BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Global warming exists.

Signs that the Earth is warming are recorded all over the globe. The easiest way to see increasing temperatures is through the thermometer records kept over the past century and a half. Around the world, the Earth's average temperature has risen more than 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.8 degrees Celsius) over the last century, and about twice that in parts of the Arctic. This doesn't mean that temperatures haven't fluctuated among regions of the globe or between seasons and times of day. But if you average out the temperature all over the world over the course of a year, you see that temperatures have been creeping upward. I'm not saying that humans are the cause of this but what I'm saying is that it is happening.
More Foreign Languages should be taught/offered in High Schools

I understand that not every job in the world requires the person to be bilingual. My point was many students aspire to work in a high paying career, as in Law or Health. Imagine if someone that has only ever been taught Spanish comes into a hospital. If no one in the hospital knows Spanish, what happens to the person? They won't be able to get the patients personal information. At my high school, we have 2 language classes. Students (like me) that want to have a career that involves languages should be able to have a larger variety of languages to choose from. I am not content with only being able to choose between French or Spanish, and I cannot be the only person unhappy with the language program at their high school. I never said high schools should offer obscure languages that barely anyone in the world speaks. I believe languages like German, Chinese, Portuguese, and Latin should be offered at all schools. I know cost is a factor, I never said it wasn't. However, the idea of students succeeding in foreign language courses should motivate the school board to raise money for these courses. And I conclude, more practical foreign languages should be offered in ALL high schools.
More Foreign Languages should be taught/offered in High Schools

Students must have the opportunity to learn another language because that increased knowledge will help students prosper in the career the choose. Learning about more languages and cultures will enable students to connect with the entire world. Professionals who know other languages are called upon for amazing opportunities that require that person to communicate with other countries. Bilinguals have a larger advantage over those people who only know one language. More languages need to be offered so all students will have the chance to increase their knowledge.
The reason for WW2 was the League of Nations

"The League of Nations did not cause World War 2" Con just agreed with me. Cause and Reason are synonyms. "he League was a strong power, sorting out many world problems and sorting out crises like the Bulgaria crisis 1923. The League failed to do anything in Manchuria in 1931 when it was invaded. This showed that the League was weak and ineffective and uninfluential. If the League had sorted out the Manchuria problem then it Mussolini wouldn't have tested the LoN in the Abyssinia crisis, where the League failed again, and Hitler wouldn't have started rearming in the first place. If the League had had better organisation then they would have made more countries disarm, and WW2 wouldn't have come about. The League was the largest cause of WW2 because they managed to fail so badly, that the Treaty of Versailles was not upheld at all. This was due to Britain and France with their policy of appeasement but remember that they were the LoN." As I said earlier the League didn't cause the war, they just failed at stopping it. Also the LoN was set up badly as the only thing they could do was stop trade. The only met 4 times a year which slowed down the process. They couldn't do anything, but stop trade with Hitler, the people who should have attacked were Britain of France. The LoN was a complete failure, but not the reason. Failing to stop a war is different from starting a war. If a peace mission fails, do you say that the peace mission was the cause of the war? No you don't. It is the same with the LoN, they were the peace mission that failed. They didn't cause a war, just failed at stopping it. Sources: http://www.bing.com...
The reason for WW2 was the League of Nations

True, it is not the cause of WW2 but if you look back to the debate is: 'the REASON for WW2 was the League of Nations. For this I will use the acronym LoN for League of Nations. I agree with the point about Britain's policy of appeasement in the 1930s but that doesn't mean that it caused the war. Granted Hitler grew stronger but the buck should stop with the League of Nations. In the 1920s the League was a strong power, sorting out many world problems and sorting out crises like the Bulgaria crisis 1923. The League failed to do anything in Manchuria in 1931 when it was invaded. This showed that the League was weak and ineffective and uninfluential. If the League had sorted out the Manchuria problem then it Mussolini wouldn't have tested the LoN in the Abyssinia crisis, where the League failed again, and Hitler wouldn't have started rearming in the first place. If the League had had better organisation then they would have made more countries disarm, and WW2 wouldn't have come about. The League was the largest cause of WW2 because they managed to fail so badly, that the Treaty of Versailles was not upheld at all. This was due to Britain and France with their policy of appeasement but remember that they were the LoN.
The reason for WW2 was the League of Nations

The League of Nations did not cause World War 2, Germany's invasion of Poland and the Treaty of Versailles. It is true that the League of Nations failed to do what they were supposed to, but it didn't cause the war. It just didn't stop the WW2 from taking place, therefore it is not a cause. The Invasion of Poland is a cause because when Germany attacked, Britain and France declared war, and the Treaty of Versaillies because it created a situation that allowed Hitler to come to power. Also WW2 is Britain and France's fault. If they had attacked Germany when it first broke the treaty, they would have been crushed.
The reason for WW2 was the League of Nations

I am arguing that the League Of Nations, set up in 1919 by Woodrow Wilson, was the main reason for the start of WW2. I am arguing for. I want an interesting debate so I have kept it to 3 rounds. This means points will have to be kept short as first round is acceptance and stating resolution. I would prefer if only a small amount of rebuttal occurred and more points were made which were relevant to keep the topic fresh!
The Ecology Movement Has Become a Religion

Con asserts, "Guiding your affairs" is not the same as "guiding your life" if the affairs you partake in under something's guidance do not fall under the category "life." Of course is it is the same thing. After a person dies, there is nothing to be guided. Therefore there is no possibility that guidance applies to anything except life. During life a person makes decisions. The rules that guide those decisions guide his life. A jihadist makes decisions during his life, using his religion as a guide, that ultimately leads to his death by suicide. The affairs being guided clearly pertain to the category "life" because they all relate to decisions determining the course of the jihadist's life, no matter that they may ultimately lead to his death. All of the decisions made were during his life, therefore they were guiding his life. If Con had doubt about what the definition meant, Con could use the clarification provided by "This is close to the definition commonly used by academic theologians." Theologians define religion in terms of mystical beliefs that cause a person to do something. There is no academic concept that a religion must, by definition, promote the length or quality of life. It would be nonsensical for such an errant definition to become the traditional academic one. The classical definition is easily found. The definition of religion given by Wikipedia is the classical one to which I was referring, "A religion is a set of conducts resulted from tenets (or a belief system) about the ultimate power." http://en.wikipedia.org... The "set of conducts" are the things guiding the believer's life. The "ultimate power" for the eco-religion is the supremacy of nature. So while it is possible that I might have adopted an unusual definition of "religion" for the debate, I did not. More importantly, I told Con explicitly that I did not adopt an unusual definition by saying that my definition was close to the one commonly used by academic theologians. We know Con's interpretation of the definition is incorrect because it is not close to any classic academic definition.
The Ecology Movement Has Become a Religion

" I did not not assert that the goal of the ecology movement was to preserve lives. As you point out, that is clearly not the goal. In the movement, human life is subordinate to a certain concept of nature taken as an object of worship. The concept of "used by believers to guide their lives" does not imply anything about the purpose of guiding their lives. Religions have at various times demanded practices contrary to fulfillment of human life. For example, in the ancient Hawaiian religion, pre-1800, a commoner eating a banana committed a crime punishable by death, because all yellow objects were reserved for the priestly aristocracy. Nonetheless, the irrational rule about yellow objects was a clear factor in decisions about how a person in the religion conducted their affairs." Such religions do not count under your definition. "Guiding your affairs" is not the same as "guidng your life" if the affairs you partake in under something's guidance do not fall under the category "life." Especially when the fall under the opposite category, "death"-- specifically "Causes of." " Religious dictates may guide a believer to death. Some victims of human sacrifice are willing victims because they believe in the higher calling of the religion. The "guiding" clearly relates to the religious rule for behavior that is obeyed, not the consequences of the behavior." I was not disputing the "Guiding" part in and of itself, only the "guiding life." The path being treaded along is death. Since you asserted the definition of religion as an unconditional assumption of this debate for both parties, anything which does not fall under it is not a religion for the purpose of this debate. Definitions so asserted should be chosen very carefully. " Once it is understood that "guiding their lives" means the acceptance of rules for behavior by believers" How can such be the result of a proper understanding, when it is not life they are guiding? The behavior in question is anti-life. " What we are seeing in society today is the rise of a great new fundamentalist faith." True, but that does not fulfill the requirements of "religion" that are assumed in this debate. I would also like to note that the "Their" is also a relevant problem in "Guiding their lives." By taking up the -- yes, faith, though by the definition given irreligous faith-- of ecology, a human renounces any claim to a life-- if such should continue to exist by some accident, it can't count as theirs, they've already surrendered it, it belongs to the "Ecosystem" or whatever now.
The Ecology Movement Has Become a Religion

I asserted "For the purposes of this debate, a religion is a systematic collection of faith-based beliefs without rational foundation used by believers to guide their lives." You responded, "And here, it happens, is precisely the problem with the resolution. Guide their lives? Environmentalism is not used to guide lives, life is not the goal of an environmentalist. Environmentalism, or "the ecology movement" if you will, has exhibited a hatred of human life-- it is used by believers to guide their deaths." I did not not assert that the goal of the ecology movement was to preserve lives. As you point out, that is clearly not the goal. In the movement, human life is subordinate to a certain concept of nature taken as an object of worship. The concept of "used by believers to guide their lives" does not imply anything about the purpose of guiding their lives. Religions have at various times demanded practices contrary to fulfillment of human life. For example, in the ancient Hawaiian religion, pre-1800, a commoner eating a banana committed a crime punishable by death, because all yellow objects were reserved for the priestly aristocracy. Nonetheless, the irrational rule about yellow objects was a clear factor in decisions about how a person in the religion conducted their affairs. The goal of the yellow object rule was clearly not to preserve life, but it is also clear the belief guided behavior. Religious dictates may guide a believer to death. Some victims of human sacrifice are willing victims because they believe in the higher calling of the religion. The "guiding" clearly relates to the religious rule for behavior that is obeyed, not the consequences of the behavior. Once it is understood that "guiding their lives" means the acceptance of rules for behavior by believers, based upon faith, then it follows that the additional examples you provide are supporting the resolution. What we are seeing in society today is the rise of a great new fundamentalist faith. As you point out, the new faith has the potential for killing millions of people and devastating the economies of many countries. We should, as a starting point, recognize the fact that it is a religion.
The Ecology Movement Has Become a Religion

"For the purposes of this debate, a religion is a systematic collection of faith-based beliefs without rational foundation used by believers to guide their lives." And here, it happens, is precisely the problem with the resolution. Guide their lives? Environmentalism is not used to guide lives, life is not the goal of an environmentalist. Environmentalism, or "the ecology movement" if you will, has exhibited a hatred of human life-- it is used by believers to guide their deaths. The fundamental doctrine of the "Ecology movement" is that nature has intrinsic value, and that Man and his activities are fundamentally threats to this value. The logical consequence of this is that he should be eliminated. Any inconsistencies in advocating this are the consequence of tactical concerns, to make their policy goals more palatable, it does not alter the nature of the movement as such. Whenever an environmentalist stops the development of, say, an energy source in a third world country, to "protect the rainforest," they are condemning the population there to massively shortened lives to that which could be-- and they wish to do the same to their own country, too. Whenever the environmentalists push higher fuel efficiency standards, they create an increase in highway fatalaties-- basic physics here, heavier vehicles have more inertia, and are therefore better able to absorb collisions. When they banned DDT, they condemned millions, some probably among their own number, to death by disease-- in the name of birds. When they push for the ban of pesticides, fertilizers, and other yield-increasing agricultural technologies, they keep the food supply smaller, so that fewer can avoid starving. The Sierra club, fairly mainstream for a part of the ecology movement, for example, has this to say about GM crops, which happen to expand the food supply and therefore reduce starvation: "In accordance with this Precautionary Principle, we call for a moratorium on the planting of all genetically engineered crops and the release of all GEOs into the environment, including those now approved." INCLUDING THOSE NOW APPROVED: Translation: Including those already in use that have not harmed anyone, that are out there producing life-sustaining food. If wilderness, ecosystems, biodiversity, are ends in themselves, it naturally follows that man has no moral right to clothe himself, to house himself, to eat, to live. Without rational foundation? Absolutely. Used to guide LIVES? Heck no. It's not lives, it's deaths, they are guiding.
THBT Government Should Facilitate The Right To DIe

Numerous ailments such as certain types of cancer result in a slow, agonizing death. Doctors have enough knowledge and experience to know when a patient's days are numbered. What purpose would it serve to suffer endlessly until the body finally gives out? Imagine what it would be like to spend six months vomiting, coughing, enduring pain spasms, losing control of excretory functions, etc. Then you must consider the psychological suffering; i.e. the knowledge that a patient knows he's definitely going to die and the pain is only going to get worse. Wouldn't it be more humane to give the patient the option to say when he's had enough? SHOULD THE GOVERNMENT FACILITATE THE RIGHT TO DIE?
merit pay based on student achievement should be a significant component for teacher compensation

It may have worked for you, but according to my first subpoint: Sub point 1: It does not improve education a.Merit pay does nothing to improve student performance A study by the Urban Institute found some positive short-lived effects of merit pay, but concluded that most merit pay plans "did not succeed at implementing lasting, effective ... plans that had a demonstrated ability to improve student learning. ...little evidence from other research...that incentive programs (particularly pay-for-performance) had led to improved teacher performance and student achievements." Merit pay plans have shown some positive short-lived effects, but there as been little evidence to show that merit pay works in the long term.
merit pay based on student achievement should be a significant component for teacher compensation

No, merit pay is not good, as stated in my first contention. Contention 1: Merit pay does not work Sub point 1: It does not improve education a.Merit pay does nothing to improve student performance A study by the Urban Institute found some positive short-lived effects of merit pay, but concluded that most merit pay plans "did not succeed at implementing lasting, effective ... plans that had a demonstrated ability to improve student learning. ...little evidence from other research...that incentive programs (particularly pay-for-performance) had led to improved teacher performance and student achievements." b."The idea of merit pay, sometimes called pay for performance, was born in England around 1710. Teachers' salaries were based on their students' test scores on examinations in reading, writing, and arithmetic. The result was that teachers and administrators became obsessed with financial rewards and punishments, and curriculums were narrowed to include only the testable basics. ... So drawing, science, and music disappeared. Teaching became more mechanical as teachers found that drill and rote repetition produced the 'best' results. Both teachers and administrators were tempted to falsify results, and many did. The plan was ultimately dropped, signaling the fate of every merit plan initiative ever since." Sub point 2: Student achievement cannot be accurately measured. a."the problem with merit-based pay is that there's no reasonable, rational, consistent way to measure performance... teaching is more art than science. Every student is different, with a unique perspective, background, learning style, and, more importantly, pace of development. To penalize a teacher for having a group of students who develop more slowly than others is absurd. No matter how good the teacher is, there's no way to force a child to develope faster than they're capable of doing." Teacher merit is too hard to measure for merit-pay to be fair "Oppose Merit-Based Pay for Teachers". The Falcon's View. March 10, 2009 b.Standardized Test Scores May Be Unreliable. Most merit pay programs are tied to the scores students receive on the tests required by Bush's No Child Left Behind Law. As the American Federation for Teachers and the National Education Association have pointed out, these standardized test scores are seldom reliable and do not provide an accurate barometer of a teacher's performance." "Top Ten Reasons Why Merit Pay for Teachers Is a Terrible Idea". Education Portal. July 10, 2007 I have shown reasonable evidence that proves that merit pay does not work, and has not worked in the past.
Should The United States Increase Funding for Sexual Health Among Teens

I disagree with the statement "But whether the government or states or who ever implements this plan, it's still not realy any argument about my actual harm that teenagers are having sex." The essence of your original argument is "should" the United States do something; I contended that it is not the responsibility of the federal government to do anything about this per the limits placed on it by the US Constitution. Everything else is besides the point and not germane to claim made (Should The United States Increase Funding for Sexual Health Among Teens?). The claim was not "how should the United States ...". I appreciate you comments, thoughts and participation. Best wishes!
Should The United States Increase Funding for Sexual Health Among Teens

Re3 Harm #1: I would not say it is more justifiable, but it would defintely be Constitutional instead of unConstitutional. Re3 Harm #2:I would contend that using condomns is not proven to be any more acceptable than abstinence. Most teens would not even consider it. Your statements imply we can make sure they are at least being safe. After teens are educated and given condomns how do we make sure they are using them? I contend that condom use is just as rarely used as abstinence. I further contend that those who do use condemns everytime without fail are still not guaranteed to be safe from unplanned pregnancies or STDs. I am unable to provide evidence of abstinence being taught as the norm or any other method. Unfortunately I wouldn't know where to find it. I am 50 years old and you may disbelieve me, but my experience and recollection over the years is that teaching abstinence is always fought against when the issue is brought up in public schools for the very reasons you began this debate with. Disbelief is fine as I cannot prove it one way or the other. I encourage you to always be skeptical of everyone (me, the schools, the news, and government). Listen and study boths sides, decide for yourself. Be an open-minded, respectful to others and independent thinker, that is the important thing. Search for the truth. Although we disagree on this issue, I think you are well on your way to being a open-minded, respectful, independent thinker! Don't ever give up. Critical thinking is so important to your future. Don't ever let anyone tell you what to think. The purpose of education is to learn how to think. Best wishes. PS this is my first debate here, although I have been debating informally all my life I'm sorry my response to your advantage isn't clear. Understanding the principles of freedom is something all Americans should be taught, its our heritage and schools used to teach it. The Declaration of Independence and our Constitution are the result of all known human history about government and freedom/slavery. If you haven't been exposed to the principles and history of freedom it would be very to reply. I would like to encourage you to study freedom. It is worthy of your time and important to your future.