BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
removing service learning hours from high school as graduation requirement

as a student myself I have disagree with my opponent due to the fact that I have ask many educated individuals on what reason was service learning hours has been in any from useful? their so-called educated answer was that students just have to do it so they can graduate. Me personality I believe that's a load of BS. I agree that the info my opponent presented is indeed true but a percent of students are still in school because of not having all of their service learning hours. Some refuse to even get the hours due believing that unwilling serving the community for free is some how suppose to help them in school which makes since because who in there right mind would willing to do free manual labor. True I am speaking for my personal experience and the actions of others but service learning hours has NEVER not one bit was need. Last year 3,030,000 students dropped out of school and 8,300 a day. In 2013 the dropout rate was 7.9 but only decreasing by .2 every year. http://www.statisticbrain.com...
removing service learning hours from high school as graduation requirement

I accept. Let's dissect the PRO's thinking. The obvious assumption of the PRO is this: Students drop out of the school because of the service learning hour requirement. However, if you look at data, this is not the case. According to the Orlando Sentinel, the top four reasons students drop out are: 1. Classes were not interesting (47 percent) 2. Missed too many days and could not catch up (43 percent) 3. Spent time with people who were not interested in school (42 percent) 4. Had too much freedom and not enough rules in my life (38 percent) (1) You probably noticed, but none of these included "service learning hours". In fact, Service Learning hours could help students graduate by: 1) Making school interesting (counters reason 1). They allow students to spend time on a project they are personally involved in and care about. There is nothing like passion to keep determination. 2) Spend time with motivated people (counters reason 3). By spending time with people who care about something and are motivated to see it though, students could, ideally, pick up some of that and change their attitude towards school. 3) Structure (counters reason 4). One reason students drop out is a lack of structure in their life. But volunteering on a fixed so-many-hours-a-week basis allows for a schedule outside of school--it gives them normalcy. This is especially true for students from dysfunctional homes. In conclusion, the PRO opening argument is invalid and, in fact Service Learning hours could help prevent dropouts. 1. http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...
removing service learning hours from high school as graduation requirement

First I like to point out that PRO concedes the argument that Service Learning Hours can help students graduate This is a direct counter to her point that students don't graduate because of them. Assuming the numbers are approximately the same (thought CON believes the numbers benefited are greater) we should look beyond simple school to the bigger picture to resolve this tie. (The above argument can be considered Contention 1) Contention 2: School isn't about School PRO said this: "Some refuse to even get the hours due believing that unwilling serving the community for free is some how suppose to help them in school..." Agreed. But what PRO is missing is that the point of Service Learning Hours and school--both--isn't to help them in school. It's to help them in life. Serving the community and helping others is not only beneficial to the community and others (which is essential), but it also helps students in life. The PRO's standpoint ("who in there right mind would willing to do free manual labor") is not only extremely selfish but detrimental to society. Under PRO's system, schools would build people who can "do good in school" but are unable to apply it to real life or be active participators in society. (As a side note, what other people have said the point of service learning hours is irrelevant. What CON says the point is, is.)
Satan does not exist as a conscious supernatural being.

No, you don't get what I'm saying. I'm saying that it exists in each one of us, not a separate being. The only nasty ol' Satan, is in you and I, my friend. That is why Satan does not exist as a "CONSCIOUS SUPERNATURAL BEING". Satan is a force, an energy. Each one of us has his own individual Satan. Using your logic people go to hell because they're not Christians right? Because if you are not Christian, you are not good enough, am I right? You know what bugs me? When people take the Bible literally. One would go mad if one took the Bible seriously; but to take it seriously one must be already mad.
Satan does not exist as a conscious supernatural being.

First of all, that experience you had sounds very subjective, you do not have any proof of it. Secondly, I was a Spiritual Satanist, and you could say that I too was deluding myself into believing that I am having a "first-hand experience". But it took such experiences to realize that Satan is only a part of me, not a separate being. Satan is an interior force, not an exterior force. If you think that what you are talking about is an act of a righteous God, then I tell that God to go f**k himself. YHWH is an intolerant megalomaniac jealous bully who scares people into worshiping Him. He declares himself as the creator of the cosmos, but would a being who creates the cosmos be so mean? I thought the most powerful thing in the universe is love, yet YHWH is a God of WAR! Do some research on mythology, and you will find out that YHWH is only one of the original Canaanite gods. He was, and always will be - a God of war. "In the oldest biblical literature (12th"11th centuries BCE), Yahweh is a typical ancient Near Eastern "divine warrior" who leads the heavenly army against Israel's enemies; he and Israel are bound by a covenant (a feature unique in ancient Near Eastern religion) under which Yahweh will protect Israel and, in turn, Israel will not worship other gods. At a later period, Yahweh functioned as the dynastic cult (the god of the royal house), the royal courts promoting him as the supreme god over all others in the pantheon, notably Baal, El, and Asherah (the last of whom may have been his consort). Over time, Yahwism became increasingly intolerant of rivals, and the royal court and temple promoted Yahweh as the god of the entire cosmos, possessing all the positive qualities previously attributed to the other gods and goddesses. With the work of Second Isaiah (the theoretical author of the second part of the Book of Isaiah) towards the end of the Babylonian exile (6th century BCE), the very existence of foreign gods was denied, and Yahweh was proclaimed as the creator of the cosmos and the true god of all the world." How could you ever worship such a God? So, only Christians go to heaven? It doesn't matter how good you were in this life, if you aren't Christian you go to hell? That's the exact kind of mentality I do not tolerate. People who speak such nonsense make me sick. So out of 6.9 billion people in the world, only 33% of them are going to heaven? The rest 67% are going to hell? To be tormented by Satan? Oh, what a wonderful mindset. Please do go on about how Christianity is a beautiful religion.
Satan does not exist as a conscious supernatural being.

There is a difference between believing in stories and actually having a first-hand experience. I created a fear within me for believing in the boogeyman, however i never saw the boogey-man. I have however met Satan face to face. I disagree with the notion that Satan was created to cause people to be good by fear tactics.In reality, Satan wants people to attribute all evil to him and fear him because they become his slaves and only let him win. On top of that, i have never met a Christian who has that mentality. In reality, it is God who judges all. On the contrary, that's exactly what a righteous God would do. The judgement that a non-believer will face is the same judgement that a Christian will face. The difference? A Christian receives Christ, a perfect and sinless being, into their life to atone for their sins forever and that is how they enter heaven. It doesn't matter how many sins you have done, you can still make it to heaven through Jesus. A non-believer will go to hell not because of the sins he has committed, but the lack of faith in Jesus. To me, that's beyond fair!
Satan does not exist as a conscious supernatural being.

Yes, I know stories about people on acid who claim to have seen him face to face, but does that prove anything? I didn't have any NDE's but I do have spontaneus OBE's , and sleep paralysis. I can tell you this, some darker/low-vibration spirits do exists, but these are too weak, and they are not Satan. Most of them aren't even conscious, but are a manifestation of your own thought, a thought-form. Have you heard of the Tulpa effect? You believe that something is real and thus it becomes real in your life. Thought-forms feed on your own thoughts, your own energy, but without you they cannot exist, for they will starve to death. If you believe there is an evil Satan being, you create an unconscious being that feeds on your emotions,thoughts etc. If a parent tells his child a story about the boogeyman before bedtime,the boogeyman indeed becomes real for that child, and the child is frightened into good behaviour. But does it make the boogeyman real? Only for the child who believes in such stories. The boogeyman is a mythical creature in many cultures used by adults or older children to frighten bad children into good behavior. The same way priests use Satan to scare Christian people into good behavior. They point out to the Christian don't do that, this is bad, Satan is going to get you if you do that thing, you are going to hell if you do this thing, etc,etc. Nope, wouldn't say so. I believe you are going to hell only if you are really evil, and commit things such as murder. And even if you do go to hell, I believe there is always a way out. I mean, it's a little sick to think that you are going to be tormented for an eternity because of something you have done in only 80-90 years of your life. No matter how bad you were, there is no common sense or logic in believing someone is going to spend a whole ETERNITY of torment, because of practically milliseconds of their worthless existence in this universe. Is that how a righteous God would judge his people? That's like getting the death sentence for spitting on a side-walk! I now let my opponent make his argument.
Satan does not exist as a conscious supernatural being.

While i do believe in life after death, i am a bit skeptical of near death experiences. But have you had a near-death experience? If not, it doesn't seem logical to cite that as evidence for him being non-existent because i can talk about cases in which people have seen him face to face. I believe that ignorance is connected to evil, but also that knowledge of God leads you to know that the Devil exists just as you can distinguish light from darkness by the presence of light. We can't go by what these people experienced because their experiences might not be actual truth. Neither can i base my conclusions solely on experience. I also view sin as a mistake. You are right, people aren't willing to take responsibility for their own actions, using Satan as a scapegoat. However, we as individuals make our own choices controlling our destinies which is precisely why i think it's very plausible that he exists. God is more powerful than the Devil, thus you have the free-will to choose God's power to do good than any other power and are subject to his judgement of your actions. The tempter does not overpower you with evil, but rather he wants you to scapegoat him, so that you would excuse all the wrong you do. Satan sends false desires and thoughts, but unless someone carries them out, he has nothing.
Satan does not exist as a conscious supernatural being.

I believe that you believe in life after death and thus you believe in the near death experiences, am I right? Me too, but there is one thing about these - in all the near death experiences there was never any Satan. There was hell, sure, but not the "Eternal flame" kind of hell. This "hell" actually isn't eternal at all, hell is just a cleaning period and could last very long depending on the deceased's wrongful actions. Persons in hell are not tormented by a Devil or Satan. They are tormenting themselves because they are their own worst enemies. I've read about a person who saw hell and he said that he would prefer good ol' Dante's Inferno over this kind of hell any time. I get why people believe there is a "tempter". They are not willing to take responsibility for their own wrongdoings, and would rather use Satan as a scapegoat. Each of us has some nasty thoughts every now and then, but these are not thoughts which are telepathically sent to us by Satan the tempter. These are our own thoughts, and they come from the very darkest parts of our own ego. So I claim that this Satan is our own inner force, not a supernatural external force. It is not right to claim that these nasty thoughts are coming from an external supernatural source, because then you do not take responsibility for them, again with the scapegoat. It is nice to think that there would be no evil if there is no Satan, but it's just plain silly. Each person is responsible for their own thoughts and their own deeds. I also believe there is no "sin", there are only mistakes. Mistakes we need to make to learn not to repeat them. Why would you want to blame your mistakes on supernatural beings when it is you who is making them. These mistakes are something all of us have to make, for we do not develop spiritually if we do not make them. People who keep making these mistakes on purpose are labeled as "evil" or "sinners", but there is no evil, it is only ignorance. You see my friend, Hitler was not an evil person, he was just so incredibly ignorant that he was practically retarded on a spiritual level. We should not hate such a person who is retarded. Hate, anger, greed etc. are all human flaws that come directly from inside each one of us. It comes from our own ego, not some supernatural being. Hate isn't love's opposite, it is the lack of it. Evil is not good's opposite, it is the lack of it. There are powerful high vibrations such as love, and there are weak low vibrations such as hate.
Bernie Sanders has a better chance of beating Donald Trump in a general election than Clinton does.

Okay first of all its still the primary right now, I do not see hoe delegate count is relevant. And almost half of Hillary's delegates are super delegates, and that's both the edge she has over Sanders and Trump which will become irrelevant come the general. So your argument there is garbage. "So Clinton can beat Trump." And so, that's not what we are debating, it's whether Bernie Sanders has a better chance of beating him or Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton being able to beat him does not mean she has a better chance of beating him. That's all almost irrelevant. So my argument that Bernie Sanders has a better chance of beating her. Polling Real clear politics collects all the credible polling sources and averages them. The current average has Hillary Clinton projected to win by 6.3%. That's a good margin so how does Sanders fare? http://www.realclearpolitics.com... The average they have Sanders projected winning by 10%. That is a complete landslide and almost double the margin of Hillary Clinton, I am curious what your argument against this is. http://www.realclearpolitics.com... Now the reasoning part, it is each candidates strength. Very short, what is the best strength of Hillary Clinton, states in the south U.S. The thing is, the republicans generally fair better there anyway. That advantage does not matter for her. The strength of Bernie Sanders is the northeast more particularly states with a higher population of white people. Particularly younger people. This advantage is much more important than Clinton's in the south.
Bernie Sanders has a better chance of beating Donald Trump in a general election than Clinton does.

Ok let's start off with some Delegates points I agree that trump should not lead the U.S. He is not a good leader but this debate is about how has the best shot at beating trump. Ok now lets go to the Delegates points Hillary Clinton is at 1,525 that is double the points than sanders with Sanders at 508 and by the way Trump is at 428 with 3 other people. So Clinton can beat trump.
Bernie Sanders has a better chance of beating Donald Trump in a general election than Clinton does.

Yes delegates matter in the primaries they are virtually all that matters however we are right now debating about whether it is Clinton or Sanders who would have a better chance to defeat Trump. You think Trump needs to be stopped and Sanders does not have what it takes but why? All the polls show that is complete nonsense and he has a good advantage over Republicans. Sanders does not talk about women's rights? What the fu(k. This is a guy who categorizes himself as a feminist. Go to Berniesanders.com https://berniesanders.com..., and what is one of the categories. Fighting for womens' rights. Yeah, he talks about women's rights. Clinton cares, alright, about Wall St. money maybe but besides that, that is not what the debate is about. Everything you say is just pro Clinton babble, you have done 0 to show that if it was Sanders v.s Trump or Clinton v.s Trump Clinton would have a better chance.
Bernie Sanders has a better chance of beating Donald Trump in a general election than Clinton does.

Ok Delegate's matter in the primaries that's how they get in the general election in the first place and I also think that Trump needs to be stopped and I don't think sanders has what it takes why well first of all Sanders does not care about women's rights and that is going to hurt him, and Clinton sticks up for women's rights. I agree with Trump about doing something about Immigration and something needs to be down about it and guess how could care less about it Sanders Clinton said that she would do something about this problem and she does this to a lot of the problems we have today and Clinton cares about the U.S people and she can take down Trump and win the White House back!!!!!
Circumcision at Birth

Circumcision is not painful at birth. The baby doesn't feel a thing and it so effective botched circumcisions are really rare. I for example, Know what happens when you are not circumcised. This is rare, But you get a foreskin infection. Of course, Since some people can't open it, They can't disinfect the disease. I had to get a circumcision at age 7. It was horribly painful and i could barely walk for a week. If it was done at birth, Nothing of this degree would have had to happen. It costs more to the economy, It hurts children, It requires more doctors, And deaths of kids increase.
Circumcision at Birth

There is no medical reason. Foreskin infects only happen if the doctor or parent peels back the foreskin like an idiot. I have 3 uncircumcised boys and their penises are just fine because NOBODY TOOK A SCAPLE TO THEM. You know what does cause infections? Circumcisions. And yes, I do think their pain is for nothing. There is nothing wrong with a foreskin. It's a piece of skin that nature intended us to have and it accounts for over 90% of our sexual pleasure. The only reason for doing it are religious reasons which is not a good enough reason to violate the autonomy of a child. The could sue, If the doctors told them. Even if they did, Most people won't. How does suing help the baby? Wouldn't it help the baby more to not destroy their penis? also, The doctor wouldn't go to prison. They probably wouldn't even lose their license. Doctors botch things all the time. Society gives them some freedom because they have a hard job, But when we're talking about elective surgery against autonomy, That's going too far. I don't know why you think newborns can't feel pain, But that's just an old myth based off old superstitions that children didn't get their souls until after they were born. In REAL life. Newborns feel just as much pain as we do and science proves this. I think you misunderstand, I don't want 7 year old kids being circumcised either. We're not haggling here. This is about autonomy. You're missing the part where this surgery is unnecessary and harmful. I don't want anybody doing it, But if they're going to, They need to be a consenting adult or at least a 16 year old with parental consent. Who told you it wasn't a religious practice? You do realize that the first circumcision is mentioned in the bible right? I believe it was Abraham and he did it as a very old man. Not as a baby. IT's a religious practice that most Abrahamic religions practice. Honestly, If you did a circumcision for secular reasons, Then I feel bad for you because you fell into all the myths. The reason people say there's benefits is because religious people don't want it to become illegal, So they do tainted studies in places like Africa and then cherry pick data to get the results the want. Even then, The results are so underwhelming that even if they were real they wouldn't be worth it. Furthermore, The supposed benefits they propose can be achieved other ways that are much safer. My mom had me circumcised as a baby and when I asked her why as a kid, She told me "because it's sanitary" which is a total lie. Good debate
Circumcision at Birth

1: Legally, You can say that about kids that are 18 and under. There is a medical reason. I stated it. Foreskin infections. I went through this. Do you think pain from surgery (I am not religious, Purely medical reasons) was for nothing? 2: Botched 2 surgeries a week? You can legally sue for such a surgery (in the US) and win because of more trauma that caused the child and the damage. They can go to prison for having such an error. If you have seen a doctor for more than a week (in the birthing department) then that means he is a wizard that has (previous) Dr. Strange's precision. Wrong. There was recently a 31 million dollar lawsuit from 1 botched circumcision. If it happens so often, Then why is such big money involved? 3: Newborn babies can almost feel nothing and such a small amount of skin is removed at birth. The foreskin with a newborn baby vs a full grown adult is different. No. It barely causes pain. 4: Older is not better. More foreskin grow and effectively, When it is a newborn baby (born same day) it does not have nerve tissue on it. What do you mean no benefits? Have you went through a circumcision when you were 7 years old? It is a painful surgery. The benefit is that you can no longer get foreskin infections. By doing a simple thing at birth, You remove a (possible) ton of pain. I had to go through that. 5:IT IS NOT A RELIGIOUS PRACTICE. While religions like Islam do it, Doesn't mean that it doesn't have a medical purpose. Your floor. Again. I did it for NON RELIGIOUS PURPOSES. Done in a Russian hospital. Islam in Russia is not tolerated btw. I am an atheist.