BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The USA should stop spying on other countries.

No it does not. We (the USA) spy on other countries and other countries spy on us. President Obama has recently stated the following about Europeans spying on America. "And I guarantee you that in European capitals, there are people who are interested in, if not what I had for breakfast, at least what my talking points might be should I end up meeting with their leaders," Obama said. "That"s how intelligence services operate." European spies have been spying on the U.S. for years, according to two former intelligence officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to discuss espionage programs. They said such spying includes tracking senior U.S. officials to see what they are doing in countries like France and Germany, which have both complained bitterly about the EU reports. Nor is France innocent when it comes to espionage and spying on Americans, said former CIA officer Bob Baer, who was stationed in Paris for three years. 'The French intelligence service used to break in regularly when I was in Paris into rooms of U.S. businessmen to image their computers,' he said. http://www.yalibnan.com... If we were to stop conducting espionage missions, other countries would continue to spy and the United States would be at a tactical disadvantage in military/political situations. For example recently Chinese military hackers have accessed data from 37 American weapons programs and 29 other defense-related technologies. Some observers think the stolen information is why China"s J-20 stealth fighters are so similar to the U.S."s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. China"s cyber spies, who reportedly operate out of a nondescript building in Shanghai, don"t just pose an economic threat by stealing U.S. R&D and forcing U.S. defense contractors to spend millions on better security. They potentially could compromise America"s military capacity to defend against attack. http://www.thenewstribune.com... If we hadn't been conducting espionage against China we wouldn't know that the they pose an economic and military threat! But now we can stop the hacking!
The USA should stop spying on other countries.

Hello. I will accept your challenge, good luck sir! es"pi"o"nage [es-pee-uh-nahzh, -nij, es-pee-uh-nahzh] noun 1. the act or practice of spying. 2. the use of spies by a government to discover the military and political secrets of other nations. I will start my argument by simply stating justifications for espionage. 1. Intelligence agents must conduct intelligence operations in other countries to protect the USA and its allies, just as law enforcement must conduct surveillance against some private citizens to protect the rest. 2. If we conduct espionage against an enemy nation, we can learn of its plans, capabilities, and/or intentions. 3. If we suspect that an enemy country has weapons of mass destruction, we should spy on them to make sure. If they do in fact have the weapons. We could protect many innocent people from death by preparing defenses.
Assisted Suicide/ Euthenasia

I'm very glad you want to compromise. but I think it should be no assisted suicide under 30, and I disagree on immediate family signing off. Unfortunately sometimes there are sadistic immediate family members that hate the person and will might sign off because they want them to suffer. I say that a spouse of which the client has been married ten or more years to must agree. Oh, and the person who wished to end their life must be suffering from an incredibly painful disease. I hope we can agree.
Assisted Suicide/ Euthenasia

You made some very good points. Yes, life is taken for granted, but people have the right to choose whether that want to keep it or not. However, my main problem is the fact that you said that 90% of terminally ill patients suffer from depression. Which I belive. But do you want to know what all of these people have depression? It's because of all of the pain and suffering they have had to go through, so we should let them end their pain and suffering. And about the neatherlands thing, that people and babies were killed without they're consent. That's not "Forced Euthenasia". That's murder. Euthenasia is death with your own consent, and those doctors who carried out those murders should be punished. Humans try to find the easy way out the sort cut. It's nature. Sure maybe it's selfish and bad, (but also efficient sometimes) but hey, it sure is hell not our fault. So if these humans want a shortcut out of pain and suffering, we have no right to tell them not to.
naptime

Many thanks to Pro for this debate. As I have effectively refuted Pro's case, I see no reason why anybody would vote at all. At any rate, I will use this round to figure out how to post videos here. I don't know if this will work.https://www.youtube.com...ParagraphAnother ParagraphAnother paragraphSome paragraphConclusion: I'm dancing with a purple hen and a pen stuck up big ben. How have you been?
naptime

It rather simple really; especially in the case with 12th graders, there really is no reason to allow "naptime" in school, as the purpose of schooling is to obtain education matching the state's standards. Naptime is counterproductive for this purpose, especially in trying to fit it in with the students' already busy academic schedule. Besides, it is not just the students,' but everybody's responsibility to go to bed at a reasonable time so that everybody can remain attentive and productive throughout the course of the day.
Students Should Be Allowed to Have Their Cell Phones at School

During school emergencies, students are actually advised not to use cell phones to call for help. For one thing, it does interfere with communications, as cell phone towers will get jammed up. Although technology has advanced since, remember on the September 11th terrorist attacks, cell phone towers were jammed, running communication. Alerting parents is a very unhelpful idea. Parents must likely would try to go get their kids, jamming up the road ways leading to the school. All paths leaving to school in the event of an emergency should remain clear at all times for emergency vehicles. Yes, students need to be held responsible for their actions and they need to learn responsible phone usage, but it's more important to stop something negative from happening than it is to have them 'learn the hard way'. It is actually often that people will and have and will continue to use their cell phones. In the last 8 years, bowling alleys, teenaged aimed night clubs, and movie theaters have seen a drop in their young aged attendees, while the number of text messages that a student exchanges with in a month continues to just sky rocket. Meeting up to chat has lessened because now you just have to text a buddy to chat. Lack of verbal socialization is a huge problem. The use of words has an element of attitude, tone, and rhythm which cannot be achieved in a text message. Through out the rebuttals, my opponent suggested that schools enforce a stricter policy when needed, however stopping a problem before it becomes a problem is more important than waiting to for it to be a problem before solving it. Although I do admit to lack sources, and I shamefully forfeited a round, my opponent has failed to convince me, and perhaps others, that cell phones should be allowed in schools. After all, the one making a request for change should provide good reasons for such change that outweighs the reason why the original situation and policies are in existence. And please note how my opponent made a jump right on to the fact that I missed a round. While it is distasteful that I did that, my opponent should not be jumping on the opportunity to try and track up free points. They said, I do agree points from me being deducted is fair
Students Should Be Allowed to Have Their Cell Phones at School

Even though my opponent did apologize for his forfeiture (which I do accept and forgive), that does not take away that he did indeed forfeit a round therefore stunting this debate. This will cost my opponent conduct points. Since my opponent didn’t exactly neatly categorize his arguments, I will just quote him and respond individually. “Students using cell phones in school is a distraction.” As stated in my opening arguments, if inappropriate cell phone usage becomes a problem the school can enforce strict rules on cell phone usage which will deter the student’s freedom of cell phone usage thus deterring cell phone distraction. “Students who use cell phones in school have an unneeded device that does not provide for a good education.” Although, not essential, cell phones provide a “safety net” for students by allowing them to call in emergencies such as a school shooting. In addition, cell phones allow students to call their parents to be picked up, schedule change, ect. “It provides no beneficial educational benefit other that Google, and if you're going to Google everything, then there is less of a reason to attend school.” That is a fallacy. School provides a far better basis for knowledge than Google does. Education allows one to think on their own without Google also. “Even between classes, students are staring mindlessly at their cell phones, reading a text message and bumping in to a few people on their way to their next class. It is dangerous for the same reasons texting and driving is dangerous, on a smaller scale, of course.” This is where student responsibility comes in. Students should be responsible enough to be able to not do such a thing, and if they make the mistake then they can learn from it which is beneficial. If it becomes a problem the school can implement rules banning such cell phone usage. “Using cell phones does not encourage socialization, at least verbally, and verbal socialization is a very important skill to hold on to. You aren't going to be doing a job interview by texting your answers the manager. You need to verbally communicate, and cell phones take away from verbal socialization.” It is not often that one will choose to be on their cell phone rather than socialize with their friends in person. Anyways, lack of verbal socialization through cell phone usage will not ultimately cause any of these negative that you speak of. In addition, again, if such a thing becomes a problem the school can enforce rules restricting cell phone use. - The rest of my opponent’s argument focuses on cell phones as a stress reliever and that other things can relieve stress better. I’m not arguing that cell phones should be used for entertainment, only that they are very useful when having to contact someone and that students should have that ability. This being said, that portion of my opponent’s argument is overall irrelevant. In addition, every single negative affect that cell phones may have that my opponent presented can easily be solved simply through rules against cell phone use while not completely eliminating cell phone use all together.
Students Should Be Allowed to Have Their Cell Phones at School

Although I find it hard to recover, I will do my best to do so anyways. Students using cell phones in school is a distraction. Students who use cell phones in school have an unneeded device that does not provide for a good education. The use of cell phones in school, other than at lunch and other free times, is absolutely pointless. It provides no beneficial educational benefit other that Google, and if you're going to Google everything, then there is less of a reason to attend school. Even between classes, students are staring mindlessly at their cell phones, reading a text message and bumping in to a few people on their way to their next class. It is dangerous for the same reasons texting and driving is dangerous, on a smaller scale, of course. School is also a time to socialize. Using cell phones does not encourage socialization, at least verbally, and verbal socialization is a very important skill to hold on to. You aren't going to be doing a job interview by texting your answers the manager. You need to verbally communicate, and cell phones take away from verbal socialization. (. http://lhslance.org...) In school, there are many of ways to 'release' other than using cell phones. For starters, instead of a cell phone, portable devices like tablets to release. Also, there are ways to release stress provided by the school. Reading books at the library or writing journals, poems, songs, etc are ways to release, and they are skills that can always use fine tuning. Cell phones have actually contributed to a poorer spelling ability to those who originally were educated in spelling. (. http://www.streetdirectory.com...) There is no benefit that cell phone provides that cannot be achieved through other ways, and cell phones in school have a more negative effect than a positive one. Again, I apologize deeply for missing the last round. There is no excuse. I understand my credibility is damaged, and will take the penalty that I rightfully deserve, however I will do my best to finish the debate.
Homosexual relationships (married or not married) are ultimatley beneficial to society.

in response to my opponent's argument in the comment box: First off, no where within this debate have a i made any claims that have not been backed up by legitimate cited evidence. it is not true in any degree that i have ever advocated that all gay people have aids, nor have i advocated that you get aids when you are homosexual or anything relatively close to what my opponent falsely claims that i have stated. i stated that promiscuity leads to aids. tangible polls, statistics, and quotes back up the claim that promiscuity is generally accepted within gay culture. if my opponent can show me otherwise then i will gladly side with her. however, instead of attacking these points my opponent makes a personal attack as she screams bigot in my face, claims i am ignorant, and claims i want to put a limit on the amount of free will and agency that people have in this world;i am not a bigot, i am not ignorant, and i believe that people who are homosexual should be free to do whatever they wish as long as they are true to their consciences. if you read the debate you will notice that no where within it i have advocated stripping the rights of homosexuals once so ever ANYWHERE. my opponent has failed to construct any case of her own, and fights evidence that i've provided with sole anger, and nothing else, simply because we don't see eye to eye. spectators, you may vote which ever way you wish but actually read the debate before you do.
Eddie Vedder is a hypocrite for writing lyrics about how rich Donald Trump is

Well... I'm pretty sure that by accepting the debate, it would have been obvious you accepted the debate. Pretty sure you just wasted your first round of argument by typing that in there as well... What am I wrong on? I mean I know they're also very clever for making money off these things, but it doesn't stop them being hypocritical. Complaining about the exact free capitalist society that enables you to make, record and sell records and make millions of dollars is extremely hypocritical.
Eddie Vedder is a hypocrite for writing lyrics about how rich Donald Trump is

Am I the only person who thinks that the lead singer of Pearl Jam, whose net worth was estimated to be $80 million last year, shouldn't be writing lyrics complaining about how rich the president is, or against capitalism, or generally any of the wining that comes out of these very rich musicians mouths? Any musician who makes money off a song denouncing capitalism or complaining about rich people is a hypocrite.
Eddie Vedder is a hypocrite for writing lyrics about how rich Donald Trump is

Pro's case starts with a straw man fallacy and ends with a false equivalence fallacy. The purpose of Eddie Vedder's lyrics and comments towards Donald Trump was specifically to do with how he chose to spend his money and how out of touch it made him with the people that he works with[1]. Eddie Vedder himself possesses neither of these traits. The comparison between them is night and day. Let's look into Eddie Vedder. He joined Pearl Jam in 1990 and released the album Ten the following year. It immediately brought them into the mainstream and Eddie Vedder took issue with that and refused to release music videos so that the band's songs didn't get promoted so well[2]. So it was not about the money. Quite the contrary. He specifically took steps to reduce the profit. It was always about the music. But since he has now accidentally fell into money regardless, how is he to go about spending it? Well, how about putting it to good use by contributing to charities? Eddie has contributed to 14 different charities[3]. Now let's take a look at Donald Trump. Most of his business is in real estate. He owns various establishments in a number of countries, most of which he doesn't visit or have any personal relationship to. And in any case, even if he did, real estate isn't exactly something that you can say is a passion in the same way that music can be. This is a venture that is clearly profit driven. It was never about the pleasure of owning a hotel for its own sake. But does Donald also contribute some of his fortune to charity? Well, yes and no. He founded the Donald J. Trump Foundation. However, its reputation has been irreparably damaged since it came to light that it was all a selfish ruse designed to benefit his businesses[4], and later, his presidential campaign, the latter of which landed him a fine from the IRS[5]. So these two people are not even close to the same. Neither in how they came into money, nor about how they go about spending it. Also, about capitalism, you don't have to be in favour of the abolition of a particular system to see flaws in that system. By that logic, Donald Trump's catchphrase was "make America great again" which implies that he doesn't think it currently is. Does that mean he should choose to live out the rest of his life in a different country being ardently anti-America? Of course not. Eddie Vedder supported Ralph Nader in 2000, John Kerry in 2004, Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012 and Bernie Sanders in 2016. He is not a socialist. And he doesn't have to be to have concerns about specific aspects of capitalism. Pro's thinking on this is way too black and white. [1] https://www.alternativenation.net... [2] Ashare, Matt. "The Sweet Smell of (Moderate) Success". CMJ. July 2000 [3] https://www.looktothestars.org... [4] https://www.wsj.com... [5] https://www.washingtonpost.com...
1000 Characters: Poetry Challenge

Dark...And warm...And safe...And -- Oh! --Who said that?Is there somebody here?I can feel -- What's this?Is it me?I can kick;No way out.What are these?A thumb --Two thumbs!It fits in this...Ear? No --Mouth.Yes, it fits there.I'll kick again;Still no way out.And there's that voice,Outside of my world.Wait --It is my world.My world is talkingAnd I can hear her.I'm not alone;Does she know I'm here?I'll kick again;And again;And -- Ah! --She can feel it,But who is she?Am I her?No...But I love her.She's my world;She must be mine.I'll call her Mummy.My world -- My Mummy.How do I see you?I'll kick again;Nothing.Maybe if I turn...Does this help?I'll kick;And again;And -- Oh! -- That's different!I'll kick,And push;And you'll kick,And push,And push,And PUSH!And --Bright!And cold!And -- Oh! --Hello.My Mummy;My world.Her arms;Warm...And safe...And -- Ah! --NOBODY TOLD ME ABOUT CIRCUMCISION!
1000 Characters: Poetry Challenge

Pro and con have just 1000 characters to come up with the best poem in round two. To reduce cheating/reusing previous work, pro will give con a theme/brief in this round and con will do the same for pro. If con fails to set a theme/brief, pro will use the one he has already set for con.Themes/briefs do not have to be identical between pro and con.Plagiarism will be searched for and will result in disqualification.First round is for acceptance and assigning the themes/brief.Con's theme: Discrimination
1000 Characters: Poetry Challenge

He is a ten.He is five add five.He is four add six.He is three add seven.He is two add eight.He is one add nine.She is a nine.She is four add five.She is three add six.She is two add seven.She is one add eight.She is less than a ten. She is smaller.She is lesser.She is weaker.He has five sums to his name.She has four.He is the five, greater, yet still limited.She is the four, lesser and limited.They, the tens, should rule.Them, the nines, are lesser.They should not rule.But all are still limited.But this is false.He isn't the sum of his parts.He is whatever he wants to be.He is not limited by stigma, but by his self-view.She isn't the lesser.She is as great as she wants to be.She is a nine.But she can take this label and make it into what she wants.He isn't the dominator.She isn't the weaker.He is anything he craves to be.She is as powerful as her heart desires.He is not five add five.He is he.She is not five add four.She is she.Let go of this stigma.You are what you want to be.
There must be a school/education reform

While schools may teach some things that are taught on a day to day basis, the majority of maths and sciences will not be used depending on the job you have. If schools are not needed to live and we only need sustenance to live, then it is as though schools are wasting time. Instead of wasting time in the current education system we must think about the things that could possibly be if school was different. Think of all the possibilities if students studied applicable things that they wanted to learn. Often students know what they want to study. We should not look at what the system is like right now, but rather look at the possibilities there are if there was something different. If the teachers know so well what we will need in the future, why are they teaching geometry and physics. While some may use this if they are going to be engineers or. Con says that "these classes give you insight into fields". Would you not agree with me that if one realize or understands fully that a field is not for him/her, they should move on to something else that they love or that they excel at. In every other situation in life this would be considered a waste of time. Why is this any different?
There must be a school/education reform

My opponent says that he/her must have said must, because school doesn't encompass the academic necessities of life, but the problem with this is that there are no such things as academic necessities. No one needs to learn to live, people can live without it. Something that is an actual necessity is, for example food/drink. You can't possibly live without sustenance. My opponent says it doesn't properly prepare someone for life, meaning without the academies they are going to live improperly, thus they can live without it. This basically refutes pro's whole case, but I will go even further. A system isn't outdated simply because you can just google it, which is not true. People need people who can teach them exactly what they need to know, and teachers are supposedly skilled in knowing what the students needs to know next. You can't just google, "what am I missing from this that I need to learn?" Also you can't assume that google is more effective than a teacher. Also pro says that it's outdated because we won't use math in a day to day basis, but my opponent fails to realize they teach you that stuff for future jobs. Even though it's true you may not go into certain jobs, these classes teaches you about each subject so you can easily pick which field you want to go into. These classes give you an insight into fields.