BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
School attendance should be compulsory

as of yet I am not sure what the rules and regulations are for New York schools. But I agree with the affirmative side up to a point that it should be mandatory, but at the age of sixteen they should be given the choice to go to school or not. If students are not to be given a choice to go to school then there is a much higher probability of the students rebelling against being forced to go to school. so first students are required to go to school until they are 16 and then they are given the choice to get a G.E.D. or just drop out of school allowing this gives the students the chance to leave if they do not want to be there so that the other students that do want to be there are given the chance to actually learn with out the other students holding them back because of there interruptions and then having to step back and review for them that have skipped there classes and then have to be brought up to speed with every one else since they will not come in during there own time and there for must take up class time in order to do it. second we can not have a future if the few students are holding back the majority there for if we force them to stay in school then we will never have a community that is great and bright since there will be students that will became angry and suppress there anger until they finally burst and take there frustration out on fellow students or like what has happened at columbine when the students that was being picked on by the other students until they finally got tired of it and then tried to get revenge. So by forcing students to stay that don't want to be there then there will be more cases such as that so if we are to give them a choice then we can help prevent such things from hipping again. three it is true some are still immature but again we can not force them to be there other wise look at my previous point. four right now illiteracy rate might be going up but it is nothing compared to what will happen if we are to mandate it until they are eighteen but the best way to prevent this is to push them while they are young if you are to wait until they are sixteen and up then they will not want to learn it if they have not learned it while they are younger. finally yes the future lies on the children and so yes they should be educated as much as possible but when they no longer want to learn then they should be given that freedom to leave as they so choose but they should also not just be cut off completely if they want to come back to school then they should be allowed to go back to school depending on there age if they are over the age of twenty one then they should be allowed to go to a night school or some other form of school depending on each case.
School attendance should be compulsory

I personally believe that school attendance should indeed, be compulsory. If we let the children decide for just themselves. How can we even have a community with a great and bright future? Indeed, children still don't know what is right for they're minds are still immature. It is the responsibility of the grown-ups to send these children to school. Plus, right now, illiteracy rate is moving up. We should not just ignore this, it is a worldwide concern. If this illiteracy rate keeps on moving up, the future of this world will be very far from the ideal. The future lies on the hands of the children, who, should be trained while they are young for the challenges they might encounter later on with their lives.
Marijauna legalized in the united states

Well since you have forfeited this round I may end the debate with a last strong evidence for not using marijuana. Marijuana is most effective when inhaled through smoking but there something very dark which would discourage its use. For example there are some reasons to think that marijuana smoking might increase lung cancer risk. Many of the cancer-causing substances in tobacco are also found in marijuana. Marijuana contains more tar than cigarettes. (Tar is the sticky, solid material that remains after burning, which is thought to contain most of the harmful substances in smoke.) Marijuana cigarettes (joints) are typically smoked all the way to the end, where tar content is the highest. Marijuana is also inhaled very deeply and the smoke is held in the lungs for a long time. And because marijuana is an illegal substance, it is not possible to control what other substances it might contain. Therefore imust say that it should not be used by the US Government until and unless further research is done relating to the properties of this drug.
Marijauna legalized in the united states

Well as far as I know Marijuana is a very effective drug in cancer treatment. However everything effective has a disadvantage or certain side effects that rule out the benefits of using this drug. Scientists are researching on marijuana alt and some important discoveries have also been made. First of all studies have shown that the whole plant has many different compounds which have different actions in the human body. For example studies have shown that THC can raise anxiety and cause paranoia which I believe is another form of being paranoid while cannabidiol (CBD) may reduce them. Components of the whole plant can have nearly opposite effects in the human brain, so that one compound can change the effects of another. This is therefore a demerit of the drug because the brain functions the entire body directly or indirectly, so a person who is using this drug may lose control of his brain which in itself leads to serious problems. Another issue is that effects vary depending on how marijuana compounds enter the body. When taken by mouth, the THC is processed by the liver, which produces another psychoactive compound (a substance that acts on the brain and changes mood or consciousness). When marijuana smoke is inhaled, cannabinoids enter the bloodstream quickly. The extra psychoactive compound is produced in smaller amounts than when marijuana is taken by mouth. The way of using this drug doesn"t matters because in the end you will eventually end up with psychoactive problems. However a cancer, vomit or even nausea or for whatever use it is taken can be cured by several other drugs which have less dangerous side effects than marijuana. I agree that marijuana is widely helpful to people with problems in people with glaucoma, however the American College of Physicians noted in 2008 that large doses of cannabinoids are required to reduce eye pressure. This effect is short lived, and side effects, such as a reduction in blood supply to the optic nerve, may cancel out the benefit over the long term. Other medicines are generally more useful for people with glaucoma. An example of other medicine in place of marijuana:- A 2006 study of people with advanced cancer and weight loss tested marijuana extract against low doses of THC and compared them to a placebo group. Over the 6-week period, all 3 groups reported improved appetite, so neither the THC nor marijuana extract helped more than placebo. However, doses used in this study were low and were not increased over time as is usually done with THC. Well this is my argument for now as I am looking forward for your argument and using other facts later.
There are good things to North Korea

In Pro's previous arguments he has stated communist countries in general have high literacy rates only to now change his argument to say North Korea in separate has high literacy rates. Pro seems to get confused quite a lot through his previous rebuttals. As a consequence of having nothing to rebut or the lack of concentration pro doesn't even put up a rebuttal against the argument of the money forgery in North Korea. In Pro's next rebuttal I was simply rebutting his example of how the exports of North Koreas mangoes are better than of competing nations. Pro seems to drop his argument's example altogether, stating i had "gone off track" and that it did not make sense. Also he states that North Koreans are impressive in growing fruit how it can grow fruit when again this is clearly falsified when a 0.24 to 3.5 million of their population has died of stavation. Again i was rebutting his poor example of a country that doesn't have a sea to fish (sea food) to a country situated next to a sea. It does not need a debate to figure that out. Next, pro seems to not know the definition of refute. When defining the word refute, "it is to prove a statement or theory to be wrong or false". In this case Pro never actually gave any statement about North Korean seafood products, only to state that "It's probably better than Zimbabwe's seafood". Pro seems he cannot make add new arguments but for some reason can not rebut my previous arguments as well. Instead he gives an opinion of his somewhat, delirious arguments saying that smoking weed needed in Korea apparently because it is "usually" progressive. It is clear North Korea is nothing but a failure and i hope to have persuaded you (the voters) into believing this fact is true.
There are good things to North Korea

My opponent says that North Korea is bad because it`s communist. However, This still does not refute how North Korea has a good literacy rate. This argument Penetrates any Attempted rebuttal, Unless my Opponent uses a direct, solid argument. My Opponent chooses to not, And because My opponent is not allowed to bring up new arguments the same way I can only rebut, This point is extended Again, My opponent doesn`t rebut this, He goes off track With something about mango's. This does not make sense, and doesn`t refute North Korea`s impressive Fruit exportation or how it can grow fruit. My opponent does the same thing with my fish argument, And does not get my point. Saying that North Korea has better seafood than Zimbabwe is merely a comparison, Meaning North Korea does produce fish. To continue, My opponent never actually refutes on North Korea`s fish products. See, I cannot add new arguments, But Legalizing Weed is usually considered progressive, Something needed in North Korea All of my points are dropped. I encourage the voter, to vote pro. Thank you, voter.
There are good things to North Korea

Pro's rebut tries to explain that North Koreans are good readers mainly because they are a communist country. I highly doubt that dictators would go with supporting communism because it offers better literacy rates. In the next argument Pro seems to have a few mixed messages. Pro states that forging money is good for the peoples of North Korea because it will "damage" their enemy while stating that simply because north Korea can forge money it gives them bragging rights over South Korea. Also in he's last argument he has said forging notes is a good thing for north Korea, only to say that they shouldn't forge money. Furthermore while previously saying that forging notes damages their enemy, it somehow damages them as well. Of course the people of North Korea enjoy eating fruit, on the unlikely chance they will receive any anyway. No where does it say north Korea produces mangoes to a high proficiency. If Canada wanted to buy mangoes they wouldn't even think about buying them off North Koreas shores, instead other countries like China and Japan continue to pummel the exports of North Korean fruit. I agree on Pros statement mainly because Zimbabwe is landlocked in the south of Africa. There wouldn't be too many prime fishing spots around for the fellow Zimbabweans to fish. Also a third world country such as Zimbabwe wouldn't be in a position to carry out with many large exports of fish because there is no where to fish in there country except for half a lake. How many of those people of the hundreds of thousands of users would need marijuana for medical needs? I don't see how Smoking is good for nature at all... so please explain. Pro says making weed illegal killed 24,000 people. How many people would die from making it legal. Smoking in itself kills millions of people worldwide, the comparison from 24000 to the smoking related death statistics is minuscule.
There are good things to North Korea

"Pro states that Communism in North Korea supports "literacy rates", yet the amount of down sides to communism would trump that positive into the ground" I said communist countries in general have good literacy rates, and even if cmomunism is bad, That doesn`t change that North Koreans are good readers. " The next argument states that that North Korea is great in the forging of the Us Dollar. It seems to me that this is not beneficial to them in any way because the can't even forge enough of their own currency" This not only damages the enemy they have, but allows them to boast over south korea. Also, North Korea should not forge currency, That on the other hand, Damages them. "He also states that North Korea produces "great fruit". What separates great fruit from normal fruit? Furthermore he says that the fruit and vegetables are fresh yet are exported overseas and not even fed to their own people. What good does this give to north Korea?" Generally, the people enjoy it, It has positive ratings, and is the best of normal fruit. You don`t think Canada produces great mangos right?? But China and Japan produce mangos? It works like that. Also, Exports keep them look presentable And give them money. "Pro states that north Korea has "better" seafood than competing countries. Once again it is impossible to state whether who's seafood is better." Considering that People would work against the law to get seafood, It`s probably better then Zimbawe`s seafood. " Last time I checked using drugs was not in any way in the slightest bit good. How is legalising a drug good in any way?" Weed provides the following ben(5)ifits. Medical use good for nature Projected to give economic growth, Something North Korea really needs In mexico alone, Making weed illegal killed 24,000 people. " Many countries have their own native wildlife. I don't see what is so special about having native animals situated in their country." These are more rare then you might think. You heard of the classics, The tiger, the bear, etc. etc. credits: http://www.truth-out.org...
There are good things to North Korea

Pro states that Communism in North Korea supports "literacy rates", yet the amount of down sides to communism would trump that positive into the ground. He also states that North Korea produces "great fruit". What separates great fruit from normal fruit? Furthermore he says that the fruit and vegetables are fresh yet are exported overseas and not even fed to their own people. What good does this give to north Korea? The next argument states that that North Korea is great in the forging of the Us Dollar. It seems to me that this is not beneficial to them in any way because the can't even forge enough of their own currency. Pro states that north Korea has "better" seafood than competing countries. Once again it is impossible to state whether who's seafood is better. Last time I checked using drugs was not in any way in the slightest bit good. How is legalising a drug good in any way? Many countries have their own native wildlife. I don't see what is so special about having native animals situated in their country.
There are good things to North Korea

True Korea, believe it or not, has some pros Literacy rate North Korea is believed to have a 99%-100% literacy rate, Despite famines. In fact, Communism in general has good literacy rates, Cuba and Vietnam also have high literacy rates. Currently, North Korea Ties with Canada for literacy rates. (1) Fresh Fruit Although north Korea isn`t known for feeding it`s people, That doesn`t prevent them From great fruit. (still 1) . North Korea is the 10th largest producer of fruit and the 12th largest producer of vegetables, Although that is apparently only for export. Forging US dollars One of the poorest countries in the world is good at printing money. (2) In fact, So good that the USA considered halting production of the U.S dollar. North Koreans are better dollar printers than the USA itself at times, remarks the time magazine Seafood Fun fact: North Korea has better seafood than the UK, America, and Russia. Although the sale of north Korean food is banned in south Korea(still 2), Vendors break the laws to get north Korean seafood. In South Korea, North Korean seafood is labeled. Marijuana Legalization In North Korea, Marijuana is legal (3). This makes them ahead of the USA, UK , Russia, Switzerland, Poland, Germany, And Australia. The dmz`s wildlife?? The dmz is home to many anim(4) als like the Korean tiger and bear. (4) Also, the red crowned cranes live in the DMZ. 1. http://www.askmen.com... 2. http://foreignpolicy.com... 3. http://thoughtcatalog.com... 4. http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
Will Trump really make "America Great Again?'

I'm just going to say what I've been thinking for a longtime now; Donald Trump is a joke of a political candidate. He makes racist jokes, he makes jokes about the disabled, he calls women "disgusting" for using the restroom during debates and breast feeding babies in public. He is so rich that he is completely out of touch with reality. His presidency would mean the downfall of America. Oh yeah, and that wall he wants Mexico to pay for; no chance in hell Mexico is going to spend a single peso on it.
Evolution proves that god is real

This debate is about evolution- does evolution prove that God is real?I will contend in this debate that evolution does prove God is real. Your con position will attempt to prove that evolution discredits the concept of God (which is the typical position, so you can perhaps get some hints from other sources).Argument 1: (Creation)God is typically defined as the one who "creates the universe". In our observable universe, there is in fact very little that we can observe "being created". The number one location we can observe ongoing creation is in the evolution of life.Rocks change form, atoms are recycled, energy changes positions- but none of this constitutes creation. Creation is the act of making something new. Evolution is the most visible of locations where things are made. Being able to observe creation is proof that creation exists. Since God by definition is the creator, this is proof that God exists. You can deny if you want that all religions define God as the creator, but in fact, you are merely confusing yourself. God is the creator, and evolution is the number one active visible act of creation that is observable.Argument 2: (Love) Evolutionary theorist typicallly point out how evolution occurs "blindly" and "natural selection" determines organisms that get to procreate, and organisms that do not. Then there is thrown in as an aside "artifical selection" (what humans do) and "sexual selection" (the choice of a mate).If you think about every single person you have ever known, and how they chose their mate- by what criteria did they make this choice?Love.If you think about every single other organism you have observed who has chosen a mate, how do you characterize their choice?Love.So we can see, "Love" is the number one criteria in observable mating patterns, and is the number one determiner of who gets to procreate. Those who are loved, have children. This includes the weak, the blind, the deaf, the crippled- all who are loved and capable of reproducing are those who participate in evolution.If you look at observable events of those you actually know, and why some ended up having kids or those not, there are a few occurances of random accidicents or disease. A small percentage of active evolutionary pressure is natural selection. But the vast majority of those who have children do so because they choose to fall in love and be loved. Love is the driver of real evolution.Love is the other aspect that God grants organisms.
The death penalty should be abolished

As this debate is now drawing to conclusion, I would just like to ask, again, should the punishment fit the crime and if so, is rotting away in a jail cell a fitting punishment for someone who commits murder in cold blood, especially since rotting away in a jail cell is a punishment for certain other crimes which don't involve the taking of human life? Is there really a punishment fitting a murder charge (or even a multiple murder charge) other than being put to death? If you take a life in cold blood, you forfeit the right to live. You have no reasonable expectation for society to protect you from harm if you ruthlessly harm others. I agree that we should take every step necessary to ensure that the innocent do not be put to death through this procedure. This is why I would advocate stricter requirements for capital punishment. There should be no shadow of a doubt the person is guilty: DNA evidence should be present, probably two or three reputable witnesses, a signed confession, etc. It is true that by putting the killer to death you are not bringing the victims' life back, but murder by its very nature is an irreversible crime. Therefore, it deserves and irreversible punishment. Capital punishment is not about revenge, it's about justice. There is no justice if someone who takes a life in cold blood gets to live out the rest of his life. Not to mention there's always the chance he can repeat his offense (either escaping and killing someone outside of jail, which would be rare, or killing someone inside the walls of the prison). As I close, I would just like to reiterate that I don't see being pro-capital punishment as going against my pro-life stance. For me, being pro-life has always been about protecting innocent life, from the unborn to the elderly. This is why someone who takes a life in cold blood no longer deserves protection; someone who takes a life forfeits his own right to live. And if he is allowed to live, there is a chance, however small, that an innocent person will be struck again by this murderer. I thank Nick for instigating this debate with me, and I am glad to have him on my side as a pro-lifer, even though we disagree on this issue.
The death penalty should be abolished

For my closing remarks, I would like to ask “which is more prudent? ” Maintaining an irreversible penalty in spite of human error or replacing it with a penalty that is incredibly harsh yet reversible in case of a mistake. My opponent has made the suggestion that life imprisonment is somehow “getting off scot free”. That is absurd. Locking someone away for the rest of their natural life is an incredibly harsh punishment that still can be reversed in the case of error. He states that he supports restrictions on the death penalty, which is a step in the right direction, but it doesn’t guarantee that there won’t be innocent executions the way that abolition of the death penalty would. My second question is “which is more respectful of human life? ” Establishing a punishment that only doubles the death rate or refusing to give flawed human judges the power to kill non-defensively? My opponent has stated that by taking life one has forfeited their own life, but does this forfeit bring the victims life back? No! It only doubles the death rate. It is an unnecessary homicide, something that we as pro-lifers should always oppose. With that I end with a quote from one of the most eloquent defenders of human life of the 20th and 21st century. “The new evangelization calls for followers of Christ who are unconditionally pro-life: who will proclaim, celebrate and serve the Gospel of life in every situation. A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform. I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary. “ (Pope John Paul II, St. Louis, MO, January 1999) I thank Clinton for participating this debate, and I appreciate his arguments though we disagree.