BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
High school, 8th grade and off into a big school where you stay there from sept. 1 to june 1st

yes, i did leave quite a bit open didn't I? well, of course you'd have to pay for schooling and all that. plus, there should be ways to give students some free time to do as they please. so, maybe having the school in a some what less populated area but still some where where they can like you said see movies and buy stuff. I do agree that are current education system is doing great and that society as a whole probably wouldn't be ready for a new kind of schooling, however no one is really ever ready for change in general big or small yet most of the time change that we worry about tends to turn out good.
High school, 8th grade and off into a big school where you stay there from sept. 1 to june 1st

You would not learn more when you are stuck in the school you were sent to learn. You would probably learn just as much as you did when you are in regular high school. Also I don't know about you but throwing me into a school where I couldn't buy anything, couldn't get money, couldn't go to movies with friends and all of that doesn't sound fun. You won't be able to do anything besides homework and the occasional field trip which is really boring and repetitive. Have you also thought about how this might be funded? The education system is working ok for now. And I know this will be expensive and the governments probably not ready for a new way of doing things school department wise. You aren't free at this kind of school to do really anything. You won't have an enjoyable teenage experience. This raps up my first argument.
High school, 8th grade and off into a big school where you stay there from sept. 1 to june 1st

I get that, that is why the kids and their parents would have the option as to whether they attend this school or just a regular public school. In my expeirence with schooling my parents have made my high school expeirence a bit to controlled. also, i think you would learn more with being stuck in the place you were sent to learn.
High school, 8th grade and off into a big school where you stay there from sept. 1 to june 1st

Hello there. I will be accepting this debate. I think this argument is kind of ridiculous only because if you send kids from 8th grade to 12th grade in a high school and hold them from their families for X month to X month that is basically a short term boarding school. Which is completely stupid because you are depriving them from their family every year and they only get to see each other for a good three months. Letters won't bring a lot of warmth to their hearts if thats the solution you put up there to counter depriving them from their loved ones. Also this thing already exists. It's called boarding school.
High school, 8th grade and off into a big school where you stay there from sept. 1 to june 1st

I believe that high school should start at the 8th grade and go to the 12th grade. i also with that believe that kids in those grades should go to a bigger school that say holds 1500 kids and be there from september first to june first. of course you would come home for big holidays and be able to write home and all that.
Trinitarian vs. Oneness

The word human may not appear but the equivalent in Greek and Hebrew does. When the Bible states 'man' they mean human. There is no equivalent in the scripture to trinity. It does not exist which is why it is pagan. The fact that only the Creator is God is the main theme throughout the Bible. I will provide you with the evidence. Old Testament 1."there is no one like Yahweh our God." Exodus 8:10 2."Yahweh, He is God; there is no other besides Him." Deuteronomy 4:35 3.Yahweh, He is God in heaven above and on the earth below; there is no other." Deuteronomy 4:39 4."Hear, O Israel! Yahweh is our God, Yahweh is one [echad]!" Deuteronomy 6:4 5.Yahweh is God; there is no one else." 1 Kings 8:60 6."You alone are Yahweh." Nehemiah 9:6 7."Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me." Isaiah 43:10 8."I am Yahweh, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God." Isaiah 45:5 9."I am Yahweh, and there is none else." Isaiah 45:18 10."Is it not I, Yahweh? And there is no other God besides Me, A righteous God and a Saviour; There is none except Me." Isaiah 45:21 New Testament 1.'Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is one Lord; " Mark 12:29 2."you do not seek the glory that is from the one and only God?" John 5:44 3."For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus," 1 Timothy 2:5 4."You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19
Trinitarian vs. Oneness

The word it self does not necessarily have to appear in the bible to know that, thats what it was. Example "The word Human was never used in the bible as reference of any on the people in it speaking and spoken about with exception of Jesus in John 1 depending on your translation in application he ...became flesh". Yet we know that all whom was speaking and spoken about were human. you see the word it self does not have to appear there to know that this was the deity of whom God is. as there are many verses that show the trinity in one. there are not 3 gods but 3 in one. Your argument of it being a pagan belief would simple go against the bible it self by trying to render it false to the belief in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
Trinitarian vs. Oneness

Isaiah and many others preceding Jesus also referred to God as their Father yet we do not see this as an indication of any of them being divine. 'But now, O LORD, thou art our father' (Isaiah 64:8) 'Doubtless thou art our father, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us not: thou, O LORD, art our father, our redeemer; thy name is from everlasting.' (Isaiah 63:16) 'Thou shalt call me, My father; and shalt not turn away from me.' (Jeremiah 3:19) The Bible teaches us that it is not possible for any man to be God - ' God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, (Numbers 23:19) 'for I am God, and not man; the Holy One in the midst of thee:' (Hosea 11:9) Any other debates I'm having are irrelevant to this one, I could be debating with someone else that I do believe in the trinity just for the sake of debating. Even so I do not believe that Jesus is God, the bible states nowhere that he is God, unless you want to refer to an ambiguous verse or a verse that has clearly been mistranslated or added 1500 years later. It is precisely because of the fact that Jesus is not God that it is made very clear that the trinity is a false doctrine. The Greek word used in Colossians 2:9 (Theotētos) means divine. It does not mean trinity, three in one, or anything of the sort so I have no reason to believe that is what it does mean. Regardless of how a modern day Englsih dictionary defines the word 'Godhead' it is not what the Greek word in the original text means and we have no reason to believe that it could possibly mean anything else. It is in accordance with Revelations 22:19 that we must pay attention to what the original text actually mean. 1 John 5 is no longer included in modern translations of the Bible as it is was not in the original Greek Text and has been universally accepted as fraudulent. Why do you think that someone would find the need to add the concept of the trinity to the Bible unless it is a lie, a false docterine and is not actually stated anywhere else in the Bible.
Trinitarian vs. Oneness

Matthew 6:9 this verse Jesus is teaching us how to pray because he came to fulfill the new covenant so now we can speak directly to the father without the sacrifice because through him we were made sons and daughter of God as it states in Hebrews 2:10 now this does not mean we became gods because you and i know we lack many of the attributes and this would not be possible. You in no way shape or form can compare yourself to Jesus because we know He is God divine pure and Holy. Now on your following statements we are not debating about Jesus identity, in which statement you contradict your own self to your other debate where you clearly state you believe Jesus is God Luke 1:35 , Matthew 10:32-33, Mark 5:7, John 1:1-3,14. our debate consist of the trinity one God. As in Colossians 2:9 you say again the bible does not define the godhead but as stated in the beginning the actual word does not have to appear but as is always mention in the bible "The Father , The Son, and the Holy Spirit" the bible speaks of the Godhead this what does this word mean to you? because even the definition found on the dictionary is "the Holy Trinity of God the Father, Christ the Son, and the Holy Ghost. " the Greek word itself theotes / triune so now what is this word according to you? here is clearly proof of our God 3 in one the trinity and if you believe in the word of God as true then denying this aspect of it would render you to Revelations 22:19 I refer you to 1 John 5 5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? 6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. 9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. 10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. 11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. 13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. see how verses 6-8 KJV speaks of the trinity and this is undeniable proof how the bible speaks of all three in distinct functions and is amplifying in the son verses 10-12 rebuke your idea of not believing in Jesus as God and also explaining the "Father, Son, Holy Ghost " more than one as one.
Trinitarian vs. Oneness

I am in no way limiting the Creator to the abilities of a human being, quite the opposite in fact. God is far greater than man. In the book of Numbers it states that God is not a man nor a son of man. You're claim that Mosses did not explain that God is actually three in one because the people weren't ready for such a concept is an assumption. Did Mosses actually believe in the trinity himself? We have no evidence to suggest that he did because the concept of a trinity is not explained in the Old (or new) Testament. Jesus tells us to refer to the Father as 'our Father' (Matthew 6:9). According to Jesus God is my Father and your Father. It is simply not possible for us to accept from John 10:30 where Jesus states, 'I and my Father are one' that he means that he is actually God when Jesus makes it quite clear on numerous occasions that he is not God. Here are some examples- And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God. (Luke 18:19) for my Father is greater than I. (John 14:28) My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all. (John 10:29) Matthew 3: 16, 17 - Firstly Jesus is not unique in being Gods son, the Bible refers to many others as the son of God. Secondly there is no reason for us to assume that because Jesus, God and Gods spirit are mentioned in this one event then all three of them are in fact God. John 14:26 - Does not claim that the Holy Ghost is a person or will appear in the form of a person. It does not claim that Jesus is God or give any indication that God is in fact three in one. Colossians 2:9 - Where does the Bible claim that the Godhead consist of the father, son and holy spirit? Matthew 28:19 Does stand out which is why I left it until last. However why is this instruction not mentioned in any of the other Gospels? Many Biblical scholars agree that this verse was added at a later date and is not genuine. Rather than going off on a tangent as to whether or not the verse is genuine or not, assuming that it is then it stands out as an anomaly because these important instructions are not mentioned anywhere else in the other Gospels. It is not possible for us to assume this verse means that Jesus is God because of the numerous other Bible verses that make it very clear that Jesus did not believe himself to be God. You talk of Father, Son and Holly spirit stating that the son believes himself to be God but if that were true then why would Jesus say things like this - "Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. There is none other commandment greater than these. And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he:" Why did Jesus not include himself in this Trinity equation if it is what we are all supposed to believe?
Trinitarian vs. Oneness

i agree with you there i s only one creator but you are limiting him to the abilities of a human being. God's deity is much more complex than we can imagine and if he wanted us to understand him in all things He would not have kept things beyond our own understanding. As i express before the God head is composed of the Father, His Son and the Holy Ghost. The first verse you used Exodus 8:10 is a pre-messianic verse where Moses tells pharaoh there is no other God but one him stating this to the fact that the Egyptians were idol worshiper and worshiped many gods so presenting the idea of the trinity to an idol worshiper would not be the best move because all believers start off with baby food not solids. All this verses are about God being a jealous God there are no other gods before him only one true God. understanding in this time the the people had accepted many idol worshiping and had turn away from God. But that verses still true there is only one true God. Still this does not explain the oneness of God. John 10:30 - I and [my] Father are one. If God is without the Son why would he refer as the father using the term "my" this implies they are separate yet one to apply to the oneness would this have not made a better statement of it being the same person? example "... i and the Father are the same" Matthew 28:19 - Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the [Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost]: here we see the exposition of all three when the verse could have easy just said baptize them in the name of one yet it takes the time to explicitly name each and every single one of them. Matthew 3: 16, 17 16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: 17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. this is one of the most powerful verses exposing the trinity as God is in the Son's baptism the father speaks and the Holy Spirit descends upon him the God 3 in one revealed as God is. John 14:26 - But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. Here the Father will send in my name Jesus speaking and the Holy Spirit not as an energy but a person to remind us of what Jesus thought us while in earth Colossians 2:9 - For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. this verse clearly exposes the Godhead what is the Godhead? The Father, the son, and the Holy Spirit. for you see there are many more verses exposing the trinity and how each one of the God head with each distinct functions Compose our One true God.
Abolish "Patriot act"

In any event, The PATRIOT Act is a vital tool for counterterrorism, giving intelligence agencies sufficient resources for combatting domestic threats. In fact, at least 50 terror attacks have been foiled here in the United States through the post-9/11 expansion of extraordinary powers, including the PATRIOT ACT. In a world where 21st century weapons " nuclear, radiological, biological, chemical " are becoming easier to attain and disperse, we need additional tools to protect us from those who wish to do us harm. http://www.heritage.org... While I understand Pro"s concerns for privacy, sacrificing this soft freedom helps combat domestic threats. The impulse for survival should strongly outweigh a value whose worth cannot be measured, a freedom only weighed through a subjective viewpoint. This small encroachment into freedom hardly seems worthy of the label "oppression," as Pro dictates. Moreover, the PATRIOT Act has elaborate safeguards, and while warrantless wiretaps are allowed, a judge must still give approval. http://www.nytimes.com... Also, abolishing the PATRIOT Act will not end the ability to detain American citizens without a warrant. National Defense Authorization Act, not the PATRIOT Act, enables the indefinite detention of US citizens. http://en.wikipedia.org... I invite Pro to give his rebuttal in the comments.
Abolish "Patriot act"

Security organisations are keeping secrets from citizens. Secrecy is a fertilizer for corruption. I doubt not that high concentration of power will be misused. Government may be able to protect citizens from other oppressors, but it is currently worst oppressor of the American people. Access to e-mails and tapping phone calls is impermissible irreverence of people's privacy. Another issue I would like to address is presumption of innocence. "Patriot act" is enabling breaking into people's houses and detaining suspects without court's warrant. I would like to add some quotes which support my views: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin "Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; In its worst state an intolerable one" - Thomas Paine
Soccer is better than baseball

Reasons why Soccer is better than baseball:1: Soccer fans are more into the game than baseball fansBelow are pictures of how passionate soccer fans can be, They can be seen waving flags and banners in support of their team. At a baseball game, many of the seats are empty, and the fans are quiet. The fans also sing their national anthems loud and proud. . http://www.youtube.com...;(National Anthem at a soccer game. Video at the top). http://www.youtube.com...;(National Anthem at a baseball game. The 2nd video)The differences between the two National Anthems are extrodinary. Every fan sings the national anthem at a soccer game, but no fans sing during a baseball national anthem.2: DramaThe drama at a soccer game is much bigger than at a baseball game. A goal in a soccer league can give you the title, especially since goal differencial comes into play to break tiebreaks. . http://www.youtube.com...(3rd video at top) And in continental and international tournaments like the World Cup and Euro Cup, games can be settled by the high-drama penalty shootout. . http://www.youtube.com...(4th video at top)3: Soccer is more well known internationallySoccer is the most popular sport in the world. The international tournaments constantly draw high ratings [1][2]. In addition, the world cup broke social media records [3]. All these reasons prove that soccer is indeed better than baseball. Sources [1] . http://www.forbes.com...[2] . http://www.deadline.com...[3] . http://www.cnn.com...
Soccer is better than baseball

[1] Soccer: A form of football played between two teams of 11 players, in which the ball may be advanced by kicking or by bouncing it off any part of the body but the arms and hands, except in the case of the goalkeepers, who may use their hands to catch, carry, throw, or stop the ball. [2] Sources (Definition sources do not count for points in voting) [1] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] . http://dictionary.reference.com... Pro argues for soccer, con argues for baseball.
Soccer is better than baseball

My opponent unluckily didn't provide a timely response, which I completely understand, but because of this he will miss out on a good round of rebuttals for my argument. I'll go easy on him for rebuttals, but first, allow me to show you this... http://instagram.com... That vine was just for laughs and wasn't put on this debate to prove much. But people should know that, while some soccer players may have talent, most have horrible sportsmanship (and/or act like babies when trying to win) such as in that website. Sometimes, this is not the players fault, but the sport of soccer's fault that sportsmanship and talent are poorly used. There are soccer players (men) who can jump higher than some dunkers in the NBA, some men who have better hand/eye coordination than some Major Leaguers, but no, they choose the game where you run around endlessly only to win or lose by one lousy goal after 80 minutes of sweaty play. REBUTTALS The videos my opponent provided were put there to try to prove "soccer fans are more into the game than baseball fans," of course, unsuccessfully because I disproved that with the one video I gave last round. http://media.columbiamissourian.com... http://blogs.rep-am.com... http://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com... http://www.bloggerstobenamedlater.com... To me, it really doesn't matter whether the fans sing the national anthem or some country singers do it for them. Besides, most people playing soccer aren't even from America or are from different, little known countries but usually not America (I hope this is not offensive to anyone)! All around, my opponent made good points but they were easily refuted by the plain truth that the rocks proclaim baseball better than soccer. This would have been a good debate if he had not forfeited, but alas I must forgive. I hope he participates in the last round.