BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A National Curriculum: Lower Education for a Lowerclass??? I think not...

"People in lower classes dont deserve a lower education!!! Thats not fair to them. Dooming them to the same fate as their parents because the state wont offer them a better education only contributes to the poverty problem. Not to mention it passes judgement on people based their social class. This is america!! Its not a aristocratic caste system where only the elite can get a higher education.", It is fair, they are obviously dumb, which is why they are lower class. Why should we lower the standards all the time. It can only lead to a dumbing down of America, we should get rid of the dumb people in society. "There are so many advantages to this. My biggest point though is EQUALITY... Giving people lower education because they are in a lower class is not equal. It is only setting a lower level of expectations on kids who dont deserve it.", Equality can never be achieved ever. Their is always going to be some students disenfranchised by this system, which will lead to lower standards. All in all forget the dumb people, we need elites to run are soceity.
A National Curriculum: Lower Education for a Lowerclass??? I think not...

People in lower classes dont deserve a lower education!!! Thats not fair to them. Dooming them to the same fate as their parents because the state wont offer them a better education only contributes to the poverty problem. Not to mention it passes judgement on people based their social class. This is america!! Its not a aristocratic caste system where only the elite can get a higher education. Further more, it is not small at all! Ive seen it. The difference is huge! In order to "raise their standards" for graduation, the state of Alabama began using series of graduation exams. Every student must pass all of these exams to graduate... these exams...u only need to get 40% correct to pass. My sister didnt need to pass hers seeing as we werent going to graduate in Alabama anyway so she marked completely random answers. ...she passed. Further more...another point I did not make in my last argument is this. Nowadays there are schools changing rules. My younger brothers and sisters dont get A's and B's...they get P and PP V and such nonsense... Schools not far from me have removed grades entirely! Im not even sure how that works! Other schools are now changing to grading rules so that a missing assignment is still worth 50%. Our schools are lowering the bar and changing the rules so that no child "fails". This is a serious problem. We our pampering students to be unprepared for a world where failure is a reality. Thats one of the beauties of school. It teaches children to gradually take more and more responsibility for their actions. Now...were are taking that away so we dont "hurt" our kids. If we had a national curriculum...schools changing rules would be nearly impossible. Charter schools would be supervised by the government. There are so many advantages to this. My biggest point though is EQUALITY... Giving people lower education because they are in a lower class is not equal. It is only setting a lower level of expectations on kids who dont deserve it.
People with homosexual tendencies can get into Heaven

Rebuttal 2:"This letter was written by the apostle Paul making this not a direct command from God but an idea from man. However one can say the Holy Spirit was working through Paul to say which will perfect sense."Pro is obviously contradicting the Bible, as in 2 Timothy 3:16 (NASB) "16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;"Therefore this is indeed inspired, that is what the Bible says."I mean look at it! He's not lying it's the truth. However! Is the homosexual Paul is speaking of the same homosexual being used in this example. In that do I mean are they practicing homosexuals."This comment is baseless, because Paul included all homosexual and had not made a distinction between the ones who act upon their desires,etc.Romans 1:26-27 :But still Paul has said in Corinthians that all homosexuals will not enter heaven, you have no evidence that Gays or Homosexuals will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, as said in the Bible, no Gay/homosexual will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, no exceptions.Counter Rebuttal 1:"Yes you're correct in saying that this is in fact indeed a very not only rare but specific relationship but the road to salvation is very narrow and few are those who enter if I am not mistaken. I never did say it would be easy for a homosexual to enter heaven just possible. If I am correct then it would still be exceedingly difficult for someone with homosexual tendencies to enter heaven."I have proven that no Homosexual will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, the Bible in many points says that Homosexuals will not go to heaven, if they act upon their desires they should be put to death.Conclusion:The Bible is strict on the issue of Homosexuality and explicitly shows that Gays are not going to inherit eternal life nor Heaven.I thank Pro for making this debate, and good luck to him in the future, I conclude my last statements.Please know that I have nothing against Gays/Homosexuals, I am just showing that Christendom demonstrates that Homosexuals will not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven nor eternal life.
People with homosexual tendencies can get into Heaven

Thank you for your eye opening insights now to the rebuttals for the sake of the debate. I also apologize about the definitions, I will note that for further debates. Thank you! Rebuttal 1 "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God." -1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (NASB): This letter was written by the apostle Paul making this not a direct command from God but an idea from man. However one can say the Holy Spirit was working through Paul to say which will perfect sense. I mean look at it! He's not lying it's the truth. However! Is the homosexual Paul is speaking of the same homosexual being used in this example. In that do I mean are they practicing homosexuals. In Romans 1:26-27, Paul also says "For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error." What if we took away the shameless acts. I'm not talking about your average gay here. I'm talking about a devout gay who is gay but wants to make it right with the Lord. Who wishes to escape the fires of damnation and be his Creator forever. He may have indulged himself in the past for all we know but as for now he abstains from all homosexual activity and only his initial attraction is left. (I feel so weird talking about this) . No sex only feelings and romantic courtship. I'm just talking about gay men but lesbians as well. I honestly think it may work better toward them but I can be wrong. Counter Rebuttal i) "First this scenario is rare, I do not think as them being homosexuals will not engage in any sexual way, and they are in a relationship so this is very rare..." Yes you're correct in saying that this is in fact indeed a very not only rare but specific relationship but the road to salvation is very narrow and few are those who enter if I am not mistaken. I never did say it would be easy for a homosexual to enter heaven just possible. If I am correct then it would still be exceedingly difficult for someone with homosexual tendencies to enter heaven. That is all. The opponent may continue with any further rebuttals and a conclusion.
People with homosexual tendencies can get into Heaven

I wish you have put the definitions first, swiftly to my rebuttal.Rebuttal 1:"Homosexual tendencies refers to gays or homosexuals who have an attraction to the same sex but are not necessarily practicing homosexuals."We conclude from this definition that they are indeed Gays/Homosexuals, but do not act upon their desires."So to be clear I'm saying that if man were to engage in a non-sexual monogamous gay relationship while remaining Christian then he may enter the kingdom of heaven. I think that if the gay couple understood that they are not sexually designed for a sexual relationship, abstained from sexual behaviour offensive to the Lord and remained in a truly romantic relationship. This would involve bonding time. kissing ,hugging and all things affections non-sexual. Then if the all else is up to standard that the said gay person will enter into heaven."First this scenario is rare, I do not think as them being homosexuals will not engage in any sexual way, and they are in a relationship so this is very rare, I will show that they will act upon their desires:1) they are in a relationship2) they know eachother for a long time now3) fondling begins4) finally something happens, IF they have been trying to be in this non-sexual relationship in a long time.Men cannot suppress the sexual needs for a long time, It is harmful "suppression as it is being taught in the modern society is harmful: they cause psychological suffering and at least some of the reasons behind the teaching have no valid reason at all. Sex in itself is natural and thus ok - there could hardly be any argument about that. " [1]Arugment 1:As from the definition that Pro gave we know that they are Homosexuals/Gays, therefore any Homosexual cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven, as from the following verse: 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (NASB): "9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God."Clearly even if they do not act upon their desires they are bound not to go to heaven.That concludes my argument.
People with homosexual tendencies can get into Heaven

I am personally a heterosexual male just for the record but let's see where this debate takes us. I would like to argue that people will homosexual tendencies still have the possibility to enter into Heaven by God's authority. I know this may be an unpopular opinion but please allow me explain myself. i) First let us assume that person in question has accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as his saviour, has exceptional faith, follows the two greatest commandments and the 10 commandments as well. He also seeks forgiveness when he sins and works hard to repent against those sins. Let me define homosexual tendencies for the debate: Homosexual tendencies refers to gays or homosexuals who have an attraction to the same sex but are not necessarily practicing homosexuals. As we know the main problem with homosexuality is not only sexual design but fornication. In which I cast off the homosexual act no different from that of the heterosexual fornication plus the fault of improper sexual design. By the act I am referring only to the act of sexual fornication not hugging, kissing or any other non- sexual forms of affection. Which can still be forms of gay attraction and affection but not fornication or sexual. So to be clear I'm saying that if man were to engage in a non-sexual monogamous gay relationship while remaining Christian then he may enter the kingdom of heaven. I think that if the gay couple understood that they are not sexually designed for a sexual relationship, abstained from sexual behaviour offensive to the Lord and remained in a truly romantic relationship. This would involve bonding time. kissing ,hugging and all things affections non-sexual. Then if the all else is up to standard that the said gay person will enter into heaven. In this relationship, there is no sodomy, no anal and no anything else sexual that gay people do. Kissing is allowed by abstaining from improper sexual contact while their hearts tell them differently. They show loyalty and love to their Lord while safekeeping their affections toward one another. I would like to now hand the floor to my opponent, who will give us his opening statement. Thank You!
Bryan Mullins: The Roast Game, ASPCA literally ate Cats and Dogs for 10 years

It is about cats and dogs being slaughtered and eaten by all ASPCA members, and I explained last round about everything. Here, let me recite it again, just for clarification. "The truth is, the estimations of the number of Cats and Dogs in the America are incorrect because if 163,800,000 is the number of all the Cats and Dogs in America, and if you count up only 79% of households, not the pets, the number that the calculator projects is some what less than the number of all the Cats and Dogs in America. Then the estimations were intended to mislead the public by making a false estimation by plainly not doing the real math, which is by adding up all the Cats in America by all the Dogs in America, and comparing that with estimating "79% of households" but when you take the huge sum of all the Cats and Dogs in America and you take the "79%" by multiplying the sum by 0.79 and you get a different number. Which means that according to The Roast Game (using the numbers that sum up all Cats and Dogs in America, and multiplying it by 0.79), ASPCA members slaughtered and eaten 129,402,000 Cats and Dogs for 10 years (pretty much ASPCA's entire history). ASPCA's first advertised commercial was in 2007 [2]. They were not really founded in 1866, they made that lie up to convince people to donate money which was their entire goal of slaughtering and eating innocent Cats and Dogs in America. I did the math, I did not make up a bunch of random numbers, OK? Here it is: 78,000,000 Dogs [1] + 85,800,000 Cats [1] ------------------------------------ 163,800,000 Cats and Dogs in America X. 0.79 ("79% of households") [1] ------------------------------------ 129,402,000 Cats and Dogs that were slaughtered and eaten by ASPCA members for 10 years." It's just like families have been eating children as their "Christmas Roast" after they're slaughtered for not believing in Christmas. [1] Here was the debate that has proven that: [1] http://www.debate.org... The choice is clear, vote for Pro! I await your last argument, Con!
Bryan Mullins: The Roast Game, ASPCA literally ate Cats and Dogs for 10 years

The truth is, the estimations of the number of Cats and Dogs in the America are incorrect because if 163,800,000 is the number of all the Cats and Dogs in America, and if you count up only 79% of households, not the pets, the number that the calculator projects is some what less than the number of all the Cats and Dogs in America. Then the estimations were intended to mislead the public by making a false estimation by plainly not doing the real math, which is by adding up all the Cats in America by all the Dogs in America, and comparing that with estimating "79% of households" but when you take the huge sum of all the Cats and Dogs in America and you take the "79%" by multiplying the sum by 0.79 and you get a different number. Which means that according to The Roast Game (using the numbers that sum up all Cats and Dogs in America, and multiplying it by 0.79), ASPCA members slaughtered and eaten 129,402,000 Cats and Dogs for 10 years (pretty much ASPCA's entire history). ASPCA's first advertised commercial was in 2007 [2]. They were not really founded in 1866, they made that lie up to convince people to donate money which was their entire goal of slaughtering and eating innocent Cats and Dogs in America. I did the math, I did not make up a bunch of random numbers, OK? Here it is: 78,000,000 Dogs [1] + 85,800,000 Cats [1] ------------------------------------ 163,800,000 Cats and Dogs in America X. 0.79 ("79% of households") [1] ------------------------------------- 129,402,000 Cats and Dogs that were slaughtered and eaten by ASPCA members for 10 years. Here are my sources: [1] https://www.google.com... [2] https://m.youtube.com... Also, for some musical inspiration, here is a song (which will be my third source) [3] https://m.youtube.com...
Should students be forced to wear a school uniform

Ultimately the purpose of schools are to teach people a certain subject matter so that they can go into a profession later on in life. Thus, their main purpose is not to be a place for students to express themselves. students can express themselves and their views outside of school hours. If a uniform enables a school to serve its purpose better then I think uniform should be enforced. Also, the 1st amendment only applies in the US so that can't be used as a valid point considering that this is an international forum.
Should students be forced to wear a school uniform

The military and other formal institutions use uniform to show discipline. It is also one of the reasons uniforms are worn in some schools. These schools have been shown to have a more disciplined and learner friendly environment. A uniform also as the effect of camaraderie on the group of people wearing the same uniform. People work together better if visually, it looks like their on the same side. In schools it also has the added benefit there of reducing bullying due to different socio-economic standards not being as visible. People cant be picked on because their clothing is not fashionable as they all wear pretty much the same thing. Therefore I think that school uniforms croat an environment in which learners can better do what their supposed to be doing, and that is to learn
Homosexuality is completely natural and normal in humans and thus should be accepted into society

So, I would like to debate whether homosexuality is normal and natural in humans causing a need for it to be accepted into society. I will be taking the con position. I will also leave the 1st round open for my opponent to make his/her opening statements. Also since you will be taking the pro position, BoP is on you. I will do rebuttals and such after your opening statements. Rules RD 1 Acceptance and Opening statements for Pro RD 2-4 My Opening statements, Rebuttals and cross examinations from both parties RD 5 Closing statements Definitions Homosexuality- the quality or state of being homosexual; erotic activity with someone of the same sex [1] Natural- existing in nature and not made or caused by people; coming from nature[2] Nature- the physical world and everything in it (such as plants, animals, mountains, oceans, stars, etc.) that is not made by people[3] Society- people in general thought of as living together in organized communities with shared laws, traditions, and values; the people of a particular country, area, time, etc., thought of especially as an organized community[4] Civilization- the condition that exists when people have developed effective ways of organizing a society and care about art, science, etc.; a particular well-organized and developed society[5] Any questions regarding clarification of rules etc must be left in the comment section or you can message me BEFORE accepting the debate 1. http://www.merriam-webster.com... 2. http://www.merriam-webster.com... 3. http://www.merriam-webster.com... 4. http://www.merriam-webster.com... 5. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Homosexuality is completely natural and normal in humans and thus should be accepted into society

Did My Opponent Just Say He Has No Argument? My opponent asserts that the burden of proof was placed on him, and that you simply cannot prove a negative. If you cannot prove a negative, then my argument would agree that he can't prove his argument. And if he can't prove his argument, then he doesn't really have an argument. This is the type of fallacious thining that has guided the discussion. Concluding Comments My opponent asserted that homosexuality is not natural, not normal, and therefore should not be accepted in society. My opponent tried to unsuccessfully follow a natural law reasoning that did not appear to follow well. He tried to assert that because cannibalistic animals exist in nature, then we can negate homosexuality as a valid practice. His underlying analysis appears to come from a natural law theory, but it is inconsistent. He says that we can discern what not to do from nature, but that we can't discern what we ought to do from natural observation. This is a troubling position. Nonetheless, I asserted that we can discern what we ought to do from nature, and that what corroborates the "ought" is history and experience. For example, homosexuality is expressed in animals, as it is in humans. History and experience has shown that homosexuality has been practiced throughout humanity, while cannibalizing our young has not. If my opponent really wanted to take me to task, he could have argued then that incest and polygamy should also be accepted in society. However, he failed to see such a point, rather focusing on cannibalization. But, I am not here to make up his arguments for him. Additionally, I have clearly risen to the burden of proof in my opening statements and in Round 3 where I have advanced my argument to say that homosexuality has important natural uses (i.e. population control) and that it has social validity, because it also informs important social relationships. My opponent also failed to answer my question about society and how a society rejects society. He essentially dropped that argument--thereby dropping his entire syllogism because he could not answer the essential conclusion.
Homosexuality is completely natural and normal in humans and thus should be accepted into society

I apologize for forfeiting round 4. I got busy. Nevertheless, my opponent took the debate knowing the stipulations of bearing burden of proof. The first person he should be concerned with convincing, is me. The audience runs a close second. I ended up with BOP though taking the con side and you simply cannot prove a negative. That is what this boils down to. My opponent simply could not prove his side, so he laid the burden on me. And seeing as he could not effectively counter any arguments I made, I succeeded. Thanks to my opponent for taking this debate