BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The "No Zero" policy in Education is a beneficial first step in an education system overhaul

I accept. Here are rules that should apply for the rounds: 1. Arguments should be based on logic; e.g. no citing anecdotes for emotional appeal 2. Try to avoid outright insults; no ad hominems 3. Since you are the instigator of this topic, you have the burden of proof 4. All evidence should be cited or sourced (please provide a URL that we can all access) 5. In the next round, you should specify what age group we are debating about. (In order to have a fair debate, both sides need to agree upon what topic they are debating, and different age groups would require different arguments.) Summary position: An all-inclusive "No Zero" policy would decrease motivation and cause grade-inflation. Also, since you are advocating for an "educational overhaul" (as stated in the topic), you must point out the flaws in the current educational system.
The "No Zero" policy in Education is a beneficial first step in an education system overhaul

The "No Zero" policy has proven fairly controversial, so I thought I'd bring it up for debate. By "No Zero" policy, I refer to the movement in education that if an assignment is not turned in, that some alternative to a grade of 0 (or F) be used. By "Beneficial," I mean that this policy provides a greater benefit than any detrimental side effects. Keep in mind that this argument is about this policy being a first (or early, in any case) step towards a massive system change. Both the policy itself, and the type of changes it is designed to accompany, are considered in this process. So, here's my proposed breakdown of rounds: Round 1. Acceptance, definition(s), and brief summary position. Round 2. Primary points / questions Round 3. Rebuttal / answers Round 4. Conclusion (no new arguments) Thank you to whomever takes up my challenge! My summary position is thus: The No Zero policy is an introductory effort to change the fundamental approach to grading, and the nature of academic appraisal of student development. This process, though incomplete, is an ultimately beneficial one. Thank you to whomever accepts my challenge! :)
There are 78 Genders

I know "transgender" is not a gender, which is why there are not 79 genders. There are, however people that don't identify as neither male nor female. For example, there are people known as "agender" which means they do not exist as either. Additionally, there are cases such as "bigender" which means that you identify with both male and female characteristics. Here is the evidence Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org...
There are 78 Genders

Thank you for letting me debate with you, it is really such a shame of seeing less than 9 debate challenges on DDO, I think its because of the two debates I won proving The Roast Game and that people agreed in the poll and everyone said yes in my opinion question. But, anyway let's begin. There are only 2 genders, Male and Female. Just because you're transgender, you're only changing into the other gender, it does not make it a completely different and new gender. You have no evidence that there are "78 genders" if there is, show me evidence, even explain it, or else it is false. You're next argument, if you please.
There are 78 Genders

Let me quote you. "Anyways, there are things where people can have chromosomes like XXY, XYY, XXX, etc. What genders do these people identify with? If you do the math, the combinations add up to roughly 48.6 other genders that are not male/female. Where do these people belong?" No, there are only 2 genders. Yes, these "48.6" genders are nonexistent, If you are transgender, bisexual, or any other sexuality, you are still male or female. Just because it's any of these sexualities, doesn't mean it's not male or female, they are male or female, but don't want to be called that because they are mainly SJWs. Social Justice Warriors are people who automatically call you racist or sexist just for you disagreeing with them. Without further ado, here is my rebuttal: 1 "I believe that the binary gender system that most people believe in is not sufficient for the modern day. Scientists have discovered 78 genders and facts cannot be disputed... Also, I believe that there should be a bathroom for each type of gender in all public areas. This should be a law and if not followed, the business will be shut down." Again, there are only 2 genders, male or female. You still haven't proven that there are 78 genders. Also, to bring up the "XXX" chromosome, I looked it up on google, I found this from Wikipedia, " Triple X syndrome. Triple X syndrome, also known as trisomy X and 47,XXX, is characterized by the presence of an extra X chromosome in each cell of a female. Those affected are often taller than average." [1] What law should there be, if there are only 2 genders, not 78. So, vote con! Source: https://en.wikipedia.org...
Challenger Choose

All of my opponent's last speech is EXACTLY what I was stating. If you look at my *Removed* Evidence: DON'T ASK DON'T TELL IS A POLICY TO REDUCE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST GAYS *Name Removed*, Associated Content Jan 22, 2008 The DADT policy means that a homosexual service member may practice their desires. .. It also means. .. that they are not to be harassed, hazed, or witch hunted. One will see that is exactly what DADT is for. The resolution we chose was: "Don't ask Don't tell is a judgmental and segragist policy. " My opponent has conceded all arguments and thus they all need to be considered voters for the pro of this debate and the con of the resolution. I have clearly proven the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy is not to segregate or discriminate but to protect and strengthen. Even my opponent has agreed that it is necessary. Please flow across all of my arguments. And note, since this is my final speaking round, my opponent cannot be allowed to bring up any new evidence in this debate. She had her chance to support and make any and all arguments why it is a judgemental and segragist policy.
Challenger Choose

Honestly, DADT is for the individual's safety. The sad reality is that there are people out there who will kill them because of their sexuality. Just recently there was an article about a soldier being stoned to death because he was openly homosexual. While I hate the thought of a homosexual individual having to hide who he is, the sad truth is that it has to be this way in order to keep them from being harmed/killed. I have so many homosexual friends (i am straight) that if keeping them safe meant not telling anyone about their sexuality, then I would want them to keep quiet about it. As soldiers they are in danger anyways, but not because of something like their sexuality. I don't oppose DADT, I hate that it has to be that way. Why can't everyone just accept everyone for who they are?!
Challenger Choose

Pick one of the three resolutions and state Pro or Con. In my 2nd I'll make an oppening STATEMENT (just a couple of sentences, no more). You will in your second. In my third I'll make a constructive speech. You will in your third. In my fourth I'll make a rebuttle. You will in your Forth. Pick --Flag burning should not be allowed in the United state --Don't ask Don't tell is a jugmental and segragist policy --Women should reproduce at the earliest they can while still being able to sustain the child
Piano is better than the guitar

The piano is an elegant sophisticated instrument which people associate Beethoven or Mozart with. When people think of the guitar they normally don"t associate it with Vivaldi"s guitar concerto in D major. They think of heavy metal or rock and people screaming lyrics on stage and smashing their guitars afterwards. The piano unlike the guitar will always have that timeless effect when mentioned of or played. It"s elegance and grace will always surpass the guitar. Firstly, the piano will always sound better than the guitar. The piano"s wide range of notes and the ability to play ten notes at the same time unlocks a wide range of songs for pianists that normally guitarists would not be able to do. Guitar solos are good but compare that to a pianist playing Chopin. The guitar solo would sound great but the effect it would have on the crowd would only be temporary compared to that of Chopin"s. Although what sounds good is always different for everyone, there"s something about listening to music from a different era that always seems to attract people. Even though the guitar is older than the piano, it"s timeless effect and elegance was ruined in the age of heavy metal and rock. Secondly, the complexity of the piano means that it takes a lot more skill to master. Both hands are usually playing music in both the treble and bass clef unlike the guitar which can only play one or the other. Guitarists may say that the guitar is harder because there are many of the same notes spread out randomly on the strings but even though the piano may be set up linear, that doesn"t take away from how hard it is to play it. Both hands are playing something different whereas the guitar has one hand always strumming and the other on the frets. Guitar is like the "patting your head and rubbing your stomach" test and the piano is like trying to write in cursive with both hands at the same time. Mastering the piano takes a lot of time and it"s not an easy task. Finally music on the piano always has the full sound that most other instruments don"t have. A violin sounds good on its own but a violin quartet sounds great. Someone singing alone sounds good but put some instruments in the equation and they"ll sound great. Piano unlike other instruments does not need back up to sound good. It can be played as a backup instrument for other instruments but it does fine on it"s own. The guitar not so much. Whereas piano can be played on it"s own and still sound great, the guitar will always fall into the backup instrument category. If you don"t believe me, listen to Flight of the Bumblebee on the piano. That piece (song) was written for an orchestra. That means it was written for 90 people to play on each of their individual instruments and yet the piano can cover all those instruments with only one person playing it. A piano can cover for the instruments of a whole orchestra. I don"t think a guitar will ever be able to cover for the sound of a whole instrument and I"d be truly surprised to see one play a whole orchestral piece with the same "fullness" that a piano can do.
Resolved: Musicals are very important to society.

Hello, everyone. Here is how the debate will work: I am the affirmative. This will mean that I am going to say that musicals are very important to society. My opponent, whoever decided to challenge me, will say that musicals are not important to society. First round is acceptance, the rest are debatable. You can add arguments anytime (other than the first round), but you must wait to rebuttal until the third round. My opponent will make the extra rules and ask any questions that is to do with this debate.
Resolved: Musicals are very important to society.

Now, in response to my argument that spending money on musicals doesn't actually create that many jobs and my argument she provides no evidence: A. Not that I might have read the wording wrong. Musicals create jobs in a musical: Managers (vocal, money, ect. ), cast (main, supporting, extras, ect. ), crew (lighting, sound, makeup, ect. ), and many more. While saying this, my opponent provides no evidence that the jobs it creates are enough to be important. There is no evidence. In response to my argument that those employed in musicals receiving pay will not benefit the economy or at least not enough for it to be important:A. As I HAVE explained, the economy is in a big debt crisis. Money gets paid to actors and crew. The money is used to pay bills. Less debt=better for economy. People create themselves by becoming one of another person. Most people make mistakes, so they improvise and the play is not as usual as people expect. My opponent provides no links for this. How does an individual having less bills help the economy? There is no evidence here. The second part is irrevelent and makes absolutely no sense. To my argument that facebook is not the whole world and it doesn't really matter if one person likes a musical:A. Not everyone likes one thing. For example, not everyone likes debating. There are always disagreements within a decision. This doesn't disprove the argument that ones opinion of a musical is not important, though. Facebook is not the whole world, and one person's opinion is not important. In conclusion, my opponent fails to offer evidence and links in her case. She does not prove that musicals are important. For this reason, I urge a negative ballot.
Resolved: Musicals are very important to society.

Last rebuttals: "Note I said job market, not stock. Now, my opponent hasn't actually provided any evidence stating that musicals do create a lot of jobs. How does people spending money on musicals help all of us when the industry isn't even prominent? If the industry isn't prominent, how can it be important? She says that it makes a lot of jobs, but she offers no proof. " A. Not that I might have read the wording wrong. Musicals create jobs in a musical: Managers (vocal, money, ect.), cast (main, supporting, extras, ect.), crew (lighting, sound, makeup, ect.), and many more. "How does a musical making money help the economy at all? My opponent fails to explain this. All of the money goes to the producers/cast/etc. She is not linking this back to the resolution. She didn't respond to my point that people should create themselves rather than base themselves on the image of another. " A. As I HAVE explained, the economy is in a big debt crisis. Money gets paid to actors and crew. The money is used to pay bills. Less debt=better for economy. People create themselves by becoming one of another person. Most people make mistakes, so they improvise and the play is not as usual as people expect. "But not everyone on face book likes musicals, and neither does everyone in the world." A. Not everyone likes one thing. For example, not everyone likes debating. There are always disagreements within a decision. Here are my last arguments: A. Musicals make people smarter because people can connect more things if they know something. B. Most people see or hear at least one musical in their life. C. The musical industry is more popular than the play industry.
Resolved: Musicals are very important to society.

Also note, making arguments would mean negating the resolution, and I had to make a rebuttal to her to negate. Regarding to my argument about musicals not making that many jobs and about how it doesn't have a substantial impact on the job market, my opponent says: Who said I was talking about the stock market. I was talking about the economy. I was saying that people would help everyone because people would spend it on musical. Some musical people raise money for charities. Charities thank everyone. This is one of the many theories in my plan of "the circle of money". Note I said job market, not stock. Now, my opponent hasn't actually provided any evidence stating that musicals do create a lot of jobs. How does people spending money on musicals help all of us when the industry isn't even prominent? If the industry isn't prominent, how can it be important? She says that it makes a lot of jobs, but she offers no proof. In response to my argument that role models aren't that important and that people from musicals aren't prominent enough to be important for being role models:A. It is important to you, your family, and your classmates. The money helps people either have fun or go off debt, and the economy is full of debt. You may be a role model to your parents or another kid's parents because they may be having a bad time, so your role is very important. How does a musical making money help the economy at all? My opponent fails to explain this. All of the money goes to the producers/cast/etc. She is not linking this back to the resolution. She didn't respond to my point that people should create themselves rather than base themselves on the image of another. When I say that not all role models are good, they say:A. Not necessarily back, Some people would not go to a certain role model because they are weird. Millions of people watch inappropriate tv shows and immitate that lifestyle. You can't say that everyone just ignores the 'bad' role models because they have bad behavior. Jershey Shore (. http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com...) has millions of viewers and plugs the party lifestyle. You cannot say that there aren't people who imitate bad role models. When I say that countries can't buy musicals and that it doesn't make it important if people share it on facebook/facebook isn't the world:A. Facebook may not be a world, but it is a big part of the world. But not everyone on facebook likes musicals, and neither does everyone in the world. My opponent has failed to prove that musicals are important and lacks evidence.
Resolved: Musicals are very important to society.

As the negative, I must prove that musicals are not very important to society. I will now critique my opponent's case. A. It makes more jobs. While it does make more jobs, there aren't that many made. In fact, there are very few. The only difference between the number of jobs for a regular play and a musical is about one, and this is the vocal director.1. You can be a part of a musical and/or orchestra if you do not have a job This argument is false. If you cannot get a job in another field, that does not mean you will automatically be able to work in a musical. Being in a musical means you have to be able to sing and well, at that. Not everyone can sing. To be in an orchestra, talent is required as well. So, technically, the dependent clause would only be correct if it said, 'if you have musical talent. ' B. It gives more role models Many things provide us with role models, though this does not necessarily make them important or very important. Why is it important to have role models? 1. Actors could be good role modelsThis statement leaves a lot to be desired. Yes, actors could be good role models, but this doesn't mean they are. However, this still does not prove role models are important to society. What role does one want to play? Shouldn't one develop one's own person? 2. Musicals itself could show what is good and bad based upon a society's judgementMy idle and offhand conversations also do this, but this does not make them very important to society. Even if they show what is good and bad in society, most things do that. That doesn't make them important. Why is it important that a musical shows societal pros and cons? Why would it make a musical very important to society if it did that? C. It gives us moneyNow, this statement is wrong. While it does give the musical actors/actresses money, this doesn't necessarily benefit us as a society. The musical play industry isn't big enough for it to horribly impact the world if it were to disappear. If it were the automobile industry, maybe. But musicals? No. They are not very important.1. People can love a musical so much that they listen to it everyday and people from other countries may want to buy itWhile it might be important to one person to listen to a musical everyday, that doesn't make it very important to society. Also, a country could not buy a musical. A certain company within the country may buy the rights to perform a musical but the country wouldn't buy it. Also, why would it be important to our society if a business in another country wanted to buy it? Importance must be proven; the contentions must link back to the resolution. I look forward to my opponent's response.
Resolved: Musicals are very important to society.

I believe that musicals are very important to society. A. It make more jobs 1. You can be a part of a musical and/or orchestra if you do not have a job B. It gives more role models 1. Actors could be good role models 2. Musicals itself could show what is good and bad based upon a society's judgement C. It gives us money 1. People can love a musical so much that they listen to it everyday and people from other countries may want to buy it.
Halloween War: Vampires vs Werewolves

I didn't do a whole lot of research, but while doing my last minute (actually 3 hours remain as of now) research, I learnt about The Vampire Diaries, which I'll use this version for my Vampire army of 50. With that, let's get into why the vampires would win.Argument:Strength: According to the wiki, Vampires are very strong, which is age dependent. For balance, all Vampires will be 30 to 40 years old, giving them an alright strength amount. Even newley turned vampires have an advantage over a human. They've been shown to rip out organs, chop off heads, and using one hand to lift adult humans, then throwing them across the room.Speed and Agility: Vampires can run very fast. They can catch arrows easily, as well as run 5 miles in a few minutes. And, again, this is age dependent. 37 year old vampires could still probably reach the speed of a car.Heightened Senses: Vampires have increased hearing, taste, sight, and smell. They can easily sense the location of a nearby enemy by hearing footsteps, and smelling them. If they want to, the vampires can turn their increases senses off. They're able to see through complete darkness, so no sweat in the dark. The wiki doesn't say this is age dependent.Durability: They can fight even though they got injured. Their healing factor makes them almost immune to almost any physical force. If their bones get broken, not a problem. They'll just snap it into place, and it'll heal itself within seconds! They also don't mind being stabbed or slashed. When they've eaten human blood before combat, the healing factor will be available. The healing factor doesn't seem age dependent, but pain tolerance and resistance to attacks is age dependent.[We'll completely ignore the "Immortality" part. After they can't fight anymore, they're considered defeated/dead. This being determined if they're unable to recover wounds that prevent them from fighting.] Though the wiki states that if someone with cancer becomes a vampire, they will suicide, since the cancer cells would multiply quicker. So are they immune to death, or just immune to illness? They need to fix that.Mind Powers: The vampires have the ability to influence people's minds. They can control humans and untriggered Vampire Diary werewolves. The vampires can also use telepathy, talking to other beings without physically talking. They can telepathically speak to other Vampires, assuming the user is older than the target. This will allow for possibly mid-battle tactics.Conclusion:In conclusion, these Vampires are pretty powerful. Though I might lose, this is fun.Source: http://vampirediaries.wikia.com...