BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
School Vouchers are a way to end Social Program dependancy.

School choice is the first step in drastically lowering and eventually ending social reliance on federally funded programs. By allowing all children, regardless of social standing, to obtain the best education available, we enable them to end the cycle of poverty by way of ending the cycle of ignorance. Offering our poor, handicapped, and non-conventional learners the opportunity explore and obtain educational opportunities that will allow them to advance through life in an upwardly mobile manor is the best social assistance that we as a people can offer. Just because a family cannot afford to live in the best neighborhood doesn't not/should not mean that money should be diverted from those neighborhoods to be distributed in lower income communities. Allowing families choice will do much more create a balance in inequalities in education. Competition between schools and systems will also provide a better system as seen though the capitalistic system of America. Competition fosters the best in our abilities and enables us to weed out and terminate institutions that are not providing at an acceptable level. This too balances the quality of education between the rich and poor. Finally, giving teachers the choice to work in a private sector school without union representation forced upon them or the choice to maintain status quo within a governmental school, will provide two completely different sets of thought in education - the traditional or contemporary. This too gives teachers the chance to compete for higher wages, better benefits and the ability to teach in manor's that would not be possible within public schools. Overall, if one is to support social programs it is foolish and self defeating to deny the overall benefits of school choice via vouchers.
Disney channel is better then nickelodeon

okay, sorry for the last round, again, I was in the hospital. Anyways. .. yes, you did say they give them great shows and movies that young adults relate to, but in the title, you just simply stated, " Disney channel is better than nickelodeon. " That can mean movies, shows, etc. you stated "as a kid growing up I loved Nickelodeon back then I would say that it was better then Disney, but back then Nick didn't have any movies what so ever. " I'm assuming you were a kid from around the time 1996-1998. some Nickelodeon movies from that time were: 1996- Harriet the spy 1997-Good burger 1998-Rugrats movie So see, you did have movies to watch. Even today Nickelodeon makes movies: 2009- Hotel for dogs 2009- Imagine that These movies relate to people just as much, if not more, than Disney. . http://www.variety.com... This was a good debate.
Disney channel is better then nickelodeon

The Disney channel is better then the nickelodeon channel because the at people Disney channel digs into the kids head and finds out what they like and they give it to them. they give them great shows and movies that young adults can relate to. OK your first statement was good but u failed to mention Disney channel movies that I stated in my argument. I said (they give them great shows and MOVIES that young adults can relate to) now going back to the shows for a minute maybe some young adults can't relate to the Disney channel shows but I will tell you they are very entertaining but hey you never know there might be twins living in a hotel or a superstar hiding her identity trying to live a normal life. but good job on that one. now on to the movies: now the Disney channel Movies are way better then Nickelodeon movies....as a kid growing up I loved Nickelodeon back then I would say that it was better then Disney, but back then Nick didn't have any movies what so ever. If I wanted 2 go watch a nice movie I would turn to the Disney channel. Now as a young adult I was able to relate to some of the the Disney channel original movies and I know others could to. Disney channel original movies such as (The Cheetah Girls, Brink, The Color Of Friendship,Miracle in Lane 2,Cadet Kelly,Gotta Kick It Up,Right on Track,Eddie's Million Dollar Cook-Off,Full-Court Miracle,High School Musical,Jump In etc)
Disney channel is better then nickelodeon

Thanks for starting this debate. you stated." they give great shows that young adults can relate to." Suite life, Hannah Montana, Corey in the house. These are just a few shows on Disney, and unless you are a twin living in a hotel, a secret superstar, or someone who lives in the white house, I am sure that these don't relate to you. However, icarly, nick news, and drake and josh, are some of the shows that people can relate to. 1. On average, Nickelodeon reaches 1.1 million different people each week. 42% of viewers are age 5-12. http://www.ask.com... 2. Nickelodeon has shows that kids can watch (spongebob, etc.) and older kids can watch (Icarly, etc.) Disney channel only has shows that older kids can watch, and they don't have any for the school age children 5-12. These are some of my points, and I cant wait to see what my opponent says. Thank you.
Marijuana Legalization

My opponent claims that if the government that I advocated for was implemented, the society would be "like that of the Middle Ages", and it would be similar to anarchy. He completely strays from the argument at hand. I am only advocating for marijuana legalization, and not no government. He also claims that the government that legalizes marijuana would not "care about their citizens' well being, but I say if you cared about your citizens you would legalize. I agree that we need to protect the welfare of our citizens, and that is why I say legalize marijuana and crack down on violent crimes. Con said:"We will have much less freedom if powerful people can just kill us without being culpable." What does that have to do with the argument at hand? I never said we should eliminate the police.My opponent stated, "My basic argument is that marijuana causes economic detriment. Precisely because people addicted with marijuana spend too much money on it, they have given up resources that may be directed to raising education caliber, solve our debt, and strengthen our defense." Based on that assumption we should prohibit alcohol and cigarettes because they are addicted and spend too much money on it. I think the government spends too much money trying to prohibit marijuana. We could use that 15 billion dollars in tax money to better the economy by letting the tax payers keep it. Also, when talking about why marijuana should be illegal, you stated it would "strengthen our defense". How would keeping marijuana illegal strengthen our defense? If we legalized we would have more policemen to use on "strengthening our defense".The constitution also says the government must "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves".http://archives.gov...
Marijuana Legalization

" the government should not dictate what we eat or take in our bodies" Well, do you mean that all drugs should be legalized? Because government shouldn't ban them. Do you mean that our government should allow the food industry to insert cancer-inducing products? My basic argument is that marijuana causes economic detriment. Precisely because people addicted with marijuana spend too much money on it, they have given up resources that may be directed to raising education caliber, solve our debt, and strengthen our defense. If such philosophical argument as posed by my opponent were to be accepted, the government's existence would be almost no meaning. What is this government different from anarchy? Both don't care about their citizens' well being and define their well being as absolute freedom. But really? We will have much less freedom if powerful people can just kill us without being culpable. Essentially you're arguing for a society like that of the Middle Ages. Nobody cares if you used marijuana in the Middle Ages. Do you think you would be happy that way? Thus the assumption that maximum freedom is achieved by giving individuals all freedom is wrong. If we want to play a game fairly and have fun, we must abide to rules. If you look at the U.S. constitution, it states that state governments should see to people's health and well being. If you disagree with that principle, you can petition all you want or leave this country. As long as you want to enjoy the freedom and opportunities this country offers, you shouldn't try to do something this country forbids in order to provide that freedom and those opportunities.
Marijuana Legalization

I agree; this debate will rely on economic policy. My values would be liberty and privacy. In a free society, based on liberty,the government should not try to dictate what is moral, and what is immoral. The government should not say what should or should not go into our bodies. Every time the government has tried to do that, it has ended in disaster. Prohibition in 1913 was a complete failure, but we repeat our mistakes and do not learn from the past. The government should not dictate what goes into our bodies.What role does the government have that it should say what is good for the people or bad for the people? We all know bad diet leads to early death. Should the government dictate what we eat? There are 23,199 annual deaths from alcohol. There are 0 annual deaths from marijuana (http://drugwarfacts.org...). If you want to prohibit marijuana why stop there? For the welfare of the people, why not prohibit cigarettes, too much fat in your diet, If anything we should be prohibiting alcohol. Prohibition increases violence and crime. If you want to stand up for the welfare of the people let them make their own decisions on their body and reduce crime. We spent 15 billion dollars on the war on drugs. 858,408 people were arrested for marijuana violation. 89% of those arrests were for possession only. The percentage of people in prison for marijuana equals more than murder, rape, and robbery combined. If we decriminalized marijuana possession we could focus on real crimes and reduce spending by 15 billion dollars. Sources: http://www.drugsense.org...http://drugwarfacts.org...
The Battle of Stalingrad was the most important battle of WWII

Sorry it took me so long to reply. Importance of the Battle of Stalingrad: -Saved Stalingrad(the second most important city in the USSR) -Saved the USSR -Saved the valuable oil-fields at the Caucuses(Grozny, Baku, Maykop, etc) -Saved the British Empire (stopped Germany from breaking into the middle-east from where they could reach India and Egypt) -A staggering 850,000 German soldiers died(Germany's largest defeat) -The entire coarse of the war in Europe changed -The Germans were in retreat on a scale never seen before following the end of the Battle of Stalingrad Importance of the Battle of Britain: -Saved Britain from invasion -Destroyed many German aircraft -Showed that Hitler could be stopped If you think of other importance's of the Battle of Britain then please tell me what they are. However it is clear that the Battle of Stalingrad was more important from what I just wrote. The Battle of Britain did not change the coarse of the war. The Battle of Stalingrad did. If the Germans had won at Stalingrad, the British isles may not have fallen, but the British empire would surely have collapsed. Germany would have gained unlimited access to oil and the Soviets and Britain would have collapsed. 80% of the Soviet oil came from the Caucuses and most of Britain's oil came from the Middle East. Also, the only reason Hitler lost the Battle of Britain was because against the advice of the Luftwaffe commanders, he ordered that the German bombers begin to bomb British cities, instead of finishing of the RAF, which was almost destroyed.
The Battle of Stalingrad was the most important battle of WWII

Oh Josef Stalin, although many historians and theorist alike would commend and agree with you by stating the Stalingrad was the most important battle of WW2, I am here right now to convince all of our peers as well as yourself otherwise. Stalingrad is often regarded as the first nail in the Nazi regimes coffin. The unknown weather Germany was bombarded with allowed Stalin to capitalize on a weakening Nazi regime and protect the USSR from Hitler (protect as in from defeat, there were still many casualties). However, despite this clash arguably being the beginning to the end, it was only made possible due to the preemptive battles beforehand. While there was a spoonful of significant battles, partially because it is hard to discredit any battle as having some impact, the most important battle was most definitely the Battle of Britain. After the Non-Aggression Pact between Stalin and Hitler, the Nazi's decided to bombard Western Europe and take over the entire continent, and Hitler succeeded in most of that. But that all changed when? During the Battle of Britain, when the Nazi regime engaged in aerial based military fighting against Churchill and the British. I won't bomb you (pun intended) too much right now with my argument, but what I will say is this, if Britain did not demonstrate the power and challenge to the Nazi regime that it did, that is, if Hitler walked through Britain the same way he did most of Western Europe, he would have had more power and less to worry about coming in from the West during the invasion of Russia, and perhaps could have done so earlier, avoiding the frigid snow. I do not discredit the significance of Stalingrad, but without the Battle of Britain, Stalingrad would not have ended the way it did. I look forward to a good debate and welcome your arguments
University of Alabama is the greatest Football program of all time

I have proven not only that Alabama is not the best football program of all time, but that there are two or three clear choices ahead of them. Oklahoma being the number one. As promised sources for last round: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... This link is straight to Oklahoma's NFL players, but is an article for the top ten: http://bleacherreport.com...
Matt Damon's character, in 'The Departed', is homosexual.

First example: Matt Damon"s character goes out of his way to hit on women in front of the other police officers. - He gives looks to the woman at the police conference table - He hits on the psychiatrist in the elevator and later dates her -He whistles at women in the hallway Secondly, Matt Damon"s character dates the Psychiatrist in order to appear straight - She works with cops in the same building, so the relationship will be very visible - He has relationship "difficulties" ("It"s actually quite common") - He is very surprised to learn that he impregnated her ("Really? " Really?"), and he was not the real father Third, references to homophobic slurs: - Matt Damon"s character uses homosexual slurs when referring to the fire fighters - Dicaprio's character refers to Damon"s character as a homosexual slur after Dicaprio discovers Damon"s true identity, and this slur gains a strong response from Damon Last, direct references to Matt Damon"s character"s homosexuality: - The realtor suspects Damon"s character is gay ("So you tend to have a house guest, that"s cool") - Alec Baldwin"s character mentions the possibility that Damon"s character is gay
Polling stations during Elections should be conducted over a longer period than a single day

I often wonder if the single day voting is meant to curb voter fraud. No I don't think so. I think its discrimination against the poor and those that have to work 2 or 3 jobs to survive and feed their family. Suggestion 1 to improve voting: I think that the first time people register to vote (age 18 or above) they should be required to give a fingerprint, than at least there would be a record to identify an individual without having to require a photo ID. I don't see how a fingerprint would be invasion of privacy and it would also be free. You only have to prove who you are once with a birth certificate or other suffiecient form of ID (barring any scaring on your fingers). If this database could be used solely for elections and not accessible to law enforcement (of course could we trust them?) You'd only know a person's finger pad pattern, not what they look like and people would not have to have a photo ID if they didn't want to. Then, you could take your time to vote. Voting at your own convenience. Currently its just a tv spectacle with winners being declared often before even 50% of the vote is in for districts and states. Its not as if the switch from incumbent to the next elected official is happening that next day. Usually its like 3 months till the handover. Pretty much everything must kowtow to the tv networks. Too much money for tv. Sports are slaves to tv as well. For those that want national ID cards or required photo IDs YET they want total privacy and no records to match who voted for who, you can't have both. Suggestion #2: Better yet, align voting and taxes, then if you want to vote you have to pay your taxes (which should already be the case, even if you owe nothing or expect a refund) No taxes, no vote. Citizens benefit from services and infrastructure provided by taxes and it is their duty to pay them, voting should also be a duty of a citizen. EVEN putting the voting date on Saturday is still going to be impossible for some people. There aren't absentee ballots everywhere. Why not go further and make Voting Day a national holiday? Say President's Day? or Veteran's Day? All non-essential businesses are closed and all essential ones required to only have half day. We have holidays for really stupid crap (some just commercial holidays really), but we should celebrate voting. Representation is what we revolted from England for Still, having enough time to vote over the period of time of a week, a few weeks, or some agreed upon length of time, would be best and not have any more problems than we already have. At least then there could be no excuse for not voting. As of now many people have an excuse and some a legitimate complaint Also, voter intimidation at a polling station would take a lot more effort if it had to be manned for longer than a single day and hopefully happen less
Polling stations during Elections should be conducted over a longer period than a single day

There are a number of inconveniences when it comes to voting in American elections, but foremost it is getting to the polling station on the particular day. In our computerized society I see no reason for there to be single election days besides for the drama it creates and TV dollars it generates. I propose that polling during elections be at least a week's worth of time A few assumptions to be kept in mind 1. all results will be held till the end of polling 2. systems in place to ensure no re-voting or fraudulent voting Round 1 Opening statements Round 2 rebuttals to Round 1 Round 3 closing arguments
Zoos are good for the animals

I willl now present my argument.( sorry for the Forfieting) Rebuttle1:PreservationWe may think differently from the animals, as if we may think this was the good thing as from keeping the animals away from the danger of extinction.But from the animals side, they may think this is a capturing them from the wild life. The Wild animals are not just called as wild animals.They are called wild animals because they literally live in the wild.They can not be held back from the Cages of the zoos.and when you said "20 percent of the Amaon rainforest has been cut down", I Will argue that why the humans cut down the rain forests.For the first Rebuttal, I think people are confused the zoos are Caging the wild animals from their habitat, not keeping them from danger.Rebuttle2:Medical Benefit.I really don't understand "Having the animals in zoos allow for a natural enviroment suitable for observation by researchers"Do you mean by using the animals? I look further more explanation from my opponent.Sources:http://animal.discovery.com...
Zoos are good for the animals

I will now define the terms: Zoo: An establishment that maintains a collection of wild animals, typically in a park or gardens, for study, conservation, or display to the public. Good: A net positive effect or outcome Animals: are multicellular, eukaryotic organisms of the kingdom Animalia or Metazoa. I will now present the arguments: ARG1: Preservation We are living in a world where scientists discover an average of 15,000(1) new species per year, usually ones that are highly endangered. I believe that it is in our best interest to preserve as many species as humanly possible, and many species are facing extinction in their own environments due to human interaction like deforestation and excessive hunting. In some cases, the alteration to the environment is so severe that we cannot reverse it. An example is the Amazon Rainforest, which during the past 40 years, close to 20 percent of the Amazon rainforest has been cut down(2). That habitat will take decades if not centuries to replicate, not to mention all repopulation efforts that would need to take place. I know i can't speak for the objective good of all animals, but if I were in this situation, i would gladly live in a zoo to preserve my race. ARG 2: Medicinal Benefit The time we spend with others helps us learn more about each other through experiences and observations, and animals are no exception to the rule. We have learned much from animal study, primarily mammal study, involving the human body. It has assisted in the discovery of HIV(4), a cause of AIDS, a killer of 1.9 million people in 2011(3), and with major contributions in MRI technology(4). They also were crucial in the development and isolation of the polio virus as to create a vaccine(4). Having the animals in zoos allow for a natural environment suitable for observation by researchers, as it is much safer and less expensive than flying out to a location to gather information. There is also a time frame that the researchers much finish by, as they cannot live out their indefinitely in normal cases. This is a nonexistent problem for a zoo researcher as long as the animal stays alive. What does all this mean for the animals? It means that they will live longer and more securely because of their need, and they will fill their need of reproduction, which i hope we can agree is "good". I look forward to my opponent's response Sources: (1) . http://news.discovery.com... (2). http://environment.nationalgeographic.com... (3). http://www.who.int... (4. http://www.aalas.org...