BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Money matters, matters don't.

My worthy opponents silence clearly manifests that his opinions accord well to what I claim in this debate. Nevertheless, I would like to continue my argument. We cannot turn a blind eye to the numerous disputes that money causes within families because of greed and cupidity. Almost every day there are cases of sons murdering their fathers or other relatives just for the sake of acquiring their property and money. Evidently, these usurpers give more importance to money than family and forget the unconditional love that they were provided with. Also, money cannot get you the friends that you actually want in life. Those friends are just people who develop a facade of being concerned for you but are actually fair-weather friends, merely attracted to your money and the fun and attention it brings, nothing else. Benjamin Franklin also said, "Money has never made man happy, nor will it. There is nothing in its nature to produce happiness. The more of it one has the more one wants."
Money matters, matters don't.

Firstly, I would like to point out to my worthy opponent that in this debate , I do not mean to say that money does not matter at all, so he should not deem that I am completely against money. I simply believe that there are things far more important than money in today's world which should not be ignored in the malice of getting more and more money. These days it has become quite a prevalent practice of people spending money on things they don"t require just in order to look grand in society. People have developed notions like "Money is everything" and that society judges people according to how much money they have. These beliefs are detrimental to the interests of society. We live in a civilized society where values and morals must have precedence over monetary gains.You must have heard of the horrific incident which took place in Pennsylvania, in the U.S., where a teenage boy wielding two kitchen knives went on a stabbing spree at his high school, injuring several students. There have been many incidents of this kind in different parts of the world which thus, highlight the importance of inculcating moral principles and ethics in children. These values and morals cannot be bought by money. These have to be provided by the family.
Money matters, matters don't.

"Don"t think that money does everything or you are going to end up doing everything for money." Very rightly said by the renowned and illustrious writer, historian and philosopher Voltaire, also considered as the father of the French Revolution. With these sagacious words, I shall begin my argument against the motion : Money matters, matters don't. There will be 4 rounds in all and each debater has 72 hours to post an argument. The maximum word limit of an argument is 10,000 characters. There will be a 1 week long voting period with an open voting style. In the first round, my opponent will simply accept the debate. In the second, we will present our main arguments. In the third round, we will continue to argue alongside refuting each other's claims. Finally, in the 4th round, we shall conclude our arguments and rebuttals. I look forward to an informative debate! May the better debater win!
Hippos vs. Elvis

Hippos are amazing fat chubby animals I love them who doesn't love hippos and besides Elvis is the past hippos are the future. They are so cute and they poop while spinning it everywhere withy here tail it is awesome Elvis can't do that can he 😃😃😃😃😃😃😃👍👍👍👍👍👍👍😰👍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍 hippos are life
Solar panel farms will be economical in 10 years

This is partially inspired by the wind generation in 10 years debate that recently finished. I will propose a solar panel farm to be built in 2021 as a private company, not as a "cover an entire state, or nation" but merely to serve a particular community. My model will likely be based around providing electricity for a few thousand people, though I reserve the right to go larger or smaller. As such, I may also have back up generation for nights/overcast or choose to use a battery power supply. Since we are dealing with 10 years in the future, costs will be determined based on their historical trends. This applies to cost of materials, labor, electricity, etc. For this debate, it is agreed that we use historic trends, not what some analyst predicts (since people can be on payrolls, history, not so much). By "economical," we are refering to it's ability to make money at market values. As seeing as it will be a small scale farm, it will not have a significant impact upon the market value of electricity, and so it will charge market rate and attempt to make a profit. The measuring stick will be against the Utility Bonds annual rate of 4% (this is kind of becoming the standard measuring stick thanks to RoyLatham). If you have any questions regarding this, or something that I may have forgotten, please ask in the comments. Also, my opponent should allow me to go first (as I need to setup my model of them to attack), though if they feel the need to make some statements in their R1, they are more than free to. Thank you.
rural life should be converted into urban areas

Hello, firstly, I'd like to clarify some terms:converted: to change (something) into a different form or properties; transmute; transform. (1)rural life: Rural areas or the country or countryside are areas that are not urbanized, though when large areas are described country towns and smaller cities will be included..... (2)urban areas: An urban area is characterized by higher population density and vast human features in comparison to areas surrounding it (3)Now, for my rebuttal:"better education"What do you mean by that? Better education for the children? Thought so, but it doesn't make sense, why convert? Some rural areas around the world have the best schools, than of those in the urban areas. There are a lot of solutions to fix that problem, hire better teachers, donate some stuffs, etc. You need more arguments to support your assertion.If we 'transform' rural to urban, then what is the point of having smaller townThis is a highly complicated issue, and 'better education' is not enough.I leave the floor to my opponent so he can explain his arguments further. Thanks.SOURCES USED:(1): http://dictionary.reference.com...(2): http://en.wikipedia.org... (3): http://en.wikipedia.org...
Nuclear power should be banned

This is an acceptance round so I'll just post my model (so con knows what he's arguing against, more exactly). My contention is that, by international treaty, nuclear power should be outlawed. Obviously this could not be done overnight - reactors take an awfully long time to shut down, and then there's thousands of nuclear-powered weapons to take care of. An exception would be made for some scientific research, under very carefully controlled conditions. In general, no such experiment should involve the generation of very large amounts of nuclear power except in extraordinary circumstances, and then only very briefly. The ICC would be empowered to arbritrate if nuclear power use was suspected, either in a civil or a military capacity.
I am a conservative. Why am I a racist.

You are in fact: A bigoted racist. Here are some golden clues for your enlightenment: Donald Trump is not a political person. He is a business man. He never wanted to be president. He did it for publicity and for attention. When he won the presidency over Hillary Clinton you can clearly see in the video of his reaction. His reaction showed the disappointment on his face of him not wanting to be president. He didn't want to win. Trump is also a hologram, Or he could be a clone. These are conspiracy theories. He could even be a robot, He is taking over the wrong sector of this planet. He must be exterminated.
Should the ESRB change it's grading system

Thank you for the warm welcome, as well as for not taking it easy on me. I'd also like to ask that you please forgive any lapses in spelling and grammar. While I try my best to fix my mistakes, I type very fast and a few always get through. I will admit that I did not elaborate fully on many of my points, and I thank my opponent for pointing this out to me. I'll attempt to make my stance clearer, as well as address the points he has presented. My problem with the current system, mainly, is that it is far too simplistic. If you look at the rating system for many other countries, they use a much more extensive system. I'll once again use bayonetta as an example. Here in the states, Bayonetta received an M, which, by the current standards, it does deserve. However other countries have much more intricate systems, that grade games individually by age, in a manner akin to tv ratings. For example, in the UK, bayonetta recieved an 18 to begin with, but was later moved down to 15. The upcoming sequel has received a 16. However, all versions of God of War received an 18 (I'll take a moment to clarify that I do not believe god of war should receive an AO. While I personally don't care for it, I think It's fine where it is). While an argument could be made that this just adds confusion, I feel that it shows a greater attention to detail than what we're used to. However, I don't believe that the ESRB should completely revamp it's grading system. As I said in the closing of my last argument, I believe a new rating should be implemented between T and M, a T15+, if you will. This will provide a place for games such as Bayonetta, Assasin's Creed, and (most of) the Call of Duty Franchise. I will concede that few people ever take the ESRB into account, save some stricter parents. I personally feel the biggest change would be in the video game industry itself. Gaming companies tend to shoot for a certain rating, in order to gain better access to their target audience. However, this tends to lead to some truly pointless additions to certain games. I'll use my opponents own example of the many, many shots of Bayonetta's breasts. While many gamers find it distracting in other ways, I see no point in it other than pushing up the rating, and it lowers the appeal for me. Placing a rating between T and M would allow companies to present their narrative without having to worry about fluffing it up or dumbing it down. Allow me to draw a parallel to movie ratings. Lets assume a G equals an E, a T equals a PG, and an R equals an M. The addition I propose would essentially be the PG13. Sources: http://www.amazon.co.uk... http://www.amazon.co.uk... http://www.amazon.co.uk...
Should the ESRB change it's grading system

I've been an avid gamer for a long time, however one aspect of video games that I have never liked is the scoring system used by the ESRB. Specifically, the large maturity gab between T and M. Lets look at two examples of what constitutes as an M game. On one hand we have Bayonetta. It is rated M for "Blood and Gore, Intense Violence, Partial Nudity, Strong Language, Suggestive Themes". Listen closely and you can here the sound of soccer moms everywhere gasping. However, anyone who has played this game knows that the extent of the blood and gore is that when the enemies of the game are killed, they burst into blood and disappear cleanly, except for a few boss battles, which are completely over the top and cartoony. And while the main protagonist is highly sexualized, the closest we ever come to any sexual content is an accidental grab made by the male lead. Compare with God Of War. "Blood and Gore, Intense Violence, Nudity, Sexual Themes, Strong Language." Basically the same laundry list as Bayonetta. But while Bayonetta's most violent scene is (arguably) a giant hair centipede crushing a monster straight out of a horror movie to a bloody ball, in the God of war, a distinctly human-like character is graphically ripped in two, on screen, in all of it's "gory" (forgive the pun). Furthermore, while bayonetta does has a habit of losing her clothes (though everything is still covered), she never actually has sex on screen. Unlike God of War, which has a whole minigame dedicated to love-making. These games are rated the same. the M rating is far to broad, too all-encompassing. As it stands, anything that has more than a brief flash of realistic blood seems instantly zapped to the mature section your local gamestop. I'm not saying we should bump games like bayonetta down to T, since it really doesn't belong there. I think that a new grade entirely should be implemented, something between T and M, in the same vein as the current "E10+" rating.
Students should not be graded on their handwriting

Not only does discipline in testing when it comes to handwriting help children develop reading circuitry in their brains, [1] make them better writers and spellers, [2] makes both children and adults smarter, [3] but also saves thousands of lives annually. [4]"Next, many jobs does not require perfect and neat hand writings. Those jobs are like doctors."Quite the opposite, doctors need neat handwriting. According to a report from the National Academies of Science's Institute of Medicine, doctors' careless handwriting kills more than 7,000 people annually. [5]Proper presentation is a crucial part of a piece of writing. It's also a necessary skill for almost all field of work.Another example of bad handwriting getting people killed is from Edward Tufte's Visual Information. Edward uses the Challenger explosion as an example of what can go wrong when handwriting skills get ignored at a basic level. The launch didn't get canceled because the engineers provided disorganized and sloppy data to the upper management, who couldn't understand that it was too cold to launch. Resulting in the death of seven innocent people. It would be absurd even to suggest that presentation and organization of the students material shouldn't be examined when grading just for that reason alone.1.) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...;2.) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 3.) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...;4.) http://content.time.com...;5.) http://content.time.com...;
'Maize' is a better word than 'corn'

My opponent has not responded the points I made in the last round. Therefore, I will go straight to my conclusion. 'Maize' carries positive connotations, including fun games and great puns. It also has some nice rhymes. However, 'corn' rhymes with and is found in many less-than-pleasant words.'Corn' is also very confusing, both to listeners and learners. The former is due to the cornucopia of words and phrases that can be confused for 'corn' phrases. The latter is due to the lack of cognates in other languages and multiple meanings. 'Maize' has more respect to the origin of the plant than 'corn'. That's why maize is unambiguous, while corn is.In conclusion, 'maize' is better than 'corn' in all aspects except popularity; however, 'maize's relative lack of popularity is due to American dominance, not the superior quality of the word 'corn'. Therefore, on balance, 'maize' is a better word than 'corn'.
'Maize' is a better word than 'corn'

Rebuttals:1. Do you know what's better than a maze? A corn maze. Kids love exploring their way through a corn maze rather than sitting around doing a boring puzzle. And imagine how silly a "maize maze" would be...There's no laughter when Pro uses such weak puns to such excess. Therefore, the "laughter" argument is refuted. There are no words that contain "maize" other than "maize" and "maizes." It is such an unlikeable word that peope refuse to include it in others. "Corn," on the other hand, is everywhere. "Maize" rhymes with "tase." We see "tase" in the unfortunate incident in which a young adult was tased by a police officer for no legitimate reason (i.e., "DON'T TASE ME, BRO.) Likewise, to the opponent, I will say "DON'T MAIZE ME, BRO." Corn wins.Pro's puns are CORNY.2. I will respond to the opponent's argument by once again saying that "maize" has no words that include it (using its actual spelling.) While corn can be thought-provoking (not CORN-fusing), "maize" is bland, due to its lack of uses as a pun or anything else, for that matter.Pro should shut his CORNHOLE.Arguments:1. "Corn" is the more popular word. Have you ever heard of "maize bread"? "maize meal"? No. The public likes "corn," and it is used by some of the most renowned people on the planet. Gina makes "Spicy Corn Chowder," not "Spicy Maize Chowder"! [1] It just sounds wrong! [1] http://www.foodnetwork.com...
'Maize' is a better word than 'corn'

I will present two of my arguments this round, and the rest in the next round.1. Maize has a-MAIZE-ingly positive CORN-notationsFirstly, who didn't like mazes when they were small? Children - and adults for that matter - have been drawing lines with pencils in labyrinths of ink lines for ages. Every time someone eats maize, she is reminded of the a-maize-ing memories of mazes during her childhood. Then there's parono-MAIZE-ia. Who doesn't like a little chuckle? Many studies have shown that laughter is indeed the best medicine. It burns calories (1), reduces the risk of heart attacks (2), and just generally makes people feel good. (3) This argument is filled with paronomasia, and as such, it gives you all these nice effects for free! Corn, on the contrary, has CORN-ucopia of negative CORN-notations: corny, cornball, corn artist, corn-ceit, corn-traband, scorn, corn-cede, corn-trol freak, corn-ciliate, corn-tagious, corn-descending, corn-flagration, corn-cubine, corn-cussion, Mary, Mary, quite corn-trary . .. Not to mention that 'corn' without the 'r' is a swear word in French! The only remotely positive word with 'corn' is 'unicorn', which is only for girls. Corn has some very unfortunate rhymes, too. 'Corn' rhymes with 'horn' (which is very negative if you add just one letter to it), 'mourn', 'torn', 'worn', and a certain word starting with 'p' that is so terrible that I can't type it here. Maize, on the contrary, rhymes with 'praise', (pay) 'raise', and even everyone's favourite word, 'CRAZE'!2. Corn is CORN-fusing! Although no scolarly research has been done on this matter up to this moment, it is generally believed that the difficulty of corn-fusing labyrinths with a type of agricultural produce is so great that only the greatest minds can corn-template such a thought. On the contrary, corn is very corn-fusing! Let's say you want to fuse some maize together, so you say, 'let's do some corn-fusing! ' None of your friends will understand that, because they think you're saying 'let's do some confusing! ', and so you leave your friends corn-fused! Now imagine you have to make a stencil for drawing maize. You tell everyone you're going to make a 'corn-template'. Hah! Good luck explaining that to your friends, who think you said 'contemplate'! Plus, what are you going to put on your business card if you're an artist who uses maize as a medium? Corn artist or maize artist? It's not just the Latin root either. Corn advocates have to shout corn-stantly, 'We're pro-corn! ' That's completely confusing! Are you pro or are you con? (1) . http://www.mc.vanderbilt.edu...(2) . http://www.umm.edu...(3) . http://www.nytimes.com...;
Should religion be taught in private schools? (I am against it)

I will refute your argumentsn individually: 1/2-Didn't see your point there. In my last argument, I said comparative religion was fine. You just confirm it here. What I am against is the learning of only one specific religion at school. 3- Teaching religions for the ways they influenced society is fine, as long as it is all religions and not just one. Also, teaching it that way is very different from the ways people teach it at private schools. I studied in a private school where every day a guy tells me about Jesus as though it were a fact. He never even considers the possibility of it being wrong. He only mentions the bible and never talks about other religions. You know a very descriptive word about this? Indocrination. They brain wash kids since they are little, and that is not fair, it is not human. Out of my entire class (30 people), three didn't follow Christianity after school! Three! That is an absurd. 4-I directly disagree. First, because, at the very least, all faiths should be taught. YOU DO NOT OWE YOUR CHILD. He is free to think what he wants. But how can he, if people just keep telling crazy theories to him as though they were absolute truth? Thank you, but I really can't see how teaching one religion at school only could possibly be legal. To restate my point: the children do not choose what school they go to. They are forced to go there.
Should religion be taught in private schools? (I am against it)

1. The percentage of Hate crimes as a result of religious bias is at 28%. In 2004 it was just 10%. A lot of the perpetrators of these crimes are school aged. As a matter of fact, about 20% of the religiously motivated hate crimes are a result of school aged people. I think it is important to learn about various cultures and religions in school. If people are taught religion, and more specifically multiple religions, they will be less fearful and more understanding of each other. I think replacing the fear and hatred with knowledge and mutual respect will go a long way towards reducing the number of hate crimes. 2. With schools being more diverse than ever, it is necessary for students to learn about each other's cultures and religions, as well as not being afraid to have their religion as an aspect of their personal identity at school. This understanding and openness will do a lot to curb the unprecedented amount of bullying, currently taking place. 3. Religion has had a huge impact on society as a whole. It has contributed a lot to history and even the sciences (see Big Bang theory). If we don't teach of religions influence on these things in school, kids will not be able to truly grasp history. 4. People should have the right to teach their kids, their faith. There just is no good argument against the freedom to practice whatever religion you feel like, and if a private school is meeting all of the kid's other learning needs, than I see no good reason why they couldn't teach them a course on religion, on top of that as well. http://mobile.edweek.org...
Should religion be taught in private schools? (I am against it)

Here is my logic: Children are under age and therefore forcing anything into them is wrong, even if it is what their parents want. Why? Well, in my opinion, parents are meant to teach general things to children, not specific things like religion. Why do you think most (not all) children follow their parents' beliefs? Because it is put upon them. They are not taught other religions. Plus, children don't choose what school they go to. Their parents do, and, as I said, religion shouldn't be imposed on children, even by their parents. What about other religions? Don't they get a go at forming a child's mind? Besides, whatever people say, schools teach facts and theories accepted by experts in the specific subject (scientists) and religion has no basis on real facts. I am in favor of comparative religion being taught (as long as it includes all religions). This way, people get to know more and thus choose more accurately. Sorry if I was not clear. This is my first debate and English is my second language.
Should religion be taught in private schools? (I am against it)

I've made several arguments, my opponent has not responded to. He should lose just because he didn't make it clear he was allowing an exception for comparative religious studies. It is not my fault he failed to make that clear in the opening round, I should not be punished for it. My opponent has failed to offer any rebuttals other than bare assertions. Stating things along the line of kids should not be forced to learn their parents religion, and then immediately taking it back by admitting that it is okay for parents to force religion on their children at home. My opponent has failed to answer many of my arguments. Another one he ignores is my argument that school is a system of indoctrinated learning and that indoctrinated learning can be quite beneficial. He ignores my evidence that kids that learn religion, are more likely to be happy and successful. Between the dropped arguments and the forfeited round this is an easy vote. Him saying comparative studies is fine, is also a full concession.