BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Drama should be taught compulsory to all high school students.

Good luck. I would like to start my argument by saying I believe an hour of drama per week would benefit school children enormously these are my arguments: 1. Confidence Boost: Many teenagers in our environment today have low self confidence. This is due to a variety of reasons. This leads them to being unable to function in part of a large crowd and nervous to talk to large groups of people at a time. Drama helps boosts peoples self esteem and confidence by giving them a safe space to experiment with their body and learn how to use it. As well as giving them the skill on how to perform in front of people effectively. An increase of confidence benefits all subjects and living quality of the student and one can say a student should learn to be confident more than anything else in school. 2. It teaches children about communication: Our world is shrinking at an alarming speed with the use of telephones, social media, flights ect humans from all over the world interact with each other in various ways. Drama teaches us about communication and how to communicate effectively and get your point or view across. The skill of communication is one that is often overlooked in our school system. Students also learn how to voice their opinion and how to demonstrate what they need. 3. Fast thinking: Improvisation makes you think on your feet a skill used in every day life. Improvisation develops your fast thinking skills not only critically but also creatively. 4. Encourages Creativity: Drama encourages students to think outside the box. Creativity is needed in abundance in our world today to solve issues of the future like how to solve global warming. Creativity and Science link hand and hand so a subject that is generally perceived as not academic turns out to be very complimenting to Academic subjects. 5. Strengths School Community: Drama class is a place were people connect. It is a space were we can be free and let ourselves go. The bonds created in a drama class are usually very strong as people let their guard down in drama class. This creates a better school community and environment. "The future of our nation depends on our ability to create-and to be creative. During the coming decades our most important national resources will be human resources. If our nation is to continue to meet the challenges of the future, today's schools need to develop creative leaders. " 3 This quote is From Performing together: The Arts and Education jointly published by The American Association of School Administrators, The Alliance for Education and The John F. Kennedy Centre for the Performing Arts in 1985. In short Drama teaches skills no other class teaches. It may not be academic skills but it is real life skills that we use outside of the classroom many educators say we fail to teach our children enough real life skills in school but as shown above the implementing of one hour compulsory drama would teach much needed skills in our fast growing and shrinking world. I look forward to seeing my opponents reply. -Lady Lucinda -
Drama should be taught compulsory to all high school students.

This house believes that Drama should be a compulsory school subject all the way through high school. This does not mean that the complete subject should be compulsory that should be an elective but the fundamentals taught for about 1 hour a day per week like Physical Education. The first round is just for acceptance the debate officially starts next round. Any comments about your position on the debate will not be counted if posted in the next round. Or you can start us off but you have to skip the last round. Thank you.
The big bang theory is not real

Just gonna go ahead and snipe this for the sake of getting it out of the 'Open Challenges' category. The Big Bang theory is indeed real, it is a comedy tv show that airs on CBS and is currently in its 8th season: http://www.cbs.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... The show focuses around a cast of 5 characters named Penny, Sheldon, Raj, Leonard, and Howard, all of whom are real life actors who are 'real'. Many of them have also participated in other projects outside of the Big Bang Theory, which testifies to the fact that they are indeed 'real' http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... I have met the minimal burden of proof to show that The Big Bang Theory is indeed a real TV show, Con on the other hand has astoundingly failed to produce even a single coherent counter-argument, or even provide a single source indicating that her position could even possibly be true. Therefore, you should vote con on all counts. #GetTrolled
Abortion is wrong and should be outlawed

1. It is completely relevant if 99 times out of 100 its sluts using it for birth control than that's wrong also not all adopted kids get the long hard awful lives like in Annie two of my best friends are adopted and live completely normal lives and if the child doesn't know they were born by rape also parents wont always just reject the child and even if it takes years for the child at least they have a chance at a good life. Also if a women is not willing to go through pain for their child than that is pathetic and it makes you wonder who deserves to be punished the mother for lack of care or the child for living. Well if a women is inpregnanted by multiple men especially if none are her husband she is a whore. 2. So its better to kill the child than let it live a possibly good life once again this seems like ancient Sparta 3. The fetus weather you believe its alive or not it will be and you have no right to take away their chance. vote for me
Abortion is wrong and should be outlawed

1. It's irrelivant how often it is used for people who are raped. The fact is that it is at all. Adoption is an option but adopted children also have harder lives than children with biological parents. They are likely to feel depressed that they are adopted and that they are a child of rape. There are many complications with abortion among families. Rejection of parents is one of them if the adopted child just doesn't 'click' with them. Also adoption isn't easy. It's not like shopping for a coat; often it can take years and years for a child to even have potential parents. Furthermore, this way the woman still has to go through labour.I'm sorry but your conduct is appalling. The way you casually use the term 'whore' is disgusting. 2. But it will be worse than usual; having a disability does what it says in the name. It disables you. Parents shouldn't have to send their kids anywhere. That's bad for the parents and the children.3. You can't just say "there is no reason to think it's not murder". You need to give evidence. I already have! And anyway you can't prove a negative so the burden of proof is on you. And no killing someone in their sleep is not ok because a) They have a soul (as I defined it in the previous round).andb) You do remember things in your sleep (they're called dreams) and you have previous memories.Thank you
Abortion is wrong and should be outlawed

1. How often is abortion used for Rape victims and how often is it for whores as birth control also Adoption is always an option for that young women. 2. What is this ancient Sparta where we kill the handicapped there is no guarantee that child will have an awful life if the parents believe they can't take care of the child there are places that can where they can send the child 3. I believe completely that a fetus has a soul that's no reason to think its not murder I believe completely its killing another human being, and also you can not remember things while your sleeping. Does that mean that someone who does not believe that humans have souls can kill you in your sleep and its ok?
Abortion is wrong and should be outlawed

1. No it is not completely relevant. If it was one woman out of a hundred as you posed to me, then one woman in every 100 would suffer. Some adopted children live completely normal lives but many have problems. And are you saying that the child doesn't have the right to know they are a baby from rape? They will find out eventually, they will be asking 'why does everybody else have a daddy' 'can i meet mine?'. "if a woman is not willing to go through pain for their child than that is pathetic" Sickening. Did you know that a woman giving birth has the same pain as a man pissing out a golf ball (assuming his penis didn't rupture)? Would you go through that just for a fetus? I doubt it. If a woman is impregnated by multiple men she is certainly not a whore. Please stop using this disgusting terminology. 2. This is not like ancient Sparta remotely. The likely hood is their life wouldn't be as good as other peoples lives. Not just the childs though; the parents lives as well. It's much more humane to abort the fetus because what's worse; living a potentially awful, awful life or not having to live that life? Not having to live it obviously so therefore it's more humane to abort the fetus. 3. The fetus is alive but so are flowers and people walk on them all the time! A fetus is just like a flower; it performs all the bodily functions a life form needs to perform, but it doesn't think or remember. From that you could conclude that having an abortion was like stamping on a plant! And by your logic, that means that if a man masturbates and ejaculates he is 'killing' millions of 'viable' life forms? Should masturbating be outlawed then? Actually abortion clinics do have the right because life is a human right and currently fetuses are not considered humans. I look forward to your next argument.
"Mercy killing should be legalized."

euthanasia or mercy killing refers to the practise of painlessly ending a life. i am strongly against the legalization of mercy killing due to numerous reasons:first,it is very traumatizing for a family memeber to decide whether a person should live or not, i mean imagine a daughter whose father is in a critical condition and his chances of survival are bleak.Now the doctor comes over and tells the girl that there are two options;either they continue the treatment in which case the man will have to suffer more or they simply stop and let him go in peace - now a daughter has to decide if she should let her father live and suffer or let him die.Often, people are able to reconcile to this fact but somewhere down,an element of guilt always exists, what if i had given it a chance?It may have been a one in a million case but miracles happen.Second, i believe that the right to take lives lies solely with the one who gave us the life in the first place-God. Moreover,in today's materialistic and greed driven world, the question of killing a family member for the sake of inheritance also arises.Thus, by legalizing mercy killing we will be giving a weapon that can be used as a cover-up for cold blooded murder. One may argue that voluntary euthanasia could be legalized but for that a patient has to be mentally prepared to accept the fact that his life will be terminated.Thus,the level of competence comes in, and competence cannot be defined or determined.also,sometimes a patient can be put under psychological pressure or brainwashed to believe that there is no chance left and thus forced to consent to voluntary euthanasia, to fulfil the ulterior motives of accomplices, family members or any person involved. Though stances on euthanasia vary greatly and its considered murderous by some,merciful by others, i strongly oppose, due to the above-stated reasons,the legalization of mercy killing.
Children twelve and up having to go to church

Yes, it is if that is what you believe in. Have you ever had to sit through something for hours, listening to someone preach/talk about something that you don't believe in/have interest in? The longer time period you have to go through this, the more negative thing it is. I know this personally. I was forced to go to church when my father got a new girlfriend. I'm completely fine and have nothing against people who attend church, but I personally don't like attending a place that tells me how I should live. I had many "talks" with my dad about not wanting to attend because it wasn't what I believed in. They all ended up in a "battle to the death" arguments. It got to the point where I completely moved out and no longer see my father. So now I ask you, why put any other child through that? If they don't want to attend church. Fine. Once they are older, they would most likely go back and appreciate it more.
Waffles or Pancakes

A true connoisseur of breakfast foods understands that a challenge is always worthwhile and that, in general, the more difficult it is to make a food, the greater the result. For example, if I made blueberry pancakes with strawberry syrup, it would be more difficult, but more worthwhile, as the outcome is definitely more satisfying to the wide majority of eaters. This is important because while waffles may be easier to make, pancakes definitely produce a greater result. It takes a skilled chef to produce fine pancakes, and it is truly an enjoyable experience, whereas waffles have turned into more of a cheap substitute. In fact, you have to buy a special pan for waffles, while pancakes only require a multipurpose one! Pancakes are healthier than waffles. "Without any altercations to the typical recipe, pancakes have 20% less calories than waffles due to their small nature. Because pancakes are individually cooked on a grilled or skillet, one is able to control the size of a pancake. The size of a waffle is already predetermined due to the waffle iron." -Fitday.com, retrieved 9/8/12.Pancakes are one of the easiest foods to eat. You simply cut them and devour! The same goes for waffles, so there is no point in trying to make a case for the shape of the food. It's just different, not better or worse.With health benefits, higher status as a breakfast food and beyond, and less calories, pancakes are clearly the better choice.
Waffles or Pancakes

As my first argument, I would like to point out that waffles are very easy to make. You simply make the batter using the instructions on the box, pour the batter into the waffle iron, let sit, and they are done! With pancakes, you have to flip them, and make sure you don't burn them. Also, during the pancake flipping process, they make become misshapen. Also, some parts will not get cooked as well as other parts, leaving just the raw batter, which is not healthy. I would also like to say something about the squares on the waffles. When you have waffles, you usually have something on the side, like bacon or eggs. The pockets on the waffles catch the syrup, so it doesn't drip on to your other foods.
God probably does not exist.

First off "" Con makes no attempt to attack the logical validity of the argument"". I challenge the idea the universe had no beginning. You have not responded to the idea the current laws of physics only came into effect when the universe began ie the big bang. "" Einstein was a physicist, not a philosopher, so his opinions on the implications of theory of relativity on the philosophy of physics are irrelevant by standard"" I like the fact he considers his position to be superior to Einstein. You propose my argument about Einstein is invalid. The very person who proposed general relativity a key corner stone of your argument believes in the presence ""vastly superior to that of man"" in other words god.[1] You say my argument is also invalid because there is no "" consensus among experts on the subject"" 500 years ago the "" consensus among experts"" was the earth was flat. Just because there is not a great "" consensus among experts"" does not make my point invalid. It is indisputable we know very little about the birth of our universe hence why we cannot explain the presence dark matter. It is therefore illogical and rather arrogant to dismiss the possibility of an overall superior mind. "" Con thinks that mathematical models of the universe are purely mathematical and have no bearing on what is physically real"" I make no such argument !! I simply point out that mathematical models are not bound by physical reality. A fact I point out in round 2 "" To illustrate my point take the orbit of mercury you could use a mathematical model to predict at what point in the orbit mercury would be in exactly 3000 trillion years into the future. This has one major flaw mercury will not be orbiting the sun in 3000 trillion years because the sun will no longer be there this is one example of the mathematical model not taking into account the physical factors."" [3]. This is very relevant to the debate. As the models you sight may very well only apply after the big bang. Therefore the models you propose are not valid prior to the big bang. So why do I keep going on about the big bang?. There is no proven explanation for the big bang. The big bang could well be the work of god. Therefore it would be wrong to suggest that god doesn't probably doesn't exist when there is a equal chance he does we simply do not know.[2] ""Con brings up that science doesn't have a full understanding of dark matter. What's his argument here? He doesn't tell us what we're supposed to conclude from this fact. I can't refute an argument if an argument hasn't been presented."". Please allow me to elaborate I am pointing out how little we know about our universe and the place we live. We constantly learning and evolving. Given our limited knowledge we are not in a position to judge whether or not god exists. If only if we can answer two questions without doubt are we in a position to say god probably doesn't exist. Why are we here? Where did we come from? . Until such a time we are unable to make such statements. 1)http://josephranseth.hubpages.com......- 2) http://www.infidels.org... 3)http://www.bbc.co.uk...
God probably does not exist.

AveThis debate is about whether it is probable that god exists. I will be arguing that god probably does not exist. Con will be arguing that god probably exists. The winner of the debate will be the person who proves their case beyond a preponderance of the evidence.The first round is for acceptance of the debate format and rules. The next rounds are for back and forth debating.General expectations of conduct should be followed.God is defined as the personal (rational and conscious), omnipotent cause of the universe, matter, space-time, and everything else that exists.Vale
Chances that a alien visiting us would be nearly identical 2 humans or humanoid at all is very small

If chances are what you go by. However, Parineal Plastic sydrome is one of the least likely things to happen without cancer treatment (The immune system basically reawakens after a round of radiation and produces antibodies against the tissues of the body. It is an autoimmune disease), but it still happens to a handful of people. Doctors and scientists are taught to not assume that it is not going to happen just because it is unlikely. The likelihood doesn't matter when it comes to any intelligent being. It was once thought unlikely that we would build a flying device, but now we have people in the International Space Station. Who knows, if a humanoid species took interest simply because of the similarities between us and them, the chances won't matter a tick. PS: Unless you were talking about the movie, War of the Worlds describes short, bird-like creatures with tentacles, not humanoids.
Chances that a alien visiting us would be nearly identical 2 humans or humanoid at all is very small

We could spend a long time with what is "possible", but here I want to focus on the most probable. You suggest that distance does not matter. I disagree. I severely doubt that anywhere is there technology to instantly transport matter. This seems more like magic than science. And the fact that you get this idea from a sci-fi channel TV show only proves my point. Using Occam's razor I assert that this idea you have suggested is too complex; involving too many entities. And distance is not the only limitation either, that was an example. The fact is still there that, despite the fact that there are probably humanoid beings in existence somewhere other than earth; not every single being in the universe is going to drop by. Imagine picking one human being, out of every man woman and child on the planet, to find that they are identical you in every way. They are the same age, gender, ethnicity, hair color, eye color, born on the same day, and the exact same interests. It would be like that, except even smaller a chance. And even if it WAS possible that humanoids could come from very far away, what are the chances that THEY would be the ones to come. Very, very, small. The chances are that they would be completely different. You keep stretching it out, giving far-fetched stories of what is possible, but when something requires so complex a explanation, there is a very small chance that it would happen. Chances are, in my own opinion, that Human eyes will never see any type of being from outside of our little star system. This debate, though, was about IF they were to come, the probability that they would look like humans. There is also a VERY high chance that there ARE Humanoids out there, but they are mindless animals.
Chances that a alien visiting us would be nearly identical 2 humans or humanoid at all is very small

Well, now that last comment was interesting. Yes, it is likely that IF a visitor were from nearby, that it would not be humanoid. However, our science might not account for their technology. Historians say that if it weren't for the dark ages, we could have been an extra hundred years along in technology, and there are probably other things that slowed us down. For all we know, they could have developed machines that can transport them long distances in a short time. There are still things our scientists haven't done. I doubt that an ion engine is the farthest propulsion can go. For all we know, a device similar to a stargate or warp engine may be real somewhere out there. Uncertainty does allow that it is more likely, by our understanding of science, that a closer planet or system be the origin of intelligent visitors, but it also remains that the ability to generate a spacial wave to propel a ship beyond light speed could exist. How can we be sure that any planet near here has developed technology sophisticated enough to travel this distance. Then again, how can we be sure that if aliens did do that, that they would take interest in our unadvanced planet?
Chances that a alien visiting us would be nearly identical 2 humans or humanoid at all is very small

Thank you for accepting my debate, and now, onto your arguments… "Firstly, with potentially billions of billions of trillions of planets in however many galaxies as exist in the universe (I don't know the estimation, but I believe you get the point that there are lots of planets around the universe), chances are that there are other "earth-like" planets in the universe. It is a decent assumption, therefore, that there are possibly (via our rules of science) other humanoid species." I agree. If you sill see my topic, I am talking about "aliens visiting us". I am sorry if I did not make that clear enough. I agree that there is a high probability that somewhere there is more life forms that resemble humans in many qualities. However, I think that the chances that aliens VISITING US would not be Human. The chance that out of all the life forms, the ones that came were exactly identical to us does not make sense. You may say that it is a useless debate because; to some degree it relies on odds. But that is why I said "the chances" in the topic, and also, it is not completely random, there are many factors involved. For instance, since space is so vast, any life forms that possibly visited would be from (relatively) near by. The chances that there are any Humanoids "near by" is pretty small. I am sorry if I did not make my stance clear enough.