BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
In the united states College is Necessary

Greetings, Hello-Orange. In keeping with your structure I will keep this short, mostly simply acknowledging my acceptance! I have one short question that shouldn't take too long to answer, with a view to getting to my constructive as soon as possible (to be honest, I think what you have written already is by-and-large clear enough). My sole question is this: While I affirm the necessity of higher-level education in the United States, college is obviously not for everybody. Would my opponent not therefore agree to restrict the motion to applying to: a) U.S Citizens b) who are willing and c) mentally able to go to college? I think these three qualifications are quite reasonable because (a) you've already restricted it to U.S colleges, and this clearly isn't an IR motion; (b) this debate is about the necessity of the colleges, not of their obligatory attendance; and (c) those mentally unable may fit into the definitions above and should be excluded for the greater benefit of other students, as under the status quo which I support. I look forward expectantly to my learned opponent's response.
In the united states College is Necessary

=Rules= -Above all keep in mind that these rules may be bent with-in reason, I only ask you keep you head when attempting to use semantic analysis; if it's too far out there it's abusive. But otherwise I feel like it's a necessary and useful technique to employ. 1. No semantic definitions, when speaking of colleges, I mean secondary education beyond high school. Semantic interpretation is okay with-in reason. 2. I want there to be some evidence, at least one link; but I do not want this to be an evidence debate. If evidence is supplied I want analysis on it, otherwise it is irrelevant to the debate 3. forfeit of a round 3-5 counts as a forfeit of all seven points in the round. 4. Catty/Offensive demeanor automatically forfeits the conduct voter. 5. arguments that are not extended are only counted as dropped arguments if they are attacked. If a point is not attacked, there is no reason to extend it, the point has been made. =Clarifications= Because I do not want to hinder any kind of exchange of ideas I won't offer much here as pre-round framework. I simply want to say that I'm wanting to debate whether secondary education is really necessary within the united states. I ask that whomever accepts this debate be courteous, and keep their heads about them. If you're on this site, you're smart enough to be able to use your own God-given common sense. =Round Structure= Round 1: Con- Rules/clarifications/Round Structure Pro- Acceptance/ questions about the resolution Round 2: Con- Definitions/ Answers to pro's questions Pro- Definitions Round 3: Constructive/Clash Round 4: Clash/Rebuttals Round 5: Clash/rebuttals/ final statements --- Good luck!
In the united states College is Necessary

Before I get into any arguments or frame work, I need to point out that the previous round was solely for Definitions, and clarification of the round to my opponent. it was not for arguments or observations. Not only are my opponent's statements as of last round non-applicable to this debate, but as per a breach in agreed round structure this is grounds for a loss conduct points. I ask that my opponent kindly follow the rules of the run, and wait until the proper time before offering observations. By doing this out of turn, I am put in a rather akward position of debating already having prior knowledge of where my opponent stands. that said I will now begin with my constructive arguments. =Framework= Obs1: Necessary- the resolution states "In the United States College is Necessary" as the Con, it is my job to prove that it is not a necessity, not to prove that it is bad or ought be done away with. In our society, we have many things that while not necessities, aren't bad. Computers, Cars, and Air conditioning are to name a few Obs2: BoP- the Burden of Proof in this round is shared. both I and my opponent have a stance to prove before we can be considered the winner. If one of us disproves the other, but never actually establishes out point then that person has not won. Obs3: =Contentions= C1: College is not a necessity- a. As we have already seen, a necessity is something that is absolutely essiential. An absoute essiential is something critically necessary foor one's own survival. Food, water, and Air are the three things usually deemed as essientials. Of course in the united states this is even expanded to Gas, Electricity, Heat, etc. College however, simply isn't necessary for survival. Whether in the united states or otherwise, college is a luxury. C2: Maslow's hierchy of needs- Maslow's hierchy of needs is a five pronged approach used to achieve self-actualization. The first level is Physiological, the second is safety, the third is love/belonging, the fourth is esteem, and the fifth and final level is self actualization -College is not the sole criteria of achieving any one of these five levels. -Unless my opponent can Prove that college is the only way to achieve any of these, they cannot prove college as being a neccesity. Brief as this is, I feel these argument make the point I'm wanting to make. Thus at this point I hand the debate back over to my opponent. Good Luck!
In the united states College is Necessary

I will use this round to make two quick observations. First, I said I will argue that while college is not necessary for everyone, that does not make it un-necessary. Rather, I will contend that so long as people are willing and able to go to college, there should be colleges. While trying hard not to do a semantic analysis, the motion calls for me to defend the necessity of the colleges, not of their compulsory attendance. Therefore it is reasonable to restrict the motion so that not everyone in the United States goes to college. What is puzzling to me is why my opponent agrees with me on this issue (as the opposite is "utterly silly" and an "underhand tactic") but then refuses to "concede the point. " Surely if my opponent had some reason for not conceding the point he would have told us, but he has absolutely none. By contrast I gave you a full paragraph of analysis as to why this is reasonable. I'm glad my opponent does not see this as an "issue," but am at a loss as to why he can't concede points that aren't at stake anyway. I really hope this isn't an indication of how the rest of the debate will run - when asserting points, I think according to rule #2 my opponent should provide us with the link as to WHY he will not concede my reasonable restrictions, just as I provided analysis as to why this is reasonable. Second, my opponent introduced a restriction I didn't ask for - high school non-graduates. I would like to state that I agree wholeheartedly with this restriction, and think it is very fair. I really don't see how a mentally incapable person would manage this, and so do still wonder even more about your response to (c), but never mind. I would like to finish by thanking my opponent for his wish of good luck, and returning it to him. I'm very excited to hear what my opponent has to say in his substantive. Let the debate (properly) begin!
In the united states College is Necessary

=Answers= a) Yes, it is indeed restricted to US citizens. that being persons whom have graduated high school, and are either legalized immigrants, natural born citizens, or persons who are in the process of becoming naturalized us citizens b) I will not concede to this point. it would be utterly silly to try and win the Con side of this debate by advocating those who simply aren't willing to go to college. c) I will not concede to this point. However I do not feel as though it will be an issue of debate. via rules 1 and 2 there shouldn't be any underhanded tactics by this point. =Definitions= [1] College: an institution of higher education created to educate and grant degrees; often a part of a university [2] Necessary: absolutely essential =Sources= [1] . http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...= [2] . http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... Good Luck!
Twenty Questions

. . . . . . It seems that my opponent has presented some faulty information about the object being described. ----- False Claims ----- There are two claims that stand out to me. 1. My opponent claims that the object can be purchased from Wal-Mart or Target. 2. My opponent claims that at Wal-Mart and Target, the majority of these types of objects sell for no more than fifty dollars. We can combine these two statements to form a single one. Combined: My opponent claims that at Wal-Mart or Target, the majority of table legs can be bought for under or exactly fifty dollars. That 'new' claim might look somewhat unchanged at a first glance, but the last part is extremely important to my refutation. If we didn't have the first claim, it wouldn't make sense to assume that the object could be purchased at or under fifty dollars because we wouldn't know that the object was actually for sale in the first place- but we do. In order for him to make these two claims, he must have either, Possibility 1. Assumed that the majority of table sets are at or under fifty dollars in order to guarantee that even at 99% of the price, the table legs wouldn't exceed fifty dollars. Doesn't work because: The majority of tables aren't at or under that price. [1] [2] Possibility 2. Known the cost of an individual table leg, regardless of whether or not they are sold independently. Doesn't work because: In order for you to know the price that Target would hypothetically sell each part of the table for, the individual part would have to be for sale in the first place- which it isn't. [3] [4] ----- Closing ----- Before handing it over to my opponent, I'd like to quote one of the rules established in Round 1. "9. If Con guesses the object incorrectly but shows Pro to be contradictory in the answers to the questions, Con wins. " ----- Sources ----- 1. . http://www.target.com... 2. . http://www.walmart.com... 3. . http://www.target.com... 4. . http://www.walmart.com...
Twenty Questions

"1. Is any part of the object metal? " Some times. This object can be made with parts that are metal, but it can also be made with parts that are not metal. "2. Is at least 90% of the object metal? " Some times. When the object is made out of metal, then it is at least made up of at least 90% of metal. However, the object can also have little to none percentage of metal. "3. Is the object used as a household decoration? " No. "4. Is the object usually found in an individual's home as opposed to another setting? " This object is usually found in most individuals' homes, but it can certainly be found in many other settings. Many settings are expected to have this object present. "5. Would the object usually be found above the eye level of an average sized man standing up inside his house? " No. "6. Do the majority of these types of objects sell for more than $150 at Wal-Mart or Target? " No. "7. Do the majority of these types of objects sell for more than $50 at Wal-Mart or Target? " No. "8. Is part of the object made out of plastic? " Some times. Usually, the only way that the object will have plastic parts is if it is made out of plastic. "9. Does the object have many sudden edges, as opposed to a rounder object? " Compared to a rounder object, this object usually has more sudden edges. "10. Could the object fit inside of a box measuring five feet by five feet by five feet? " Yes.
Twenty Questions

. ---- 10 Questions (2) ---- 1. Is any part of the object metal? 2. Is at least 90% of the object metal? 3. Is the object used as a household decoration? 4. Is the object usually found in an individual's home as opposed to another setting? 5. Would the object usually be found above the eye level of an average sized man standing up inside his house? 6. Do the majority of these types of objects sell for more than $150 at Wal-Mart or Target? 7. Do the majority of these types of objects sell for more than $50 at Wal-Mart or Target? 8. Is part of the object made out of plastic? 9. Does the object have many sudden edges, as opposed to a rounder object? 10. Could the object fit inside of a box measuring five feet by five feet by five feet?
Twenty Questions

"1. Is the object more commonly found indoors as opposed to outside? " Yes; although the object can be found outdoors, it is more commonly found indoors. "2. Is the object something that can fit into a standard backpack without rendering the backpack unable to zip shut, and while still remaining intact? " Most of the time, the object is something that cannot fit into a standard backpack without rendering the backpack unable to zip shut, and while still remaining intact. There are exceptions, but you can conclude that the answer to this question is "no. " "3. Is the object something that could, as a whole, be manipulated with only human strength? (Broken, smashed, molded, etc. )" Yes; the object is something that could, as a whole, be manipulated with only human strength. "4. Is the object normally capable of storing items within itself? " No. "5. Is the object normally capable of storing people within itself? " No. "6. Does the object use electricity? " No. "7. Is the object ever used as food on a relatively common basis? " No. "8. Does the object have green coloring on any part of it's surface? " It could, but not necessarily. The answer to this can be concluded as "some times. " "9. Is this object the same color 90% of the time? " No. "10. Can this object be purchased from Wal-Mart or Target? " Yes.
Twenty Questions

I also agree to the previously stated rules of course. --- 10 Questions --- 1. Is the object more commonly found indoors as opposed to outside? 2. Is the object something that can fit into a standard backpack without rendering the backpack unable to zip shut, and while still remaining intact? 3. Is the object something that could, as a whole, be manipulated with only human strength? (Broken, smashed, molded, etc. ) 4. Is the object normally capable of storing items within itself? 5. Is the object normally capable of storing people within itself? 6. Does the object use electricity? 7. Is the object ever used as food on a relatively common basis? 8. Does the object have green coloring on any part of it's surface? 9. Is this object the same color 90% of the time? 10. Can this object be purchased from Wal-Mart or Target?
Twenty Questions

This debate will be very similar to the game "20 Questions. " For further clarification, I shall provide this link: . http://en.wikipedia.org... ========================== Rules: 1. Con must ask Pro ten questions in Round 1 and another ten in Round 2. These questions can only have a possible answer of: yes, no, maybe, or sometimes. 2. With Con's questions, he/she will try to find clues as to what object Pro has in mind. 3. In Rounds 2 and 3, Pro will answer Con's questions with a yes, no, maybe, sometimes, or an explanation to clarify the response. 4. In Round 3, Con will guess what object that Pro had in mind. 5. In Round 4, Pro will reveal the object that he was thinking of. If Con was correct in his/her guess, Con automatically wins the debate. However, if Con was incorrect with the guess, Con will have Round 4 to try and point out if Pro either answered a question that was contradictory with the object in mind or if Pro inaccurately answered a question. 6. In Round 5, Pro will defend himself. If Con has accused Pro of the above, Pro will be able to counteract Con's arguments and attempt to justify his claims. 7. In Round 5, Con can either give up or try to convince the readers that Pro has contradicted an answer with the object in mind. 8. If Con guesses the object correctly, Con automatically wins. 9. If Con guesses the object incorrectly but shows Pro to be contradictory in the answers to the questions, Con wins. 10. If Con concedes or does not prove that Pro was inaccurate or contradictory, then Pro wins. 11. If Con does not provide the exact number of questions when obligated, Con automatically loses. 12. For every time Pro answers "maybe," Con can ask an additional question that will take the place of the prior question. 13. Only severe contradictions are considered. People may have different interpretations of a question. *P. S. The object that Pro has in his mind cannot change throughout the debate. Remember, Pro can only think of an object* object- anything that is visible or tangible and is relatively stable in form. For this debate, humans and animals will not count; Pro must think of an inanimate object.
Feminism has reached a point where it is now more harmful than good.

A Fools challenge: Feminism has had a positive impact in many aspects but it has reached a point where a fair evaluation of its progress and necessity. Is due. Obviously this is going to run in contrast with the modern status quo and the majority of beliefs. So I don't expect to win your beliefs or opinions but rather judge my ability to proof is true and provide evidence when necessary. Part of the purpose of the argument is to open our minds to take a look at the beliefs we take for granted without thinking."It is fortunate for us in power that people don't think" Adolf Hitler Don't get wrong woman I love woman. The world would be useless without them. But I believe that the feminist critique has not really allowed itself to be critiqued itself fairly. “Of course I agree with basics such as equal education choices and voting, driving, etc.” So my claim is that Feminism has reached a point where it is now more harmful than good. Send your best only; youmust have at least 2 years of university or 3 years of college minimum.
Sarah Jane Smith is Cooler than Rose Tyler

This is a debate discussing the two characters Sarah Jane Smith (protrayed by Liz Sladen) and Rose Tyler (protrayed by Billie Piper) in the fantasticly epic series Doctor Who. I suppose this will be more opinion-based than fact, so it will be more fan ranting than debating, which I am perfectly fine with! Round 1: Debate terms and acceptance of the debate Round 2: Debate starts Round 3: Rebuttal/Final statements I would prefer to debate with someone who has watched a fair amount of both ClassicWho and NuWho like me, so the debate wont be biased because of lack of knowledge about either character. And that's about it! Allons-y!
Sarah Jane Smith is Cooler than Rose Tyler

I read that link you pasted from the BBC America Doctor Who page. "Interestingly, among British voters, Sarah Jane Smith defeated Rose 61 percent to 39 percent, while U.S. voters picked Rose 58 percent to 42 percent." Meaning, yes, Rose did win, but only in the U.S. vote, with Sarah Jane coming close in second. Sarah Jane won in the U.K. vote, and Rose lost to her by more of a margin than Sarah Jane lost in the U.S. vote. One up for Sarah Jane! This paragraph caught my eye: "Sarah Jane"s substantial showing [in School Reunion] demonstrated the fondness many fans still have for the iconic classic companion, who was brought back for several episodes in the modern series and was rewarded with her own successful spinoff The Sarah Jane Adventures...It"s safe to say that had Elisabeth Sladen lived, she"d still be appearing in Doctor Who episodes from now until one of their many Ends Of Time finally finishes things off for good. And that"s because Sarah Jane kept going too. Of all the Doctor"s companions, she"s the one who, rather than sitting back to reminisce over her time as a space traveler, would clearly continue in the same adventurous vein for as long as the Earth was imperiled." Well said. This part has nothing against Rose, but is an example of how cool Sarah Jane is. Could you respond to some of my points?
Sarah Jane Smith is Cooler than Rose Tyler

As much as i agree with your points Rose helped save resurrect the show. When fans voted they picked Rose as best female companion. Though Sarah may be bigger to the British viewers Rose won out over all. http://www.bbcamerica.com... I personally believe Rose helped the Doctor accept companions again without her he would probably still be surfing time alone. As a side note did Sarah become a nigh immortal being cause Rose became Bad Wolf.
Sarah Jane Smith is Cooler than Rose Tyler

Sarah Jane Smith. One of the most beloved companions in all of Doctor Who, and that is not just one fan's personal opinion. Anyone who has watched more than just School Reunion knows that Sarah Jane (portrayed by the late Liz Sladen) has been a companion for more than forty years, making her the longest running companion after the Brigadier. Starting off with Jon Pertwee in 1973 and ending her initial run as a companion in 1976 with Tom Baker, she also guessed starred in a number of Doctor Who specials and starred in the (admittedly unsuccessful) pilot of K-9 and Company. In 2006, Sarah Jane appeared in the previously mentioned Doctor Who episode "School Reunion," where she clashed with the character Rose Tyler (portrayed by Billie Piper), the other subject of this debate, who will be talked about more below. This was originally meant as a one off, but Sarah Jane's return was so popular, it ended up being the beginning of an entire spin off starring Sarah Jane Smith, this one much more successful than K-9 and Company. The Sarah Jane Adventures lasted four years, and if it was not for the fact that Liz Sladen sadly passed away the same year her show ended, she would probably still be a big character in the world of Doctor Who. To quote a guy from YouTube named Ritch, Sarah Jane is basically a 60 year old superhero! Rose, despite the belief of many, was not the Doctor's first love. In modern terms, she was more the first person that (we, the fans, saw anyway) the Doctor really wanted to bonk. While she was around, Doctor Who was no longer about traveling the Universe and offering jelly babies to your enemies. It was about her. Seriously, every episode. Even poor Martha could barely get a word in sometimes, and Rose was long gone by then. Rose also seemed to feel a bit too entitled to the Doctor and travelling through time and space with him. She makes it seem like she is the ultimate companion when really she is just one of a long line. When Sarah Jane saw the Doctor regenerate, she did not flip out and cry about how the Doctor "left her" like Rose did. In fact, the only reason why the Doctor regenerated in front of Rose was because he was saving her butt! Also, Sarah Jane has been in episodes featuring all but the Sixth and Seventh Doctors, counting one of Paul McGann's audiobooks and the special "The Five Doctors". That has got to count for something! Sarah Jane set the stage for all who came after her. She is loved by two different generations and will definitely be loved by the generations to come. And did Rose get her own TV show? No, I didn't think so!
More guns will cause less crime

Whether you have a gun, rock, or knife you are obligated to protect yourself. The police are not going to be right behind your every step, so why not carry a gun? Police only show up after the crime/call, if anyone calls at all. I am sure that anyone can tell if the person carrying a gun is a good person or a bad person. What's to misunderstand? Can you not tell when someone is going to rob you or not? And if I were to get robbed I would want something to protect me, such as a gun! Students for concealed weapons said ,"In fact, no law will ever affect criminal behavior because criminals, by their very nature, do not follow the law." Even if we do make gun laws stricter or make it to were no one can have a gun a criminal can still get his/her hands on it. Have you heard of the black market? That is a way for a criminal to get a gun. With the ages there are different reasons why they would carry a gun. For example, an elderly person cannot take a beating like a young person could.