BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
should school be shorter

everybody likes some part of school, yet how far does that go when you learn very little in a day and you have no incentives to get any of your work or studying done? we are in school for 7 hours at least and we don't have any breaks beyond elementary so why is he school day so long when we have so much to do? everybody has a life away from education. teachers have families and students have sports and clubs, yet we have hours worth of homework and most students have to pull all-nighters to finish their work on time. so why not shorten the school day and give the students and teachers more time for their social lives and more time they can spend more time to bond with their families. in result there would be less teen addicts and a decrease in just about every teen problem.
Dota 2 is better than League of Legends

Sadly, my opponent forfeited because of time constrains.I will still rebut some of the points because I consider them necessary for my case.Rebuttal:"Which means that Dota had the original idea of a MOBA, and the other MOBA's took it on from there."This is false. The wc3's map DotA AllStars was released before LoL, but the first MOBA is an Starcraft:BroodWar map called Aeon Of Strife. [1] This is the first map to have the core characteristics of a MOBA."This means that you can be a professional Dota 2 player without paying a penny."This is obviously true, but is also true for LoL. Riot even give full account to professional players with all the skins."No one playing the game will ever feel as if their opponent has an advantage over them simply because they payed more."LoL is not play2win. My argument on balance explains why this is possible in LoL, you don't need to have all the heroes in LoL, and having them will give you more options but not an advantage.No player should feel an opponent has an advantag, You will always find people better than you that didn't pay a cent and are able to win games from the start, since 0 champions purchased.And if you use money in LoL, the best thing you can buy is skins that don't affect gameplay."Dota 2 is like Chess while LoL is like Checkers."This analogy doesn't make sense. Chess and checkers are 1v1 games. A better analogy would be "Dota 2 is like American football and LoL is like basketball". This is also a good analogy about how balance and gameplay works, as well as how strong carries are.The rest of point are subjective, unnecessesary or were already explained in my arguments.Thanks for the debate. Vote for CON.Source:1. http://www.getdota.com...; Q: How popular is this game? What is its background?
Dota 2 is better than League of Legends

Here we go: So first, I would like to point out that Dota 2 is a sequel of the original Dota, which was a mod for warcraft 3. This mod was released BEFORE LoL. Which means that Dota had the original idea of a MOBA, and the other MOBA's took it on from there. ARTWORK There's no doubt that the graphics and design of Dota 2 is more visually appealing. Graphics aren't everything, and some players may find the cartoony graphics to their liking, but for people who are new to the MOBA genre, and are looking for a game - they will find that Dota 2 looks much more visually appealing, and will lean towards playing the game. COST This is a HUGE factor when it comes to which game is better. ALL OF THE HEROES IN DOTA 2 ARE FREE! This is a huge difference from league of legends, in which there are 10 free weekly champions that rotate weekly. This means that you can be a professional Dota 2 player without paying a penny. No one playing the game will ever feel as if their opponent has an advantage over them simply because they payed more. And while it is true that in LoL, you can purchase Champions with in-game currency, this often takes a very long time to do so. Complexity of Gameplay Dota 2 is like Chess while LoL is like Checkers. Dota 2 is the more complex game and requires a lot more skill. Now I'm not saying that LoL doesn't require skill. It most definitely requires skill. All i'm saying is that at the top level - A Dota 2 player will have practiced a lot more to get to the same skill level of an LoL player. Ammount of Players There is no denying that LoL is popular. I'll admit that it is VERY popular. with over 30 million accounts, it is definately the most popular game in all of MOBA's. But, it is to be noted that LoL has been around for a lot longer than Dota 2 has. And also, I would simply like to point out that just because a game has more players doesn't mean that the game is better. For example, Justin Beiber's "Baby ft. Ludacris" has many views on youtube, but I think we can all agree that the song is terrible. Community The community in Dota 2 is very understanding. I remember when I played my first game of Dota 2, and I was dying left and right. The other players on my team were getting angry with me, until I told them that I was new to the game. They immediately stopped getting angry and gave some tips and advice. They comforted me, and one person even wrote "every expert was once a beginner". In my experince, the Dota 2 community is very good towards beginnners. The community is also very active - Videos, Artwork, Mods, Screenshots, Discussions, and Guides are posted regularly in the Steam Community forums. These are the reasons why I believe Dota 2 is better. My opponent will present his/her stance in the next round ** I just want to kindly remind my opponent that there will be no rebuttals, and only arguments when he posts his/her round two. Rebuttals will be made in round three.** Good Luck!
cigars vs cigarettes

Here is the problem with our anti smoking culture: People really do not know anything about "smoking" people (specifically Americans) only know about addiction to smoking specifically addiction to smoking one or two packs of cigarettes a day until you get cancer. "smokers" in my opinion are not addicted due in part because they know how to smoke properly. I avoid cigarettes because cigarettes are not actually tobacco, the average cigarette only contains one gram of tobacco, plus to make matters worse the manufacturing process of cigarettes leaves behind a whopping four-thousand chemicals, and you smoke that every time you have a cigar. A cigar can contain up to seventy times as much tobacco as a cigarette but without the four-thousand chemicals, of course not all cigars are created equal but they are still healthier for you than cigarettes despite how much more tobacco cigars contain they are still better for you. To add another point; cigar smokers typically do not inhale the smoke, they hold the smoke in their mouths. This means they are at much less risk of lung cancer because you are not inhaling, of course if you smoke cigars too much you could get oral cancer, however you can also get oral cancer from drinking too much alcohol. Cigars are definitely a much better choice than cigarettes. You're not really smoking tobacco when you smoke cigarettes, there is a tiny, tiny amount of tobacco mixed with thousands of chemicals.
cigars vs cigarettes

if you're one of those anti-smoking nuts then don't bother participating this debate is for smokers only. I vote for cigars over cigarettes. Cigar smokers are healthier than cigarette smokers and cigars also taste better. The Cigar is about the experience while the cigarette is habit forming and people quickly become addicted, so they only focus on getting a nicotine fix while cigar smokers take their time to enjoy and relax.
should celebrities be role models

The beautiful silver sky may have lightining in their womb form. I don't see the problem as being celebrities but I do appose to estimation of them as role models. Why do we idolize celebrities? Yes I agree admire them for what they have accomplished and for their careers in general but it isn't necessary to idolize them anymore. As they are not as smart, good, worthwhile, or important as the media makes them out to be. It is nothing but just to be with the trend we land up making celebrities our role models. Many of my colleagues carry pictures of celebrities they look up to them and treat them as gods. What they forget is that celebrities have no power whatsoever. The power belongs to the viewer. if you stop watching them they will disappear.Dont confuse the actor with the role.Far beaming with broad smiles may enchant you.But do you think it is right to hand them over your destiny? Celebrities actually flatter.Just to get appreciation for themselves and to get their work done. Most of the time they do things out of compitiveness and jealousy. They participate in fund raising rallies just to get fame for themselves. And if we follow their footsteps we to will also learn the same. Azharuddin As said ‘All that glitters is not gold'.This applies to the celebrities as here are few examples. Shah Rukh Khan takes a crore to for just an appearance in a party. Salman Khan has been charged for poaching a protected deer.Mh.Azharuddin. has been charged for match fixing. Is this our future plan. Now I will like to ask you ‘Do you still think they are worth to be our role models?' Celebrities appear to be smiling personalities but actually they are all masked.Wash their faces off and you will find that they are just a figure to fancy.They are at the end just money minded and craving for fame.They dont care a bit for the wealth of the nation. So my dear friends dont be blind and built a world of make believe and illusions. We should judge our role models by their intrinsic qualities and not by their outward appearance as appearances are very often deceptive. If you are looking for a role model then why are those who are truly worthwhile faded in the background? I personally feel that a role model is someone who gives up their own time, attention and money to help others. And they are the ones who deserve all the attention. If you really want a positive role model then look at an ant farm. I repeat if you really want a positive role model then look at an ant farm!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
People from Northern Ireland shouldn't be able to play for the Irish Rugby Squad

Well if they are part of the UK, then play for a country in the UK. Play for a team you are part of. All those years ago, when the treaty was signed that Northern Ireland was under the rule of the English Monarchy, England wanted them (Why, nobody knows), but then hundreds of thousands of people were planted in Northern Ireland from the UK. Many people in Northern Ireland are fully English. If you are half-Irish, fair enough, but if you are fully English, why should you play for our country?
People from Northern Ireland shouldn't be able to play for the Irish Rugby Squad

Well if they're players are better, tough. What if France's players are better than Spain's? And if a player from Northern Ireland got the chance to go to England and play at professional level, and get paid to play a game they love, why not? In all club sports like soccer, the players could be playing for a club in Australia and also play on their National Team in Italy. It applies in rugby too.
People from Northern Ireland shouldn't be able to play for the Irish Rugby Squad

Currently, if you are a citizen of Northern Ireland (Part of the UK) you are eligible to play for the Republic of Ireland's (Not part of the UK) National Rugby squad. I do not see why they should be allowed, people from Northern Ireland have different passports, and their nationality is considered different. The only acceptable case should be if one of someone from Northern Ireland's parents were from the Republic of Ireland. Northern Irish people do not play for our football (soccer) or hockey squads.
Multilinguism is good for a person

HOW should the European Union manage its multilingualism? The 28 partner countries speak an unwieldy 23 languages. To enable more shared modes of expression, Johnson's most recent column proposed that every child in Europe should learn at least two foreign languages. "Nonsense", replied quite a few commenters. Many argued that it would be far more practical if all European matters were simply conducted in English. Why not let the most popular language spread to every corner of Europe"and, indeed, the rest of the world? This would certainly seem more practical than teaching every European child two more languages. But mandating English might also serve to undermine loyalty to the EU. There are too many Europeans who would rather not have English dominate political affairs. The continent has more native German-speakers, including four countries where German is an official language. French has as many native-speakers in Europe, too, and is official in three countries (not to mention Europe's de facto capital, Brussels). Native English-speakers make up less than a fifth of the EU's population. And, awkwardly, English is the official language of the one country that will soon hold a referendum on whether to quit the EU entirely. But the real reason not to adopt a "mainly English" language policy involves the EU's promise to its members, under the official motto "united in diversity". No country joined the union in order to be crushed under a homogenising wheel. Important laws are made at the EU level, and Europeans have a right to be able to understand them. This includes not only grasping the final laws, but also the debates in the European Parliament. The EU already makes big gestures to small countries (like giving Malta and Germany the same vote at the European Central Bank). Encouraging multilingualism, not just fluency in English, seems a more sensible way of showing that all countries matter. Recognising the importance of all languages big and small may seem romantic. But when it comes to arguments about language, as with trade, emotion often trumps reason. Hard facts may be a good reason to, say, shut an old steel mill that cannot withstand competition. But a language is not a steel mill. There is far more at stake: not just people's livelihoods, but their identities and cultural diversity itself. The continent's proliferating anti-EU parties would throw themselves a party if the EU foolishly tossed aside national exceptionalism for an English hegemony.
Multilinguism is good for a person

It's seems to me that at the end of your passage you forgot that yours was "con-multilingualism":) well, spending money on bilingual education initiatives cannot be a waste of money because, as you said, " "bilingual boost" extends beyond the classroom and into later life. The effect is about four years" difference on average, which can make a considerable difference to quality of life in retirement." Also, a person will never be considered as a traitor due to the knowledge of another language, if they know their mother tongue. On the contrary, it will only make them more intellectual. And the rest of my arguments are listed in the second part of your passage: multilingual chilbren better perform at school and multilingualisn help people to have better life in their retirement.
Multilinguism is good for a person

The significance of multilinguism doesn't refer to the high school only. It helps people in general, at any age. This is scientificantly proved that those who know several languages are much less likely to have Alzheimer's disease or any other diseases connected to brain: being multilingual speeds up the work of neurons, which help brain to be fit. Plus to that, multilingual people have a broader view than those who speak one language because with learning a language they also learn other cultures, their way of thinking.
Evolution is Wrong and False. The Bible Gives Better Answers.

I'm sure most scientifically literate individuals are feeling my frustration.My opponent keeps hurling the bible verses at me, that have ZERO things to do with science.The motion regards the nature of biological development of organisms. He has just said evolution is stupid and the bible is right without presenting ANY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENC. On Obama's Statement: I find it crazy that my opponent doesn't even understand his own evidence. Obama DOES NOT MEAN WE WERE FUNCTIONALLY CHRISTIAN.He is referring to the religious orientation of the population. We have always operated in a secular manner. He is saying the religious orientation of the American population is more diverse now. Once again refer back to the Treaty Of Tripoli. More On Epistemology: My opponent states"IS THAT SOPHISTICATED FOR SAYING I DO NOT KNOW WHAT I'M TAKING ABOUT, I AM JUST GUESSING??????)" . It depends on what you mean by "know", if by know you mean 100% certain then no. I do not claim to be 100% certain, however I am claiming to be rationally and reasonably justified in my belief of evolution. I believe I have justified my belief through evidence and reason. A further implication is that my opponent can't be absolutely certain of anything he has said either. Once again I am NOT "just guessing", I am forming a rational and coherent argument from evidence.On Common Sense: my opponent keeps on using the phrase "god given common sense", without demonstrating any gods exist but that's a different story. Now what is common sense "the ability to think and behave in a reasonable way and to make good decisions". All common sense is derived from experience. Neither my opponent or myself have experienced the billion year evolutionary progression of organisms. We are the result of it but we have not experienced it. Consequently common sense does not apply here. The best we can do is look at the evidence and generate rational conclusions.He is using non-science to argue science.Once again this is a science debate, my opponent is in some debate but he is no longer engaged in this one.
The United States should build and maintain a border fence

As my opponent stated: "This opening round is for definitions, acceptance, and clarification only."Acceptance: I hereby accept my opponent's kind invitation.Clarification:My opponent has allowed Round 1 (R1) to be used for clarification purposes. Aside from the criterion, I am adding no new content but only clarifications in order to ensure a smooth debate.My opponent has not provided a criterion for this debate; however, over a private message we agreed to a criterion of net benefits." In other words, voters should judge arguments based on whether Con's or Pro's position is more beneficial overall. As my opponent states, Pro may indeed include other relevant policy changes that do not directly contribute to the border fence construction; however, please remember that Pro and Con are debating the merits/harms of constructing a border fence.As my opponent states, Round 4 (R4) is strictly for summary, expect for Pro's possibly rebutting Con's R3 arguments. Please remember that Pro's R4 rebuttal must be against Con's R3 arguments--not Con's R1 or R2 arguments.Definitions:United States: The United States Federal Government Maintain: To continue to keep (something) in good condition by making repairs, correcting problems, preventing significant failure and decline, etc. Border: a line separating one country or state from anotherThanks to my opponent for the invitation! I'm looking forward to a fantastic and educational debate.
The United States should build and maintain a border fence

A border fence is one of the possible mechanisms used to control immigration and the flow of goods over U.S. borders. In this debate I will contend that existing border fences on the southern border should maintained and upgraded, and that at least a new 700 mile fence should be built .I do not require that a border fence be built on the entire border. There are natural obstacles in some places and in other places there are less expensive enforcement techniques. The fundamental contention is that border fences are a significant cost-effective part of border enforcement.The controversy over building a border fence is renewed this year as part of immigration reform. This article gives some background on the controversy for those unfamiliar with the subject: [1. http://www.timesfreepress.com... ]The context of this debate is the present day United States. For this debate, there is no distinction between a "fence" and a "wall" or other types of running structural barriers.Thanks to my opponent for taking up this topic. RulesThis opening round is for definitions, acceptance, and clarification only. I will give the Pro case at the start of the second round. Either side may propose changes in policies related to border policies, but the Pro plan must include a border fence and the Con plan cannot include a border fence. The overall plan must be disclosed in the opening round of debate (R2) with only minor changes thereafter.Standard debate conventions apply. I list them here for the benefit of new debaters and readers. I believe there is nothing tricky or eccentric. Both sides agree to the following rules, and that violating the rules is a conduct violation, with anything contrary to the rules to be ignored by readers judging the debate:DR 1. All arguments must be made in the debate. Evidence may be cited or linked from the debate, but only in support of arguments made in the debate. Arguments made in Comments are to be ignored.DR 2. Source links or references must be included within the character limit of the debate. No links or sources are permitted in comments.DR 3 Any term not specifically defined before use is to be taken with the ordinary dictionary definition of the term that best fits the context of the debate. The definitions given in the challenge stand as a condition of acceptance.DR 4. No new arguments shall be made in Round 4, except for Pro's rebuttal of Con's R3 arguments. Otherwise R4 is for summarizing and restating the points of the debate.DR 5. DDO site rules always apply. Neither side may add or modify rules for the debate once the challenge is accepted.VotingThe debate should be decided solely upon the arguments and evidence presented in the debate.
Physicalism is true.

AveThe resolution of this debate states that "Physicalism is true". Physicalism amounts to the ontological thesis that there is nothing "beyond or above" the physical, and that all actually existing entities are supervenient on the physical. For the purposes of this debate, I will defend the truth of physicalism as defined, and I will not focus on sub-types of physicalism such as theory-based physicalism and object-based physicalism. Similarly, I will not bother myself with explicating a reductionist or non-reductionist defense of physicalism.The first round of this debate is for acceptance. The second round will begin with my opening argument, followed by back and forth rebuttals throughout the remainder of the debate. Voters should vote for the debater who has a preponderance of the evidence (i.e. when weighted on balance, the arguments favor their side over the opposing side).Vale
Same-sex marriage should be legal in the United States

In this debate, I will argue for the position that the United States government should legalize same-sex marriage. I am well-aware that the topic has been beaten beyond death, so in my desire to breathe some life into it, I will be offering a traditionalist/conservative defense of same-sex marriage. For the purposes of this debate, same-sex marriage will be defined as a legally recognized contract between two individuals of the same gender that grants the same legal benefits found in heterosexual marriage. I do not define marriage in the abstract or offer the traditional man-woman definition of marrage, as that is what this debate is about: what marriage should be, not what it is or has been.