BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
That public schools should enforce uniforms

Ok I will defend my case then attack. (Cont 1) The argument my opponent states against my first contention is irrelevant. Sure, we would look the same, but my contention one is that people who cant afford these uniforms would not be able to get any (maybe a little) education. My opponent states that uniforms the economic status, that is in no way true. Uniforms affect your education and how you look while you receive it. In the case of the rich kid and poor kid, It goes beyond clothing. The rich kids would undoubtedly be in private schools instead of public. Our problems of discrimination always exists. The rich goes to private schools, colleges, ect. Uniforms would not make us economically equal. (Cont 2) The only argument against my second contention is that workers,lawyers,chefs and other jobs require uniforms. I concede to the point that yes those jobs with the uniform rules are a decrease in freedom. However, we all have the choice to work at those jobs or not. We accept the job knowingly that we will have to wear uniforms. Whereas, in school we are required to attend whether or not we wear uniforms or not. We have the choice or not whether or not to buy the ice cream (that my opponent stated) knowing that some freedom will be lost. (Cont 3)Okay, to address the racist issue, the definition of being racist is saying that your race is superior or that another race is inferior. Never did I say that the kkk decided the kids uniforms, but that they did not want diversity. My opponent never really addresses the diversity issue but states that "Usually the uniforms have many options". When some one decides your choices for ex. you have the choice between red, black, and green but only those 3; that is not diversity nor is it much freedom.(Linking to my cont 2) To address the argument stating that uniforms do not represent power. That is not true. Look at the Nazis, they wear their uniforms to represent Hitler and promote his power. Uniforms are symbols representing the power they were chosen by. (Cont 4) Ok first off my opponent contradicts himself when he states that everyone has the same type of clothing but on his attack on my Contention 3 he's stating that uniforms have many options. He states that the uniforms are strictly enforced. AGAIN, it doesn't solve our problems and by STRICTLY enforcing uniforms there will undoubtedly be some type of resistance causing other problems. Now on to my opponent's case (Cont 1) I would like to point out the logical fallacy in his contention one. There is no way you can link shootings to uniforms. And the negative has already pointed out that uniforms would not solve for diversity due to the facts the rich would still go to private schools and that itself is already a form of stereotype. My opponent states that our current clothes cause racial stereotypes. But take into fact that to others it might be a racial stereotypes, I call it a culture and tradition. (P.S) I urge a neg vote.
That public schools should enforce uniforms

I will attack his case and then go on to my own. Cont. 1 Uniforms will affect the education of the poor. In fact, uniforms are equalizing the economic status in the school. If one kid is rich and has a nice shirt, this could be harmful to a kid who is poor and has a worse shirt. The fact is that no uniforms are putting schools in social classes. Cont. 2 Uniforms restrics and decreases freedom. Lawyers, waiters, chefs, cashiers have uniforms. Is this a decrease in freedom? Is anything a decrease in freedom? Is a ice cream parlor not having the king of ice cream you like a decrease in freedom. In the world around us there is always a decrease in freedom in everything. Cont. 3 Uniforms go agaisnt the idea of diversity. Is choosing the outfit that employees wear at Taco Bell racist? First of all, the KKK did not decide kid's uniforms. Choosing a outfit is not power. Its an easy decision. Usually the uniforms have many options. Cont. 4 Uniforms do not solve our current problems. Uniforms are strictly enforced. Everyone has the same type of clothing. Now on to my case Cont. 1 Uniforms solve for diversity. In the 1960's we went from hugging our classmates to shooting our classmates. That was the same time we went from uniforms to casual attire. The fact is that clothes are distinctive and they can cause racial and economical stereotypes.
That public schools should enforce uniforms

Before i begin allow me to provide the following definitions: Enforce: to enact a mandate. Should: Moraly or logicly right. Also the affirmative has the burden of proving how enforcing uniforms is benifitial on balance. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Cont 1: Uniforms will affect the education of the poor. When asking for students to dress a certain way in order for them to attend that school would definately hurt the poor. Education might be hurt or even loss due to the fact that money is a big problem. The negative believes that everyone should be given the opportunity to learn regardless of how they look,dress, or even how rich or poor they are. Cont 2: Uniforms restrics and decreases freedom. In school we are not allowed to retain some of our basic rights such as the freedom of speech or press ect.. If we enforce uniforms, surely we are taking away the freedom of creativity. Some people dress how they feel, or what they belive in. Some dress for a special someone or to enact what has happend to them. Its like adjusting what you wear to who you are. Cont 3: Uniforms go agaisnt the idea of diversity. When switching to uniforms we are reliving the past. We wanted only one race to rule: the whites. (KKK). When switching to uniforms, we first would need someone to decide what the uniform should be. When that person decides what the uniform is,then he enacts it. This is wrong for two reasons. First, the person who decides would have too much power on his hands. Second, the person who enacts the decided uniforms is saying that his decision is right and no other forms of clothing may be chosen. Cont 4: Uniforms do not solve our current problems. Some might say that enacting uniforms would help prevent discrimination by clothing and other such. Thats not true because some decide to alter the uniforms by either slight effects or major ones. Uniforms itself is a style so yes, judging still happens. For these four reasons i urge a negative vote.
Mormons ARE Christians

What is a Christian? In a dictionary, the definition is simply N [kris-chuh n] : of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ Now to clear things up, "Mormons" is just a term used for the LDS church, which is really called The Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter Day Saints. Now please correct me if I'm wrong... but they have Jesus Christ IN THE NAME! Clearly they support and believe his teachings... So that includes them in Christianity, as well as Catholics as well as many other religions.
drake and josh vs spongebob

Like I have said in another debate, SpongeBob has gotten the awards to prove it is better. Nominated 2001 * Annie: Outstanding Individual Achievement for Male Voice Acting in an Animated Television Production- Tom Kenny as SpongeBob SquarePants in "Patty Hype" & "Wormy" * Annie: Outstanding Individual Achievement for Female Voice Acting in an Animated Television Production- Mary Jo Catlett as Mrs. Poppy Puff in "No Free Rides" * Annie: Outstanding Individual Achievement for a Song in an Animated Television Production- "The Very First Christmas" from "Christmas Who?" 2002 * Golden Reel Award: Best Sound Editing in Music- "Welcome to the Chum Bucket" & "Frankendoodle" * Emmy: Outstanding Animated Programming- "Pressure" & "The Smoking Peanut" 2003 * Emmy: Outstanding Animated Programming- "New Student Starfish" & "Clams" 2004 * Emmy: Outstanding Animated Programming- "Ugh" 2005 * Golden Satellite Award: Best Youth DVD- "The Complete 2nd Season" * Emmy: Outstanding Animated Programming- "Fear of a Krabby Patty" & "Shell of a Man" * TCA Award: Outstanding Achievement in Children's Programming- "Your Shoe's Untied" & "Squid's Day Off" 2006 * Golden Reel Award: Best Sound Editing in Sound- "Have You Seen This Snail?" 2007 * Emmy: Outstanding Animated Programming- "Bummer Vacation" & "Wigstruck" * TCA Award: Outstanding Achievement in Children's Programming- "The Algae's Always Greener" & "SpongeGuard On Duty" Won 2000 * Golden Reel Award: Best Sound Editing in Music- "MermaidMan & BarnacleBoy" & "Pickles" * Golden Reel Award: Best Sound Editing in Sound- "SB-129" & "Karate Choppers" 2001 * Golden Reel Award: Best Sound Editing in Sound- "Arrgh!" & "Rock Bottom" 2002 * Golden Reel Award: Best Sound Editing in Music- "The Secret Box" & "Band Geeks" * TCA Award: Outstanding Achievement in Children's Programming- "Help Wanted", "Reef Blower" & "Tea at the Treedome" 2003 * Golden Reel Award: Best Sound Editing in Sound- "Nasty Patty" & "The Idiot Box" * Golden Reel Award: Best Sound Editing in Music- "Wet Painters" & "The Krusty Krab Training Video" * Nickelodeon's Kid's Choice Awards Orange Blimp: Favorite Cartoon 2004 * Golden Reel Award: Best Sound Editing in Music- "Mid-Life Crustacean" & "The Great Snail Race" * Nickelodeon's Kid's Choice Awards Orange Blimp: Favorite Cartoon 2005 * Annie Award: Best Animated Television Production * Nickelodeon's Kid's Choice Awards Orange Blimp: Favorite Cartoon 2006 * Annie Award: Best Writing for an Animated Television Production- "Fear of a Krabby Patty" & "Shell of a Man" * Nickelodeon's Kid's Choice Awards Orange Blimp: Favorite Cartoon 2007 * Nickelodeon's Kid's Choice Awards Orange Blimp: Favorite Cartoon
Obama is not a Muslim

Thank you for your response. Now, my opponent’s arguments really go along the lines of “He’s doesn’t practice the Muslim faith, therefore he’s not Muslim.” Blatantly, this is not enough to fulfill your burden of proof. A Christian believes in the Judeo-Christian God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, ect. ect. A Good Christian believes in these things, follows the moral guidelines of the Bible, goes to church, participates in the sacraments ect. My point is, you can still be part of a religion through belief, even if you don’t put that religion into practice. In other words, there is really no need to respond to your 5 points on “why Obama isn’t Muslim” because those are all putting the Muslim faith into practice. Anyways, you have the BOP on proving these things, and I can tell you that you have absolutely no proof on points one (The witnesses simply haven’t notified many people if any), three (I’m sure Obama could easily find a way to donate money privately through other people), and 5 (seeing that he is president and has led a very busy political life it is very possible he simply hasn’t had the time). My arguments will basically show that Obama is indeed a Muslim (or that my opponent doesn’t have enough proof to show he isn’t), just a really, really, bad Muslim. What I mean is that Obama holds Muslim beliefs, but doesn’t put them into practice. “Obama also has a long relationship with the Trinity United Church of Christ, stretching back to his Chicago days. This shows Obama's Christianity.” Not really. Obama has a very diverse past of religion. As a child he learned about the Islam faith, Christianity, and even African and Norse mythology. (1) In addition, it is very possible that Obama joined a Christian church not only to throw other off from being a Muslim (bad for politics), and joined a Christian Church because that is politically advantageous. Please watch the video. http://www.youtube.com... Recently, there has been a controversy regarding the gold ring worn by Obama. it is the gold ring on which a part of Kalama Shahdat is written. Kalama Shahdat is the verse which defines complete faith of Islam. ‘There is no God but Allah” had been printed on his ring, but the last part is missing which is, “and Prophet Muhammad is the last messenger.” (2) “Many politicians and media spokespeople revealed that Barack Obama is a Muslim, but to completely conceal this statement, Obama joined the united church of Christ. This attempt was to downplay his Islamic background. According to the resources, when President Barack Obama was sworn into his office, he used the Holy Quran and not the bible.” (2) (1) http://atheism.about.com... (2) http://muslim-academy.com...
Obama is not a Muslim

1. Obama can"t be a Muslim because he follows none of the 5 pillars of Islam. He also can"t secretly be following the 5 pillars as I will show. Failure to follow these 5 pillars basically means you are not a Muslim (not that Obama ever claimed to be a Muslim). The 5 pillars are: 1. Shahadah: This is a declaration of one"s faith. It translates to (I"m paraphrasing) "There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger" . If one wants to convert to Islam, one has to say these words earnestly in the presence of 4 witnesses. No one, has ever heard him say these words ever in his life, let alone in front of 4 witnesses. 2. Salah Salah translates to prayer in English. A Muslim has to pray 5 times a day. The prayer times are (for today) 4:39 AM, 1:35 PM , 5:24 PM, 8:46 PM and 10:25 PM, and the prayer time is about 5-10 minutes. It would be impossible for Obama to slip away 5 times a day what with all the secret service agents around him, especially at those times. Also, Muslim men are required to go to a mosque on Friday and listen to a sermon that is, on average, an hour long. This is impossible for Obama and he would never be able to do this. Also, no one has ever recorded him going to a mosque at any point with the intention of worshiping. 3. Zakat Zakat is charity. If a Muslim can afford it, then they are required to give 2.5% of their saved wealth (not their income) to charity. A Muslim must also not do this publicly because they cannot show off. The amount Obama gives to charity is publicly available, violating the command to give in private. Also, Obama gives the wealth he gains from his income to charity, not from his saved wealth. 4. Fasting (not drinking or eating) During the month of Ramadan (about 30 days) (btw, Ramadan started 3 days ago) a Muslim, if he/she is able to must fast from sunrise to sunset. Before sunrise, however they must get up and eat. Obama does not fast (he eats and drinks during the day). In addition, even if Obama wanted to fast, people would notice him not eating at traditional meal times for 30 days straight. It would also be impossible for him to get up at 4:30 AM (before sunrise), eat an entire meal, and then go back to bed without someone noticing for 30 days. 5. Hajj Hajj is a Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca, the birthplace of the prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and the site of the Kabba, the holiest site of Islam. Hajj takes about a week and is required of every Muslim, if they are able to do so, at least once in their life. Obama still has time to do this, but he has never expressed an interest in going there ever to anybody. One other major thing is that Obama drinks alcohol, which is forbidden in Islam. Obama also has a long relationship with the Trinity United Church of Christ, stretching back to his Chicago days. This shows Obama's Christianity.
There is no revolution in Syria

Refutations:1) Support by outside powers does not disqualify a conflict from being a revolution. The Americans had help and support from France, does that mean we didn't have a revolution? Syria is not fighting outside nations, it is fighting internally. That's why it is a revolution. Internal fighting. Whether Russia or Iran helps Assad out is irrelevant because the nature of the conflict is still an internal revolution.2) The West hasn't intervened in Syria and has shown little interest in doing so. Why would we start a civil war to cause more instability in the region? To what end? This is not a conspiracy. It is just a bloody result of the Arab Spring. Turkey wants NATO and the EU to intervene due to border violence but they have yet to do so. Also, even if someone were to cause the revolution, it is still a revolution. 3) Yes, revolutions are usually provoked. The Americans were provoked by the British. The Syrians were provoked by Assad. You usually don't have a revolution without some kind of provocation or else why would you want to revolt? Provocation does not disqualify the conflict from being a revolution.4) Things change. The world is not static. Obviously Assad is no longer as popular as he was in 2007. This, again, does not mean the conflict in Syria is not a revolution.The definition of a revolution can be applied to Syria thus the conflict in Syria is a revolution.Thank you.
There is no revolution in Syria

1)As some people know, Syria enter in resistance block - there are SYRIA,IRAN,HAMAS,HEZBOLLAH and Syria took Russian position in internation relations ,moreover Syria's big friend - Iran ,who suspected by Western countries for his nuclear weapong programm. 2)I want to say it jut conspiracy,how can u say about rebels Al CIAda?!-it just a tool of the West countries and NATO in order to intervention. 3)When revolution starts-there were a provocations from opposition side. 4)Bashar Assad was legal president,because nearly 97,6% Syrian civilians vote for him in Presedential elections 2007
There is no revolution in Syria

My opponent's first round argument does nothing to disprove the state of revolution going on in Syria.Revolution - anoverthroworrepudiationandthethoroughreplacementofanestablishedgovernmentorpoliticalsystem bythepeople governed. [1] The Syrian civil war started when anti-government protests erupted into violence. The source of the original protests and the ensuing civil war was President Assad. The people want Assad gone and are fighting for such. In Syria there is an ongoing attempt to overthrow the government and replace it with a new form of government. This overthrow was started and being fought by the Syrian people, the people governed by Assad. Therefore, the conflict in Syria is a revolution. It fits the definition.No matter what else is going on, who's taking who's stuff, what neighboring countries are getting mad etc, has nothing to do with the source and nature of the conflict at hand. Syria is in civil war started by an attempted overthrow of the government and is therefore in a state of revolution.I welcome an attempt to disprove this definition.[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
There is no revolution in Syria

There is no revolution in Syria,because many opponents of president kill innocent people for example the rebels which called Free Syrian Army kill many people and bombing the cities,moreover those rebels financed by United States and Europe such countries like France,United Kingdom and NATO.The Assad's Army has taken NATO's equipment and American-Israel weapon from rebels.Many mercenaries every day come in Syria from Turkish borders in order to help rebels.Opponents of Syria want to the same scenario like in Libya-but without success.If rebels come to the ruling of Syria,the country can collapse,because Syria is secular country and Assad is guarantor of stability and security.
anger can be a good moral motivation

It is not irrelevant to the notion that anger can be a good moral motivation. I was stating that anger is capable of executing what is necessary to motivate courage. In some cases hate is what fuels our anger to begin with. In this case of courage not just being needed to save lives, what was meant is that there are other reason to be courageous where anger would be suffice to achieve the intended purpose. Anger though, expressive enables us to be our most vulnerable and at the same time our strongest for it releases us from our inhibitions which limit us most of the time from being courageous to begin with
anger can be a good moral motivation

Okay. I accept your notion that anger isn't the only motivation for a good moral action, but that is entirely irrelevant to your main conclusion, which is, "Anger can a good moral motivation." You have provided no logical or tangible proof whatsoever that this is the case by stating that hate is also capable of fueling courage, and by stating that courage isn't the only virtue needed to save lives. Both points are valid, but they are irrelevant to your argument.
anger can be a good moral motivation

My argument didn't state that anger was the only motivation for a moral cause, it just states that it is capable of being a good moral stimulus in the event that it is needed. there is not doubt that love is a strong force however hates Is it equal and opposite counterpart which proves that it is just as capable as love to fuel courage. anger may not be a sufficient condition alone for saving someone at the expense of your life, however courage isn't just needed to save lives.
anger can be a good moral motivation

The main flaw of your argument rests in the mere assumption that a necessary relationship exists between anger and courage. There exist at least one other possibility, in which courage is not fueled by anger, but love. Imagine a loved one being exposed to a life-threatening situation. And assume that in order for you to stand up to what is wrong - that is, your loved one's life being threatened - your own life has to come under some threat. In this particular case, it is safe to assume that you would fear for your life, because it is a natural instinct of every living creature to fear when its life is being threatened. In such case, your love for the other person must be greater than any other emotion in order for you to build up the courage to place your own life under threat in order to save theirs. Anger might be present, but it is not a sufficient condition for one to place his or her own life under threat in order to save another's, if love for that particular individual isn't also present, and moreover, if it isn't the primary emotion which drives our actions, you wouldn't bother undertaking the action of threatening your own life in order to save theirs.
anger can be a good moral motivation

Aristotle sets out to prove that anger can indeed be a good moral catalyst for these following reasons: 1)Practicing and exercising what is moral is virtuous which is said to be the mark of a good man. 2)In order to be virtuous, one must be good/even tempered. 3)To be good/even tempered one, an extent of anger has to be dispensed in order for one to do what is right. For that which is wrong must anger someone with a good moral compass 4)In order to stand up to what is wrong, a level of courage is necessary. Aristotle feels that anger is what fuels courage. 5)With that said anger isn"t just a good moral motivation, but can very well be a necessary condition.
anger can be a good moral motivation

The argument here is whether anger can lead to morally good actions, not, "whether anger can fuel courage". Okay, let's say that you are right and that keeping anger in check is, "mastered through the act of being virtuous than we can harness that energy to be courageous." What you are saying is that (anger ---> courage), which I agreed with previously. This still does not establish that (anger ---> good moral motivation).
Finish the sentence,

Panicking, I quickly dashed away from the grisly cadavers, blindly rushing on for what seemed like years. It seemed like an eternity later when i regained my senses; sitting at home, in my bedroom with a cup of hot chocolate and a favorite book. Turning and looking at my unicorn steed seated next to me, I dictated "Never again shall I eat purple mushrooms from the land of the fairies before noon, my dear companion, Robaghast." "Indeed," he responded, "that would be a good idea, definitely one worth remembering."