BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Learning a Foreign Language in High School and Colleges Requiring it.

Thank you for accepting me in this exciting debate. To begin today's debate, let me just state that my opponent has made assumptions. For example, my opponent assumed that most students *does not want* to take classes for foreign language. My opponent does not provide us any sort of evidence to support his assumption. Therefore, it is just merely an assumption only. Other than that, my opponent also assumed that students that take this classes *will also not* be able to speak it fluently. This is offensive to every students that tried their best in foreign language classes and every education system of every country. Moreover, my opponent have not given us any sort of evidence to support his assumption. Therefore, it is also just merely an assumption made by my opponent. After analysing my opponent's speech, it is with great honour that I continue our debate by stating the reasons why it is required to take foreign language classes during our time in high schools and colleges. Based on The Journal, speaking a second(foreign) language can greatly increase an average worker's salary by "3,000 a year, or "145,000 in a lifetime. This is excellent for every working person and every family in the world if we wanted to earn more money. This is also required for poor families to make a change for the better in their lives. To prove my point, here is the source of my first point- http://www.thejournal.co.uk... Besides that, based on a study carried out by business journalist Philip Beresford, who compiles the Sunday Times Rich List, someone with a foreign language may be seen as both more intelligent and sexier than other people. Therefore, by learning a foreign language, we increase our chances in finding love. Moreover, love is beneficial to our emotions and increases our productivity in work. Therefore, it is required to learn a foreign language during our time in high schools and colleges. To prove my point, here is the source of my second point- http://news.bbc.co.uk... In conclusion, we need to stop being close-minded and stop assuming that other countries are *only* learning English. Instead, we need to start learning foreign languages to ensure a better future for you, for me, and for everyone. Therefore, learning foreign languages are required during high schools and colleges.
Learning a Foreign Language in High School and Colleges Requiring it.

High school students shouldn't be required to learn a foreign language in high school and colleges shouldn't require it. Most students who take a foreign language in high school don't actually want to take the class, because of this students will feel pressured and already have a negative attitude before taking the class. The pressure that is applied by high schools and colleges can hurt students' GPA's and regress their abilities to learn a foreign language in other ways. In cases were students are getting A's in these classes they still will not likely be able to speak the language of their choice fluently. It would be more practical to allow students to take other electives. If students want to learn a foreign language they should have the choice as an elective and colleges shouldn't expect it or require it. English is the most widely spoken language in the world and is considered a universal language. If most students of other countries are learning English then why should we be forced to take a guess at what language we will need when most people we encounter will already speak English.
courts have the responsibility to create racially balanced schools

Students and society don"t benefit from diverse schools because, I don"t think it benefit because it would make more probles towarsds each other. There will be more fights between the racis. A judge should not be able to tell parents where to send kids to school because, the parents are the one who are controlings there kids not the judge. For me the judged is wrong and the judge is the one to blame for the problems that happened in that time. Court ordered busing is not the only way to desegregate schools because, bussing just bring more ploblems than there already is.
courts have the responsibility to create racially balanced schools

Answer to your questions: #1 they sent kids to schools they don't know so they could get a better education. #2 the judges arent taking away all authority to mine and other kids, they are only controlling there education which will better them in the long run. #3 the judges are taking part to help not take away freedom. Rebuddle- i disagree with all your arguments you have made like i said they do not cause more violence because they are with there other peirs. they didnt invade parent's decisions they are helping them and furthuring there child's education. they forced students to schools were they didnt want to go but also parents do the same thing but the court is doing it for a better reason. the school isn't for racist baias but also it should be to help others learn to get along with eachother.
courts have the responsibility to create racially balanced schools

Answer #1 what if the court is taking the children from a good school and put the children into a bad school Answer #2 what you mean equal of their race? that is just for kids in school what if the same race have problems with each other are they still equal? Answer #3 because there will be violence where new kids go to a school and thinking they can take over the school so the kids who where there already will be offended and brawls will happen.
courts have the responsibility to create racially balanced schools

Question#1 Even though the court invaded the parent"s decisions, what if the parents are sending there child to a poorly educated school? The courts shouldn"t help in and help the child? Question #2 Self esteem isn"t just for diversity but if kids are around more equal of their race don"t you think they would feel more compterable? And it would hire there esteem. Question#3 How does it cause more violence?
courts have the responsibility to create racially balanced schools

Assertion #1: Court-ordered desegregation plans do more harm than good. Questions about schooling should be left to communities to solve. They cause more violence They invaded parent"s decisions They forced students to go to schools were they didn"t wanted to go. Assertion #2: Students and society do not benefit more children are not able to attend racially integrated schools. 6th graders could lie on survey. Is this only for blacks and Latinos? Self-esteem could be from something other than diversity. Kids still have separate groups in a diverse school. Assertion #3: Race should not be used as a basis for school assignment. Parents wanted better neighborhood schools for their children. 17 states where racially separated schools were required by law. No child left behind is a tool to help teachers to teach better to any kind of race.
courts have the responsibility to create racially balanced schools

i believe that courts do have the responsbility to create racially imbalances schools. one example Assertion #1 : students and society benefit when more children are able to attend racially intergrated schools. Edvidence: yes students benefit more with a racially interegradted school because it will be less bullying through the equality of all races instead of being over jumped by one race, students will feel more compterable by being around it's own kind instead of having one or few in the school and this will help the kids do better academically if they feel compterable in there classes and with there peirs. Assertion#2: To Create a deseghe regated school system, a judge should be able to tell parents were the child must attend. Edvidence: The judges plan required kids to leave their neighborhood. Also I agree with the judge because not all neighborhood schools are good quality schools. And in the new plan kids would go back to schools which might be segregated. Assertion#3 in 1974 court ordered busing and it was the only strategy. Edvidence: Blacks tried different things but didn"t have enough money so the busing actually gave the power to the courts to be able to transport the kids to different schools. Also a lot of kids neighborhoods were segregated and kids went to their neighborhood schools and a lot of there neighborhood schools were good. Finally parents were angry that they couldn"t make any decisions or have any control of sending there child to a certain school.
Video Games cause violence

Brief Rebuttals to Brief pointsa) - Whether a video game condones nonviolent or ethical components in association with violence is not really relevant, as it is the exposure to the images of graphic violence and how it is portrayed as a normal element in media that allows young people to grow up and become more systematically violent (though not necessarily criminally violent)b) - Whether or not there is punishment or reconciliation, the game still promotes violence as being an overall 'fun' activity. Some games don't cause violence, but the resolution is not that "All video games cause violence". In conclusion, I have won this debate because I have filled my BoP with reliable sources to back it. Vote for me!
Video Games cause violence

Thanks for the reponse I shall add a new argument onto this 1: The GTA example was a basic comparison 2: Ill let that argument pass 3: Most violent video games that are popular now adays punish extreme or unessecary violence examples of this are -Dis-Honoured. If you kill anyone in the game the game will punish you by making enemies harder adding more enemies etc. -Deus Ex Human revolution -This game dis courages killing and wants you to be more diplomatic and use non lethal non violent techniques (Killing also gives much less points compared to knocking out with a tranq gun) -Gta Cops come after you -Payday Money is subtracted from your account And the list can go on. Most video games have a system or choice that dis courages killing.
Video Games cause violence

Rebuttals and RefutationsI will note for my opponent that I will not be available tomorrow from 1pm to early morning/midnight, and almost all day Sunday. If this results in me forfeiting a round due to the 24 hour span, then the voters may judge conduct appropriately. 1. GTA V and violent crimes argumentI will admit that this was an argument I was expecting. To rebut my opponent's point about the lack of a major increase in crime among juveniles, I will argue that violence does not always occur in the form of a crime. Violence, as stated above, can be summarized as any use of unjust aggression or force. Modern society has educated and raised young people by the thinking that committing violent crimes is a stupid thing to do, and young people are smart enough to realize that. However, that doesn't mean no violence has occurred as a result of video gaming.2. Unrealistic video gamesThe resolution of this debate is "Video games cause violence", not "All video games cause violence". Whilst some video games, explicitly things like video games for toddlers, obviously have almost zero chance of prompting violent behavior, I have still filled my BOP that Video Game(s) have prompted violence.3. The brainIn a growing brain and in a society where media and real life are almost extremely mixed together, and where some people meet their closest friends, wed, and earn fortunes through the pixels of a computer screen, I would say that violence demonstrated on this platform most definitely has the potential to cause an imitating effect, especially if the juvenile in question has never known anything other than what society is now.-- no sources necessary this round --
Video Games cause violence

Hello thanks for the response The Penn and Teller wasn't a full part of evidence just something intriguing about both sides. In your statement if exposure to violence leads to increased aggresiveness as your new point you asked why is media exposure any different. Well here is how. 1: The brain is able to tell the difference between shooting a friend or cluster of pixels on screen when compared to shooting an actual person 2: If this was true I would think that if GTA V sold a couple million sales (Broke 5-6 sales records) we would see a lot of aggresive people from what I see this isn't the case 3: Some violent video games are social experiences and don't cause rage such as Borderlands 2. This game is no doubt violent but this relates to my first point. Most violent video games are so un-realistic that people see the difference. For example if I play Call of Duty (Popular FPS don't hate me) most people know its un-realistic. If you see a guy getting shot in Call of Duty it will be less traumatic then watching someone get shot in real life. Let me give another example. Let's say that you watch a friend run over in GTA you will most likely not be traumitised forever. However if we apply this to real life most people would be in shock or traumitised.
Video Games cause violence

Rebuttals1. Defining "cause"The definition of cause is so: cause |kôz| noun 1 a person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition: the cause of the accident is not clear. Though I understand what my opponent is getting at, by the literal definition of "cause", since the video game gave rise to the actions of rage and ensuing violence; it is thus considered a 'cause' by the literal definition. Had the video game not existed, at that particular moment in time, there would have been no violence occurring, thus making video games a cause for that instance of violence. Analogy: If you whip and beat an already violent person, and that person in turn becomes even more violent, the whipping and beating still can be rightfully attributed as an associated cause of said person's violence. This concept applies here, except in a less depressing sense.Even if anger issues, bad living conditions, or etc are other causes, video games can still be attributed as one. 2. The benefits discussed here and by the APA are irrelevant to this resolutionEven if video games had extreme benefits that far outweighed it's negatives, those would be irrelevant as the topic of the debate is "Video games cause violence"If video games caused increased social skills in some, better reflexes in most, increased brainpower in a few, and violent or disturbed/aggressive behavior in a significant portion of the video gaming population, I still have filled my Burden of Proof that video games can be attributed as a "cause to violence" one way or another. 3. Legitimacy of Penn and Teller BSPenn and Teller BS is far from a reliable source and have seen large amounts of criticism for their supposed debunkings, which included concepts like Global Warming, the harmfulness of cigarettes on the body, and etc. [1]New PointA. Exposure to witnessing violence at a young age has been scientifically attributed as causing violent behavior in children later on. Why is this concept not applicable to witnessing on-screen violence?Children witnessing or having been exposed to violence has been psychologically attributed [2] to causing violence later on in their lives. Why would exposure to media violence be any different? Seeing a woman be killed and raped in front of your eyes has a detrimental effect on a child's brain development and a proven potential to prompt a violent future for that child. Why would seeing a woman be raped and killed through a television screen in games like Grand Theft Auto work any different? In fact, the AACAP recently released a study declaring that exposure to aggressive media violence has the same eventual effect that exposure to any aggressive violence may cause! [3]1 - (http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org...)2 - (http://www.childtrends.org...) 3 - (http://www.aacap.org...)
Video Games cause violence

Your post is very interesting however let me point out some things. In your video saying that these are people whom were violent because of video games i'm just going to point out that I think for the better of the both of us rage DOES NOT count. The reason being video games may cause this however rage can come from any single thing in the universe. Failing/being taunted and raging don't seem like something to concern. For example some people rage at Justin Bieber but I don't think he 'causes' violence in any way (I may have explained badly but I think you know where I'm getting at.) My second point will be against those interesting documents in your reference a few things about them 1: They are from 2010 so the may not be accurate but for the sake of argument lets allow old sources. 2: This document (http://www.apa.org...) says specifically in the top video games only INCREASE (not cause) aggression in a minority of people however it goes on and says "But for others, it may offer opportunities to learn new skills and improve social networking." which is showing a positive effect instead of a negative aggressive affect 3: During an interview of some psychologists whom studied in this area (Lawrence Kutner and Cheryl K. Olson) On a April 16, 2008 interview on X-Play, Kutner and Olson noted that although some studies have claimed to show a link between video games and violent or aggressive behavior, most research in this area has been flawed. Also as you said your second document is about T.V so lets come back to that later if you wish as I am not sure if that can be applicable to video games Also a show named Penn and Teller BS on there episode about Video Games they also found that there was no link between violence and video games. It is worthwhile checking out this video. (I'll leave it in comments as the title has profanity and the site does not allow profanity in arguments References http://www.g4tv.com... (Kutner and Olson interview) The main problem with this debate is that different people are most likely affected in different ways. So for the sake of debate I request we single it down to a common group of people (Feel free to say no)
The arts are not relevant to society

The arts are defined as music, art or drama. There are many different campaigns all around schools that we see on a daily basis. About two weeks ago there was a campaign called we are silent. The purpose was to raise awareness for people in countries whose voices are not heard.. We live in America and are very blessed to have the right to speak our mind. But what side pro is saying goes against all of this. The arts are a way of expressing one"s thoughts and emotions. Side pro is saying that a section of the population who are involved in the arts should not have a way to express them as they choose. This is against everything the Canadian society has been striving for. Art is also a building block of society. People go to concerts and they talk to the people next to them. You find out that that person maybe went to your high school, or was in one of the clubs you were in. The arts bring a sense of interest and activity to our lives. Art is central to being human and people need it for recreation and recharging their batteries. 18 million people in Washington City alone attended city funded cultural events. There is a great demand for the arts in a city like Toronto then there is a even greater demand for the arts around the world. ("attended cultural events", not art events.. it"s not relevant) The arts have changed the world on many different occasions. The concert of hope which was held for tsunami victims of the 2004 Indian Ocean Earthquake raised over 5 million US$. France gave America the statue of Liberty after the war for independence, which is a beacon of freedom for everyone. When different movie stars or television actors send out tweets or posts about problems that are happening many people see this and give money. These are only a few of the examples of how the Arts change the world on different occasions. Now I am going to read a quote from Eugene Ferguson, Historian "Pyramids, cathedrals, and rockets exist not because of geometry, theories of structures, or thermodynamics, but because they were first a picture-- literally a vision--in the minds of those who built them. Society is where it is today because people had the perception; the images and the imagination; the creativity that the Arts provide, to make the world the place we live in today." This quote firmly outlines that all of our homes and building exist not because of math or science but because they were first a picture in the minds of the people who built these things. The creativity that the arts provide creates the world that we live in today. Without the arts we would not be here in school, because there would be no building. How can side pro argue that the arts are not needed even though everything that society utilizes to run itself has its roots in the arts? In conclusion for the reasons I have just stated and the points that my partner will present I as side Con firmly believe that this resolution, be it resolved that the arts are not needed in society will and must fall.
Yo Mama

Don't worry, I've done the same thing a billion times. I will do likewise as my debaters did. I urge a TheGodHand vote. I can relate, however this does not keep my opponent from losing. Also, I will post a Yo Mama joke in case my opponent is trying to force me to break the rules. Yo mama so poor she was kicking a can down the street, I asked her what she was doing, she said "Moving." Thank you.
Yo Mama

Yo mama so stupid she tried to arrange M and ms in alphabetical order Yo mama so stupid she thinks Taco Bell is a mexican phone company Yo mama so fat she rolled on a quarter and george washington shot a booger out his nose Yo mama has so many teeth missing her tounge is in jail Yo mama has three fingers and a banjo Yo mama so fat when she sits around the house she SITS AROUND THE HOUSE!!!!
Yo Mama

Yo mama feet are so big her shoes have to have license plates! It took yo mama 10 tries to get her drivers license, she couldn't get used to the front seat! Yo mama aint so bad...she would give you the hair off of her back! Yo mama twice the man you are. Yo mama so grouchy, the McDonald's she works in doesn't even serve Happy Meals. Yo Mama so fat when she went to the movies she sat next to everyone. Yo mama so fat when her beeper goes off, people thought she was backing up. Yo mama so stupid she got locked in a mattress store and slept on the floor. Well, when yo mama sits around the house, she finds herself wishing she'd finished her degree instead of having kids right away, maybe started that business. Then she might have created something she's proud of.
Yo Mama

This is a competition for Yo Mama jokes, 12 or less allowed each round. The audience will vote who has better jokes. Think up your own or ape them off another site. Yo mama so bald you can see whats on her mind Yo mama so dark she went to night school and was marked absent Yo mama so short she poses for trophies Yo mama so short you can see her feet on her drivers lisence Yo mama so short she does backflips under the bed Yo mama so ugly Bob the Builder looked at her and said "I CAN'T FIX THAT" Yo mama so ugly that not even goldfish crackers smile back Yo mama so ugly when she joined an ugly contest, they said "Sorry, no professionals"
It is good that The Cookie Monster changed to The Vegie Monster.

"Defining relative clauses provide some essential information that explains the main clause. The information is crucial for understanding the sentence correctly and cannot be omitted."[1] The relative clause of the resolution is "that The Cookie Monster changed to the Veg[g]ie Monster." The relative clause is false. The Cookie Monster is still The Cookie Monster.[2] Thus, the resolution is nonsensical. [1] http://owl.english.purdue.edu... [2] http://www.businesspundit.com...