BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It should automatically count as a loss if someone forfeits one round

First I'd like to address what you said; "Many people vote for the person who posted their argument just saying things like, "My opponent has forfeited, vote pro/con." So why not implement this as a rule/ punishment for not posting?" People do such because for all of DDO, people have became a costume for doing so, in the way that if you see someone forfeit, you automatically know that they're most likely going to lose, but in some debates, people will be nice enough to give them another chance but, on the other hand others will do the "Vote con.pro" idea; as-well as people also post in their rules to their debate things such as "a forfeit will count as a 7 point decrees" etc. Along with you I've forfeit many debates, and in some cases though I forfeit I still won, which is one reason I don't wish there to be a system in place to where if you forfeit you lose. ( http://www.debate.org... ) Now Taylor this might be hard for you to wrap your head around, but you yourself have forfeit debates and with the rules you wan't you'd have automatically lost. Next I'd like to bring up why you want this rule in place; recently you debated with someone on Chocolate vs Caramel; and you lost even though your opponent forfeit the second round. (http://www.debate.org...) Next this rule would significantly hurt the 15 min period debates, that we all know we love (hate).
It should automatically count as a loss if someone forfeits one round

As you think this, you know that there are many forfeits that happen in debates all the time, there would be people that have MULTIPLE debates (possibly of the same topic) and ignore one or more while still being active on this site. I know that people have things to do, but you could always plan ahead. I have even forfeited debates, and some I had control over, I just didn't plan ahead. One reason I bring this debate up is because There have been people voting on debates that were not fair to be voted on because of forfeits, but they do it anyways. This type of thing I am talking about is pretty much a thing already. Many people vote for the person who posted their argument just saying things like, "My opponent has forfeited, vote pro/con." So why not implement this as a rule/ punishment for not posting?
Schools should use thinner textbook for the students

Is common for people to see students carrying thick textbook with them walking in the school campus. Every textbook is about the same size-big, I think for students to carry very thick books that includes the content of 2 semester knowledge is not a good idea. here is my supporting reasons: 1, Is inconvenient for the students whoever needs to transfer to different classes during the short time of break. 2, This kind of testbook usually costs a lot of money, because the is thick, good-paper-printed, and too many coulour printed, is the waste of trees and earth energy. 3, Is threaten for others and users safty. Sometime, when you are careless, you might hurt yourslef or others badly with those chunky books . It can even be used as a tool to hurt and flight with other people.
Young adult fiction is getting unoriginal and repetitive

This topic does not really contain an argument. Its just two opinions. well, ill try my best anyways. Dystopian novels are the books that are being read in this time of year. You said that authors are getting unoriginal, but its just you are noticing the authors that are all writing the same genres and concepts. But, original Authors still are writing books, there just not noticed or made a big deal of. Young teens are not reading these dystopian books for the characters and romantic parts because if they wanted to read that they would just get romantic or comedy books. Since there is such a large variety of these popular books it seems that all others have stopped being written, but that is not the case. The case is yours and other failure to notice these original books.
Young adult fiction is getting unoriginal and repetitive

libraries are not crammed with dystopian novels. Authors still write what they want to write, only the authors of dystopian books are popular right now. That is why you only notice or it is easy to find, these books. The reason you are believing that books now in days are unoriginal is because you are only reading or hearing about the ones that all have the same concept, because its what is "in" now. However, there is a large stock on dystopian novels BUT there are still original Authors that write of different genres. For example, Wendy Mass who writes humor, comedy, realistic fiction, mystery etc. is all over the library but not on display because it is not the type of book that is "popular" right now. As I said before, It appears that these books aren't being written or read because it is not on display or talked about by people. I do agree that books like hunger games, the giver, divergent, matched, life as we new it (all of the same concept) are great books. But, I am also one of the few people who pick up books that are original and different.
Young adult fiction is getting unoriginal and repetitive

Thank you for accepting :) I am not saying that all dystopian novels are copies of The Hunger Games. There are wonderful stories such as the Giver that are funny, romantic, exciting yet thought-provoking that are not exact copies of The Hunger Games. However, my problem is that most YA sections of libraries and bookshops nowadays are crammed with dystopian stories about a poor teenage girl that challenges a ruthless system. It's the same with all popular YA books. Every second book I find on a bookshelf is a vampire romance. Most of these books are poorly written and this is because the author is mostly resting on the fact that most of today's teenagers enjoy dystopian novels. However, this is not the case. Kids don't want to read a genre or an idea. They want to read a good book. No author will ever be able to predict what DO teenagers like to read, because their interests are always changing and there are so many different audiences out there. It is incorrect so say that teenagers only like these concepts. Instead of writing an exact copy of the Hunger Games, authors should be brave and write what they like and what they believe in. If they want to make it funny, they should make it funny. If they want to make it exciting, make it exciting. If they want violence and romance and twists and cliff hangers, than they should go for it! But taking a plot line of an already great book and rearranging it is not literary genius.
Young adult fiction is getting unoriginal and repetitive

The authors of books such as Hunger Games, Divergent and Fault in our stars are writers of young adult books. Authors are writing the books with the same concepts, because young adults like these books. They are very popular and yes, high on demand. Young adults love to read these books because, what would happen if you always write about the perfect life? What is there to relate to? Even just simply reading these books, your mind enters a completely different world, of creativity. Young adult books are not loosing creativity, just because the POPULAR books are all based on the same ideas they are very different in their own ways. I have enough experience with these books as the big reader I am, and when it comes to these books they are different in their own ways. Authors are not becoming less original, it is just that the books with this concept of young teens fighting against government and districts is what is popular right now. There is still writers who are creative and write original books, but teens don"t choose to read them. If teens wanted to read the books for the story and characters that they fall in love with, they would read romantic or comedy books. Instead they read these books because of the story sequence and exciting events and cliff hangers that make the reader want to keep on reading. If the Authors are writing for profit, it has no effect on if young adults stop reading or not. Because, Authors are constantly writing what ever teens enjoy, therefore whenever there are people reading there Is always a profit.
Young adult fiction is getting unoriginal and repetitive

The first argument is not for acceptance. Just jump straight in! :) I love to read YA books, and young adult books such as the Hunger Games and the Fault in Our Stars aren't just for young adults anymore. Everybody is experiencing the thrills and emotions of young adult fiction. However, it is hard to find good young adult books anymore. Why? Because every author has decided that writing a young adult book exactly like The Hunger Games and The Fault in Our Stars is the best way to attract readers and make money (and if you're lucky, get it made into a movie). Books like The Hunger Games and The Fault in Our Stars were written for a purpose. They are not just about kids killing each other or a girl with cancer. The Hunger Games was a story about the evils of human nature, the endurance of human character and humanity's obsession with reality TV. The Fault in Our Stars is a heartfelt, funny yet tragic tale about how human life should be cherished and be lived to the fullest no matter how short it can be. I feel these messages have been lost now because the YA genre has been dominated with other dystopian books and "cancer books." Authors think that kids like these types of books and that's why they read them. But really, it's the story and the characters that people fall in love with. I fear that young adult fiction is becoming all about profit and less about creativity, and this will lead to teenagers reading less books that are as genuine, exciting and well-written as the books above are. I would love to hear some opinions about this! I'd like to see if people disagree and maybe get some examples :)
Dhoni should be replaced Virat Kohli as the Indian captain in Test cricket

I agree that Dhoni is a spectacular batsman and captain but he has not been able to perform well in the recent series Various countries have different captains for different formats so why not the Indian team tries this once A suitable alternative is now available in Virat Kohli. He has leadership experience as captain of Indian youth teams and, more importantly, he's now the right age and has matured into a top-class batsman. Even more importantly, he has shown his mettle overseas by scoring runs in difficult arenas like the WACA and the Bullring This is the sort of inspiration India need to boost their overseas record. However, what they need even more is a proactive captain who can get the best out of his bowlers when playing in unfamiliar conditions Kohli needs to be brave as an India captain. Instead of placing defensive fields for Ishant Sharma's wayward deliveries he has to challenge him by deploying men designed to aid the bowler, as long as he maintains line and length. If Ishant can't oblige him, he has to find another bowler who can. While Dhoni's tendency to rely on batsmen making mistakes and getting themselves out works brilliantly in the shorter forms of the game, the ploy is often exposed as flawed when gritty opponents like McCullum mount a counterattack in Test matches Dhoni's latest injury may be fortuitous. It gives the selectors a chance to evaluate Kohli's leadership credentials in the one-day arena, and if he's successful, they should appoint him Test captain
Dhoni should be replaced Virat Kohli as the Indian captain in Test cricket

a well known fact"MANY A MICKLE,MAKES A MUCKLE".we can't judge a person from a series but u have to scrutinize him for a long time. Dhoni has given his best till this date and he proved himself on domestic and international ground as a captain. Beside being a winner or a looser,the other motive of game is to make healthy relationship with the countries and the aggressive expressions used by the players,especially by the captain does not only weakens our relations but also put bad impression on the spectators. dhoni's captaincy record is very appealing SORCES-https://www.google.co.in...
Dhoni should be replaced Virat Kohli as the Indian captain in Test cricket

I agree that Virat is aggressive but its better to be aggressive than being defensive Mahendra Singh Dhoni"s defensive tactics has not been of any assistance to India, who needs an aggressive man of Virat Kohli"s nature to lead the team, feels former Australia captain Ian Chappell. His conservatism allows the better players among opposition batsmen too much freedom and too many easy runs. Consequently, big partnerships, like the match-saving one by Brendon McCullum and BJ Watling, build too oftenDhoni is a brilliant captain in the shorter versions of the game, and a master at timing his run to the finishing line as a middle-order batsman. However, as a Test captain he's too reactive and has a tendency to let the game meander along, like an absent-minded professor strolling in the park Dhoni really should have been replaced as Test captain following India's disastrous tours of England and Australia in 2011-12, when his teams displayed little fight in losing eight matches on the trot
Dhoni should be replaced Virat Kohli as the Indian captain in Test cricket

VIRAT KOHLI,the emerging star of our Indian cricket team has brought various laurels for our country.his records proves to be quite appealing to the cricket lovers but as far as captaincy is concerned every team wants and need to have the senior player so that he can handle his team members well in every situation.every person doesn't have leadership qualities in him. i can justify it by taking the example of Master Blaster SACHIN TENDULKAR. indeed,he was the greatest player in the world of cricket who owns brilliant records but as a captain he never marked the expectations.India has lost nearly 60% matches under his captaincy. Secondly,virat kohli is considered to be the aggressive player on and off the field whose name is attached with the various issues regarding his conduct on the field but captain should be of the kind that he should handle all the situations cooly . India lost the match under Kohli's captaincy from pakistan in this Asia cup
Government Meddling in the U.S. Food System Only Makes Things Worse Off for Everyone

While the government has made it's mistakes in the past, enough has been made for the government not to repeat them. Trans fat has been a problem that has done far more harm then good, and banning it will work in favor of that majority. We know that some bad has been done through government meddling, but we can learn from the mistakes and there has been numerous occasions where meddling has worked.
Government Meddling in the U.S. Food System Only Makes Things Worse Off for Everyone

The U.S. government has banned trans-fats. Great news?, right? This must mean that Americans will be healthier, more fit and less obese in up and coming years? Unfortunately this is not the case. The government has a long history of meddling in the food system; most of which has resulted in a worsening of the American health system in general. While some of the intervention might be paved with good intentions, government meddling in the food system has contributed -- and in some cases caused -- Americans to become significantly more unhealthy in numerous factors. I look forward to a healthy -- pun intended -- fruitful and challenging debate.
Pressuring noobs vs Pressuring experienced players in mafia games.

I thank Danielle for accepting this challenge and look forward to debating this very interesting topic.Resolution: As a townie in a mafia game, pressuring players who are experienced or whose style you know is more beneficial to the town overall than pressuring a new player or a player whose style you are unaware of.Round 1: Acceptance onlyRound 4: No new arguments Pro will defend the resolution. Con will argue that pressuring new players or players whose style you are unaware of is more beneficial to the town overall.More beneficial: Leading to a win.The burden of proof is shared. Whichever debater shows their strategy to be superior will win the debate.Voting period: 2 weeksArgument time: 72 hoursMax Characters: 8000
Pressuring noobs vs Pressuring experienced players in mafia games.

I completely understand if my opponent is busy and I look forward to her response in her next round. I already responded to most of Con's contentions and defended my own, so I have nothing else to go on other than provide a summary. SummaryThe core of Con's argument seems to be that players whose style that an individual knows should not be pressured initially because their style will become apparent to the individual as the game progresses. However, a player's reaction under pressure is a much better way to assess their guilt as they will likely be less composed than usual enabling others who know their style to pick up on their reactions.Con prefers that new players be pressured initially because they "suck" and are much less likely to come up with a good story than experienced players. While that may be true, it is not adequate justification for pressuring new players first. Everyone's alignment needs to be known, not just the new players alignement. How does Con try to solve this problem? She recommends that experienced players be investigated while new players be pressured. However, as I pointed out, investigations are not fool-proof and are subject to many problems such as framing. Also, my opponent's strategy leads to the same group of players always being investigated first which makes them predictable targets for framers and lawyers and overall makes the town less likely to win. This problem can be solved by pressuring experienced players first to get a read on their reaction to pressure and deduce from their reaction their guilt. This leaves my points about noob mistakes being perceived as scumtells which can be used by the mafia to pressure them further and get a possible lynch whereas if an experienced player is pressured first, any "scummy" reaction from them is likely because they are actually guilty and are making up stories and lying as opposed to because they have never played this game before.
Pressuring noobs vs Pressuring experienced players in mafia games.

I'm definitely looking forward to this topic after a string of more serious debates :) To clarify my position, I will be arguing that it is more useful to an individual to pressue new players or a player whose style they are unaware of in order to better help assess their guilt. Assuming it is a somewhat experienced player doing this, it can prove to be more beneficial to the town overall in the sense that it will likely help yield more favorable results. Thanks, Pro, and good luck!
Mother Teresa was either a lying, evil thief. Or a deluded one.

Thanks for the reply, however late it came. My opponent has site a single wikipedia database that chooses to word this woman's actions in a positive light. since he has chosen to only give us a single point, it will be all the more simple for me to dismantle. He says that, because she housed some AIDS patients, and some other suffering people, that she must have had a heart of true compassion. Admittedly, my opponent knows nothing of Mother Teresa or the goings on in her House For the Dying, as he begins his argument with "according to wikipedia". Now, I know how hard it can be to disinvolve yourself with popular icons like mother Teresa, as it was for all of us to do with Santa Clause, but listen to me with an open mind and your opinions will soon change. I could site the $2.3 million she took from Charles Keating, which he took by fraud from the poorest people all around America so that she would write a letter to the courts demanding his fraud to be excused (To check this fact, visit-http://en.wikipedia.org...). Or I could talk about the $1.2 million she took from the Duvaliers, a dictator family of Haiti, who have given the poor as hard a time as they have ever gotten (To check this fact, visit- http://en.wikipedia.org...). But for the mercy of my opponent, I will remain on the single point which he made. Mother Teresa's Homes for The Dying were not happy places for her victims. In 1994, Dr Robin fox (PhD in the Standards of Care) visited mother Teresa's Home For the Dying in Calcutta. That same year, on the 17 September, he wrote in his journal about a 10 year old boy suffering from Malaria and High Fever, he noted that the missionaries of Charity had given him, for treatment, Paracetamol and Tetracycline, which is a tablet for acne!There are hundreds of other examples of the indifference to the poor's suffering on the part of Mother Teresa (Visit-http://www.cracked.com...). So, don't try to get it passed through the intelligence of our audience that she did any real work for the poor. Also, in 1898, whilst giving a speech in Dublin, Mother Teresa had herself proclaimed that her real agenda was nothing to do with helping the poor, and that it was really to stop contraception and abortion! She said that "suffering is a gift from god, I think it's beautiful to see the poor endure their lot." Any body that says these preachment's are any less than evil is deluded, and should emancipate themselves from the shackles of their own naivet". A documentary showing the speech I mentioned will be included at the top right-hand corner of this argument. http://www.youtube.com...
Mother Teresa was either a lying, evil thief. Or a deluded one.

According to Wikipedia,"Mother Teresa founded the Missionaries of Charity, a Roman Catholic religious congregation, which in 2012 consisted of over 4,500 sisters and is active in 133 countries. They run hospices and homes for people with HIV/AIDS, leprosy and tuberculosis; soup kitchens; children's and family counseling programmes; orphanages; and schools. Members of the order must adhere to the vows of chastity, poverty and obedience, and the fourth vow, to give 'Wholehearted and Free service to the poorest of the poor'." I believe that says enough as is. Can you provide an instance where is was proven, beyond reasonable doubt, that she stole something. She's donated to the poor multiple times and has won many awards in her life. She's opened homes for people suffering from Hansen's Disease. She was very religious in her life. When has she stolen? And to the lying claim. Have you lied? I have. I cannot think of anyone on earth who hasn't lied. It that such a bad thing? To what extent has it been proven that she lied? And, really, someone who opens hospitals and charities is evil?
Mother Teresa was either a lying, evil thief. Or a deluded one.

For me, there are only two possible categories that we can place this woman. Either a deluded woman, that was tricked into carrying out the most horrendous acts against the worlds poor by an old, sinister, predator-protecting virgin. Or that she intentionally did the corrupt things she did from a standpoint of deliberate action. Either way, Mother Teresa was bad.Ground Rules:The only ground rule is that it isn't kosher, in this debate, to act as if our words are of that much importance. So restrain from saying things like "Thanks for the debate" and "back to pro", because it just looks like you're predicting an inevitability, and it's pointless. Good luck.
School prepares us for the future

Hello my friend, First of all, I am secondary school student. I will defend "School doesn't prepare us for the future" Because of I got bad experience and I tell you. In my school, I chose language class but it wasn't opened and they throwed me maths-science class. It wasn't even my choice. I tried to go another school which has language class. But There is no school has language class. And I have been studying maths-science. After all, I can't be what i want. With such a system, How they can prepare me for the future? That's my case. Thank you