BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Freedom of Speech: Students Should be Permitted to Speak Their Minds

one factor you forgot to include in your examination is that unlike adults kids to have a bigger impact on their peers. An adult has the capability to express their opinion and simply had a group of opposes and supporters, they have developed a mental ability to deal with whatever negative comments they may receive. Adults also have a sort of freedom to walk away from the situation, unlike children. Children on the other hand who have an opinion which is not widely excepted can undergo Ruthless criticism from peers, neglectful/critical parents, and many other stress inducing environmental factors; however the child is not as well equipped or is nowhere near developed as the adult as a result the stress not only impairs their ability to function but also can drastically affect their development in negative ways. I see how you can argue that not all children what experiences same thing, but the fact is that the majority of children in America really aren't equipped with those vital coping skills to deal with criticism. Think of this freedom of speech issue with students more as a safety barrier, it provides children with the freedom to speak, but sets up barriers to prevent these issues. A perfect example of the society you are talking about where children do have this complete freedom of speech can be seen in all around America in bullying campaigns, these are the efforts to reverse the damage caused by the unguided free speech. Counselors provide plenty of outlet and open ears for students who need to expressing an opinion that is different.
A teacher's pay should be merit-based.

Thanks to my opponent for instigating this debate. I argue that a teacher's pay should indeed be merit-based, which I define (as agreed to by my opponent in the Comments section) as pay with a basic salary and bonuses based on merit (student achievement.) I point out that I believe in western society today, our teachers are under-valued, under-appreciated and under-paid. I certainly do not propose reduction in any teacher's salary but instead, I would like to see those who perform best rewarded even more. Student achievement. I think it is important to recognise that this should apply not merely to getting the highest marks or the most number of A-grades in a class but should rather be a measurement of the 'distance-travelled' by pupils. I think it is far more of an achievement to turn an F-student into a C-student than it is to turn a B into an A. I do not advocate a meritocracy that focuses solely on the elite but one that places emphasis on every child. My simple argument is that to give teachers further financial incentive to concentrate on getting the best out of every single pupil would, overall, have significant benefits to any country. A more educated general population would surely be a good thing in anyone's eyes, especially someone who, like my opponent and myself, is involved in Education. My opponent wants us to limit the parameters of this debate to the US. As a UK citizen who has not travelled a great deal I of course have more experience of the education system here than in America. However if I offer any anecdotal or other evidence regarding the UK school system, my opponent can rest assured that I will try to make them relevant to our discussion of the US system which, by the way, I hope to learn more about in this debate. Performance related pay is a powerful tool in Employment. While it is suitable for many jobs it is not suitable for all. One obvious example of a field where it works well is Sales, (although of course I do not equate commerce with education), if travelling salesmen and (in some situations) retail staff, did not receive a commission on their sales, then they would be unlikely to put in as much effort to sell their employer's product. An example of a less appropriate field would be police-work. Rewarding an officer on their number of arrests or conviction rates does not seem a good idea to me as this would encourage them to be over-zealous and perhaps even tempt them into corruption and tampering with evidence as well as criminalizing more of the general population. I think teaching is an appropriate profession to apply performance related pay to as the benefits would clearly outweigh any negative impact. I would like my opponent to explain why it is not and what negative effects she believes that it would have. Thankyou.
A teacher's pay should be merit-based.

Though I believe this resolution to be fairly self-explanatory, allow me to clarify just a bit: 1) Merit-based: based upon a system of student achievement to be defined by the affirmation. As long as the advocacy doesn't switch and student achievement is fairly defined, I'm all set with it. 2) Student achievement: a quantitative measurement of the attainment or mastery of academic skills (for example) Brief resolutional analysis: 1) We are talking about teachers of public schools in the US. We aren't limiting it by grade, but we are limiting it by country. Having to argue about schools in Zimbabwe is a waste of our time :D As I've adopted the negation's stance, I will allow my opponent to lay out his/her case prior to posting mine. I also really like the idea of a cross-ex opportunity in the comments. Can we do that if questions arise? They won't be considered offensively within the debate unless introduced to the debate page, but it'll be a good way to clarify/strategize. Have at me!
Is the scientific manuscript "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11WTC" valid

Sorry Con , You misread what I said, but either way it doesnt matter, I said the Spectra of Hematite the one that you provided seemed to have two spikes for Iron at Fe2+ and Fe3+ , therefore its not hematite as hematite is Fe3+.Thankyou for debunking yourself.Please not that I never dropped any arguments I put the quotes from the paper to respond to your questions above in previous arguments, If you would like to continue this debate Con we can . I suggest you read the paper again and or get some reasoning as to why XEDS spectrography is not accurate in testing It is used all the time http://www.labtesting.com...
Is the scientific manuscript "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11WTC" valid

My opponent has unknowingly shown that this manuscript is not valid. "I wasnt ignorant of that claim about hematite , the XEDS spectra of hematite had Fe2+ and Fe3+ iron peaks , why im not sure.Please englighten us. Nevertheless its not important to the debate in hand the composition of hematite." It is very important that only hematite is present as this is what is needed to make thermite.(1,2) By saying there is Fe2+ present in the sample you are saying it is not hematite. Hematite only contains Fe3+. This means it is not thermite. I do not need to address any more points. Thanks for the concession.Please also note that my opponent has dropped multiple arguments. However, in light of the above statement it not longer matters that my opponent dropped arguments in this debate. To all the voters you can vote for me. Thanks.(1) http://webmineral.com...(2) http://www.minerals.net...
Extend voting rights to minors and non-citizens

An argument for changing the current system of transition from resident to citizen might be made. But for 'guests to vote? No still I say. Might a person who has stayed in a land for 33 years consider it their land and country? Might feel they have skin in the game from 20 years of taxes and business? Perhaps. And the word there is perhaps. It'd be nice if people who deserved to become citizens became citizens. Nice if we changed our laws or situations a bit. A bit. But to allow 'guests a vote? To allow them all the rights of birthright and effort that becomes a citizen? No. Better they become a citizen or not at all. America for the Americans I say. Any country for their own country really. We don't deny others their rights. But hold sacred our own. Minors? Eh, Already addressed my wisdom concern, Now for human rights. 'Anyone who can work you say? People far younger than 16 'can work. But we labor laws were made for such a reason. That minors were oft enough taken advantage of. 'Most minors aren't workers, They're still in that springtime of youth. Does that mean they don't have lemonade stands or paper routes? No, But those are hardly worth mention. Are some, As you say who are 16 and have a bit more regular jobs worth mention? Sure. Skin in the game? Sure. But I'll speak again of wisdom. Can an 16 year old have wisdom or a 60 year old foolishness? Sure. But those are particulars I say. Blanket policies 'may have flaws, But they exist for reasons. By reason of fair and equal treatment to all. By reason to avoid bureaucracy and multitude of laws that overwhelm and destroy their own purpose. It is not the extension of voting to minors and non-citizens that you argue for I say. But rather the extension of voting rights to the deserving. If one is deserving, They ought be a citizen. If a minor is deserving, They ought recognize the need to wait two years.
Extend voting rights to minors and non-citizens

To clarify my position on minors: Anyone who can work, Should be allowed a vote. 16 year olds working at a fast food chain pay income taxes and sales, But do not have a say in government. This doesn"t seem fair. I would argue that if someone is old enough to work and pay their taxes, They are old enough to vote. As for non-citizens, Not all immigrants are guests. My family moved from overseas and have been living in the US for 20 years. Similarly, They have been paying taxes for 20 years, Followed US laws and policies for 20 years, Created jobs for 20 years (small business owners). There is no difference in being a citizen and being a resident in terms of laws that must be followed or taxes, And historically, Non-citizens have been allowed to vote per the state constitutions in numerous states including CT, DE, NY, NC, KY, PA, NH, And others. Federal Law only removed this right in 1996 with the passage of the IIRIRA. I'm not arguing for everyone who happens to be in the country that day can vote, But rather any permanent resident. If you have lived in the country for 33 of the previous 36 months, I see no reason to deny a vote.
Extend voting rights to minors and non-citizens

I'll bite. For age, There's a reason 'councils of elders can be seen numerous times in nations, Organizations, And in history. Education, Wisdom, Experience are usually qualities gained across years of 'adult life. I'm not saying kids are coddled and shielded from the harsher points of life. . . Aw heck, I 'Am saying that in a fashion. And even the ones not shielded, Are often still struggling and enmeshed in the conflict and their learning experience and understanding of it. Guests. . . 'That's what noncitizens are. Whether they're legally living in some summer home on the California coast or whether they're some illegal working from hand to mouth to build a dream. 'Guests. And 'guests, , 'don't have a say in our politics. Leastwise not a vote.
Everything is fair in love and war

Love and war are two opposite things still an important part of your life which is bound to each other just like electrons and protons do exist in an atom. This is a phrase meaning people in love and soldiers in wartime are not bound by any rules of fair play.That meant you can go to any extent to accomplish your mission and take what you desire without thinking for a second it's outcome and the impounding impact on others. You cannot blame someone for acting in his own self interest.Your opponent has no reason to comply yourself for your moral standards. The point of adding love to the list is likely to compare it to war. There are two main subtexts here. The first and most relevant is the idea that you can wreak all the havoc you want during the pursuit of true love. This includes sabotaging the third side in a love triangle or using deceit and trickery to woo the object of your affection. The ongoing battle between two persons ultimately result in a dominant winner which has the last laugh.
Everything is fair in love and war

Whenever we fall in love, we only dream everything. We don't see our object of love as a normal human being with flaws. Whenever we stalk somebody, we think we're doing a good thing but we don't know that while we love them, we're annoying to them. Yes, even in war too we become blind. We don't see our enemies as a human like us. We don't think they also have the right to live peacefully. Blindness leads to nothing but darkness where we can't see reality.Just because you are put into a dangerous situation or a situation that feels do or die (like love) doesn't mean that you should abandon all your morals, particularly in the latter. There is also the saying "stick to your guns" which contradicts that statement in a way. I don't believe in doing either of those things 100 percent of the time, but rather just being rational and fair.
Evolution does not disprove the existence of God

I will defend my case, then attack his. Well, my opponent does not actually attack my case. ALL of my arguments still stand. He only challenges me to answer some questions. NUMBER 1 "Is the Earth closer to 6000 years old or 4.6 billion" (I think he meant to put a question mark there) Now, I see where my opponent is going to go with this. He is going to say that the Bible was mis-interpreted, and that it doesn't actually say how old the Earth is. Don't even play that card. (By the way, according to the Bible, the Earth is actually around 4,000 years old) This question is for a different debate. (You can see that debate between us for reference if you want) In that debate, I PROVED that according to the Bible, the Earth is roughly 4,000 years old. Having answered his first question, I will show you how God and evolution cannot co-exist. Since the Bible says the Earth is around 4,000 years old, evolution does not have time to occur. (Even if it were genetically possible) In this way the Bible and evolution contradict each other. NUMBER 2 I have answered this in answering his challenge number one. There is, however, even more evidence. "God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." This is taken from Genesis 1:27 of the New American Standard Bible. This states specifically that God created man. He did not create primordial soup, which turned into bacterium, which turned into fish, apes, etc. GOD CREATED MAN. Because of this also, evolution is not able to co-exist with God. So, I have answered BOTH of my opponent's challenges. HE HAS NOT ANSWERED MINE. PLEASE DO THIS IN YOUR NEXT SPEECH. I have addressed his "case" while upholding mine. I have also answered both of my opponent's challenges. HE HAS NOT ATTACKED MY CASE. I will now address my opponent's closing statement. "I affirm that Evolution does not disprove the existence of God. The reason why is because the two don't necessarily contradict. God could have simply used evolution as a tool to create man and we simply lacked the intellect to imagine such." -I have already taken care of this. Please see my answer to his question 2, as well as my opening case. Because my opponent has NO case, and mine has been COMPLETELY upheld, I stand in absolute negation of the resolution. Thank you.
Evolution does not disprove the existence of God

First of all, the resolution states that evolution does not disprove the existence of God, so you are obligated to use evolution as evidence against God. Sorry, but you already lost when you posted this debate. " "Evolution does not prove the existence of God. " Negated. " Uh, you misplaced a word. It's actually 'disprove' instead of 'prove. ' Nice try though. Arguing that neither can co-exist doesn't give you the victory. You have to prove evolution true and then use evolution as evidence to disprove the existence of God. :) I strongly challenge you to answer these questions: 1) Is the Earth closer to 6000 years old or 4.6 billion 2) Does evolution disprove the existence of God? I affirm that Evolution does not disprove the existence of God. The reason why is because the two don't necessarily contradict. God could have simply used evolution as a tool to create man and we simply lacked the intellect to imagine such.
Evolution does not disprove the existence of God

Yes, this topic is a bit misunderstood because of its wording. As con, I am arguing that evolution and God cannot co-exist. (When I refer to God, I mean the Christian God, I am that I am) The theory of evolution and the existence of God cannot co-exist. This is a result of the following reasons: 1. Evolution proposes the Earth is billions of years old, while God says through the Bible that it is around 4,000 years old. Evolution says that it would need a lot of time (billions and billions of years) for the theory to be correct. The Earth is simply not that old. (According to the Bible) How do we know the Earth has been around for about 4,000 years you ask? Simple. The Bible tells us. There are many genealogies throughout the Bible. Here are a few: Genesis 5 Adam to Noah Gensis 11 Noah to Abraham Abraham to Moses is then counted Moses to Judges then Judges to Kings then Historical timelines. These lists state a precise account of ages of Biblical characters. Allowing for calendar changes, we can take the Earth to be roughly 4,000 years old. 2. "God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." This is taken from Genesis 1:27 of the New American Standard Bible. This states specifically that God created man. He did not create primordial soup, which turned into bacterium, which turned into fish, apes, etc. GOD CREATED MAN. Because of these two reasons, God and evolution cannot co-exist. These are the choices for all viewers: (A) Deny the Bible's accuracy, therefore saying that God does not exist, giving CON the winning vote. (B) Accept the truth, that God and evolution cannot and do not co-exist, again giving CON the winning vote. "Evolution does not prove the existence of God." Negated.
The Lizard Illuminati is false

I argue that the Lizard Illuminati Conspiracy is false. Definitions; Lizard Illuminati: Also known as the Reptilians, these (humanoid) reptiles have the ability to shape shift into a human form, and are "mind controlling" us into believing they don't exist. They are also said to be ruling us. This conspiracy started from David Icke. False: Not true; doesn't exist Exist: To have objective reality or being Round Outline; Round 1: Con may state his/her case, and begin arguments. Round 2: Pro will begin arguments, and Con will refute, and may give new arguments. Round 3: Pro and Con will refute each other's arguments, and defend their own. Round 4: Final rebuttals and conclusions. No new arguments in this round. Rules: 1. No trolling, or semantics. 2. Kritiks can be used as a last resort if Con can't find any evidence. (I may regret this, though) 3. Forfeiting a round, especially round 4, will count as an automatic loss. 4. Violation of these rules will count as an automatic loss. And with that, who accepts? [Note: You must have at least 3 completed debates to enter.]
The Lizard Illuminati is false

I thank Con for his argument. I will go into by rebuttal. Rebuttal: The flaw with the Social Lens (as evidence or the Lizard Illuminati); "P1. Subjective truth is unfalsifiable, if it is made in good faith. P2. At least some people have the subjective truth that lizard people are real and alive within the nation, made in good faith. C1. Lizard people are necessarily real (cuts of the big-r Reality continuum in which mainstream society do not have)" So what your saying is that if you strongly believe in something, that something is true. However, you can't just begin to strongly believe in something. It doesn't work. You need evidence, like David Icke supposedly had. P1: To believe in something, you need evidence. P2: David Icke strongly believes in the Lizard Illuminati. C1: Therefore, David must've had evidence. If David had no evidence, then we'd just say he was joking. However, he could have just been misguided. What then? If you were misdirected into thinking something exists (Like Santa Claus), would that something still exist? And would that something just disappear from existence once you stop believing? Disproving the Social Lens as reliable; I would also like to show the internal flaw in the Social Lens. At the time of Christopher Columbus, the people thought the Earth was flat. If the Social Lens is true, then the people would be correct and the Earth is flat. However, the Earth is round, and Christopher Columbus disproved this by discovering America. Also, what if two people strongly believe in different sides of something, such as gun control? One thinks gun control is good, while the other thinks it's bad. Which is it, then? If this doesn't concern the Social Lens, I would like to know why. Defense: Point 1; Lack of evidence Like I've pointed out in my rebuttal, you can't believe in something without knowledge of it. In order to have knowledge of the Lizard Illuminati, you need evidence. The Social Lens can't work if you don't have the evidence needed to believe in it. Since David Icke believed in the conspiracy, and was the one who created it, there must be proof. Thus, I ask Con to provide some. Point 2; Enslavement If the conspiracy is true, then we should be enslaved. Don't they do rituals and breeding? This should give them the strength and numbers they need to take over, which they haven't done. If they haven't done this yet, despite supposedly space travel and going through dimensions, then it's doubtful they exist. With that, I hand it over to Con.
The Lizard Illuminati is false

Observation 1. As Zerubavel claims in his book The Fine Line, in the section "The Social Lens", big-r Reality is a continuum from which all societies cut up discrete chunks, making islands of meaning in what is otherwise an expanse of no inherent meaning; these islands of meaning may be different for each society in the ways that they are cut (differences in the way that marriage "ought" to be, for example), or some islands may exist in one society's archepelego that does not have another representation in another society's (the concept of "weeks" or specific hours for specific things in the Bushmen people of Africa don't exist, for example). Zerubavel claims that reality is a continuum and the way that we cut it up is what meaning we make out of it. Therefore, reality is in a sense subjective, in that it can take many forms, all being components of the bigger picture. This means, in extension, that truth is a subjective component of the unattainable continuum that is Reality. My arguments will be based around Zerubavel's claim and my extensions to it; lizard people subjectively are alive within the nation. P1. Subjective truth is unfalsifiable, if it is made in good faith. P2. At least some people have the subjective truth that lizard people are real and alive within the nation, made in good faith. C1. Lizard people are necessarily real (cuts of the big-r Reality continuum in which mainstream society do not have) Therefore, Lizard people exist! This is the only proof I need. [1]. https://books.google.com...... [2]. https://www.youtube.com......; Now, onto pro's case. C1. Lack of evidence A lack of evidence doesn't lead to an evidence of lack ... put another way, just because there is no direct evidence of existence doesn't mean there cannot be any. C2. Non-enslavement I will ask Obama next time I see him, as he is a Lizard. I do not know why we aren't enslaved, but that isn't a reason that lizard people don't exist.