BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God is more likely to exist than an invisible pink unicorn

I shall begin by laying out definitions and boundaries of debate. Then give a brief overview of my debate. Definitions: God: The one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.[1] More: in greater quantity, amount, measure, degree, or number.[2] Likely(adverb): Probably.[3] Probably: Insofar as seems reasonably true, factual, or to be expected.[4] Exist: to have real being whether material or spiritual.[5] - ---OBSERVE THESE DEFINITION CAREFULLY AND OBSERVE MY USE OF THEM IN MY CASE--- Invisible: Not visible.[6] Visible: Capable of being seen.[7] - ---OBSERVE THESE DEFINITION CAREFULLY AND OBSERVE MY USE OF THEM IN MY CASE--- Pink: a color varying from light crimson to pale reddish purple.[8] Unicorn: a mythical animal generally depicted with the body and head of a horse, the hind legs of a stag, the tail of a lion, and a single horn in the middle of the forehead.[9] Now I shall set boundaries to debate and define any technical terms used: 1) No denial of my definitions if the definition that my opponent proposes would render the resolution or part of the resolution as nonsense. For example If he wished to say the invisible meant totally non-discernible to the human eye, or brain then that renders 'invisible pink unicorn as nonsense' and essentially causes the resolution to state 'God is more likely than nonsense' well I see nonsense everyday in many ways so nonsense is far more blatant and likely than God and would make this non-debatable for the pro. Nonsense: Words or language having no meaning or conveying no intelligible ideas.[10] 2) No suggestion of an alternate God to the one defined. Supreme being is the only definition being used. Supreme: highest in degree or quality.[11] 3) The fact that a unicorn is mythical shall have no inference regarding the likelihood if its existence. It could simultaneously be a myth and be likely. Myth:a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.[12] Simultaneously: existing, occurring, or operating at the same time (as).[13] Sources: [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] http://dictionary.reference.com... [3] http://dictionary.reference.com... [4] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [5] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [6] http://dictionary.reference.com... [7] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [8] http://dictionary.reference.com... [9] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [10] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [11] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [12] http://dictionary.reference.com... [13] http://dictionary.reference.com... It is now up to the pro the propose the resolution as true, using my definitions and sticking within the boundaries.
naruto will be with hinata more likely than sakura

Naruto will defy his ninja way if he gives up on Sakura. Naruto when he was fighting Gaara and Sakura was held hostage she was still alive. Naruto freaked because he thought Hinata had actually died. Naruto turned into a crazy fox when Sasuke almost died does that mean Sasuke is also a frontrunner for Naruto's heart? I stand by the facts Naruto has a dying love for only Sakura as we know of, Sakura has already contemplating dating Naruto in her mind many times like that time she regretted not letting him pay for her ramen at the beginning of part 2. Naruto has never shown any love interest in Hinata, so since Sakura has already thought about it and Naruto has always wanted to date Sakura it is just a matter of time before they actually get together. Sakura was always the MOST LIKELY one to end up with Naruto, because Naruto has always loved her
naruto will be with hinata more likely than sakura

yeah i no he wouldnt marry hinata for political reasons i was just saying how it would help and also he has never had any feelings towards hinata correct but since she has admitted her love for naruto naruto now has moxt likley grown even stronger feelings for hinata also another thing is that when garaa was about to kill sakura in the forest naruto didnt change into a tailed beast at all so that may show that naruto has feelings for hinata over sakura
naruto will be with hinata more likely than sakura

Naruto won't marry Hinata for political reasons. I have said this already Naruto has never thought of Hinata as anything else but a friend. If Naruto cannot get with Sakura then he will most likely live a love life like Jiraiya. Jiraiya has spent most of his life pursuing Tsunade and always got rejected never moving on to another girl. Naruto only loves Sakura, Naruto is a guy to never give up he will wait for Sakura forever if he as to. Hinata is better off with Neji the most promising ninja of the Hyuga clan then with Naruto.
naruto will be with hinata more likely than sakura

Naruto shows great emotional pain when anyone of his friends gets hurt. we can all unanimously agree with that right? Well at least those who read and watch Naruto. What happened when Gaara was killed? Naruto got angry and tried to take Deidara by himself. What happened when Sasuke seemed to have been killed by Haku? he got angry and charged at Haku. What happened when Sakura cried tears to Naruto telling him to save Sasuke, he is on a never ending quest to fulfill a promise to Sakura to never see her hurt again. If Sakura jumped out and tried to save Naruto you don't think that Naruto would have repeated the exact same actions? Naruto did not reject Sakura he just told her he hated liars. Naruto wants Sakura to really and truly love him. Naruto has NEVER shown interest in Hinata. He has always pursued Sakura asking her on dates every opportunity he gets. Sakura slowly is developing feelings for Naruto. Sakura and Kakashi are one of the among the first few people who actually accepted him and they understand his pain because they have been on the same team. Hinata barely knows Naruto, just that he is a respectable character. Naruto loves Sakura he has said it since childhood that his future wife will be Sakura. In part 2 he has tried to get Sakura to go on a date with him. When Naruto sees that Sakura truly loves him then he will choose Sakura.
Should Homework Be Banned

I accept. Arguments will be in the next round.TermsHomework: Schoolwork that a pupil is required to do at homeBanned: Officially prevent (someone) from doing somethingRules1. No forfeiting, or else you forfeit the whole debate to the opponent.2. No trolling3. BOP is to Pro. Pro has to explain and tll why the resolution is correct and we should ban homework.4. Defintinons are provided below so no need to change them.Structure1. Acceptance2. Arguments3. RebuttalsNote: Pro made his argument in the first round. Due to doing this act, he has to waive his 3rd round by saying, "No round as agreed upon" If he does not say that statement, all points come to me. This is for the even amount of rounds.Please read my round carefully because many debaters just do not read and do whatever they want.Sourceshttp://www.oxforddictionaries.com...http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
Should Homework Be Banned

To start with my First Pillar: It is Time Consuming. Homework should be abolished because students will just ponder this 6 hours a day 5 days a week 10 months a year every year till they get a job is that not enough there's a difference between giving work because it's not done but just popping up and saying here do this worksheet even though you already talked about this for 6 hours if they have all their work done let them be free not having to sit down doing more work they already had 6 hours of work seriously. Students need Free time, home is where they can relax unwind after a hard day of work. Some of you may argue that it needs to be fresh in their mind. But they have school all week and they only have a two day break not including summer. They should not be kept up till eleven pm trying to finish it. Now by staying up they won"t be ready for the next day and will only have a bleak memory of what happened. This will not enhance their learning experience at all. BUT there is a difference between having a class assignment overdo for 2 weeks and just giving extra work after school. That is only middle school. High School has a very strict with homework. Starting from grade 9 or 10 an average student will have homework every day. Trudging home each day after long hours of hard work and concentration, high school students all over the World face more hours of tedious schoolwork. As many as five or six hours of homework a night are not uncommon for students, leaving them little time to do much else. Assigned homework in almost every class, the students have acquired a heavy load of work by the end of the day. However, if a plan were installed in the high schools that allowed each teacher to give each of his or her classes a maximum of three hours of homework per week, students would have more time to develop themselves in other areas and a chance to lead more balanced lives.
Should Homework Be Banned

These are the benefits of having homework The first benefit of homework is that it allows students and teachers to work more closely together. They can discuss their assignments or any problems that they are having with parts of their textbooks, before or after classes. The second benefit is that it can bring families closer together as students may ask their parents or siblings for help on their homework. Not only will this help the students get a better understanding of their work with any parts they are stuck on, it will also allow parents to get more involved in their child's educational life. Thirdly, doing homework will prepare students for the big end tests. If a child does poorly on an assignment then they will learn what is necessary to do well on the next test without being punished. It also provides students with the opportunity to practice at what it takes to be successful in school. Like they say, practice makes perfect. Doing homework is also a great way to develop responsibilities. By being assigned work one day and knowing that it has to be done by the next day, they will develop a sense of punctuality by turning their work in on time. And finally it allows parents to see how their children are being educated and they can develop a better idea of how they can help their child. However, some parents, students and even some teachers feel that after 7-8 hours of lessons in school, it is unfair to expect students to come home and work for another three hours.
Subjective Morality/Moral Relativism ought to be encoraged over Objective Morality/Moral Realism [2]

I will withhold making my position clear until I see the grounds by which you are establishing your two normative claims: 'that subjective morality should be preferred' and that 'objective morality should not be preferred'. I would only ask for you to elucidate the semantics behind the word 'preferred' here and whether this is an either/or argument, meaning that you can only follow one or the other moral systems at any given time. And on a formal note, is round two for rebuttals or for opening arguments only? In other words, do you want me to establish the benefits of objective morality or simply act as a polemic against your arguments?
Subjective Morality/Moral Relativism ought to be encoraged over Objective Morality/Moral Realism [2]

I will be arguing that subjective morality should be preferred to objective morality, for reasons to be discussed in my arguments. My opponent will argue for moral objectivity/moral realism. (Moral realism falls under moral objectivity.)Subjective morality/Moral Relativism is defined as: Moral codes and laws can not be true of false from an objective viewpoint, but only from an individuals subjective viewpoint. https://en.wikipedia.org...Objective Morality/Moral Realism is defined as: Ethical sentences and laws are objectively true or false, and that they are applied objectively to features independent of subjective opinion.https://en.wikipedia.org...Rules for the debate:No trollingFirst round is acceptance ONLYDo not stray off topicNo adhominen attacksIf you are confused, than please ask for clarification in theacceptance round, BUT DO NOT post an argument the first round.Please don't accept if you don't have a basic knowledge of ethics and philosophy.Thank you, and happy debating.
The concept of "teen pregnancy" needs to be abandoned

Before the industrial revolution, people got married and had full adult rights upon puberty. During the industrial revolution, efforts were made to stop young people from working in dangerous factories and do "educate" young people. Since then, restrictions on young people had been gradually increasing. They can't make healthcare decisions, even when they have the mental ability to decide for themselves. They can't get a job without a parent's permission and permission from the state based on a medical exam, they can't leave their home without their parent's permission or they will be considered a "runaway" and cops will arrest them, bring them home and put them in juvenile justice and anything they buy, even with their own money, can be taken from them by their parents at any time for any reason. That is OWNERSHIP. "Teen" is a very recent concept and also needs to be abolished and along with that the concept of "teenage pregnancy" should be abolished.
The concept of "teen pregnancy" needs to be abandoned

Teen pregnancy can be a good thing. Long-term studies by Duke economist V. Joseph Hotz and colleagues, found that by age 35, former teen moms had earned more in income, paid more in taxes, were substantially less likely to live in poverty and collected less in public assistance than similarly poor women who waited until their 20s to have babies. Women who became mothers in their teens were freed from child-raising duties by their late 20s and early 30s so they went to pursue employment while poorer women who waited to become moms were still stuck at home watching their young children and were more likely to collect welfare. Also, because poorer groups tend to die younger, having babies early in life may ensure that grandparents and extended family members will be alive and healthy enough to help raise children. The real problem is our own attitude to teen pregnancy and teen sex, and also we only get one side of the picture. The concept of "teen pregnancy" needs to be abandoned because it's stigmatizing, prejudicial and counterproductive.
Millennials are just useless braindead losers

Well I will be providing sources of why millennials are brain dead and can't function without their phones, here are some reading materials https://www.entrepreneur.com... https://www.theloop.ca... https://www.buzzfeed.com... https://www.mindingthecampus.org... I'm not the only one who thinks millennials can't think on their own, and that is why they end up unemployed or only working brain dead jobs as Starbucks barista's 12 hours a week, while complaining that there are no jobs out there, while wearing their Green Lantern t-shirts, that mom washed for them the night before and changed their bed sheets because they are too busy spending 90 hours a week playing Fortnite and blowing their allowance on another Comic book movie and texting all day long because they don't know how to socialize in real life.
Millennials are just useless braindead losers

Millennial's are not brain-dead losers! They may be on their phones a lot, but still. Phones are a way to communicate to friends that you may never see again and have fun and games. Plus, if someone doesn't know something to do or is worried about something, google is a great source, even for classrooms. They also become the most educated from google as they are learning things from it.
Millennials are just useless braindead losers

Millennials today are just brain dead losers who can't figure anything out without googling it. They can't think for themselves, they can't even do long division and they can't function without their phone. Provide any challenge to a millennial and after they are stuck for 5 minutes they have to resort to google because they are too brain dead to use their own head to solve any problem. This stems from them growing up in the digital age where individual thinking is no longer required as google will explain everything for you and even show you how to wipe your a** for you if you don't know. I wouldn't hire one millennial at my workplace because they are useless when it comes to creative thinking or face to face negotiations as all they do is communicate on social media and have no clue of how to communicate in real life. Millennials are zombies with a smartphone glued to their hand and google to run their lives.
Millennials are just useless braindead losers

I have 35 reasons here why millennials suck https://www.lovepanky.com... And you might find yourself thinking that you are an exception to that rule, because you work full time, but the matter is you still live at home in moms basement, you still wear the Green Arrow pj's and you spend 30 hours a week on fortnite and your Ipad and you are never going to buy a home, why when you can mooch off mom
Teachers should be armed

Your argument has many errors, So I will start by going through them. First, We can overhaul American society in order to reduce gun violence. One good way to do this would be to follow the second amendment as written: If well-regulated militias are necessary for security of a free state, It seems like we ought to have well-regulated militias, Instead of random gun enthusiasts buying guns for personal protection, Which is nowhere in the second amendment. "Those unstable. . . Will get guns if they want. " Then why don't they? Criminals don't like full-auto M4s? They prefer AR-15s? Do you know how many M16s and M4 carbines are near you right now? Just go to your local Army Reserve unit or local police office and ask for one. You won't get one, Because these are restricted weapons and gun restrictions work. As a result, Criminals use unrestricted weapons instead, Just as the Parkland shooter did. Now specifically regarding arming teachers, There are several problems. First, The presence of guns changes the situation guns are in. In other words, Guns escalate bad situations by changing the risk factors. For instance, Tons of people are shot by cops because they might have a gun -- the possibility of a firearm forces cops (and teachers, If you have your way) to use deadly force, Even if that's ultimately unnecessary. Because the risk is still there. Therefore more guns increases the chances something will happen. Also arming teachers normalizes school shootings. You don't put millions of dollars and personnel hours into training for a school shooting unless you expect shootings to occur, Because that would be a waste of taxpayer dollars. So weird kids get the message that school shootings are expected, And that there's room for this in school protocol. And that conflict is ultimately resolved by deadly force. Societies create their own realities. Also there's no evidence that school shooters are crazy, Just like terrorists and Nazis aren't crazy. Nazis and terrorists are sane people reacting in a radical way to cultural forces in their societies. America is addicted to gun violence, And unstable people are reacting to that. If your solution to violence in schools is more guns, Then that proves my point. Now that we've jacked up the risk factors by arming teachers, Who bears the burden? If a teacher fails to kill a shooter will they get sued? What if they reasonably believe a shooting is imminent and kill a kid but later that turns out to be wrong? Do they go to jail? How much will school districts spend on insurance to cover court fees and settlements? In the end, Arming teachers will only result in increasing our addiction to enforcement and rules by force. More people will respond to this by becoming violent.
Resolved: The Federal Government can legalize medical marijuana and/or industrialized hemp

I sincerely apologize for dropping that last round, i was at a real debate tournament over the weekend and had no time. what you should look to in this debate round is still the argument of governmental legitimacy. this point stands in this debate round with complete relevance, and should be looked to for it is the government's first priority to protect its citizens. the facts that there are dangerous carcinogens in marijuana, and that marijuana has previously linked to herendous infant deformaties, still births, and significant death, shows us that these drugs are severly harmful to us, and it is it's obligation to protect it's citizens against things such as marijuana. additionally, you cannot look to my opponents argument's for the tenth amendment reserves all rights not mentioned within the constitution to the states. the basis for affirming that he gives us is tantamount to saying that we can constitutionalize anything (insest,rape, murder, ect. ) IF we created a constitutional amendment, the states all ratified it, or we had a constitutional convention. if the pro wishes to frame the debate round around a hypothetical debate, than this is a debate that i do not see any reason to win, for we have gotten nowhere. since these arguments lack real-life foundation look to the neg. thanks.
The Electoral College

1. Whether you think it's minor or major, It is absolutely the intention of the founding fathers reason for implementing the electoral college, And the reforms would still be constitutional. They modeled it off of congress so it would give power to the small states and prevent majority rule. These are NOT major reforms. They tackle the problem of the winner takes all system, And thats it. What it does is exactly what congress does, Gives small states a disproportionate amount of power. These reforms would merely fit more to the vision of the founding fathers, But you are treating it like it is an exact replica of the popular vote system when it really isn't. 2. Did you ignore my criticism of the winner takes all system? This is just what I pointed out, A reformed electoral college would negate this. Beyond this, "They will pay attention to swing states when they're swinging and ignore them when they aren't" Did anyone know that Wisconsin, Maine, And Minnesota, Where the polls showed a significant democrat lead, Ended up becoming swing states? It's not exactly easy to predict when a state will swing, And it is completely possible to flip them if you merely appeal to them, Which is just why Trump did so well in them. Trump appealed well to them and Clinton didn't appeal as well as other candidates. 3. What a reformed electoral system