BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
High School / Secondary school Students should be required to wear a uniform

You have thoroughly shown how uniforms and bad behavior are connected, but I do not believe that this is the case. When wearing a school uniform, students are less likely to misbehave as they are representing their school. (1) It is proven that students who wear uniforms are less likely to be truant and leave during the school day, as they can be easily spotted in town. (2) I understand your point that not all teenagers judge others based on clothes, but the majority of teenagers do feel outcast at school at some point, and have low self esteems. 7 in 10 high school girls believe that they do not measure up to other girls in their grade, mostly due to appearance. (3) This shows that uniforms would benefit the majority of female students, therefore making it a beneficial stance for schools to take. Low self esteem in students can lead to more than it may seem. I quote: "75% of girls with low self-esteem reported engaging in negative activities such as disordered eating, cutting, bullying, smoking, or drinking when feeling badly about themselves (compared to 25% of girls with high self-esteem). " (3) . http://www.articlesdot.net... . http://www.guardian.co.uk... . http://www.dosomething.org...
High School / Secondary school Students should be required to wear a uniform

I look forward to an engaging and challenging debate. :) Rebuttal 1: Having a uniform creates a sense of community. If we are arguing solely on the premise that uniforms create a sense of community, one would expect to see that prisoners who wear uniforms would cease being violent and dangerous. However, that is definitely not the case. In one prison "men suffered vicious stab and head wounds as prisoners attacked each other with makeshift weapons, including shards of glass and broken water pipes. Fifty-five inmates were rushed to local hospitals. When officers finally took back control, many inmates had been permanently maimed. [1]". Uniform policies certainly do not create a sense of community in prisons, so why should the same be expected in schools? In my school of over 1,500 students where uniform policies do not exist, I feel a sense of community because other people are friendly to me as opposed to a different high school I would have attended 2 years ago where I was constantly bullied. A sense of community is more achievable with a group of people who are friendly and courteous rather than violent and hateful. Uniforms barely have an effect. I would also consider the argument my opponent gives of teens not fitting in due to social status differences to be a bit outlandish. My opponent does not cite any sources to back up her statements. My opponent assumes all teens are more concerned about what other people wear and will have their self-esteem lowered due to this. I buy my clothes from Wal-mart and barely think about what other people wear. If students are worrying too much about what other people wear they will truly be in the shock of their life when they leave high school. It also means that the schools are doing a bad job at teaching or the students have bad work eithics. Neither would be improved under compulsory uniform policies. Sources: [1] . http://tinyurl.com...
High School / Secondary school Students should be required to wear a uniform

In almost all government schools in the USA, uniform is not required, whereas there are few schools in the UK, private or government, that allow students to wear anything they like (usually a loose dress code applies). I will be arguing in favour of all high schools and secondary schools to make uniform compulsory. There are my main arguments. Having a uniform creates a sense of community Especially in larger schools, (800+ students) many teens feel left out, or that they don't belong. Having a uniform unites all the students, and shows that even though the school's population may be high, all the students are equal, which brings me on to my next point. Especially in government schools where there is a wide range of financial status between students, many may feel unhappy or left out if they can't afford more expensive clothes. Imagine how low a teenager's self esteem can be if most the girls or boys in their class show up to school in expensive or branded clothes, and they can maybe only afford clothes from supermarkets? This can cause many problems for the student. As I mentioned, feeling as though they are "poorer" than other students can really lower a student's self esteem, which isn't healthy for a teenager, or anyone for that matter. Secondly, if the student feels under pressure to wear certain brands to school, they may spend all their pocket money (if applicable) and wages (if they have a part time job) on expensive clothes rather than things they need such as stationary or study guides. Thirdly, as I mentioned; students can be subjected to bullying if they are not wearing "cool clothes" and this can cause psychological problems for the student later in life. Thirdly and finally, I believe that the media (movies, TV shows etc) really expresses how a student's clothing matches their personality. For example, "goth kids" wear dark clothes and lots of black eyeliner, and "theatrical kids" wear colourful retro clothes, or whatever. Some kids may feel like they don't belong in a certain friendship group or clique, because they can't afford or don't want to wear the kind of clothes the other people in the group wear. I believe that students should join friendship groups based on their personality, and not whether they have the right clothes to join. Thank you for reading my argument.
Resolved: Abortion should not be banned.

To my dismay, I have put this off far too long. I had figured I'd be able to write up the argument by four, giving me plenty of time to construct and figure it to my liking, but it seems that now I have 11 minutes and 22 seconds to complete some sort of bogus reply. So I'l have to ask voters to give Pro conduct points and have him extend his arguments to the next round, as to which I'll hopefully get around to writing up my argument without procrastinating too badly. I apologize.
Resolved: Abortion should not be banned.

Greetings, I will be affirming the resolution that Abortion should be available to all women on demand. I will be using three contentions. The first being that women have full self-ownership, and the other that the fetus is merely a perasite when it is in then the woman's womb without permission, and finally that a fetus is not even human.First off, we must define the terms:Abortion-Also called voluntary abortion. the removal of an embryo orfetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy [1].Fetus- the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo [2].Contention 1: Self-OwnershipWomen have the right to there own bodies. It doesn't mater if a fetus is human being or not it is woman's body. Politicians have no say in what a woman does with her body. It is a natural right for people to own there bodies and to say that a women can't do with it as she pleases is wrong.Contention 2: Self-DefenseWhen a woman has sex there is no guarantee of pregnancy, and not every woman wants to be pregnant at that time. If a fetus/embryo forms in the woman's body without her permission and causing her to get sick and stealing nutrients from her, then this is aggression. The fetus is vioating the host and causing harm. It may not be intentionally but it still is doing harm.Contention 3: Fetus/Embryos are not persons.While the nature of a fetus maybe that of a human it is not and should not be considered to be a person. Susan Sherwen once stated in an article for 'Perspectives for Canadians':"Persons . . . are members of a social community that shapes and values them, and personhood must be defined in terms of interactions and relationships with others."It is not a rational and conscious being. Therefore, it can't be granted the same rights that we would grant to a person. Also, a fetus is not capable of holding a conscious desire to even continue living. This means it is very much meaningless to speak about the "murder" of a fetus. Murder implies the unlawful killing of a person that has a conscious desire to continue living. Therefore, a woman's rights ultimately triumph over that of a fetus no matter what the case.ConclusionTo deny a woman an abortion is to deny then there basic rights. To violate a woman's right to the inner confines of her body is a injustice that should not be allowed. After all unless the woman actually lets the fetus use her body and clames it as her own, then the fetus is an aggressor to woman and to deny abortion then would not only deny self-ownership but also deny the right to self-defense. And finally a fetus should not be granted the same rights because it is not a person.~~Sources~~1.http://dictionary.reference.com...2.http://www.thefreedictionary.com...3.Susan Sherwin. 1999. Ethical Issues: Perspectives for Canadians. Ed. Soifer, Eldon. Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview Press, p. 267
Street addresses should not be required in order to register to vote.

Round 1: introduction of position and acceptance. Round 2: Argument/reasons for your position Round 3: Counter-argument/conclusion Ok, since the last person I debated with somehow misconstrued "address" to mean a name, when if I meant name I would have said name, and the argument I made didn't make any sense if I meant name... I decided to be more specific and I said "street address" in the name of the debate. Since some people on here seem to be ignoramuses, "street address" refers to the number on a residence and the name of the street one lives on. I refer only about the requirement that a voter has to have a street address in order to register. Hopefully this is clear this time, and if it's not, it's on the fault of the con since this should be plenty clear. Now, I believe that street addresses should not be required in order to register to vote.
Street addresses should not be required in order to register to vote.

Everybody pays taxes. People pay property taxes, income taxes, hell in Maryland we used to pay a RAIN TAX. If one is homeless, then they're not paying property taxes on their house or in many cases they aren't paying an income tax. They are also a lot of times on welfare which alone should disqualify them. After all, if the takers outnumber the makers then the whole country will collapse. The homeless, until they get on their feet, are not contrubuting much to society as a whole so they really, until they're contributing, shouldn't have a say in anything. Everybody who has an address is paying property taxes and most likely income taxes and so they are the people who would be most affected by what the homeless people, who don't have to deal with the concequences of what they vote for, do.
Street addresses should not be required in order to register to vote.

There isn't exactly much to rebut in con's argument. Con should have elaborated on what they mean with "...they should have to show that they have skin in the game just like everybody else." I don't know what to say since I don't even know what they mean. So, in conclusion, I believe I won this debate since I provided well thought-out reasons, sources, and logic, while my opponent provided very little. Unless they offer a lot more in round 3, it seems this should be a debate easy to vote for.
Street addresses should not be required in order to register to vote.

Now, the reason why I think addresses should not be required for voter registration, is because this prevents the homeless from voting. Ever since 1856, every state had outlawed the requirement that you must own property in order to vote. [1, pg 16] Because the homeless do not have an address, they essentially cannot vote and, I would argue, it violates these laws. In addition, and this will be anecdotal evidence, which I realize is not strong evidence, but I'm using it anyways, people who fail to report address changes are given a more difficult time to vote too because of the address requirement. One person, while I was working as a poll worker for the 2016 general election, had moved just within the prior week, and tried going to the precinct for which his new address was in the borders of. He was denied a regular ballot, and had to vote provisionally. While they still got to vote, and it can be argued their vote will still count, it caused an unnecessary extra step needed to vote since he had to fill out paper work. In addition, his vote would not be counted until much later since it was a provisional ballot. In addition, voter turnout is already so low, it's been below 60% in most recent election years [2] and there is no good reason to have something else to complicate the voting process that could potentially cause less people deciding to vote. One argument a person may make for why we need addresses is in order to determine which voting precinct one is supposed to go to. However, as a poll worker, I know there is a map we have which shows what geographical area votes at which voting location. These could be posted someplace for everyone to find out, online, or perhaps in the city hall of the city. The person, when registering, could then mark which area they reside, rather than reporting your address, and they will be going to that precinct. I know also voting material is usually received in the mail, however, sample ballots are not necessary, to have to begin with. In addition, the process could be that they are offered at city hall and if you want one, you can get one there. I would also suggest for those who do want to receive them in the mail, then instead of having the registration require an address, it could be optional. This way, vote my mail and ballots can still be mailed to those who do have addresses if they so choose to divulge their address. I'll now give my opponent the opportunity to argue their case. Sources: [1] http://economics.yale.edu... [2] http://www.electproject.org...
NASCAR is for trailer trash rednecks and hillbilly's

NASCAR sucks and only the people with low intelligence, trailer park residence and grease shop boys love this sport/activity as there is really no real challenge to the sport. You just drive in a circle, this is as exciting as watching paint dry. At least if they had some twists and turns like in Formula 1, it might be more exciting, but to drive the same oval 500 times is just mental. The announcers are the worst in sports. Hick announcer 1: Looks like the Number 8 car is moving up! He just passed the number 6 car! Hick announcer 2: Oh boy! You"re right on about that! He"s making his move! Hick announcer 1: Yup! There he goes! Look at that! Hick announcer 2: Yeah! I see it! Looks like we"ve got a race on our hands! Hick announcer 1: OOOO-EEEEE race fans! How do y"all like that! Hick announcer 2: Yeesssssir! Can you feel the excitement!? Only 475 more laps to go! https://oppositelock.kinja.com... https://nascar.pissedconsumer.com... http://beefsrant.blogspot.ca...
NASCAR is for trailer trash rednecks and hillbilly's

NASCAR is not a sport, this is just retarded entertainment for the beer drinking redneck and hillbilly who like to sit there for hours watching the cars go around a circle 500 times. Wow what a concept, I think I outgrew the cars around the track when I was 6 and had the Matel dinky car set. What type of sport is this where all the driver has to do is hold the steering wheel to the left for 500 laps. Wow what excitement? I guess if you are a trailer park degenerate and nothing is gong on at the park, outside of the lawn dart tournament you might want to just sit there, drink and watch noisy cars go in a circle. Wow how many brain cells do you really need to watch this brain cramping activity.
Animal Testing

Well, first of all, thanks for accepting.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------To begin with, experimentation it's a very important part for scientific development. We can't test on humans primarly because of the moral. But if we can't use humans, why can we use animals?My reasons for using animals on research and/or experiments are: Most of the animals are breed in laboratories specifically for testing (like flies). This doesn't affect a species population. In fact, the species used are really common and aren't endangered. Animals (specifically mice) can be breed for a special experiment. An animal life could help the human race to find a cure, understand how certain organs work or even make a progress in the genetics area. Testing on animals allows us to know if a drug is safe for selling it. Scientists care about the animals. They use them just in really necessary cases and they use techniques that cause the least harm, stress or pain to the animal.
Obama will win reelection

My starting argument will be short. My main argument is that you cannot say Barack Obama WILL win the election. If you had stated that he will most likely win, you might have something. But it's impossible to state for a fact that Obama will win. It is predicted that this will be one of the closest elections ever, so there's a very good chance that Romney will win too. Therefore, in order for you to win this debate, you must provide significant proof that Obama will win. What do you mean by "the republican party is fractured"? By "he", do you mean Romney? What basis do you have for saying that he has very little intelligence? Why is he a terrible candidate? He seems like a great guy to me. That's all I have to say at this point in the debate. Please show me how Obama will undoubtedly win.
Making More Star Wars Movies is a Good Thing for Fans

A very divisive topic in my experience. There are more movies slated for production in the near future so this seems like a good time to have such a debate.We will define "Good Thing" as:It being worthwhile to make more Star Wars movies (from canonical sources) as there is a fair likelihood they will be well received by a majority of people who would already consider themselves "fans", and will not diminish the legacy or merit of any previous film-efforts or the Star Wars canon as a whole in the esteem of the core fan-base.Note: I'm not saying that they will for sure be good films, only that they have a decent shot at being at least as good as the first three. Basically, I've heard only too many times from "die hard" fans that the originals will never be equaled or excelled and thus shouldn’t even be attempted (end on a high note, I guess). I think they could be at least be equaled and I would like somebody to try to prove me wrong. I’d like to try and argue without bringing whatever Star Wars movies are in development at this time in to the argument; keeping things within the realm of theory for all potential future canonical projects. Both sides should strive in the first round to make clear what it is about the originals that makes them so beloved (something upon which we can all surely agree), and how are those same qualities (technical aspects of photography/film tech, casting choices, level of campiness/the grotesque, emotional impact etc. etc.) likely or not likely to be present in potential future films. Obviously there is a lot which is subjective here, but I think there is enough meat on the bone for a scrappy and potentially edifiying and/or engaging tussle. 1. Acceptance2. Opening Arguments (each side states why the originals are "cherished classics") and then makes opening arguments concerning future films.3. Rebuttals and Closing Arguments
Atheism is more reasonable and positive than Deism

We can trace the evolution of God back through human history, from when monotheism began to polytheism. It actually all began as a deistic belief. Many of those people thought the world was flat because it seems flat, but no, it's not. We know how planets and stars form, naturally without the assistance of the divine. Science leaves no room for the supernatural. The space where we don't know things does not say, "Insert supernatural here." NO. The supernatural cannot even be demonstrated as true. Just because it can't be disproven doesn't make it true. Until whatever the hell you mean by, "God," comes down and speaks unicorns into existence, we've just as much sense to conclude where the evidence leads us: that the universe came about by natural means, since with every further scientific discovery, we learn more and more that's how things happen, naturally. Now to explain why I think atheism is more positive than deism. To be a deist you have to believe that god created our planet and our universe in extreme chaos, quite possibly with enjoyment, we can't know. How can you know this god isn't evil and just watches us humans kill each other over whose right about him/her/it? How can we know that this god sits from afar with his arms folded, watching humanity plummet to extinction, quite possibly with enjoyment? Most likely, actually. There is so much chaos, violence and tragedy in the world, it's quite possible that the deistic god is just watching with pleasure because it's naturally evil and enjoys watching the misfortunes of its creation. What reason have you to believe that god is somehow distant from the universe? I will put this one step further: How do you know that when we die, this evil god won't throw us all into hell simply for the pleasure of doing so? It's easier to conclude that if there is a deity, it's cruel. If it's cruel and doesn't intervene in human affairs, how do we know it's not going to punish us even further once we die? We don't. You can't, because you can just keep adding to it because it's an imaginary, man-made concept. There is not evidence, thankfully, for a deity. I submit to you that atheism for this reason is not only more reasonable but more positive. Deism doesn't promote the idea of an afterlife, necessarily, so the only thing you can hope for if you are a deist is that the character of this deity I just described is inaccurate, and we'll either not exist when we die or it'll prepare a more pleasurable afterlife for us to enter. But none of this has evidence; it's just hope; it's just wishful thinking. There's no reason to conclude that there is a deity given the natural harmonics of the universe, and thank goodness for that.