BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I'm a Detroit-Cleaveland Drug Lord

My opponent, again didn't specifically clarify, in the last round, that indeed, he wasn't referring to Cleaveland, never stating that he meant 'Cleveland'. Therefore, I must assume that the thesis of this debate is that my opponent is a Detroit-Cleaveland drug dealer. I shall introduce one more argument into this round, to assess the reasonable doubt of the case. Argument 2: Race My opponent, on his profile, states he is 16, male, and white. Keep that data in mind. In this chart(1) from Human Rights Watch, we see the rate of people, per 100,000, are sent to State Prison on drug-related charges. In Michigan, the state in which Detroit is located, for white males, it is shown that per 100,000, there are 16.3 men sent to state prison for drug-related charges. That means, that in the state of Michigan alone, there is a .0163% chance that my opponent would go to jail for a drug-related charge, and for being a drug lord, going to state prison is a very likely offense for the crimes they have done. However, let's compare this to the rate of black males sent to state prison on drug-related charges in Michigan per 100,000 people, which is 218.8. This means that it's far more likely, in fact, 1242% more likely, if I'm doing these numbers correctly, for if he were to be a drug lord, to be black, than if he were white. But since he claims to be white, the likelyhood is decreased greatly of him being a drug dealer. Since we have established that Cleaveland doesn't exist, there is no need to gather statistics on it. So far, it has been proven that my opponent can't be a Detroit-Cleaveland drug lord, and there is very little chance for my opponent to even be a drug lord in Detroit. I look forward to next round, Jifpop. (1):http://www.hrw.org...,
I'm a Detroit-Cleaveland Drug Lord

I will be the con to this debate, and try to prove that my opponent is, indeed, not a 'Detroit-Cleaveland' drug lord. Argument 1: Cleaveland doesn't exist Now, originally, when I looked at the title of the debate, I thought that maybe, 'Cleaveland' was a typo. But no, he included it in the thesis in the first round, the very thing I had to prove against. Therefore, I am forced to mean that my opponent means the City of Cleaveland, and not, say, the City of Cleveland. However, there is no City of Cleaveland. Therefore, my opponent couldn't be a drug lord in it. My opponent states that he is a Detroit-Cleaveland drug lord. With that hyphen, I am to assume that he means that he is both a drug lord in both Cleaveland and in Detroit, a hybrid of the two. But, as I have said, no such city exists. Therefore, he cannot be a Detroit-Cleaveland drug lord, as he can't possibly fill one of the two location conditions of being a Detroit-Cleaveland drug lord. Now, I shall refute my opponent's arguments. Refutation 1: The title of your first argument doesn't agree with your thesis. You are trying to prove, in the first argument, that you are a Detroit Cleveland drug lord, not a Detroit-Cleaveland drug lord. Refutation 2: Your second argument is false, as I have just proved that it is possible to prove that you are wrong. I've never even been to Detroit, Cleaveland, Cleveland, or wherever you live, yet your argument is wrong. I look forward to a good debate.
I'm a Detroit-Cleaveland Drug Lord

The BOP is 100% on whatever opponent accepts this. He/She will have to prove, with less then a 10% reasonable doubt, that I'm not a Detroit-Cleaveland Drug Lord. Additional Rules-S&G will not count- That's it Argument 1: I am a Detroit Cleveland Drug LordSince the BOP is 100% on my opponent, I don't have to do a damn thing, so good luck on disproving that I am a Detroit Cleveland Drug Lord.Argument 2: It is impossible for Con to fullfill the BOP, Unless s/he comes to where I live, stalks me, and tracks my records. It is 100% impossible to prove beyond a 10% reasonable doubt, that I am indeed not a Drug Lord.
Art and music classes should be compulsory in high schools

Art and music classes don"t seem to be used on an everyday basis. There is no point in learning and spending time on a class that won"t be needed in your future. Jobs that deal with music and art are very low at this time. If your going to take a class, make sure it will be useful and help you out in your future. Additionally, high schools should not make these classes mandatory, they should make them extra curricular. These electives should be treated more like a club and be going on after school. If schools make these classes after school, students will be more interested and less distracted. They will be able to focus on doing something they enjoy and take a break from school work. Also, students have more free time and need something to do after school. Art is a very important science. It is often hard to understand, but it is more difficult to teach. This requires an amount of highly qualified teachers who fully know their jobs and are able to educate students. But in many countries often do not have enough teachers who teach basic subjects, not to mention about additional. And of course, because of low wages, few would sacrifice their sensitive knowledge in the field of art for teaching. It will not bring any benefits and trainees; it will just lose their time.
Art and music classes should be compulsory in high schools

I agree with that some people have talant some not, but we can also say that some people have talant to solve the problem on math, and some have not. But it does not mean that we should remove the item from school program. I also agree with that everyone has different abilities, however I do not agree with that we should develop each individually. If they develop each individually, then how can they be versatile generation? People do not know in what they capable and if they have not a talent, they can evolve it with the lapse of time. Second argument, which can be provided as in favor, is when humanity looks at the portraits or pictures that created with many color, or listen various types of music, it manipulate their moods, and also help to grow morally. People can understand the feelings and emotions of an artist and composer by every piece of art and music. That is why, when people look at the creation of an artist, they can communicate with him without words. It is a big opportunity to grow spiritually, because it explains the deep meanings of artist creations. The art can permit to see the beauty of life, nature and people. In addition, art has a power, which can influence our state of feelings, because of colorfulness, structure, and lines of paints. Physiologists assert that looking at the picture with an aggressive color, it makes heart rates increase. If person looks at picture with calm colors, it lowers blood pleasure (Flynn). According to Debra Levy music aids to ameliorate breathing and hand mouth coordination. Because of it, we can call art as a regulator of our moods. . http://www.denverpost.com... . http://www.wisegeek.com...
Art and music classes should be compulsory in high schools

The art is a very important for the formation of human morality. However, someone have a talent and some have not. Those who are not so successful in an art, may not get an excellent mark and deprived of the opportunity to get diploma in future. Moreover, if pupils do know that they are not good at some lessons as their classmates, it may reduce their self- esteem. Everyone has different abilities and would not it be right to develop them each individually. Moreover, of course, it helps to be very versatile, but if pupil have not any interests on these particular subjects. Art can lose its uniqueness in the eyes of the students. Perhaps it would be better if such a science as an art will be something very lofty and noble.
Art and music classes should be compulsory in high schools

The importance of art and music classes in almost all country are low. All get used that these subjects tend to be seen as less important than other lessons. Nowadays we have so many diverse opinions about the art and music lessons necessity in our life. Most of the people think that these subjects are just waste our precious time, however, others think that it is not an essential part that people cannot live without. Nevertheless, I believe that art is incredibly important to student"s education. The first notable reason that art and music classes should be in schools is to be versatile person and develop creativity. While looking at the beautiful creations, people can identify a deep meaning of pictures or sculptures. That is why, art gives an opportunity to see the major purpose of items and the details of painting can help to be all- round educated generation. According to Valerie Strauss the children who engaged art classes will think from different perspectives, because in art programs while child create a painting, it train their memory. In future these kinds of attainments may be useful in career. And also music helps people be more many- sided in way that they can learn how to play in different instruments. If there wren"t be any music classes may be students would"t know that they have such kind of ability to music. "Music rightly is the best mind trainer" (Charles) Moreover, the art and music lessons can cultivate our creativity. Some people assume that creativity is a gift of God, but there are others who think creativity as an ability, which people can evolve by themselves. For instance, when students draw something, it will help to think about what and how they would paint; these thoughts help to be more creative. Furthermore, humanity can evolve their creativity by colors, textures, lines and forms of artist work and see a deep meaning of his pictures. Because of it, people have a big chance to be more constructive and originative. http://www.washingtonpost.com... http://www.lcps.org...
Art and music classes should be compulsory in high schools

Studying art and music in this period is a waste of time. Students who are interested in art and music can specify in the area they really like by learning from other sources and practising in clubs. Those who are not interested will have more time to learn the subjects they like. They will make a better decision on choosing a job in the future. High school students should be able to choose what electives they want to do during school. High schools making art and music classes mandatory would not be a good thing. It will make it harder to find work if students mainly study art and music. Students also won"t be as interested if they"re not willing to do the class. Art and music class should be treated like a club and should be chosen to be taken during school or after school. In the end, students being able to choose their electives, it will make it more interesting for the students. Thanks to my opponent to a well thought out debate.
Art and music classes should be compulsory in high schools

The art and music classes can give an opportunity to figure out about our history in the past and get a message from artists and composers. The history pictures, students can imagine how people lived in the past life. By antecedent time in art pupil can learn their culture, styles, problems and so on. Today"s generations are so lucky, because they can see history by the pictures in schoolbooks. For instance, when I read a history, sometimes I could not imagine the situation that was in past. But, by the picture of books I can imagine everything and it is easier to figure out about our history. " If you do not know the history, you do not know anything. You are a leaf that doesn't know it is part of a tree"( Crichton) That is why, art is one of the best ways to find out about bygone and culture. In music class students can also know more about their history by poetry, or by folk songs. "There are more valid facts and details in works of art than there are in history books" (Charlie). Unfortunately, nowadays schools of many countries are more focus on subjects such as math, language, biology, however the importance of art and music has the same like in other lessons. Art and music lessons play an important role in our lives and in the lives of young people helping to involve imaginations, aid to grow morally, and learn history. Without art our life would be gray.
Race and Intelligence

Well, for 1, there is evidence for both sides, making it nearly impossible to bring up a point without it having a counter-point. The example I gave was points used for non-heredity, however it can be pointed out that just as many are challenged, making it moot. Because of this, it is apparent there is an unknown variable in this process, and it can not be debated properly until we find out said variable(s). 2.http://en.m.wikipedia.org... (If you want a more "trustworthy" source, many history books contain it also). As for the European Empire, well that one is more widely accepted. Some lived in caves due to their continent having no gold like all the other richer countries, and thus no money. This was also the reason their first words when landing in North America were "Where is your gold?" after hearing of Spain's success story in South America. They soon learned, however, that North America was just as gold barren as they were. I can't remember how they became rich (Think it had to do with conquering everyone else). http://www.waterhistory.org... http://en.m.wikipedia.org... http://www.historyforkids.org.... Also, your stance is that race determines ones knowledge. To only accept a certain time-line would in itself be acknowledging that environment has a part in it. 3. Number 2 and 3 are different in the comparing in IQ of races and what makes up the IQ, and 3 is Modern America...People in 'ghettos' are bound not to do nearly as well as someone in the suburbs, no matter what race. It depends on the area the subjects are raised for an I.Q to get comparable results. Besides that, I.Q's tend to focus on certain areas, while completely ignoring others; and not to mention they do change as you get older.
Race and Intelligence

I will now counter my opponent's points. 1st: This is an irrelevant point in my view. Con needs to explain why this would be relevant for this to be a point. , 2nd: No evidence to support claims. I don't believe that this is true. .. .. But, if am wrong, I need evidence to contradict me. And, I am talking about modern IQ differences in America. .. So, my opponent needs to explain the relevance of this. 3rd: I am only talking about modern America. Con has yet to make any points that have relevantly put a dent in the resolution.
Race and Intelligence

Hello, and thank you for creating this topic of discussion, and now let us commence. 1st: Well...this is an highly disputed topic for something with so little evidence, but it has been shown multiple times that a mentally challenged (retarded) parent or parents have had perfectly normal children (since normal is highly disputable, I am going by an average child). 2nd: In ancient times, Europeans were building mud shacks and holes to live in and store things, while Africans, due to their immense wealth, had schools, towns and temples made out of gold, and even a giant palace; now, they have switched places essentially. Later on, Anciernt Rome had a early sewage system and libraries (including the Great Library) filled knowledge and stories, etc. And Europe a few centuries later, was throwing it's waste into the streets, which caused the Black Plague. So it would suggest that while race may have a factor, it is proportionate to the type of environment and the resources available. 3rd: This is mostly based on data gathered where subjects lived in different towns, and they might as well be on opposite sides of the world, while two races in similar neighborhoods tend to score closer than those not. This suggests that the environment plays a larger part than race itself.
Race and Intelligence

I argue that: 1.) IQ Measures a Substantially Heritable trait in the United States 2.) Different Populations that Are Typically Called Races Have Different Average IQs 3.) There is a Signigicant Genetic Component to the Different Average IQs betwen Races in the United States With respect to #3, I am arguing that the Racial IQ gaps are partially genetic... Con would be arguing that it is not genetic at all. Now, I am going to set a don'ts here: 1.) I will be citing respected scholars like Jensen and Rushton. If you have an issue with their, or anyone I cite's, work, you must EXPLAIN what is wrong with their work. Ad Hominem attacks and saying things like "their work is known to be unreliable" will simply not be acceptable. That is not the type of debate I am looking for. 2.) In the same vein, saying that something was funded by an organization like the Pioneer Fund will not be seen as a legitimate argument. 3.) In other words, you must criticize work by pointing out what you think is wrong with it... Saying that it seems "unreliable" or that you don't like the author are not arguments. 4.) The existence of Race is not relevant to this debate. I am talking about populations or groups that we define as races, which indisputably exist. Feel Free to ask any questions!
is global warming entirely caused because of man

While I'll agree that man has definitely contributed to global warming, I will argue that other factors have contributed to global warming as well. If I provide even one example of another cause of GW, the audience must vote CON. 1) According to the U.N., cow farts are the biggest contributor to GW.[1] 2) Monkeys breath. When mammals (such as the monkey) breath, they contribute to global warming. Ergo, monkeys contribute to GW too. (500 cap.) ----Reference---- [1] http://tinyurl.com...
is global warming entirely caused because of man

First let ,me tell you that i'am not a critic who likes to insult mankind as i also am a human being.But we must all agree to this that we are the sole responsible cuase of this heated conversation of global warming.If man had'nt made machines pollution would not have been burdening mother earth and its pitful reatures on a sad note i would conclude by saying man has caused these broblems and we should be the ones solving it too!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It is morally irresponsible to procreate in lieu of adoption.

First of all, we have to define the term "moral responsibility" in order to determine whether procreation is moral or immoral. I believe a moral responsibility would comprise actions that are viewed as wrong in the perspective of society should they not be fulfilled. For example, I believe that reporting the witnessing of a father abusing his child is a moral responsibility because if it were known to the community that I knew about said child abuse and did NOT report it, I would be viewed as "in the wrong" by that community. So we have to ask ourselves if society would see a couple trying to have a baby as "in the wrong". The answer is of course not. If you think that procreation is immoral then I would have to say that either you are an irrational human being or you are unbelievably judgmental. I acknowledge that there are children suffering around the world, but there is more than one way to combat this problem. Adopting a child is an extreme that many people might not be willing to go to for many different reasons. Please allow me to refute some of your arguments specifically. You say "[procreation] ignores the suffering and deaths of millions of children around the world." Most people in Western civilization recognize that many children in less privileged parts of the world are suffering. Procreation does not preclude this recognition. In fact, many biological parents have probably saved more lives with charitable donations than you would ever be willing to adopt. You say "the novelty of a biological child does not outweigh the necessity of providing a household for children who need it". Procreation is not a "novelty", it is an evolutionary necessity. If you have ever studied evolution, you would know that continuing our own bloodlines is a behavior that is literally inscribed in our genes. While I can concede that those parents who do decide to adopt are inspiring, to say that it is morally irresponsible not to adopt is just simply not true.
It is morally irresponsible to procreate in lieu of adoption.

My claim is that it is morally irresponsible not to adopt if you are planning to adopt and are legally able to adopt. There are millions of children suffering around the world, some on the brink of death, that could be adopted. Knowing this, if a couple plans to procreate it is morally irresponsible because it ignores the suffering and deaths of millions of children around the world. While the appeal of procreation is certainly understandable, the novelty of a biological child does not outweigh the necessity of providing a household for children who need it. A child unborn to the world will have no idea what it is missing since it is not alive. However, living children are aware of their deplorable conditions and that they could be adopted into better conditions. The aspiring parents of the world who do not plan to adopt are comparable to people who would come across a child dying of starvation, thirst, disease, etc. and do nothing to help the child.
Doctor Who is better than Star Trek

To start off, I will point out the fact that Doctor Who (premiered 1963) has been on much longer than Star Trek has - almost fifty years! Star Trek started a few years after Doctor Who (1966), and as of 2005, has not shown regular episodes. Doctor Who, although it took a break in the 90s, is still up and kicking! Star Trek tended to stay more toward the science fiction genre during its run. This was probably because it was a science fiction show, just like Doctor Who. The difference is that Doctor Who goes way beyond science fiction with some of its serials. One out of many examples would be in the episode "The Shakespeare Code". The Doctor travels back in time and meets William Shakespeare, who the Doctor finds out is being controlled by witches. He, Shakespeare, and Martha Jones defeat the witches with a spell, trapping them in a crystal ball. That sounds like fantasy to me! Doctor Who travels outside its genre in plenty of episodes, which undoubtedly attracts many people who are a fan of other genres. I will admit that Star Trek had a few of its own episodes like that, but for the most part it tended to stay plain science fiction. Doctor Who has much more variety than Star Trek does. It is also much more realistic in its representation of what the future might be like. Star Trek, at least in the Original Series, has this perfect utopia feel to it where everyone is happy and equal, which, I am sorry to say, is just never going to happen. Life is full of biased and stupid people trying to ruin other people's fun for their own benefit. And that is never going to change. Doctor Who acknowledges this, showing constant flaws in the people the Doctor and his companions meet, no matter how "advanced" they are. Doctor Who is just more realistic than Star Trek. Also, Doctor Who is constantly changing. The poor Time Lord is the most unlucky guy I have ever seen, getting himself killed every five or so years. Each regeneration brings a new personality to the show, but also keeps fans watching because they know that, in the program's reality, the Doctor is still the same guy inside. Star Trek, on the other hand, is always the same old story, no matter what remake one is watching; "A bunch of astronauts on some sort of star trek." - Zefram Cochrane
Doctor Who is better than Star Trek

This debate is just for fun. No need to show off and use big words if you don't want to. Just keep your grammar and spelling readable. I myself like both Doctor Who and Star Trek very much, but I chose to fight for the Doctor because that show is my all time favorite. Hence why I have that jelly baby-loving Time Lord as my picture. Okay, so here's how it will work: Round 1: fan ranting/waiting for someone to except my debate. Round 2: debate actually starts. Spent stating some reasons why one's show is better. Round 3: rebuttal/final statements. That's about it. Allons-y!