BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
High schools should start at 8:30 am

My opponent states that teenagers sleep late anyway. If this was the case, then wouldn"t pushing the school starting time to 8:30 cause them to sleep even later? By pushing back their whole schedule, it"ll put their sleeping schedule back too. According to an article published on The Guardian website by Luisa Dillner on November of 2013, it discusses a research done on the amount of sleep teenagers get. It states, and I quote, "teenagers need 9.5 hours of sleep a night, but on average get only 7.5 hours" (Dillner). This means that teenagers don"t get enough sleep, as my opponent stated, but the school starting time is not the issue. In the same article, they discuss solutions for teenagers to get the amount of sleep they need. The mention that the problem is the social media, their constant use of mobile phones, and their abnormal sleeping schedule. Sleeping late at night on weekends and walking up in the middle of the day is affecting the way they sleep on school nights. To further explain my argument, changing the the starting time to a later time will cause the students to come home late which will not only affect their schedules, but also their families". In an article published in November of 2017, written by Preeti Varathan, the average mother spends 15 hours with their kids and fathers spend 9 hours with their kids a week. This means that if their children go home later, they"ll spend even less time with their children a week, which isn"t good for their mental health. All in all, if students start school at a later time, it may encourage sleeping at an even later time, it will affect their schedules, and will reduce the amount of time spent with their siblings and parents. https://www.google.com... https://www.google.com...
High schools should start at 8:30 am

My opponent states that if school started later, younger siblings would not have anyone to take care of them. In reality, as displayed by the website Start School Later, "Over 20% of U.S. middle schools start class at 7:45 a.m. or earlier" (1). In other words, about 80% of middle schools start later and thus, if high schools start later, then there would not be an issue. On the contrary, it would benefit those students who are caregivers because rather than waiting for their siblings to get out of school, they will both be out at the same time causing less time to be wasted. In regards to students in sports, a later call time would make practices later, but this is not a bad thing. As shown by the National Education Association, "The adolescent body doesn"t begin to produce melatonin, a hormone linked to sleep cycles, until around 11:00 pm, leaving adolescents with a limited window in which to obtain sufficient sleep" (2). Some practices would get pushed back, but teens sleep later already, so a later start time will allow them to sleep more. Also, from personal experience, some sports practices already start late. For example, during soccer season, my practice started at 4 pm. I got home late, but was still expected to do homework, chores, shower, and sleep more than the recommended amount while having to wake up at 6 am. Why bother changing the system that has been in place for centuries? Well, as the national sleep foundation puts it, "Teens spend a great portion of each day in school; however, they are unable to maximize the learning opportunities afforded by the education system, since sleep deprivation impairs their ability to be alert, pay attention, solve problems, cope with stress and retain information" (3). All in all, early high school start times already affect teens negatively throughout the country. Taking this risk could eliminate many of these issues and benefit everyone as a whole. https://open.spotify.com... http://neatoday.org... https://sleepfoundation.org...
High schools should start at 8:30 am

While it is true that a lack of sleep may danger students when driving, starting school at a later time may not affect these circumstances. More sleep will increase their ability to perform and feel better, however, if a school starting time is delayed, it'll only push back and affect other schedules. My opponent mentioned that students need more sleep especially if they're in sports, for it affects their performance. Starting school at a later time will change their schedules and students will get out of school later in the afternoon, pushing their after-school practices even farther back. In other words, it'll make no difference. According to the National Federation of State High School Association (NFHS), in the years of 2016-2017, nearly 8 million students were playing sports in school. This means that a very large amount of students who play sports, and even more with those in other after-school activities, will not be benefitted by the change of a school's starting time because their practices will just start later, causing them to go home at a later time anyway. To add on to my argument, in an article by the U.S. News and World Report published in November of 2015, they discuss reports done by the American Association of Caregiving Youth. In these reports, it is stated that approximately 1.4 million children between the ages of 8-18 are caregivers. They take care of their family members in need, but if school started later, they would be going home at a later time. Every day after school, I watch my younger brothers because my mother is at work. If I got out of school later, my brothers would not have anyone to watch over them. Delaying the school starting time may benefit a student who does not participate in after-school activities, but it may also negatively affect what they do for their family. https://www.nfhs.org... https://health.usnews.com...
High schools should start at 8:30 am

I understand that natural light is preferable over artificial light, but many students have jobs and activities that cause their "internal clocks" to shift anyways, but they still have to wake up early causing many unhealthy side effects. Not only this but according to the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, a later starting time can increase attendance at schools and decrease car accidents because teens are more awake while behind the wheel (1). When students work, their shifts are later in the afternoon, and they do not get home until the nighttime causing them to sleep late because of their circumstances. A later start time would allow them to sleep more, feel better, and perform better. Teens are naturally wired to sleep later, so no matter what time they have to be up they are still sleeping late (2). Personally, I sleep late every day if I have to be up at 6 am or 9 am. Having extra time to sleep would make a huge difference in my mood, alertness, and focus. In middle school, our start time was 9 am. In those two years, I never felt sleep deprived and felt well rested at school. I slept over 7 hours each day. Now in high school, 6 hours of sleep sounds amazing. For people who do sports, sleep is important and can help their performance as well as prevent sports injuries (3). Everything factored in, a later school time would be the best remedy for sleep-deprived students who struggle every day to stay awake in class and make the best of their education. (1) https://aasm.org...... (2) http://time.com...... (3) https://www.athleticbusiness.com......
High schools should start at 8:30 am

School should not start at a later time because it may only cause the students to sleep even later, since they don't have to wake up at an earlier time, and will cause them to be exposed to light at night, making it harder for them get up for school in the morning. The Scientific Reports published a research in 2017 done by scholars from the Surrey Sleep Research Centre and Department of Mathematics. In this research, they used "mathematical modeling" to understand that people are not naturally a morning or evening person and it depends on when they're exposed to light. According to a TES article, published in March of 2017, the academics from Surrey University and Harvard Medical School argue that changing the time of when school starts will only cause most teenagers' "internal clocks" to drift later. To further explain, students will be up later and their exposure to light at night will make it harder for them to get up later in the morning. They believe that exposure to light during the day is best for them because the lights will be off or dimmed by night. Their predictions on how to get more and better sleep are based on how light interacts with the "biological clock." So, if school starting times are delayed, then students will most likely be up later, exposing themselves to artificial light from things, such as lamps or phones, which will make it harder for them to get up later in the morning. https://www.tes.com... https://www.sciencedaily.com...
UNDER THE BELOW LISTED RULES MY OPPONENT WILL LOSE THIS DEBATE.

MY OPPONENT WAS THE CHALLENGER IN THE PREVIOUS "UNDER THE BELOW LISTED RULES MY OPPONENT WILL LOSE THIS DEBATE", SO I THOUGH IT WOULD BE A GOOD TOPIC TO CHALLENGE HIM WITH SINCE HE STATES IN HIS PROFILE PAGE THAT "I believe any position can be advocated for successfully it just requires a little persuasion." IN THAT CASE, HERE ARE THE RULES I AM LAYING DOWN FOR THIS DEBATE: 1) MY OPPONENT IS NOT ALLOWED TO ARGUE IN THIS DEBATE IN SUCH A WAY THAT COULD BE ADVANTAGEOUS TO THE POSSIBILITY OF HIM GETTING VOTES FOR ANY REASON, BE IT IN A CONVINCING MANNER, OR OTHERWISE. 2) MY OPPONENT IS NOT ALLOWED TO USE LETTERS IN HIS ARGUMENTS, ONLY NUMBERS. 3) MY OPPONENT IS NOT PERMITTED TO SUBMIT ANY ARGUMENTS UNTIL THE LAST ROUND. 4) MY OPPONENT MUST LEVITATE THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF THE DEBATE WITHOUT TOUCHING ANYTHING BUT HIS KEYBOARD. HATS OFF TO MY OPPONENT IF HE ACCEPTS THIS DEBATE, LET ALONE WINS IT.
The full hypothesis on Christianity and Satanism is clear. Atheists are just in between.

You repeatedly assign credit for the death of 6 million Jews to Satanism. That's Nazism. They took a lot of the vitriol from Lutheran antisemitism and the general hatred for Jews in Europe, largely as Christ-killers, and parlayed that into the Holocaust. The Nazis were nominally Catholic. They allowed religious diversity but the party platform was explicitly Christian and the most of the lead people were Catholic. I don't believe in God or the Devil and neither do Laveyan Satanists. They are largely just using a provocative name to attract attention to their philosophy of indulgence and themselves. On one side you have a religion based on belief in the Bible on the other you have a provocatively named religion based on a rather trite philosophy. I'm not only active on this forum but active in a broad range of different places on a wide range of topics, I've run into Satanists before. They are almost always teenage, male, atheists, with Christian parents who they want to piss off. Satanists have never been a large group. Even the Christian Satanists like the Hell Fire club have never been remotely popular. But, more importantly, they aren't the other extreme with atheists in the center. Atheism is not accepting a belief that there is a god. That's not in between anything. That's simply not accepting your premises. You attribute to Satanism the evils of Christian Nazism and I'd assume some good deeds of Christians and say atheists are in the middle. That's insulting, stupid, and wrong on a number of different levels. Atheism isn't in between anything. " "Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply an admission of the obvious. In fact, "atheist" is a term that should not ever exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a "non astrologer" or a "non-alchemist". We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs. An atheist is simply a person who believes that the 260 million Americans (87 percent of the population) claiming to "never doubt the existence of God" should be obliged to present evidence for his existence-and, indeed, for his BENEVOLENCE, given the relentless destruction of innocent human beings we witness in the world each day." --Sam Harris, "Letter to a Christian Nation".
The full hypothesis on Christianity and Satanism is clear. Atheists are just in between.

For me to understand you. Refer to my points. However I did see for points here. "You're typical LaVeyan Satanist is a teenage atheist with parent issues." Surely do not say killing is not good or bad. Killing 6 million Jews is nothing to you then? That is messed up. You think the Devil is there God and my God is the Devil. -- People listen, this is simperly not true. God is God the Devil is the Devil. "You're typical LaVeyan Satanist is a teenage atheist with parent issues." --You a typical teenager atheist with issues which can not be answered. Unless you either go either way Good or Bad. I could say to a Satanist (As they do not believe in good or evil): Is it good or evil to be Christian? They will say, "neither" I would relpy, "Whats your problem then?" But I can say, "is it evil to be a Satanist." And they will say, "it is not." I will reply again and say, "whats the problem the?" Leave me alone in that case Satenist and be a Christian. You would be wrong moralily from a atheists veiw but right in evolution is a atheist view. Can you not see atheists are in the middle? There are two side to everything that is right. So atheists are the most wrong in understanding here. You are the piggy in the middle. The Christian is trying to throw you the ball to the athiest who is standing still, evermore the Satanist is blocking the Christians ball pass. So that you will not give in to Christ. I say move and catch the pass. The evidence for God is clear you just accept half of the truth. God id just not part of that half. And you accept half of the lies from the Satanists. That evolution is rea and the Big Bang banged. I know that a Satanist will also say that I lie. But think who believe killing 6 million Jews is ok? And who believes that you should hunt down a person who caused you halm? Who believes you should not turn a cheek. Because you will run out of cheeks to turn? The only thing you should turn is your back on athiestisum and turn to Christ. Because Jesus is the only way to life. This is all I have to say right now.
The full hypothesis on Christianity and Satanism is clear. Atheists are just in between.

http://www.youtube.com... I have posted the video he's referring to. That said, the topic is wrong. Satanism as such is LaVeyan Satanism which is actually atheistic. You're typical LaVeyan Satanist is a teenage atheist with parent issues. Atheists aren't inbetween. Atheists are simply those people who do not accept the existence of God. We do not believe in the existence of God. Doubting the unproven is not midway between wrong and stupid, it's a perfectly reasonable and rational acceptance of your positions based on the preponderance of evidence (no evidence for God, no belief).
Regulation of Embryonic Insemination

Regulating artificial insemination without regulating the regular kind will just encourage Octo-mom to be more of a slut, and spread STD's. Regulating both is totalitarian and would require a policeman in every bedroom personally providing and applying condoms, very impractical. If you don't wanna pay for Octo-mom, eliminate the welfare state. Much more elegant, less expensive, and moral solution.
Regulation of Embryonic Insemination

We shall regulate embryonic insemination for women that cannot care for their children. Seeing as in cases such as the Octa-Mom who cannot care for her children financially. Other people should not have to pay for these children, and these children should not recieve money. Therefore, there should be background, mental, and financial checks on women prior to insemination. Women will be checked to confirm that they can care and provide for their children
Resolved: Immigration policies should be expanded to compensate for a a growing U.S. society

Before accepting, ask any necessary questions in the comments.This is a topic of great interest to me, and one I wish to be a serious debate. The rules are as follows:Trolling results in an automatic lossForfeiture results in an automatic lossBoP will be shared between both sides.Counterplans are not allowed.Use a sufficient amount of evidence to back up your claims.The round schedule will go as follows:Round 1: [Con] Rules & Regulations [Pro] Acceptance OnlyRound 2: [Con] Opening Arguments [Pro] Opening Arguments and Initial RefutationsRound 3: Arguments and Rebuttals [C/P]Round 4: Closing Statements and Rebuttals [C/P] (No new arguments)Thank you in advance, and I look forward to a great debate. Good luck to whomever accepts! :)
Illegals Should Build the Border Fence

Eh. I'm just going to put up new arguments since you forfeited. A border fence will ruin the communities of the people who live by the border. Douglas, Arizona Mayor Ray Borane "says a fence will divide a community that has strong family ties across the border." When a wall is built, people who will cross the border will take deadly routes. The fence will be built on the least dangerous crossings but the routes that are the most dangerous will be open. Given the strong desire to cross, many will attempt to make these crossing fatally. Hundreds die each year already. Hundreds more could be expected. The border will bother animals and decrease the numbers of animals. Thanks to the border the fence, now the animals may not be able to get water to drink from where they usually do. So will border fences stop illegal immigration?The answer is NO. Here's why: Illegal immigrants may climb over the fence. Illegal immigrants may use a boat and the ocean to arrive. Illegal immigrants may dig tunnels. Illegal immigrants can use fake passports and visas if needed. Fences had failed: Illegal immigrations were built in Spain and China and they never really stopped people from immigrating illegally.
Illegals Should Build the Border Fence

I do understand that there is a huge amount of unemployment in the United States, but they are other things to do (like getting monthly mail that pays you every month for two years until you get a job), but since this is not what we're debating, I would like to switch over to what this debate is really about.The chance of getting a job in the US:http://thepoliticalcarnival.net...If we were able to build some sort of wall or have a giant border fence, you will be saying that you don't want anyone from Mexico ( and possibly Canada) in our country. Which seems very oppressive and you may possibly offend the other country. Even though there are some easier ways to immigrate, people are desperate.Putting a border fence will cause lost of trust. If we start building a fence, then Mexico/Canada would defiantly think that we don't trust them so they will not trust us. This will not help especially if you're going to go into war in the future- you want allies.Next, you have to be aware of where the money is coming from because I'm sure that just don't want a fence that you can just knock down. You will have to attach cameras, motion sensors, barbed, and bared wire. Even if both economies are bad, how are we ever going to afford those cameras? It has to go across the country.I had given some very basic arguments for you to think about.
Illegals Should Build the Border Fence

The current rate of unemployment of Americans is approximately at 14 million Americans. That number is based of the US Department of Labor. Wouldn't it be better to give those Americans a job to help support their family. If an illegal alien is to come into the United States of America, they are suppose to departed. We shouldn't be giving the prizes if they get on to the US soil. Congratulations you illegal made it to the United States of America now here is a hammer and get to work on building this fence. There are Americans that are struggling to make ends meet, and would do any thing to have an extra to make money. Yes the economy is bad in both Mexico and America, but there is a legal way into coming into this country.
Hillary Clinton belongs in prison

Ok. So not to state the obvious, but Hillary Clinton clearly does not belong in prison. What possible evidence do you have to support this other than your apparent 'moral opinion'? The truth is that haters, need to get over it. Hillary Clinton isn't going to jail over a bunch of emails. The anti-Hillary crowd has been poking us with that stick during her entire presidential campaign, casting doubt on her viability, planting innuendo about her character and working non stop to make us think that they somehow knew something the rest of us didn't. Investigators announced that Clinton did nothing criminally wrong by using her personal email account while handling classified information as secretary of state. It removed a potentially damaging legal barrier from the campaign trail and cleared a pile of rubbish from her path to the White House. And it happened just in the nick of time. This isn't necessarily the gift that everyone had hoped for. And it didn't come wrapped in a tidy, cheerful package. It fact, it was handed over to us in a rather messy heap. No one expects every American to be excited about it. But over time, many of us likely will come to appreciate it. The email scandal was supposed to be the smoking gun in the Republicans' two-year Benghazi probe. As it turned out, the conspiracy theories cracked wide open under the microscope and exposed the Benghazi inquest for exactly what it was " an $8 million taxpayer-funded Republican campaign to derail Clinton's presidential prospects. As hard as they tried, congressional Republicans couldn't come up with a strand of proof that Clinton had been derelict in her duties as secretary of state concerning the 2012 attacks in Libya that killed four Americans. There was nothing in their 800-page report issued that proved she engaged in professional misconduct. Still, the Republican smear campaign caused major collateral damage, most notably among Democrats. Some in her own party bought into Trump's "crooked Hillary" hype and have done their fair share of spreading the venom. So far, former Bernie Sanders supporters can't seem to muster any enthusiasm for Clinton, the person most likely to be at the top of the Democratic ticket in November. And by refusing to throw his own support behind the presumptive nominee, Sanders, in effect, is telling them that it's OK. Sorry, Republicans, but emails didn't end Hillary Clinton or put her in jail, and all for the right reasons. People are convinced that Clinton manipulated primary votes, enticed the media to underreport Sanders' widespread support among constituents and only cares about minorities and issues such as poverty, education and crime when it's politically expedient. This did not happen, and despite her faults, Clinton clearly does not belong in prison.