BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Following rules are essential for all schools

::Definitions:: Essential: "***basic***; fundamental: the essential feature" Basic: "elementary or ***simple***: a few basic facts" http://www.thefreedictionary.com... http://dictionary.reference.com... ::My position:: As the instigator it is my duty to provide my own stance and the definitions. It is my opponents onus to prove me wrong. ::Argument:: 1.All rules my opponent presented are basic or in other words simple. This is because all his rules are no longer than one sentence. 2.Schools or any other material object can't change immaterial truth. Conclusion: "The Following rules are essential for all schools" Thank you, Cheerio and A HAPPY NEW YEAR !!!
The Following rules are essential for all schools

Some typical rules common to all modern schools 1. No talking 2. No discussion 3. No homework 4. No discussion on nature 5. No discussion on politics 6. No election 7. No discussion on social issues 8. No personal discussion 9. No logic 10. No cursing (damn and hell count as bad words, too) 11. No screaming 12. No running 13. No hats 14. No win 15. No fail 16. No music 17. No electronics 18. No thinking with own brains 19. No thinking with portals 20. No atheism 21. No religion 22. No fun 23. No you 24. No I 25. No happiness 26. No public displays of affection 27. No hugging 28. No smiling 29. No laughing 30. No liberals 31. No republicans 32. No questions 33. No ???? 34. No profit!! 35. And finally... No purpose!!!
Family background is the main influence on academic achievement

Hello:) This question is important because every person has to face the time, when he will be able to have the family and children, and he should know about the influence of family background on family members. We are real or future parents and we have to be interested in this question. "A dog reflects the family life. Whoever saw a frisky dog in a gloomy family, or a sad dog in a happy one? Snarling people have snarling dogs, dangerous people have dangerous ones." "Arthur Conan Doyle, The Case-Book of Sherlock Holmes You know that everything and everybody that surround a person reflects on him. Also, it is fairly observed that exactly FAMILY, as the union of the closest people, has the biggest impact on personality and life goals. Now I am sure that exactly family background, as a primary factor, plays significant role in achieving or not academic success. The first argument, which proves the big influence of family background, is that exactly the relationship between parents and child is the strongest factor in providing a basis and further development of the child"s personality. According to researches, families in general and parents in particular are the most important moral and physical support available to the child. Moreover family background affects child"s vision of the world and also, psychological and emotional states. (http://www.isrj.net...) Next argument is family factors such as socio-economic status, family size and parents" education which are responsible for poor or successful academic performance. (Journal of Sociological Research) And what do you think?
Morality is a product of religion

Your entire second half of debate is irrelevant, jus tbecause Islam and Christianity (the only religions you referred to) have immorality within their scripture does not at all contribute to the disproving of the proposition that morality is a product of religion, please do not refer to religious scripts, just because a religion is wrong doesn't disprove the pro, it merely states that morality is not a product of those religions only, this doens't exclude other religions so please do nto continue wiht that part.I fail to understand the following phrases and would like proof of all, if proof cannot be given, retract all statements and re-iterate round 3's debate: "Being nice to others is a lust. Just like sexual lust, the one difference is that we now use contraceptives so we do not actually create offspring." "The main part of our morality comes from our Darwinian heritage as kind of a misfired byproduct of our Darwinian past" What evidence do you have, if ants, bess and bacteria are conscious, that they do not regard the queen of their colony (or bacteria regard a god) as the source of their morality, exactly you have none thus this renders that argument null, thank you very much, please just drop that nonsensical argument.I see not a single reason given to oppose the opropoition that principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong behaviour originate from a particular system of faith or worship, for I see no way that we can derive those principles without a religion.
Morality is a product of religion

I think you and I have vastly different ideas of what morality is and since you did not define it in round one I think as Pro I reserve the right to do so.Morality[1]: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour. Let's not be stupid enough to really think an ant, bee or bacterium follow any principles of right and wrong behaviour, they merely act instinctively as to what they have been programmed to do, they have no consciousness whatsoever and are almost robots by which no logic nor reasoning passes by their minds.Stop that nonsense right now, this is about conscious awareness of PRINCIPLES and acting on them, ants, bees and bacteria do not follow any, they merely are set to behave in a more selfless way than most species, it just is that way they didn't THINK ABOUT BEING IT! They didn't consider the PRINCIPLES BEHIND IT! They merely did it.I would also like to define religion as you failed to do so.Religion[2]: a particular system of faith and worship.I believe that principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong behaviour originate from a particular system of faith or worship, for I see no way that we can derive those principles without a religion.Sources: [1] http://oxforddictionaries.com...[2] http://oxforddictionaries.com...
"The Real World," most infamous reality show ever to hit television has been on steady decline.

Oh wow, so we have Laguna Beach AND Dawson's Creek to thank 'The Real World' for, well, let me just admit defeat right here. Are you really serious? Can your taste be this bad? The Real World is the worst trash on television that spawned an entire sub-genre of trash made by lazy people designed to put a lot of unsavory, hyper-aggressive, and horridly slutty people all together to see the monkey fights that break out between them. It appeals to the lowest possible common denominator and that's why it's so popular, it's the same reason why Alvin and the Chipmunks is getting world wide release and movies like "There Will Be Blood" are only paying in two theatres in the whole country. The entire concept behind the real world is just to throw a bunch of mongoloids together in a sack and shack the sack to see who fights who and who has sex with who. It's pathetic and only pathetic people find it entertaining.
"The Real World," most infamous reality show ever to hit television has been on steady decline.

To say The Real World wasn't a good show at all is just plain ludicrous. I know there are millions of people in the U.S. and around the world who would strongly disagree with your statements. The Real World has been charged with being one of the first mediums where very controversial issues such as racism, HIV/AIDS and homosexuality were able to be explored. Furthermore, this allowed for an opening of discussions and dialogue with viewers of the show including many celebrities and common folk alike. Even President Bill Clinton praised The Real World for its' braveness and exploring the aforementioned issues and more. The Real World has influenced and allowed for the creation of many of the reality shows that millions of people enjoy today including Survivor, Big Brother, Laguna Beach, The Hills, etc. Pretty much every reality show on television right now owes a thanks to The Real World for paving the way. Also, The Real World provided material for many other shows including Saturday Night Live, Charmed, Scrubs, Law & Order, Dawson's Creek and countless other shows. Even Drawn Together, a popular cartoon show on The Cartoon Network, is directly based off The Real World except it has cartoon characters instead of real life people.
"The Real World," most infamous reality show ever to hit television has been on steady decline.

First of all, to anyone who thinks that the Real World is a great show needs to die. You can't exclaim the decline of something that burst into the scene as a ragging piece of crap in the very first place. Decline implies moving away from something good or better into something worse, and I contend that the Real World when it first aired was the worst show on television, and there's no way you can decline from "absolute worst".
"The Real World," most infamous reality show ever to hit television has been on steady decline.

I don't think anyone can argue the fact that "The Real World" is one of the greatest television shows of all time. Its' importance to popular culture is undeniable, leading the way to the creation of the majority of reality shows that are out now. From its diverse characters to its shocking fights, "The Real World" captivated viewers from the first episode. But where did it go wrong? As a former, avid fan of "The Real World," I am highly upset and disappointed with the seasons they have now. The basis of the show is simple: putting seven strangers together who are very different backgrounds and see how they would react to one another when living in the same house. Obviously, this is not the case anymore. I believe the show went downhill after "The Real World: Chicago;" This was the last season where there was a great diversity amongst the characters. From Theo who came from a religious and black-culture dominated background, to Tonya who grew up in foster care and was the slut of the group with countless health problems. There was Anessa who never felt accepted in her life because of both being a lesbian and bi-racial. THIS IS DIVERSITY! Now, on "The Real World: Sydney," you have Cohutta the southern gentleman and Dunbar who is pretty much the same thing except he has a girlfriend. You have Kellye Anne who is a slut, and Trisha who is a slut who happens to be a Christian. I mean seriously, where's the diversity? What's so different about these characters? I would like to see "The Real World" to go back to its' original mission. I know I can guarantee myself that anytime I tune into the show there will be all of the following: drinking, sex and meaningless fighting.
"The Real World," most infamous reality show ever to hit television has been on steady decline.

The purpose of this debate isn't to argue if The Real World is a good show or not, it is to argue if you believe the show is in a decline/has changed drastically from what it used to be. Seriously, I don't know why you decided to have this debate with me if you weren't even a fan of the show. I think that I made it pretty obvious in the description and with my opening argument what this debate should be about. However, I do agree with you that the current seasons of The Real World appeals to the lowest common denominator with its' trashy characters and even trashier scenarios. "There Will Be Blood" is a fantastic movie and I would love for other people to be able to see how good it is but that's the way popular culture is: You make money off what you think and know will sell; it doesn't really matter about the message. This same thing can be said about The Real World now which is sad.
School Uniforms

Yes, but when the dress code is as sexists as it is these days, you'll have girls pulling riots just so they can wear skinny jeans. In a world like this one, we are too restricting of the dress code with students. Trust me, once they're out of high school and in the real world, they will realize that the school dress code doesn't apply to them anymore, and people will dress either inappropriately or how they always wanted to. Either way, I think it is just easier to wear uniforms. No more worrying about getting sent home for dress code when you are already in code as it is. Teenagers are more accepting of a school uniform as it is, and you shouldn't have to worry about what to wear the next morning and be late for school or anything.
School Uniforms

Males and females work together outside of school. If girls dress appropriately they will not be distracting, and this doesn't mean we are confined to wearing sweatshirts. Nobody is learning what the proper way to dress is if they are being told what to wear. What good will that do? Plus, a dress code would insure that no one is dressing inappropriately. Dress codes that are enforced will teach students how to present themselves in a way that is respectable and modest.
School Uniforms

I don't believe they would be learning how to dress themselves appropriately. Having a school dress code will just make them feel more restricted. Girls these days can't even wear knee high shorts to school because boys "find it distracting." Girls are taken out of exams and tests because they are "distracting." Because of the way girls dress even with a dress code is "distracting" and apparently their school education needs to be evoked from them until they put a sweatshirt on or get longer pants. Really? That's just wrong. With school uniforms no teacher can say a girl or boy is being "distracting." They are wearing the exact same thing. Yes, we can nurture creativity in younger schools, but once they get older they should know how to be responsible and how to dress outside of school, and school uniforms will help with that. Because they won't be dressing recklessly with their uniforms(because dress code would be enforced) they will know how to apply modesty to their everyday clothing once outside of school.
School Uniforms

No one would need to worry about their child looking as though they are going to a club instead of school, because the appropriate dress requirement would be enforced by teachers. Children would be free to express themselves, and if they wore something inappropriate then they would face the consequences of their actions. In fact, an appropriate dress policy is even better than a uniform code because the students would actually learn something from it. Rather than being told what to wear, students would be responsible for picking their own attire(even if this means getting up earlier for some), and it must be appropriate for an educational environment. This is a life skill that these children are going to be needing further down the road when they need to dress appropriately for work or some other social event. The fact that children are learning something while being able to actively express themselves is a great thing.
School Uniforms

That might work, but with children these days, getting up in the morning is a hassle, and getting them dressed is even worse; especially for teenagers. At a public school, where school uniforms are not required, your teenage daughter or son could walk out of the house looking like they just walked into a club. As much as schools say they go by the dress code, most teachers and students don't even follow it enough to remind others of the modesty they must show. Wearing a uniform counteracts that. The only dress code thing to worry about would be skirt length or color of khakis for instance. Sure, for elementary school or middle school wearing a uniform might be extreme to their creativity, that I agree on. But to allow that in a high school? If a parent chooses to enroll their child in a uniform school, they should have that option open to them.
School Uniforms

Dress codes do not take as much effort as you might think. As long as what you are wearing is appropriate, then you are all set. Some uniform codes are quite severe, and in my opinion over the top. They limit the creativity of children so much that when all is said and done, no one is unique. There is also no need to buy new clothes. Do adults buy new clothes every day that they work? No, they do not. Do you buy new clothes every day in the summer? Of course not! It is not difficult to choose what you are going to wear in the morning, just be yourself! Dress codes are just one of the many options that a school could choose. Instead of a dress code a school could just have a policy that clothing needs to be appropriate. Will that cost the school anything? Absolutely not. Schools need to make sure that they are nurturing the creativity of children, not obliterating it with restrictions.
School Uniforms

Personally, I feel that dress codes take up too much effort. We try and instigate a clear dress code, when kids just break it anyway. Why not just stick wth uniforms? You will have more money in the school budget to opt for more things, such as using the money for the arts or new uniforms for the football team. The school as a whole will be more united in a way. Plus, if you have a school uniform, you won't have to worry about buying new clothes or having to figure out exactly what you'll need to wear for the next day. You just pick a shirt, a skirt or pants, and you're ready to go for the day. No need to stress. You say that it limits creativity, but isn't it creativity that is getting kids to get bullied in the first place? Being different, standing out, that is what gets kids bullied. If they all wore the same uniform, there would be no bullying. Kids can be creative in other ways, ways that the uniform doesn't restrict to, such as their hair, makeup, and jewelry.
School Uniforms

Creativity is dying. School age children are at the point in their lives where they are trying to figure out who to be in this world we live in. Wearing a uniform takes away their individuality and essentially their creativity too. Some may argue that uniform codes prevent bullying. Sadly, they do not. There will always be that one child who because of their own insecurities, will choose to pick on an innocent classmate. This will go on with and without a uniform policy. If schools are worried students will show up to classes wearing inappropriate clothing, there is a solution to this as well. Schools can replace uniform codes with dress codes. Instead of making children wear uniforms, simply instill guidelines for appropriate and classy attire.
Preventive Health Care

So, the crux of your argument appears to fall generally under the heading: " I'm pointing out that making contraceptives unavailable does not prevent sexual intercourse". Even if this is the case, it's a position unresponsive to the argument I advanced in R1. We should extend my argument as not responded to--access can exist without the subsidy. Since the subsidy has harms and I don't see my opponent advancing any claims wherein the benefits to access are only unlocked if it's paired with a subsidy, then Con gets the Pro advantages--access reduces the bad things she talks about, while the lack of subsidy keeps costs under control.
Preventive Health Care

The mental image of condoms stacked in a bowl like Halloween candy is quite humorous, but truly a ridiculous misinterpretation. I'm not saying to stuff the pockets of teens with rubbers. I'm pointing out that making contraceptives unavailable does not prevent sexual intercourse, it merely increases the levels of pregnancy and STD's in teens. As a sort of case study, I present the words of an anonymous teenage mother, (they have been edited for profanity) " When I was 14 I got (sexually active), but I didn't know how dangerous ( sexual intercourse) was. I didn't take some health class or even know what a condom was. My (partner) didn't have condoms cuz the lady at the gas station told him to go get his parents. I wasn't gonna ask my mom to take me to a (gynecologist) so I just hoped my friends were right when they said you cant get preggers the first time... If I knew what I know I would be a college junior and not a baby-mama." If these two had access to birth control methods without social interference, they might have been much more successful. These facts are presented by Pregnant Teenage Help at http://www.pregnantteenhelp.org... "A condom is most common, since access to the pill is limited. 70 percent of teens whose parents are unaware of their sexual activity would not use contraceptives if their parents were made aware of their visits to family planning centers and clinics. 21 states (plus the District of Columbia) allow contraceptive services without parental involvement. The other states - with the exception of Utah and Texas, where parental consent is necessary - have notification policies, but consent is not required. 20 percent of teens whose parents are unaware of their contraceptive use say that they would continue having sex - even if methods of contraception were not available to them. Of all the developed nations, the U.S. Has the highest rate of teen pregnancy. The U.S. Has a teen pregnancy rate that is twice that of England and Canada and eight times that as Japan and the Netherlands. 82 percent of pregnancies amongst teens are unplanned. About 20 percent of all intended pregnancies each year are related to teenagers. 29 percent of teen pregnancies end in abortion." All elementary schools should be caused by the Board of Education and federal regulations to teach children about their own bodies and how to protect them. No adult consent/notification systems need to be placed in order for minors to obtain preventive health care. Mothers are told when girls obtain IUD's and hormones treatments, but this does little but discourage getting them. It does not discourage sex. It discourages safety. These statistics show more information to back my position.
Preventive Health Care

I would like to direct voters to the comments wherein I asked my opponent to clarify some of the round. She reiterated that R1 is her main argument, and so I'm going to take a more niche position. That is, we can maintain access without subsidizing those who choose to receive them. It's not clear to what extent 'preventive health care' is inclusive or exclusive of healthcare vs. sexual health. But I will start with the observation that the oft-repeated trope that the 'ounce of prevention is a pound of cure', etc. , is frequently without justification. We can delve into this claim, but as a rudimentary warrant, we should recall the scuffle over the frequency of mammogram testing 2-3 years ago. While we can draw a number of valid conclusions here, most important is that prevention is never an unlimited good--prevention has costs which can outweigh the benefit. Moving on to what appears to be my opponent's main focus, we should differentiate between the ability to purchase condoms and 'constant access to condoms'. For example, it's cheap enough to purchase condoms that we probably don't need bowls heaped with Trojan ultra-thins at the door to each high school classroom. Access without the subsidy. That same would apply to female contraceptives. While there's a reasonable argument that some could be sold over the counter, this in no way suggests that we need a blanket no-cost birth control guarantee of the sort imposed by the Obama administration earlier this year. We can, and potentially should explore this specific issue further, but my essential claim dovetails with the mammogram example--such a policy could only encourage migration to the most expensive forms of birth control for very marginal benefit. This has a second impact related to the host of potential consequences to sex--i. e. both pregnancy and STD. Clearly we have an interest in preventing both, but the focus on this policy only looks to the former and could potentially exacerbate the latter. Since my opponent apparently agrees sexual behavior carries with it implicit risks, I'd ask why a responsible policy would pretend these risk don't exist--i. e. access vs. subsidization. Paying for condoms vs. getting them for free.