. "blatant, unmitigated, sensationalized attempts at twisting the facts, exaggerating the truth, lying through omission, and promoting false accusations to frighten citizens into supporting their political agenda." --So it's just politics? There's no REAL terrorist threat? Tell that to the families of the 3,000 fellow countrymen who were slaughtered on September 11th. Tell that to the family of Nick Berg who had his head sawed off as he screamed through his gargled, slashed throat. That's not fear-mongering, that's stating reality. Liberals are dis-associated with reality, though. They'd rather live in their own socialist utopia. "The fact that you, an arguably intelligent human being, have been reduced to actually mentioning a tiny amount of ricin found on a Vegas motel as possibly being linked to terrorist activity in this debate proves that it WORKS." --So, if it were up to you, we would ignore it, right? So, according to liberals, there is no terrorist threat and we don't have an enemy across the Atlantic Ocean that views us as the "Great Satan" and wishes to end our existence. According to liberals, when President Bush informs the American people about the terrorist threat that is alive and well, he is only doing it for political gain. Wow, it must be working. I can see his approval rating skyrocketing. Is it going to take another 9/11 for liberals to open their eyes? How many more American casualties is it going to take for liberals to realize that there IS a terrorist threat? Oh I'm sorry, am I fear-mongering? I'll stop then.
the Christian god exists

I don't think so. Or, another way of saying this is "Dude, did you read your own rules? " J. Kenyon Now, onto the argument. ================ +++ The Resurrection +++ ================ 1. We have eyewitnesses of the resurrection. The most important eyewitnesses would be the 12 disciples who suffered greatly for their testimony: . http://biblebasics.wordpress.com... Ordinary people have also seen Jesus resurrect: . http://bible.cc... Which makes sense in the light of this: . http://www9.georgetown.edu... We also have James who used to be a skeptic (John 7:5), but then something changed. "and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned" . http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com... (Chapter 9:1, found in the middle of the paragraph) He was willing to die for Jesus because he saw him resurrect (1 Corinthians 15:7). We also have Paul. "In his own words, Paul says "I was violently persecuting the church of God and was trying to destroy it" (Galatians 1:13). On his way to Damascus he was confronted by the risen Jesus in a heavenly vision. According to the three separate accounts in Acts, Saul found himself on the ground, blinded by the intensity of a heavenly light. The risen Jesus gave Saul a commission to "be a light to the Gentiles. " After his conversion this Saul was to propel the infant church to fulfill the Great Commission by taking the gospel to the Gentiles. " . http://www.churchhistory101.com... Who due to conversion suffered persecution. . http://www.biblegateway.com... 2. The tomb was found empty For starters, Jesus body was never produced. If the body was in the tomb then why didn't the religious leaders refrain from exposing the Christians? Secondly, why would the disciples steal the body then lie about seeing Jesus resurrect and then suffer for their lie? Isn't that worse than complete madness? I say yes. I'll leave it at that, for now. 3. The Bible lacks the elements of propaganda Women were the first witnesses in the time when women were considered unreliable. "Women were on a very low rung of the social ladder in first-century Palestine. There are old rabbinical sayings that said, 'Let the words of Law be burned rather than delivered to women' and 'blessed is he whose children are male, but woe to him whose children are female. ' Women's testimony was regarded as so worthless that they weren't even allowed to serve as legal witnesses in a Jewish court of Law" Dr. William Lane Craig Now, lets do some very simple additions: 1. People saw Jesus resurrect 2. Jesus disappeared 3. The Gospels seem genuine The conclusion? JESUS RESURRECTED! AMEN!
the Christian god exists

As I am only arguing from a weak atheist perspective(lack of belief) and pro will be the one making a positive assertion(god exists) I will leave the BOP to him/her. Definitions: The definition of the Christian god will be the one described in the Christian bible and Jewish torah. This god will have the attributes of omnipotence, omniscience, and benevolence. Exists: To have actual being; be real http://www.thefreedictionary.com... The first round will be reserved for definitions and acceptance Rounds 2,3, and 4 will be for arguments and rebuttals. Good luck!
Im Pro-Gun: Change my Mind

Harm 1: As concealed carry goes up, the more murder and violent crime goes down. There has been almost a 50% decrease in violent crime in the past 25 years(http://www.gunfacts.info...). These are FBI stats, which are much more reliable than your source. Harm 2: Guns save much more lives than take take them. This may be a surprise to some people, but guns save more lives than take them. There are over 2 million defensive gun uses annually, which is more than offensive gun uses.[2] On average, around 12,000 gun-related homicides occur every year. As stated by a Kleck-Gertz study, 15.7% of people who were involved in a DGU (Defensive Gun Use) said they almost certainly saved theirs or someone else"s life. In addition to that, another 14.6% said they probably saved a life. Since I want to be conservative with my numbers, let"s say that everyone who said they probably saved a life are wrong. According to an unpublished CDC study, there are 2.5 million DGUs per year.[8] Since they surveyed 222 participants, the margin of error with a 95% confidence level calculated to be plus or minus 4.8%. This signifies that at bare minimum 270,000 lives are saved by guns, up to over 500,000 just counting the "almost certainly people." If all the "probably" people are right, then that number goes beyond 800,000 thousand. Moreover, for every firearm homicide, at least 20-70 lives are saved by guns. If all gun deaths are counted, then 8-23 lives are saved per death.[5]
There is not enough evidence to dismiss Anarchism

I understand that the Merriam Webster dictionary is a reputable source of definitions, however it is quite clear that it was not written from an anarchist's perspective and that its definitions are not particularly applicable to the theory. Self-government in this case should be taken to be people governing themselves, rather than being governed by a ruler, whether the ruler be a king, president, or parliament. Please note that this has nothing to do with the American system and that the electoral college is actually viewed with disdain by many, including several non-Americans like me. As for states, I don't believe you understand the idea that anarchism seeks to do away with both arbitrary borders and fruitless competition so that, according to the theory, there would be no reason for people to try and screw over other states for their own states gain or some irrational sense of patriotism towards their state. Let us also not forget that anarchist societies are generally suggested to run on consensus, and that anarchism has education of all people at its core, thus eliminating the notion that "there are way too many uninformed voters". But this is not a discussion on the theory of anarchism, even if you have shown yourself not to have even a base understanding of it. This is a debate centred on the fact that there is not enough empirical evidence to dismiss anarchism without discussion. As of yet, you have failed to provide any actual historical and backed-up reasons to suggest that anarchism is not worth considering. The only real-world example you have provided is in relation to the modern-day USA. Not only does this mention of a flawed electoral system have nothing in relation with anarchism or its suggested practices, but it actually provides some suggestion that alternatives are worth investigating.
There is not enough evidence to dismiss Anarchism

I feel like my definition is correct. It came from the Merriam Webster Dictionary. As for me dismissing Anarchy, one of the founders himself said it would not work and he merely got it from a dream. self-gov"ern"ment noun 1. government of a country by its own people, especially after having been a colony. synonyms:independence, self-rule, home rule, self-determination, sovereignty, autonomy, nonalignment, freedom "the self-government of our island nation" 2. another term for self-control. Self governments were created by the pilgrims as a form of government. Self governments was a form of democracy, a form of government that is controlled by a ruler. Do you know the downside to everyone voting for a change or bill? The reason why in our country our votes don't really matter, is because of the electoral college. The electoral college was a compromise between state leaders, national polls, and Congress. The problems with the parties are: 1) State leaders. a) They might feel indebted to their states and promote Anti Federalism, which was proven to be a horrible government. 2) National polls. a) There are way too many uniformed voters. b) States with more people are more likely to vote for something that they have in common, which again supports Anti Federalism. 3) Congress. a) The president might feel indebted to the Congress, eliminating checks and balances. The idea you propose is National polls, with the problems I stated.
There is not enough evidence to dismiss Anarchism

Okay, since we appear to be going down the definitions route I must state that the definition of anarchism you have provided is simply incorrect. First off, the lack of government is only true with regards to government as a hierarchical structure, with rulers. This does not suggest that anarchists are proponents of destroying all social order. Many anarchists indeed suggest that we organise into communes that democratically debate and decide on topics through consensus, i.e. a sort of self-governance as opposed to a president or other official deciding things for us. Secondly, whilst the definition of anarchy you have used may refer to a specific case of disorder that can arise from the absence of authority, it is clearly not the proposed situation put forward by the vast majority of flavours of anarchism. Indeed, the very symbols of anarchism that are the A encircled by an O represent "anarchism" and "order" respectively, suggesting at least some form of mutual cooperation and a distinct lack of disorder. As such, we should not take your definition of anarchy to be related to the ideology that is anarchism, or as my argument stands: we do not have enough evidence to suggest that a lack of authority indeed cause disorder. Amusingly, your very response to my challenge is actually an example of how people are generally quick to dismiss anarchism with illogical points such as: "but anarchism means no order", when there is much literature on the subject discussing myriad processes through which order might be kept without the use of inherently unfair hierarchies. The very fact that few of these detailed theories have had the opportunity to be tested suggests that we do not have enough empirical evidence to reject them.
There is not enough evidence to dismiss Anarchism

I accept the challenge. an"ar"chy G2;anərkē/Submit noun a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority. "he must ensure public order in a country threatened with anarchy" synonyms:lawlessness, nihilism, mobocracy, revolution, insurrection, disorder, chaos, mayhem, tumult, turmoil "conditions are dangerously ripe for anarchy" absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal. Anarchism is a lack of government. It is also disorder. I will let you continue from here.
There is not enough evidence to dismiss Anarchism

If you have ever had the pleasure of attempting to, or watching another attempt to, have a conversation on Anarchism, you have probably become aware of how quick people are to dismiss it with no more than an: "Anarchism doesn't work!!!" Very little evidence tends to be put forward to give weight to this claim, and indeed it is generally held by the claimant that people are just inherently bad people if left to their own devices, and as such require some authority to guide them and ensure the best outcome. Whilst there are plenty of examples of a lack of authority leading to chaos, violence in the streets, and so forth, it is worth clarifying that none of these situations or rioting or chaotic revolt arose from a politically anarchist system. Indeed, there is some evidence to suggest that large-scale communities such as the modern autonomous Rojava and the Spanish Civil War era Catalonia, which both followed somewhat anarchist principles, have and had a distinct lack of chaos aside from the civil wars raging around them. Lastly, the foundation of an Anarchist society: education. Almost all anarchists understand as a base necessity of an ideal society that people should be able to think, reason, and learn for themselves. This idea of education, not to be confused with supposed "miseducation" through propaganda, is not actually something that we have been able to observe and make conclusions about empirically. Although we have many examples, through the wonder that is the internet, of many people doing amazing things with programming, music, art, mathematics, and more, it is still left unclear whether these people are truly genius or simply have managed to educate themselves. And here lies my main point: although we think that people in general are just stupid, and this may be the case, it is clear that we are not giving everyone the chance to prove us wrong, whatwith schools that teach Victorian curricula that enforce memory over critical thinking.
Affirmative action should be ended in college admissions

Pro is against affirmative action and Con is for affirmative action.In California, affirmative action was ended in 1996 with a ballot initiative that stated:"The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting." [1. http://en.wikipedia.org...]In this debate only the college admissions portion of preferential treatment will be considered. I will argue that preferential public college admissions based upon race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin should be prohibited throughout the United States, and my opponent will argue that preferential treatment should be allowed as affirmative action throughout the country. The status quo is that affirmative action is allowed in some places and prohibited in others. The debate is to be judged based upon what side makes the best case. RulesThis opening round is for definitions and acceptance only. I will give the Pro case at the start of the second round.Standard debate conventions apply. I list them here for the benefit of new debaters and readers. I believe there is nothing tricky or eccentric. Both sides agree to the following rules, and that violating the rules is a conduct violation, with anything contrary to the rules to be ignored by readers judging the debate:DR 1. All arguments must be made in the debate. Evidence may be cited or linked from the debate, but only in support of arguments made in the debate. Arguments made in Comments are to be ignored.DR 2. Source links or references must be included within the 8000 characters per round limit of the debate. No links or sources are permitted in comments.DR 3 Any term not specifically defined before use is to be taken with the ordinary dictionary definition of the term that best fits the context of the debate. DR 4. No new arguments shall be made in Round 4. Pro may rebut previous arguments using new evidence solely for that purpose, but no new arguments are allowed. Con may not present any new evidence in R4.DR 5. DDO site rules always apply. Neither side may add or modify rules for the debate once the challenge is accepted.
Stoner Rock Debate

These last two picks have been extremely difficult. My first three were really obvious, since they're probably my three favorite songs in the genere. My fourth pick is Sleep-From Beyond, from their famous Sleep's Holy Mountain. My last pick is probably the lightest song of all my posts, but it's got a really catchy with a pretty sweet outro (fitting for the final round) and I think its the best song on this particuler album. From Witchcraft-It's Not Because of You. Thanks to my opponent for this debate, I defintely enjoyed it.
Indian Politicians are pigs and bureaucrats are their bitches

Indian Politicians:. http://www.bing.com... Pigs:. http://www.bing.com... beurocrats:. http://www.bing.com...As you can see the politician is human the pig is a pig and per definitions the bureaucrat is a dinosaur. As these thigns are all different species one CANNOT be the other. I have fufilled my BOP, my opponent hasn't.
Indian Politicians are pigs and bureaucrats are their bitches

The definition for bureaucrat stands foul as the discussion is in the context of India. It is said in the context of analogy with the book 'Animal Farm'. http://dictionary.reference.com... an official who works by fixed routine without exercising intelligent judgment. Dog is animal which follows orders of its master without opposing it. In political context, its the politician who orders bureaucrats. Pig is commonly considered as filthy animal and fits into politicians context.
Homosexuality is a choice

1. I am never going to change my opinion on the issue. It goes against my religion, Christianity, and I know psycologists who specifically say that, despite popular opinion, there is no concrete evidence supporting this idea, the only "evidence" is completely biased information recording how some people are different, even though many people with these same differences, even more different, are not homosexual. 2. The primary point made, isn't a change in chromosome, but a different amount of chemicals. Everyone has a different amount of chemicals as no one is the same. I am willing to concede that some boys may be more feminine than others, but they still choose to be gay. (I know many feminine boys that aren't gay and a masculine girl who pretended to be gay for the attention no doubt, but is now straight as an arrow.) The personality may be different, but crossing that line is always and will always be, a moral choice. I am going to keep it short as I do not like to debate this topic, particularly over the computer, since this is a topic people will just believe what they believe, and they cannot be persuaded unlike issues like taxes, military, budget, and overall political affiliation.