BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should Probable cause be alright in School K-12

*Side note: I believe all kids are good. There are some who are more susceptible to making bad decisions. Who isn't? But, the amount of bad decision a kid is prone to can be reduced when the source can be identified. Probable cause should be alright in school K-12 to aide in maintaining a safe, secure learning environment. However, it is a decision that should not be made to schools across the board. In that, it should be decided at a local level involving parents and teachers. After all they would know whether the school their child/children attend is problematic. It would be unrealistic to argue that a Probable Cause policy would eliminate potential life threatening or harmful events. A Probable Cause policy should be accompanied with an outlet source (e.g. upper grade levels peer to peer, all grade levels an outside agent brought in on sight for students). Schools with budget constraints can utilize school counselors to implement the policy without additional expense. School counselors could be more effective in serving their students when they are side-by-side in the trenches rather than behind a desk. A Probable Cause policy could benefit a student (s), who may be contemplating suicide, a pregnancy prevention, identifying child abuse, drug use/sales, a frustrated failing student with no one at home to assist them with homework. Those are just a few ways students and schools can benefit from a Probable Cause policy that is implemented with a positive mindset to helping good kids rise to the challenges that stand in the way of being a good student (s), or hinders the ability to see beyond what's in front of them. An improper approach to implementation begins with a negative mind-set that students are up to no good, profiling students: financially challenged, color, race, gender, etc. Students being subjected to policy without discourse for remedy.
Hearthstone is Better than Magic

Hello! I accept your challenge. To clarify, my stance is not that Magic is the better game, but rather that they are equal. To get straight to the point, there is a reason Magic came first before Hearthstone. Hearthstone bases it's mechanics on predecessor games like Magic, but it was made to be more convenient. That is where all your points come in. Other than that, game play isn't really that different, it's just that each game has it's own unique thing. Unless one of the two has something that the other does not have game play wise- something that is truly outstanding and draws people in- there is no true superior in terms of game play, which adds to my point. I will now address your points about grinding for good cards, losing cards, shuffling and handling cards. The opportunity to grind for something and actually see results is extremely rewarding and a huge money-maker, and when you get a good card, it is like a trophy for you (because you will win a lot of games with your first good card), and that adds to the feeling. Having an enormous collection of cards promotes responsibility, and actually gives people something to practice the quality on (something that they love, mind you). Lastly, they're are a LOT of people that are sentimental when comes to shuffling and handling cards, it is like a physical comfort of sorts.
Rap Battle: Sonic vs. Mario

Now listen closely, hedgehog. It's about time I let-a you know, Sega was bancrupt years ago, you're on the streets just like a ho, Oh and guess who's-a still in business? Nintendo! I lay-a pipes for a living. Yup, right in Peach's vagino! There's no way that you can compete with the scroller king, If we went for a swim I wouldn't pass you your water ring! And Sonic Sez that he is more iconic? yet his rhymes are so slow... isn't that ironic?
Rap Battle: Sonic vs. Mario

Yo, look up in the sky! not a bird, not a plane just my furry fox friend, Tails is da name And while ur poppin shrooms to gain in buffness we'll be destroyin robots to prove our toughness Now i have a plane and your imposing doom all you have fore protection is your gay brother and shrooms One last thing before i say goodbye you suck at this man, your raps don't even rhyme!
Rap Battle: Sonic vs. Mario

o I grew up with Nintendo, cried when I got it So obviously you know which side I end up on it's Super dee dooper, Mario, and the crew toad, Luigi, the princess, and not to forget Boo. Who you else riding a dinosaur I have you screaming like a kid on Christmas morning Nintendo 64, all game long all you chase is your tail I throw fireballs from my drawz in the air!
Should dogs be executed for bitten a person

When a dog loves a shark we can't tell him no why? Because no harm is done. When a dog bites it bites to kill Dogs need to learn respect. they need to be killed for biting. If a child kills someone do we blame the owner? No balme the child because it was probably raise in a secular home. Like JAck chick said, if childern hear theres no god, they automatically think theres no morals and they think they are a god. Dogs need to die if they bite someone no exeptions Boom! U come at me!
Should dogs be executed for bitten a person

First of all, you have horrible grammar,spelling ect. and thank you for accepting the challenge. Secondly, how on earth would dogs create an anarchy? All dogs don't get along very well so that's not possible and we are very closely related to dogs but they are NOT humans. I would like to start off by saying how odd it is for you to compare animals to humans. if that is your way to argue than I consider this....If a human bites someone..KILL THEM....If a dog bite someone.....KILL THEM. That is what I am understanding from your argument. Plus not all their time they mean to bite a person, sometimes its the owners fault for lack of love and compassion. Or the dog could be a momma and she fears for a threat to her puppies. Another option is they could be simply eating from their dog bowl while the owner tries to take it away and BAM!! Now I say...............COME AT ME BRO!!
#McDonalds

Debating Pro Argument McDonalds was once founded by the McDonalds brothers in 1940. These two brother expanded and marketed their fast food restaurant into a new level of a franchise during their days and even now 2012. McDonalds is one of the top selling products in the world. It should not be shut down just because parents neglect to discipline their children on healthy eating habits. Kroc the new owner, whom brought the fast selling franchise from the McDonald brothers, improved the taste and quality of their products. I believe that your argument is debatable, but i feel like if it wasnt for McDonalds, then our economy would not be in such a fast pace environment.
#McDonalds

Argument: I think that McDonalds show horrible eating habits towards children, they should be shut down! I am head strong on my opinion about McDonalds and reasons why their advertisement portrays negative tactics towards children and their eating habits. People get fat eating regular portion sizes, but since the food has a high energy density, people gain weight. The human appetite was designed for low energy density foods, which means an average "Joe" living in a city setting, will go to a McDonalds at least twice a week. McDonalds also affect people in other parts of the world for instance the the seven continents like, Europe, Asia, China ect. McDonalds should have a open debate regarding their health risks, sanitary and amount a consumer is allowed to consume.
#McDonalds

Argument: I think that McDonalds show horrible eating habits towards children, they should be shut down! McDonalds causes various medical conditions such as, Diabetes, High Cholesterol, Obesity, High Blood Pressure, and ect. Just recently Jan. 2012 McDonalds social media had backfired on them on a social network called Twitter. Many followers degraded the fast-food restaurant calling it #McFail. Consumers took over the champaign and it became a trendy topic on Twitter. Studies have shown that McDonalds sanitary commission display negative behavior in fast food restaurant, which pleads my reasons why McDonalds restaurant should be shut down.
#McDonalds

Debating Pro Argument You cannot blame McDonalds for their marketing and management tactics. McDonalds have shown great deal of giving back to the community. For example, the Ronald McDonald House. Ronald McDonald House program provides a "home-away-from-home" for families so they can stay close by their hospitalized child at little or no cost. Going back to the main point, McDonalds also provides Nutritional Facts on everything the sell. By doing this, it is the consumers decision on what they buy. So how can McDonalds be at fault for the choices the consumers make?
#McDonalds

Argument: I think that McDonalds show horrible eating habits towards children, they should be shut down! Those parents have no choice to buy their children McDonalds because more than half of all McDonalds commercials and ads all direct towards the eye of a child. Especially their kids meal, which gives a child a free toy per kids meal. By doing so, this isnt making the child to want to eat, but want to play the "kool" toys. The McDonald character as well attracts children to want to come to McDonalds. Everyone loves the happy clown. McDonalds has a play area in almost every restaurant store. McDonalds restaurant should cut down their play areas and have unharmful gym area for both children and adults, to show staying active.
#McDonalds

Debating Pro Argument Have you ever wonder why those children who are obese and blame McDonalds ever blame the parents? The parents should get a certain type of penalty for letting their children to indulge themselves into McDonalds, its called a "Fast-Food Restaurant" not a "Home-Cooked Meal". Those parents should see that rather than giving their children whatever they want, they should look at the severity that they are harming their children with unhealthy eating styles. McDonalds should not be to blame for the epidemic of overweight people in the pass decade or two.
#McDonalds

Thank you for debating with me. Argument: I think that McDonalds show horrible eating habits towards children, they should be shut down! Yes, even though McDonalds is a sucess throughout history its food has been a huge impact on the lifestyle we live in. McDonalds goal, is always towards children because they know thats an easier target because this would lead to parent's wallets. This is why it is such a success,but what about the obese children and children who grow up to have a unhealthy lifestyle? Do McDonalds pay for their medical bills? A documentary called, Supersize Me, a man named Sprulock, went on a month McDonald crave, to show people how much of a impact McDonalds do to our society.
#McDonalds

Debating Pro Argument! McDonalds first of all has 33,000 restaurants world wide, employs 1.7 Million people, currently in 119 countries and 80% of McDonalds restaurants are franchised. Since the 90s McDonalds Supersize, its restaurant has made their menus calories awareness and using healthier foods on their menu, especially for kids. They have incorporated apple slices, milk jugs and even whole wheat wraps. Any chicken sandwich can be either grilled or crispy.
drunk drivers should be imprisoned on the first offense

This is not a debate about right and wrong, it is a debate about law. Drinking and driving is dangerous, yes, but so is juggling knives in public. Doing stupid things does not earn you a spot in prison, it is basic human instinct to be forgiving. My opponent has spoken as if all people that drink and drive are murderers. If we were to place in jail every person who has endangered a life, we would not have an American workforce, any scientist, or any police officers. There is a reason behind drunk drivers being fined, and it is that fining is more reasonable than having to imprison every single person who endangers others life.
drunk drivers should be imprisoned on the first offense

Drunk drivers should be imprisoned because they are a danger to society. People should be able to drink responsibly. If you know you are going to be drinking you should be prepared to take a taxi, or get a sober friend to drive you home. All people do make mistakes but this one isn't just about you, it's about everyone around you, that you can hurt or kill by driving recklessly. The reason we have a drinking age is for maturity you shouldn't be drinking if you can't handle it. So if you are going to be stupid and drink wile intoxicated you should be imprisoned on the first offense.
The Public Forum Topic for January 2009 is Stupid

>Thanks to MissAna for her response. >My opponent starts out by claiming that something without merits is stupid. I disagree given that the definition of stupid (above) in no way warrants needing a merit. >The link created by my opponent in her rebuttal of her first contention is faulty. Is is general knowledge as to the function of social networking sites? No. It it general knowledge as to the merits of gases? No. My opponent has fail to prove anything. She provides no evidence to have us believe otherwise. >My opponent's response to her second contention's rebuttal was rather convoluted. She essentially states that because nuclear power and alternative fuels are not coal or gas, they are related. This is entirely fallacious. To universalize her logic, she is saying that because -41 and 378 are not equal to two, they are related. This is false. My opponent validly explains why similarity is a bad thing. She does not explain the similarity of the topics, though. >My opponent claims in her rebuttal to her third contention that eco-friendly groups "have been known to stretch facts." If this is correct, she can provide examples. >I look forward to MissAna's response.
The Public Forum Topic for January 2009 is Stupid

(Well, that sounded a little weird. ) To prove that this topic is not pointless, or stupid, my opponent needs not only to prove that the resolution does not have problems, but also that it has merits. After all, something that has no merit can only be stupid. Point 1: I will point out that we can understand how Social Networking sites function, and I would hazard a guess that most teens understand the risks and the benefits of Social Networking sites very well. We are by no means experts, but we can understand what we are talking about. Now, with alternative fuel, I would hazard another guess that your average high school debater does not know how Alternative fuels are discovered, does not know how and what kind of research can be done, and does not understand exactly what an 'oil peak' means, regarding reserves, etc. . High School students are not authorities on any topic, by all means, but when we are arguing about something we understand very little about, the debate lacks meaning, proving to be a stupid debate. Second point: nuclear energy and alternative fuels are both ways of gaining energy other than from coal and oil. Therefore, they are very closely related. Debating topics that bring up the same arguments is stupid. I did not explain why related Policy topics are bad. Because Policy debaters have already accumulated a large amount of research, this places an unfair advantage on schools that have Policy and Public forum teams. Finally, my third argument. Many eco-friendly groups will go to any cost to promote their beliefs, particularly because their beliefs are not gaining much ground. While some groups may stick strictly to the facts, others have been known to stretch facts. Also, with better topics, information comes from reputable news sources. I realize that not all information must come from unbiased sources, but with this topic, very little information is unbiased.
The Public Forum Topic for January 2009 is Stupid

>I would like to take this opportunity to thank my esteemed opponent, MissAna, for starting this debate. I wish her the best of luck. >I obviously accept the current Public Forum definition as given by my opponent. >I would like to observe that my opponent has the burden of proof to prove the resolution (which she so specified) stupid. If she fails to do this, your vote should be for CON. >My opponent's reasons for believing in the stupidity of the resolution are below. I would first like to define stupid: Tediously dull, esp. due to lack of meaning or sense; inane; pointless This definition I found to be the most relevant to the topic at hand. >The first reason provided by my respected opponent was that the topic at hand is scientific, and that the debaters are not qualified to have any authority. I wholeheartedly agree. On no debate topic is the average high schooler qualified to have any authority. Let's take a look at last month's resolution: Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States Are teens qualified to decide whether Web sites have had a positive impact on the United States? Absolutely not. >The second point brought up by my opponent addressed two issues: the topic used a few months ago, and the similarity of the Policy topic. The topic from October was the following: Resolved: The United States should significantly increase its use of nuclear energy Nuclear energy and alternative fuels are quite unrelated. On account of the second issue my opponent brings up, what impact does a Policy resolution have on Public Forum? Why does this even matter? >The third and final topic my opponent discusses is the is the validity of the sources on this particular topic. Admittedly, most information does and will come from eco-friendly groups. But what negative effects does this have? Eco-friendly groups have the best available access to information on this topic, it is a benefit.
The Public Forum Topic for January 2009 is Stupid

The Public Forum Topic for January 2009 is as follows: Resolved: That, by 2040, the federal government should mandate that all new passenger vehicles and light trucks sold in the United States be powered by alternative fuels. I stand to prove that this topic is stupid and will make for bad public forum debates. First: This is a heavily scientific topic, and few high school debaters are qualified to be an authority on it. Second: Public forum debated Alternative Energy in October 2008, and therefore another topic about alternative energy is superfluous. Also, Policy is currently debating a similar topic: (2008-2009) Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in the United States. Third: The majority of information from the topic comes from either Eco-friendly groups, or groups out to prove that Alternative Fuels are causing deforestation and other environmental woes. Information that would be valid to use in an actual Contention is few and far between. Therefore, this topic is stupid and will make for bad debates.
God's Not Dead

To say there is no evidence for a creator is like saying the thousands of paintings in an art museum could not have been painted because there are no artists visible in the gallery. Is it reasonable to believe that life arose spontaneously from nothing, for no reason or purpose, guided by the "blind watchmaker" of natural selection? God gave up his son, Jesus Christ, to come to Earth as the one and only perfect human being while performing miracles. He became the ultimate sacrifice for humanity by dying a gruesome death innocently. Afterwards, he rose from the grave, while leaving an empty tomb behind.
God's Not Dead

This topic is always fun and interesting. I am going to assume the first round is for acceptance/ outline because nothing in my opponent's first round remotely constitutes an argument. I will argue for Nietzsche's famous phrase "god is dead". This is of course disingenuous because there never was a god, but I assume you guys know the context of the quote. I will have 5 main points: 1. There is no evidence for a god, even though my opponent seems to think there is. 2. As we learn more we kill off invented gods. 3. Theism is utterly incoherent. 4. There is no need for a god. 5. The bible is ridiculous (ps: The movie God Is Not Dead is an utterly absurd movie. The arguments presented by the protagonist suck. It depicts Atheists and Muslims in the worst light. No real Atheist debater would be as inept as the Atheist in that movie. ) I await your arguments.
yummy, steak.

For some organisms, humans that is, and many other organisms also, raw meat is fine. For many organisms, humans included, only a raw diet is OK. Facts. Should steak be cooked or not? Ask the CDC, or eat lawn clippings. Do you prefer yours boiled or raw? Tell us now. You decided to challenge the argument, the BOP is on you. The zombies will support you, as I am not a PC format organism, are you? Politically Correct that is? Is that you? How do you prefer your beets cooked, or how raw? Questions, questions....... You're up!
yummy, steak.

Quoting myself, I used "Well cooked" and "badly cooked" which is a reference to temperature and length of exposure that cooks the steak. You said: "You should not have accepted this debate unless you can define the perfectly cooked steak. Well can you, punk?" I said nothing about "perfectly cooked steak". I just referenced to how cooked it is which can kill bacteria that can kill you. I also stated before that " it increases your risk for heart disease according to CDC." Where is your argument? ----Punk :)?
does suspension do more harm then good

No idea why you chose to challenge me, but thank you anyways. Hmmmm, well this appears to be an opinion debate. Thus I will state my case. Suspension like any form of punishment offers some deterrent from doing something wrong. In this case the deterrent is most likely based on the idea that the child will no longer be able to communicate with his/her friends while at school. Though for the more studious or dedicated student the incentive might instead be in the form or his/her reputation among not only his/her friends but also his/her parents. My conclusion is rather simple. Suspension and its threat offer a deterrent that generally speaking keeps a classroom setting in less distracting environment that is in turn more conducive to learning. While the alternative of detention has some merit it is usually taken very lightly in school settings. I can remember back to a few students in my middle school who had detention at least a few times every week. The fact that it is not a formidable punishment in turn reduces its credibility as a deterrent. So while yes, suspension does do harm to the selected student, however it does a greater good to the rest of the students by increasing their ability to learn while decreasing distractions. Thank you.
does suspension do more harm then good

suspension is bad because some kids lose more education everyday by missing school also that takes part of the 75% of children that drop out of school before graduating high school and they are not going to be on the successful level that they wanted as they grow. besides suspending the student the staff/teacher/principal can put them in detention with no curriculum activities or write an consent form so the parent can have the say in the suspension even if there child is bad that is why
Psychic ability defined

My debate is exactly what it says, My view on psychic ability is baiscally it depends on how someone would define bieng "psychic" Now first objective i would like to state is that in my opinion i would call "psychic ability" more of a intuition Power of instinct, i think its more psychological than having a "sixth sense" For the basic reason.. that how would anyone be able to tell coincidence by spiritual experience and what is mind tricks? Are psychics sugar coating us with it ..Or do people believe in a higher power? my opinon? there is no such thing as a psychic ability.