BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
bullying should be stopped

I will start my opening using five words. The strong kill the weak. It is who we are, we do this to gain a satisfaction to make our selves feel better. We like to prove to others that we are stronger than some human beings. Bulling is a natural selection. The weak dyes and the tough ones survive, that's how the world works. There is no way to stop bullying and even stop bullying in a school because it's been going on for so many years that no one really is going to put any efforts to stop it. Yes, I understand that this isn't right, yes I understand you think I'm lack of empathy. But let me tell you something you don't understand, the ones that on the top of the food chain survives. Thank you for reading, this will be the end of my opening.
bullying should be stopped

Bullying can have many results. Sometimes a kid might survive being bullied, and grow up as a sucessful adult, but many wouldn't. Hurting people is NOT right, and it NEEDS to be stopped....Before it gets too bad. Is Amanda Todd not enough? She was bullied into depression and SUICIDE. Is that not a good enough example? How many other teens have been bullied into the world of loneliness, depression, self-harm, and suicide? The numbers might just surprise you. Why even try to stop other kinds of abuse when there's the kid to kid abuse right in front of our eyes? Bullying. Needs. To. Stop
Sherlock Is superior to Elementary

Elementary is a Superior show to Sherlock for two main reasons, though there are many others. Firstly Elementary is a much more original and creative show. In that CBS manages to take the the idea of Sherlock and make a totally new and in depth cast, while still making it easily relatable and in line to the original Sherlock idea. This takes much more skill and overall ability than just running from the original as Sherlock did in many ways. And secondly Elementary shows the other side of being amazingly smart, and that nobodies perfect. In Elementary Sherlock is a much less than perfect man, he's a recovering drug addict, at extremely bad terms with his family, has made some really bad decisions in life, and has a huge ego. But in those faults is where his character lies, it's what makes him an inspiration, because in this he works to better himself and to fix mistakes he made. And without that side of the story a show is just another showy film without a real story. I say this because BBS's Sherlock in many ways doesn't really show the other side of Sherlock.
School Newspaper Censorship (Public schools)

I agree with you that in normal student speech, they must tolerate all viewpoints (within reason). However, I disagree that a school promoted newspaper is normal student speech. In the quote I provided above, the Supreme Court said that there was a distinction. In this case, the school would not merely be tolerating the speech, but actively promoting it (by sponsoring the newspaper and granting it official status.) The school must have the authority to supervise the paper. It is their right, after all, if they are supporting it. Without the ability to veto articles, the school cannot afford to allow a paper to be published. Even if the article does not directly threaten safety, it must not give any appearance of the school supporting a viewpoint not held by the officials. If the officials believe that it does, they would be within their rights to remove the article. Thank you.
School Newspaper Censorship (Public schools)

In the instance you mentioned, about the teen pregnancy article, I would agree with you. As I stated before, if it threatens safety it should not be allowed. While that particular article did not threaten safety per se, it did compromise the pregnant student's identity and reputation on soemthign that should remain private. That was not a case in censorship over sole personal opinion- the removal proteceted something very important. It was not just an instance of "Well, I'm against (blank), so I'm removing it", which is what I'm against. A school allowing an article to be published is not promoting it. Tinker says they must tolerate it, which is what they would do in allowing the publication. I thank you for a good debate.
School Newspaper Censorship (Public schools)

If that were the case, then I would disagree with the Hazelwood decision. That proceeds from my argument, because if the Hazelwood case says censorship cannot exist, and the Hazelwood case is correct, then censorship is not allowed. However, the text of the decision (from http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...) states that "we hold that educators do not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the style and content of student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities so long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns." In this particular instance, the principal completely removed two pages of the paper. It appears from the text that, rather than supporting your argument, the Hazelwood decision supports mine. Elsewhere, the decision states, "The question whether the First Amendment requires a school to tolerate particular student speech - the question that we addressed in Tinker - is different from the question whether the First Amendment requires a school affirmatively [484 U.S. 260, 271] to promote particular student speech." Schools do not have to allow a school newspaper to print articles that they believe to be offensive or unnecessarily biased.
School Newspaper Censorship (Public schools)

From your remarks, I am assuming that you are referring to an official school paper, rather than one produced spontaneously outside of the school, and simply distributed inside it. ("you need school official approval to start an "official" paper representing the school...") If the paper receives any form of funding or support (including working on the paper during school hours, a teacher being paid to help supervise, etc.) from the school, it is bound by a different set of rules than ordinary speech. The school is liable for statements made by the paper, and thus should be able to exercise authority over it. By the school supporting the paper, even if the support is limited to distribution, the paper is no longer merely student speech, it is given the authority of the school officials. Because of that, if the school officials disagree with it, they should be able to step in and reject articles. In the first example you gave, with anti-gay marriage, the school official would be within his rights to remove an article if he believed that it did not make it clear that the article was entirely the opinion of the student, or if the paper did not print both viewpoints. I agree that students do not shed their First Amendment rights when entering a school, however, I believe that the First Amendment no longer applies when the school is helping them propagate their ideas.
School Newspaper Censorship (Public schools)

This is my first debate on this website, so excuse me if I don't follow a certain format, or do this incorrectly. It would be nice for my opponent to make mention of my mistakes. The issue is school newspaper censorship in public schools. Private school are a completely different issue, so let's leave that for another time. My opinion: School newspapers should not be censored based on personal opinion, unless they threaten safety, if it is libelous, or extreme slander. Example 1: A principal does not have the right to remove an article that is anti-gay marriage because they are a supporter of gay marriage. Example 2: They do have the right to censor it if it encourages students to beat up and attack a gay member of the school. "Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier", a Supreme Court case, states that students cannot be censored by student officials if they have established the paper as a public forum. According to splc.org (Student Press Law Center), a school publication is considered a public forum when school officials have allowed student editors to make their own decisions. Because every school newspaper is run by the students and for the students, and you need school official approval to start an "official" paper representing the school, it can hardly be argued that it is considered a public forum, and it cannot be censored. Now, going off of personal opinion, I don't think any student should shed their First Amendment rights when entering a school. The school is part of a country that allows it, and the difference in surroundings shouldn't determine constitutional protection. The laws our country were founded on should apply in every normal situation, whether it be school, restaurant, home, whatever. It's not fair that students should be censored for throwing their opinion out there. School paper censorship discourages teens from printing compelling stories, because they feel they can't print them in order to prevent criticism. This shies them away from a journlaism career, and this isn't what we want, is it? Now for your rebuttal:
Humans Cause Global Warming

I believe global warming is not real and any temperature change is caused by the sun. I have three main points to back my argument. 1. People believe in global warming because political figures do 2. The earth is cooling 3. "Global Warming" hurts jobs 1. My sources say that the majority of scientists studying climate change will say that global warming is not true. About 17,000 scientists agree with the fact that it is not true. How can we possibly agree with something that is not proven by fact? The reason people believe that global warming is true is because major political figures believe it and say it is true. Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore, and many others are examples of my point. The fact is people believe this because people they trust believe, not because of fact. 2. In the last ten years the earth has gone from warming to cooling. The global temperatures are expected to decline for the next two decades. This does not need very much arguing because it is backed by pure fact. 3. If we continue to believe global warming as a society, we will lose millions of jobs and be less energy efficient. If we cannot use oil, cannot use coal, and cannot use nuclear power, how do you expect any country to be energy efficient? You can't. Without these ways of producing energy, America will lose jobs and we will be forced to find new methods of energy which will cost billions. I believe I have proved my points and I await pro's case. Sources: . http://www.aproundtable.org... . http://www.forbes.com...
Humans Cause Global Warming

Rules: R1 acceptance and opening statements. No points or arguments. R2 beginning arguments no refutation. R3 refutations and arguments. R4 same as R3 R5 rebuttals only points and refutations allowed that you have already made. I cannot stress that enough. I believe the sun is an ever changing celestial body. I do not think that humans can have a big enough impact to change the climate. If the temperature is changing it is the sun.
Humans Cause Global Warming

Refutations: 1. You just countered your own argument. You said that the number of scientists does not matter yet you argue that because more scientists agree with global warming it is true. In fact more scientists actually agree with me, your source is not reliable. You also dodged the majority of my argument. My point was people believe what political figures tell them to. My argument was not pure fact like yours..... 2. Just because I said it is PREDICTED that the earth would continue cooling does not mean that was my entire argument. Yes I did say that, but people that believe in global warming say the earth will continue getting "warmer" It is called argument anticipation. My main argument was that the earth is getting colder by temperature change that we have observed and experienced. You dodged most of my argument because you cannot argue with fact. 3. If we continue to believe in global warming then we will lose jobs. I think that the effects of the belief would go with the debate so I would say you dodged this argument as well. To counter your case I will say that I can get a bunch of sources to back my opinion too but that does not make a case, or a debate. You should get some actual arguments instead of plain sources because that is not what debating is. You use sources to back your arguments not the other way around. As my main points were either halfway refuted or ignored completely, I will not be providing new points and I ask voters to give arguments to me for a poor case on pro.
Young persons have a better understanding on politics

Alright, as a young person, I would say that as a whole, the population of my peers do not have a better understanding of politics. All they know is what they're told. I have managed to break free of what I have been told, which is why I have left political parties, and become independent. The people around me for the most part watch cable news, and listen to their parents. you'd be right to say that we are more observant, but because of this we are more unlikely to form our own political opinions. Thanks, I now stand open for rebuttals.
Young persons have a better understanding on politics

Alright, I will begin by jumping into rebuttals. "Its true that these days most part of the world watches cable news and listen to their parents but not all have become independent." You're right, not all have. The majority just take their parents word for it, therefor they do not necessarily have a greater understanding simply because they are just reciting things they've heard. "There are persons who have formed political parties and are independent. We cannot think about those who live in modern society but those who cannot afford to l"ve in such a modern society. " You'd be right in saying this, however the majority of people who formed independent ideologies are people who older. Simply because of their exposure. I became independent simply because I was raised in a certain environment, learned how things really are in the real world, and then formed my own opinions. "For example, if the current government decided that thheir are going to place a new highway across a river bank and half the population does not agree obviously that half population would form a party and try to get the government to discontinued their actions" I don't believe this to be true. People for the most part do not like change. A situation like this would most likely result in a bunch of politicians saying they will do things, but once elected will completely forget about this issue. To reiterate, the younger population, as a whole, does not have a better understanding of politics. While I have formed my own opinions, and a few others have, the majority of my peers just replay what they have been told. Thanks, and great rounds!
Young persons have a better understanding on politics

Its true that these days most part of the world watches cable news and listen to their parents but not all have become independent. There are persons who have formed political parties and are independent. We cannot think about those who live in modern society but those who cannot afford to l"ve in such a modern society. For example, if the current government decided that thheir are going to place a new highway across a river bank and half the population does not agree obviously that half population would form a party and try to get the government to discontinued their actions. Not only elder persons would be affected but also young persons to. Their space to recreate,socialize and live will be affected.
John "Bones" Jones is the best MMA fighter in the world

First thing I’d like to say is, I think it is my opponent who holds the burden of proof in this debate. Arguments/rebutals: (1) Pros arguments are based off of opinion, not evidence. One might base his opinion on who is best by the persons achievements as well as his current form. This article shows that a couple years ago he wasn’t even near the top. It doesn’t mention him once in the top 15 that it shows. Georges St. Pierre however was top then and still is one of the top now. http://www.mmacrunch.com... So he hasn’t even been at the top for long. One might also ask can he keep it up? If he hasn't been good for a long time would he be considered a proven player? (2) \\\Jon Jones is clearly the best fighter in the world./// Again purely opinion. This article rates him as number four. http://bleacherreport.com... This article gives him a very good review, but they put three other players ahead of him. So he is not clearly the best as my opponent states. (3) \\\We is in the most talented weight class by fair. you can not name any other weight class that the champion actually has to go against real competitors. The other champions are also really one dimensional/// My opponent would need to prove that his weight class is the most talented. But he has given no reasons as to why. (4) \\\john jones in clearly an all-around athlete./// 1. I assume my opponent means is instead of in. 2. So are many other’s I am sure. All this proves is that he is talented. There is a fine line between one of the best and the best. (5) \\\\If you look at his highlights below, it clearly shows that he is not only dominate over world class wrestlers in the wrestling aspect of MMA, but he is also better then world known strikers at their own game./// It proves he is good, yes. But the best? Nope. (6) \\\\Also jon jones is so humble with his fights. He is also a superhero. He took down a criminal just a few hours before his championship fight and still won. He is clearly the best//// All this proves, is that he should be respected. A person could be an arrogant, bullying, cockalorum and still be an amazing athlete. On the other hand a person could be a humble, well tempered, hell of a nice guy, but still not be very good. Closing statements: (1) Pro’s argument is just based off opinion; not evidence. (2) All my opponent has proven thus far is that Jon Jones is a good MMA fighter. Pro also claims he fights crime and is humble. (3) Like I said earlier their is a fine line between best and one of the best.
John "Bones" Jones is the best MMA fighter in the world

Jon Jones is clearly the best fighter in the world. We is in the most talented weight class by fair. you can not name any other weight class that the champion actually has to go against real competitors. The other champions are also really one dimensional, while john jones in clearly an all-around athlete. If you look at his highlights below, it clearly shows that he is not only dominate over world class wrestlers in the wrestling aspect of MMA, but he is also better then world known strikers at their own game. http://www.youtube.com... http://sports.yahoo.com... Also jon jones is so humble with his fights. He is also a superhero. He took down a criminal just a few hours before his championship fight and still won. He is clearly the best
Evolutionism vs Creationism

Through an amazing amount of evidence including astrology, archeology, biology, philosophy, and historical studies, I have found Creationism to be the only plausible answer for the beginning and purpose for life. Not only any Creator however, but the Creator that is clearly outlined in the Bible. I have found it true that Jesus was the son of God, did many miracles, and rose again. I would prefer an Atheist with many counter arguments to be involved in this debate.
Feminism

The Case against Feminism There are many reasons to stand in opposition to Feminism, I will outline 5 below. 1. Anti-Egalitarian Misandry Often these two words get confused (Feminism and Egalitarianism). Feminism is not, And has never, Been about universal equal-treatment. In fact, There are many cases feminists will stand in opposition to male rights in order to bolster their own. This is especially evident in their vehement opposition and mischaracterization of the Men's Rights Movement. 2. Self-centred A wise, Blue-haired, Shrieking harpy-demon once told me: "Why is it always women that are expected to center everyone else"s issues in their movement? " Truly, I've never heard something so profound in it's implication. One may argue that since the feminist movement juxtaposes women against men, They do not care who they must step over to achieve a perceived state of "equality. " In other words - the leaders of the movement want power, And are willing to sacrifice empathy to obtain it. 3. Deconstructionism This is more a jab at the contemporary feminist movement. I'm going to use Nietzsche here, Because the postmodernists like him so much. Read: [1][2] In the same way a weakling may rationalize his weakness, The postmodernist rationalizes the failure of socialism. A smart man could never be fooled by such a rationalization, And this makes them angry. The truth is that American culture has always been gynocentric, And the postmodern feminists know this. This thought burns them deeply resulting in seething anger. The feminists regularly gleefully attack the foundational values to our society gleefully and use "sexism, " or "misogyny" as an excuse. This is the equivalent of saying: "I could never create something to rival your traditions, So I will attack what they value most. " 4. Hypocritical I'm not going to spend much time here as it's quite self-explanatory. A feminist expects us to respect them and their actions while behaving in obscene manners and disrespecting us. I will not respect you because of your genitalia - I will respect anyone unless given a reason to do otherwise. 5. Counterproductive As it turns out, The majority of women do not want to be soldiers, Firefighters, Bricklayers, Or scientists. In attempting to achieve equal representation they are stomping upon the ideals of females who have chosen to be caring mothers, Nurses, Or poets. When treated equally, Gender differences in choice widen. [3] A brief response Quote: "Also, For clarification, "In all forms" do you mean including women's suffrage? " Women's suffrage is not 'feminist, ' and it was the result of a shift in culture and subsequent advances a result of the introduction of birth control and other scientific advancements. Quote: "Women should be exactly equal to men. " No, They shouldn't because we aren't equal in many regards. I'll recommend in the next round you rephrase this to: "should be treated equally to men. " Quote: "I am against some feminism, Primarily the radicals, The 'victims' and the idiots. " I would say feminism in it's current state IS radical, And the majority of women aren't feminists. SOURCES [1-3] IN COMMENTS
Feminism

I accept your challenge, And I know this is truly going to be a challenge. I will argue that feminism is good to a point. That point being paternity leave for either parent, Equal opportunities in ALL FIELDS, Draft reform focusing around families and relationships protections, Equal treatment in the streets (such as: rape jokes are bad no matter who is the subject) and finally, Proven reasons for a gap in wage or no gap at all. I am against some feminism, Primarily the radicals, The 'victims' and the idiots. Women should be exactly equal to men. If you have lower wage and work less, Work harder for a better wage. I want to admit, I am a noob, And I do not have a history of using sources, But I will do my best. Also, For clarification, "In all forms" do you mean including women's suffrage? Here we go. . .