BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Physical exercise against knowledge in school to prevent diseases and money loss

Ahem, interesting views. I guess we agree on the one very important factor that PHYSICAL exercise really does relieve stress. Still you don't think that more physical exercise in school would be beneficial as it deteriorates the intellect of the student. Studies show that: "It has also been proven that when students are involved in a physical activity program, there is an improved rate of academic learning per unit of class time (Taras, 2005) and that increased time spent in physical education does not negatively effect student scores. A study done in France increased its physical education time to 8 hours per week, reducing time devoted to academic subjects. The students in this experiment were physically and psychologically healthier and had increased academic performance when compared to the control group (Sallis, 1999)." So by replacing hours with thinking while sitting in the classroom with hours doing physical exercises, will at some point benefit the individual and society on multiple levels. As you rightfully said there are multiple factors contributing to stress. The main one although is the fact that we use our heads so much in school and take that habit home with us until we finally let go of our thoughts and fall asleep. And as you said, I cannot completely pinpoint what causes stress but as proven above exercise does relieve it and contribute to the individuals intellect, now why is it that physical exercise should't be greater implemented in school life? More studies show that only 8% of elementary schools, 6.4% of middle schools, and 5.8% of high schools provide daily physical education to all of its students (SHPPS, 2000). In addition, 20 percent of all elementary schools in the U.S. have abolished recess in favor of increased classroom time under pressure to improve student achievement (Satcher, 2005). Less than 25% of children are engaged in 30 minutes of any type of daily physical activity (Satcher, 2005). You say that it's an exaggerated claim that stress leads to disease and money lost on medicine? Hundreds of studies on the internet will tell you that this is happening.: "Anxiety disorders are the most common mental illness in the U.S., affecting 40 million adults in the United States age 18 and older (18% of U.S. population)." and "Anxiety disorders cost the U.S. more than $42 billion a year, almost one-third of the country's $148 billion total mental health bill, according to "The Economic Burden of Anxiety Disorders," a study commissioned by ADAA (The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 60(7), July 1999)." To say that exercise will further contribute to stress might be true in some cases, but children who sit down up to 8 hours a day in school will without a doubt experience positive impacts. http://sitemaker.umich.edu... http://www.adaa.org...
Physical exercise against knowledge in school to prevent diseases and money loss

Ha I thought this debate would be fun so I took it up. Anyways, while studies have proven that exercise does physiologically relieve stress due to endorphins being released etc., you are assuming that the root of all of the students stress at school is the act of gaining knowledge or exercising ones knowledge in class. Since you cannot pinpoint the cause of anyones stress due to the many factors that play into this, your argument is kind of invalid. You are also leaving out the many people who use school as a stress reliever. The people who get joy from expanding themselves intellectually. If we do take what your saying to be a truth, you will stress those people out. You are also forgetting about the student's whose stress comes from exercise. If they exercise more, then they will contribute to those exaggerated claims you maid earlier lol. Lastly you will be causing stress to the parents of these students, and if I may add it seems as though your crazy statistics are based off adult stress instead of children's stress. If their children are unable to function properly in society due to the lack of knowledge (balancing a check book, reading a contract, driving a car etc,) then many of their parents will be upset because they would either be swallowed up by the system, or stuck in their parents house. If we are speaking in extremes like you are then this trauma will ad more stress to the student who never received the knowledge necessary to live in this society. And they too will be stress, thus creating a never ending cycle of stress. Did I mention that the teachers will also be stressed due to the parents complaining about their childrens' intellect. And what about the politicians and higher-ups who put this sort of rule into effect. Wouldn't they be stressed because other opposing scholars and communities would be bashing them left and right and wouldn't vote for them, causing the politicians stress? So in conclusion, replacing knowledge with a physical supplement will cause more stress and leading to all of your exaggerated claims like money loss and disease. LOL
Physical exercise against knowledge in school to prevent diseases and money loss

Anxiety in adults is bad for our society as a lot of resources and billions of dollars are used to fix anxiety and depression in the adult population. Here is where exercise in school comes in: I think it is time to deal with the source of anxiety which is the fact that children sit down too much in school and mainly uses the brain to workout problems. This way of living will inevitably cause stress due to TOO much thinking, and a way to fix this would be to have the children to do more physical exercise in other words using the body instead of the brain to workout problems. I totally think it would be worth "sacrificing" a bit of head-knowledge in order to restore the well-being of our lives. This could be done by replacing many subjects in school with physical exercise. And if we do so I"m convinced that the sacrificed knowledge of the younger population will be gained if not increased, after a few years with the new healthy minds. This will prevent billions of dollars being used on medicine and other treatments for multiple illnesses each year.
World Peace is Possible

Let's take this step by step, shall we?"Peace on Earth would mean that no living thing on earth would harm another living thing."Not according to the definition I provided in round one. You missed your chance to define it as such."So when two alligators want the same bird do you think they will write up a contract and distribute it evenly? No, they are going to fight over it."They probably would fight over it, of course. But it isn't physically or logically impossible for them to find a peaceful solution."Over the last two rounds I explained how world peace IS impossible."No, you've been explaining how world peace is improbable."There will always be that bad apple that screws us all over. There will always be that one person that is just evil."Why? Why is it physically or logically necessary for the world to contain at least one evil person at all times? You've never divulged this information to us.VOTE FOR PEACE
World Peace is Possible

Ok. Peace on Earth would mean that no living thing on earth would harm another living thing. So when two alligators want the same bird do you think they will write up a contract and distribute it evenly? No, they are going to fight over it. Over the last two rounds I explained how world peace IS impossible. There will always be that bad apple that screws us all over. There will always be that one person that is just evil. World peace impossible. Case closed
World Peace is Possible

You have made a very convincing case for why world peace is extremely unlikely, but have barely even touched your true burden of proof: to prove that it is impossible.You say ego drives some people to want things and commit evil acts to obtain them. I agree, ego can do this. But as you've said, "some people will kill for [glory, power, and material items]" not all people. Ego can cause someone to commit evil, but it does not necessarily and essentially have to do this in every person.With only one round left, you must prove that world peace somehow violates a physical or logical law, and would therefore be impossible to exist in reality.
World Peace is Possible

We are not talking about statistics here, we are talking about human nature. Every minute somebody gets murdered, raped, or assaulted by some moron out there. There is also something else that causes violence. Ego. eï¿½go   /ˈigoʊ, ˈɛgoʊ/ Show Spelled noun, plural eï¿½gos. 1. the "I" or self of any person; a person as thinking, feeling, and willing, and distinguishing itself from the selves of others and from objects of its thought. It is human nature to want more. To want glory, power, and material items. Some people will kill for those three things. Hitler wanted power, he killed 10 million. Lee Harvey Oswald wanted glory, he shot JFK. And thousands wanted material items, so they stole it. There are also some people out there who are just messed up in the head. Like Richard Trenton Chase (http://listverse.com... (Number 2)
World Peace is Possible

What my opponent has done is argue that world peace is very unlikely, but not impossible.A world where humans do not fight each other does not contradict any physical or logical laws, and if it does, Con has failed to point out which one(s).The most relevant statement from my opponent is this: "You can't prevent [people] from being born, raised, and turned into bad guys."I disagree. While it would be a highly unlikely occurrence, it is conceivably possible for all females to cease becoming pregnant; not for them to suddenly all become infertile, or even for them all to stop having sex, but for the sperms to never again reach the eggs in the uterus (either through highly effective contraceptive or sheer good luck). It is also conceivably possible for all humans born henceforth to be of a pacifist nature, unwilling to do harm to one another.Again, this is very unlikely, but not impossible. It isn't logically self-contradictory (like a circular square) or physically nonviable (like something moving slower than zero mph).Imagine this: someone buys a megamillion lotto ticket every week for a hundred consecutive weeks, and every week he wins the jackpot (every number matches perfectly). Granted this is a very unlikely occurrence, and he would probably be suspected of cheating, but it can't be denied that it is possible (even without cheating), however small the odds.
World Peace is Possible

This is going to be fun. When You think of world peace, you think of sunshine, flowers, and people getting along. That doesn't happen. After World War Two the UN was established and the world thought there world be no more wars. And along came The Korean War, The Vietnam War, The Six Day War, Operation Desert Storm, and Operation Jawbreaker. Just to name a few. Fighting over things is just human nature. Hell, its just the nature of all life out there. Wherever you are there will be one bad apple who wants to pretty much do bad things. Such as Hiter, Stalin, Tojo, Ho Chii Minh, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden and Kim Jong II. You can't prevent them from being born, raised, and turned into bad guys. You kill them when they ARE bad guys
World Peace is Possible

I accept and, as Pro, will be arguing that "world peace is possible".DefinitionsSince my opponent neglected to define anything I will be defining "world peace" as "radioactive pizza divided by three" and "possible" as "impossible". Just kidding–who the hell would do something like that? (I'm looking at YOU, imabench!)These are the actual definitions...World peace: a state of human affairs where no people or groups of people fight each other.Possible: able to exist in reality.My opponent's burden of proofDon't misunderstand the resolution. I'm not arguing that world peace is "probable" or even "plausible". I'm arguing that world peace is "possible". Con will have to prove that world peace is impossible, as in that it cannot possibly exist. For that to be the case, world peace would have to violate a physical or logical law.Good luck, Con. I think you'll need it.
Birth control pills, even as contraception, should be covered by health insurance.

Birth control is a "free will" medication. It's purpose is to allow a woman to engage in sexual intercourse without becoming pregnant. The drug is therefore administered to women who: Choose to be sexually active. Choose to be reproductively barren. Based on the points of "free-will sexual intercourse" and "free-will reproductive suppression" I will argue that a Company health care system or the Government's health care system is not responsible for incurring the cost of this drug. This drug, in it's intended form, falls under three prospective categories: Recreational use. Family planning. Hormone therapy. (Exclusive to only a handful of birth control methods) If we forced a health care provider to pay for birth control, it would be just as liable to pay for other recreational supplies. Should the HMO also pay for novelty condoms? Sex toys? Pornography? All these things are designed for recreational sex. If we forced the health care provider to pay for birth control, it would prospectively force the HMO to furnish other services for family planning. Should the HMO pay for fertility treatment? Cryogenic sperm storage? Day care? Education? Food? All these things are prospective costs incurred through family planning.As my opponent has mentioned, birth control has some medical benefits. What he failed to mention, is that these benefits are drug specific. Not all birth control methods prevent ovarian cysts and not all birth control methods decrease menstrual activity.If the pill is being used to treat cysts, excessively painful menstruation or a hormonal imbalance, then the pill is no longer considered birth control. It has taken on the properties of medication. For this purpose and this purpose alone, the HMO should cover the cost of the pill.
Birth control pills, even as contraception, should be covered by health insurance.

Hello, potential opponents! First off, this will probably be an easy win for you, as I am a new debater and a high school freshman who wants to improve his skills. The debate will be in the format of: 1. Intro and main argument, 2. Rebuttals, 3. Re-rebuttals and closing arguments. I would much rather hear from Con first. Nevertheless, here are my opening arguments:1. First of all, birth control occasionally serves actual medical needs, such as curing ovarian cysts, or (relatively) less important, lightening menses.While this is probably not a good argument on its own for someone who needs birth control for its primary, stated purpose; it must be brought up.2. Even if the only purpose of "the pill" is to facilitate sex, health insurance already covers Viagra and its relatives, and their primary purpose is to allow for intercourse.3. On a purely financial (probably heartless) note, it would be cheaper for insurance companies to cover birth control than covering the resulting medical expenses arising from the unexpected child.I apologize for the omnipresent spelling and grammer mistakes, but please try to keep the argument from devolving into a fight over semantics and syntax. I welcome and appreciate critiques (and dismantlings) of my argument. Thanks for helping my debating skills grow!
One Ought Not Eat and Walk in Public

-- Utilitarian Argument --The main purpose of this debate is to showcase my interesting and unique argument based on utilitarianism against eating and walking. The argument is as follows...1. Walking and eating in public decreases utility2. Decreasing utility is wrongTherefore, eating and walking in public is wrong.Eating and walking in public decreases utility in the way that people get hungry on a regular basis. If you're in public odds are you will pass someone who is hungry or on the verge of being hungry. Sensory interaction with your food will then remind them of, pique or enhance their hunger. The feeling of hunger decreases utility in people. In public there's a chance of decreasing the utility of multiple people. Therefore, you've decreased utility which is wrong. -- Safety, Waste and Efficiency -- Walking and eating in public can be unsafe. People can divert their eyes from what they're doing and potentially run into people, step into traffic, run into an object etc. It can also cause waste. If you're walking with a sandwich or an ice cream cone or something, walking can cause items to slip and fall out of or off of it thus wasting valuable food. You can spill on your shirt and have no way to fix it because you're on the move. Also, its inefficient. Instead of storing the energy as you relax, you're expending energy while trying to take in energy. This is not working at optimal efficiency and therefore should not be done. Now this isn't a troll debate persay, but these are the types of arguments I will be using. Again, I just wanted to showcase my utilitarian argument and see how it stacks up.Thanks.
Students at schools should be allowed to not participate in the national anthem ect

And here we are, with the last round. Thank you, again, for instigating this debate. I will make my final rebuttals here:=Rebuttals=In this round my opponent's entire argument is based off of what the national anthem really means. I have several responses to this. Basically he is making this conclusion. P1) Anything associated with war and violence should be avoidedP2) The national anthem is associated with war and violenceC) The national anthem act should be avoidedBoth premises are complete fallacies. Premise one is incorrect as information and facts about wars do not really cause itself to need to be avoided. If we were to steer away from war, its facts and anything associated to it, we would not have the slightest emotion for or against war, and this could cause many times more wars than there had ever been. Premise two is also invalid as the national anthem is just a celebration of the independence of the U. S. What's more, if the American national anthem were about war, the U. S. would just not be as peaceful as it is. People are influenced by the national anthem, and, if the national anthem were celebrating violence, 5 year-olds would probably be in the mafia. In regards to one of Pro's arguments, just because people have different interpretations doesn't mean the national anthem was intended for such meanings. If people interpret it in a way that they don't agree with, that doesn't really affect if they can interpret it in a way they DO agree in. Also, Pro inappropriately starts bringing up statements like how the national anthem is also about U. S. soldiers being crushed by cannonballs and U. S. citizens not doing anyhing about the conflict. This is seriously off-topic and irrelevant as to what we are debating. If this were a valid statement (which it is not), not only students would be allowed to not participate in the national anthem act, but actually ALL citizens on the face of U. S. A. Furthermore, the framework and resolution of this debate is a bit distorted, as Pro is arguing only for students at schools. He disregards other U. S. citizens like home-school students, and people in general. What's more, in the second round on, Pro argues for U. S. citizens in general, and therefore is off-topic. =Conclusion=In conclusion, I have sucessfully refuted my opponent's arguments and proved that once again, my adversary has failed to uphold their BOP.
Students at schools should be allowed to not participate in the national anthem ect

And back to me, for one last statement. The clarification for why is, as I have previously stated, that a. Freedom of speech, and b. both world wars were results of nationalism. I would disagree, yes, in some cases it would be them disregarding the US, but I would argue that I feel strongly that the national anthem is about war, and is being proud our flag survived a particularly deadly bombardment by the brittish naval fleet (that is the literal song FYI) and you could be stating many things with freedom of speech, one of them being you are against glorification of war (well, in this case it's more of a glorification of our own soldiers being killed by cannonballs and us not fighting back). I understand the song is ment as a different meaning (that in a dark hour, our flag still stands tall), but there is the potential for other interpretations that some may not agree with. I will admit I have some level of nationalism, I just feel it's important to stand up for what's right, and not to blindly follow your country and agreeing we will never fall.
Students at schools should be allowed to not participate in the national anthem ect

My opponent simply states, for a rebuttal, that he only said people should have the freedom to not show nationalism. This is true, however he does not provide a clarification as to why we should allow this freedom. Also, it is probable that not showing nationalism to your own country, especially as a student, is disregarding the U.S. This is my adversary's only point he makes, and therefore I can only respond this much. With that, I turn the floor over to Pro.
Students at schools should be allowed to not participate in the national anthem ect

Thank you for instigating this debate. I will build my rebuttals here:=Rebuttals=Rebuttal 1:My opponent states that it is unconstitutional to be forced to participate in the nattional anthem act at schools, since it violates students' freedom of speech (in this case, not wanting to show nationalism). However this may actually contradict himself as the U.S. actually created the constitutional amendments; one of which my adversary is stating. [1]Basically, what he is trying to do is disregard the nation of U.S.A. while literally using one of the constitutions that were created by the nation that he is disregarding (which is U.S.A). Therefore, this is a hypocritical statement.R2: My adversary also argues that being forced into national anthem acts at schools is basically being forced to have a common nationalism with others; one that started world wars and other wars. However, the only war that the U.S. started was the Cold War, which wasn't even an actual war. [2] The only wars that the U.S. even participated in were the Civil War [3], the Vietnam War, [4] and World War II [5].ConclusionI have refuted both of my opponent's points and have proved that Pro has failed to uphold his burden of proof.(1) http://en.wikipedia.org...;(2) http://en.wikipedia.org... (3) http://en.wikipedia.org... (4) http://en.wikipedia.org...(5) http://en.wikipedia.org...;
Students at schools should be allowed to not participate in the national anthem ect

I will say it now, I am fairly antinationalistic, and for good reason, so at my high school, quite a while ago, I decided I would not stand and put my hand to my heart during the national anthem. I wasn't alone, my friend and I were both still sitting until a teacher told us (all be it politely) to stand. We did what we were told, mainly because 1. I was not planing on getting in trouble, I was simply excersising my right to free speech, and 2. The teacher was nice, and was a teacher I was going to have the class of the following day. I would now like to discuss whether it should be in my rights to not participate in this nationalistic practice.
resolved: debate sucks

Suck: to draw into the mouth by producing a partial vacuum by action of the lips and tongue: Debate: a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints According to these definitions, my opponent must prove that a debate, which is not a person or animate thing, can suck an object. Examples will include sucking liquid though a straw, sucking a nipple, or sucking a cockerels neck gibbet. Of course, my case will rest upon the fact a debate is not a thing which physically exists, but is rather an action. An action cannot suck something. I will leave it to my opponent to prove a debate can indeed suck an object.