BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
School Prayer

Unfortunately unless you are in a specific religious school, you are subject to Christianity no matter what faith you are or are not as the case maybe. Prayer is supposed to be a private conversation with you and your God, its supposed to be personalized not a prepared pray that everyone is expected to chant out loud. No one should have the right to push it on to someone whether they believe in God and Prayer or a different God, If prayers should stay in school then the should be tailored to meet all the faith groups represented by the children at that school. But as far as I'm concerned pray means very little to most children these days. In this day and age schools and religion don't make good bedfellows, matters of religion should be something that is decided by the family not he state or school.
School Prayer

Sorry for being unable to do round 4, unfortunately I have been rather unwell The bottom line on this issue for me is that children are forced by their school to take part, and that most schools use Christianity as the base for all their religious activities. For me there are only two ways to solve this. 1. Ensure that all children's needs are covered which would mean that all religions a covered. 2. To remove religious education and activities from school altogether. As I have pointed out before I would go with choice 2, in the secular world we live in I can see no real value in allowing time for prayer. School is for educating, there are churches and peoples homes for pray and other religious activities.
Junk food in school

Though it's a far, desperate reach to get rid of junk food availability for children outside parental supervision I believe it's imperative that we try. It's said junk food/processed food has common neurobiological effects on the brain as a hard drug like heroin or cocaine would have, making you feel you need it when you don't. With that being said is it not immoral to provide an addiction that young minds couldn't understand or overcome untill later age or maybe never? I think the young generation of our time is going down a bad path. Unhealthy tendencies are being embeded at early ages, causing more childhood desease than ever before. Food is convenient, but at what cost? Do we wake up and choose what's right for the future of our children and their world, despite probable complaint or do we continue this reliance on convenience and comfort?
chocolate

I will give room for my opponent to explain himself for claiming that consuming chocolate leads to suicide. I say this because it is obvious that people who commit suicide do not weigh in the psychological thought of chocolate. I assure you that chocolate is the least candidate to consider while considering suicide. Here is a short list, compiled by the source provided, of the reasons one might commit suicide: 1. Trouble at home 2. Change in family dynamics (i.e. new baby, older sister moves back home, Grandmother moves in) 3. Balancing relationships with divorced or separated parents 4. Change of schools 5. Difficulties at school 6. Bullied at school 7. Relationship breakup 8. Social struggles 9. Balancing school, work, social life, and family relationships 10. Facing an environment that encourages drugs, alcohol, and sex 11. The natural separation from parents 12. Dating 13. Learning to accept themselves with or without talents and abilities 14. Getting good grades for college/university 15. Getting a part-time job 16. Choosing a college/university 17. Choosing a career As silly as some of these reasons might seem, i'll remind you that the cause of suicide being chocolate is absurd. This list has been compiled in according to professional psychologists whom spend all their time of research specifically on the topic of suicide. Does chocolate cause mood swings? Yes, but these mood swings are so minor that one must consume a large amount of chocolate in order to actually cause a mood swing. And we all know that large amount of consumption of anything is unhealthy for you, this goes the same way for candy as it does for chocolate. Can it lead to suicide? No, the surrounding atmosphere of the individual may. What about sugar based candy? Sugar based candy consumption produces adrenaline, which leads into hyperactivity. Hyperactivity increases the chance of children developing ADD or ADHD, Attention Deficit (Hyperactivity) Disorder. Also, the production of adrenaline in elders may cause a heart related problem like Cardiac Arrests. It also decreases good cholesterol levels, in elders this may cause a heart attack. Furthermore, it may dehydrate the body and lead to water retention, which will cause constipation, and we all know how hard it is to deal with constipation. Sources: http://www.scientificamerican.com... http://www.sciencedaily.com... http://www.ehow.com... http://www.psychologytoday.com... http://ccvillage.buffalo.edu...
chocolate

It is common knowledge that women crave chocolate around or during the time of their period. It's a widely accepted fact. But why is this true? This is true because when someone takes a bite out of a piece of chocolate, it releases certain endorphins to try to right the imbalance of mental hormones in a woman's body.[1][2] But this balance is something that the woman's body is not prepared to have during this period of time. This skewing of of the females level of hormones is able to cause mood swings.[1] Mood swings are widely acknowledged as a cause for depression, which is also widely accepted as a reason why people commit suicide.[3] So, through the link of evidence and common knowledge, eating chocolate can lead to suicide via a imbalance of accepted bodily hormones. Suicide will outweigh any other harm to candies because: a. Intentional killing is a definite cause of death. While diseases and harms may come from sugar, they are not a guaranteed way of death. But if I hold a gun to my head and pull the trigger, I have a 100% chance to die and a 0% chance to survive. This will always outweigh because it will cause death one hundred percent of the time, where diseases can often be beaten back and cured. b. Death outweighs things like disease because while diseases can be cured, death is not something we can cure. We cannot bring someone back from the dead once they have biologically died, but we can cure cancer through various treatment methods (kimotherapy, radiation therapy, etc.) For these reasons, Vote Con! Resources: [1] http://www.healthspan.co.uk... [2] http://www.bodylogicmd.com... [3] http://www.emedicinehealth.com...
chocolate

Max Characters = 8,000 Time to Argue = 12 Hours Rounds = 5 I say that the ingredients and chemicals used to make chocolate are healthier than those in candy. I say this because candies main ingredient consists of Corn Starch, where as chocolates main ingredient consist of Cocoa. The Debater will argue that Candy has healthier ingredients found within chocolate. ps. i didn't change it because it was set from last time
Joing the military after high school is a wrong move

I'm not sure which side it says I am on, and I am new to this website, but I will be debating that joining the military after high school is not a wrong move. I am an Air Force ROTC candidate. There are ways to be in the military and still go to college at the same time. 1. Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) This option allows for a candidate officer to attend college at one of very many colleges and universities on a full scholarship in the US while also training with a branch. 2. Strategic Sealift Officer Program At any of the maritime schools across the United States, is the SSOP. They are a division of the Navy Merchant Marines and is just like ROTC. 3. United States Service Academies Any of the five military academies of the US is a way to be guaranteed commission into the military as an officer right after graduation. These schools are among the most prestigious in the world. Currently, there is West Point (Army), Annapolis (Navy), Colorado Springs (Air Force), King's Point (Merchant Marine), and New London (Coast Guard). Even without these, there are high school graduates who may not be able to afford college, and may join the military as Active Reserve, Reserve, or National Guard and attend college at the same time. Even active duty servicemen are able to get college credits through overseas classes. Therefore, joining the military after high school is not a wrong move.
Sonnet Challenge

True or False? (a false sense of security, in case its not clear hehe) Of truth, you whisper softly in my ear, Of sacred states to reach at your behest. You urge me I should hold my knowledge dear And put not shaken faith yet to the test. Your dogma, baleful, stays my pounding heart And keeps away the stealthy beasts of night. For left to chance my fragile psyches start To glut themselves upon my silent fright. My strength, within a rotting hymnal found; My life, my loves, a yoke of sweet duress; My hopes left cracked and broken on the ground; All this for truth, the certainty's caress. Yet if I know your truth is mine to keep, Then why, o curse-ed night, can I not sleep?
Sonnet Challenge

Thanks for accepting! Looking forward to seeing what you write. DISSONANCE Fitzgerald never could have truly known the awful fallout of his utterance which praised those who do not bemoan the prospect of opposed ideas at once. Sophists in every age, on any day, would twist the thought to defend their own side; a contradiction in their words, they say, is now not folly, but a point of pride. The author of The Great Gatsby, it seems, has caused a quite distasteful mess; the speaker of a nation's greatest dreams enabled generations of duress. And so, give this dichotomy a shot: Fitzgerald's a great author, except not.
Sonnet Challenge

Inspired by http://www.debate.org..., this debate variant consists of debaters presenting four topic choices for their opponent in the constructive, and then a sonnet written about one of the four topics given by their opponent in the rebuttal. A sonnet is defined as a poem written in iambic pentameter, and following the rhyme scheme abab cdcd efef gg. Thanks in advance for accepting. Topic Choices: 1. Existential angst 2. The Coen Brothers 3. lily pads 4. false senses of security
That Viral videos should be banned

Viral videos shouldn't be banned, because not all of them are stupid. Some of them are there to raise awareness, like the ice bucket challenge. Some users make money of Youtube, so if you might ban their views, it harms their work, and they wouldn't be able to make money. Also,it is not our right to ban the content of others. This is all part of freedom of speech. If you find it stupid, you always have the choice to not watch the content. If they are inappropriate for children, it is the responsibility of parents to keep them from watching it. Alot of stuff on the internet have no benefit, but it isn't our right to outlaw them, because everybody has different opinions.
Rap Battle 2

OK, like Lil Yachty, "we gon' turn this shjt to Columbine" Like with my Tec 9, I wreck thy fvckin' all the time But luckily the police haven't even called a crime Asking me to rap battle a second time, you crossed the line All of my raps actually rhyme, and aint that the point? None of your shjt rhymes, what are you, smoking a joint? Ajisthetruth has trouble spitting up bars that he coined No dimes for him, for you no time to win, now this I exploit Back to back loser? I know I've never failed Look at my win ratio, at it you can forever hail Cvnt!
Rap Battle 2

rofl this thing said cook me like bacon lookin at me like imma shinin star bruh needs to get deported cuz i'm the next trump bars stronger than fu(king Drizzy making friends' fingers turnin into twitter fingers taking back to back L's call you Meek Mill give me one just like Yachty you're gal be mine miss stealyourgirl in da building imma outta time to roast ya a$$ FREEBAND$ BIT(H
Starcraft 2 is a strategy-intensive computer game

It's been months since my last go-round, so I'm very excited to get my feet wet again. For those unfamiliar, StarCraft 2 is a real-time strategy game in which players act as army commanders of 1 of 3 alien races. Game-play consists of selecting a race, creating units (e. g. workers, soldiers), gathering resources, constructing buildings, and battling an opposing player, be they another human or the computer [1]. My opponent is right; I do not plan to run semantics. In fact, only one issue is debatable here. We agree that StarCraft 2 is a strategy-based PC game, but the question is whether or not it is strategy-intensive. In other words, is strategic thinking a significant factor in a player's success during any given game. I believe so, my opponent believes otherwise, and things are about to get real. 1. . http://starcraft.wikia.com...
Starcraft 2 is a strategy-intensive computer game

Resolved:: Starcraft 2 is a strategy-intensive computer game.While I don't believe Maikuru will run semantics on me, definitions are always good.Starcraft 2: The PC game invented by Blizzard that involves three different races (terran, protoss, and zerg) and their battle for inter-stellar dominance. It functions under the genre of Real-time strategy.strategy-intensive: requiring a lot of strategical thinkingcomputer game: oh f*ck off, we all know what a computer game is.Anyway, as neither of us want a really long debate, the first round is acceptance here. Then comes cases. Then the last round is rebuttals to strictly your opponent's case and then your concluding statements. The Burden of Proof is split between the two of us.I intend to show that Starcraft 2 is not a strategy-intensive game. My opponent wishes to show that it IS a strategy intensive game.
Trump is a terrible president

You think Mr. Trump is good!?! . Trump is just trying to deport all the Mexicans. He can't even talk like a normal person for more than an hour. He said to lock up Hillary Clinton and even though she did the email thing, do you really want to lock a rich lady in a jail cell. His travel ban against 7 mostly Muslim countries. People have families and this ban makes then not able to see them. He is supposed to listen to a intelligence committee for an hour but ignores them. You will burn in Hell if you are a Trump supporter.
Trump is a terrible president

Thank You for this opportunity to prove just how good Donald J. Trump is. I've engaged in multiple debates over the course of the campaign season to prove how liberals and the main-stream media will twist anything Trump does. As my opponent has provided a brief overview of what they claim, I urge my opponent to provide evidence in the form of sources that have no bias. Without evidence to back it up, judges, please declare their claims null and void. I wish you good luck and hope you post a more thorough argument in the next round. I will post my case in the next round as well.
drugs

they can be used to cure diseases and MAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN they make you feel gooooood
Dinosaurs existed.

Even though I don't expect a response from my opponent, why would you plagiarize if you knew that it was bad behavior? That really baffles me. There's also no way that I'm going to debate this topic or Amy other topic with you again. I refuse to debate with a plagiarist and that's final. Before we go, I'd like to remind you that I'm not a man, as I clearly stated in the last round. Just wanted to point that out. I hope to never debate you again. Goodbye.
Dinosaurs existed.

Although my opponent is correct in saying that plagiarism is poor behavior in any debate, and that it isn't against the rules of this particular debate, he is incoincorrect in saying that the BOP was not mentioned until round 3. If he would've only read the first two rounds instead of pointing out something that wasn't in the rules, he would see that in the opening round this was stated: "Pro must show proof beyond all doubt that dinosaurs existed." and again in round 2: "Again, BOP is on pro, I await this proof" and yet again in round 3 Since no such proof has been offered, and I have broken no rules, again, which my opponent agrees to, and this is the last round, I urge a vote for con. Perhaps my opponent would wish to debate this topic again, this time with some sort of argument, and an added rule against plagiarism. :)
Dinosaurs existed.

I do admire the fact that my opponent didn't deny his blatant plagiarism, but I'm going to pick apart about everything else he said last round. Firstly, he claimed that I have the burden of proof. While it's implied from the subject that we were debating, he never explicitly says it until the second round. Secondly, let's just take a look at this quote. (Fixed as needed with the pronouns.)"...[she] didn't offer any evidence to prove [her] case, I was giving [her] something to go off of."I don't need to provide a case after you plagiarized your arguments. While it wasn't against the rules, it's common courtesy that you don't disrespect the original creators of the content you're trying to pass off as your own. Even if you were trying to give me something to go off of, you could've had the decency to credit the article. It couldn't have taken long to provide a link sense you obviously copied and pasted your entire argument. A few extra seconds and I wouldn't have to scold you on plagiarism. Though it's pretty scummy behavior to copy and paste an entire argument from a different site, at least crediting it is a lot better than trying to make it your own. (Forgive me for the mafia reference.)That's all I have to say for now. Who knows, maybe next round I'll give another long lecture to really hammer that point in harder. Thank you. So long and goodnight.
One Earth Republic

Well! Interesting stuff. 1) I would suggest that peaceful compulsory world domination is a contradiction in terms. Programmes of global re-education and conditioning could possibly achieve this, But how would such schemes be implemented without the use of initial force anyway? 2) Who is going to be doing the conquering and dominating? Pro has not yet made this clear. I would suggest that this could only be achieved with super-power co-operation and I cannot see this happening anytime soon. Unless Pro is aware of a secret ongoing conspiracy. 3) Enforced compulsory domination means what it says. Oppression and subjugation. In other words a militarily controlled system probably autocratically lead. The imposition of regions and elections and independent governance would simply be enforced pseudo-liberalism. Window dressing in simple terms. 4) Independent regional government would be largely irrelevant and could only serve as an administrative body rather than a decision making one. 5) State control would already be in place. Therefore Presidential Elections would also be irrelevant. Autocrats are what autocrats do and autocrats are either replaced by force or death. 6) A one state system could in theory function without money, As a single system would have control over all resources. In a one state utopia resources would be free and fairly allocated. In Pro's single state dystopia I doubt that free and fair would be the order of the day. And economic stability would be a meaningless concept, Because there would be no comparative. 7) Opposition in a one state system would come from just about everyone other than those pointing the guns and I think that it's fair to suggest that the ones pointing the guns initially are going to be the conservatives and the ultra-right wingers. 8) Enforced random population reduction (another contradiction in terms). I think that Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Pol Pot to name but three, All came up with this idea at one time. Enforced contraception and sterilization would be the slightly more civilised approach but it appears that civility is not necessarily the watchword in Pro's one state vision. 9) Conclusion: I would suggest that Pro dived in without due consideration for the hidden rocks that lay just beneath the surface.