BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Education reform, add entertainment

Knowledge: the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association [1]I've seen and experienced education from dozens of teachers who might simply hand me a piece of paper with no realworld application and a brief explanation of the subject. I've also learned via realworld application, and an explanation of the subject perhaps attached to a story or a realworld example. I've found that learning is significantly improved when students are hooked onto the subject. Various studies, some spanning many years, have shown that interested students thrive even when facing "academic difficulties or perceptual disabilities". [2]People are hungry for knowledge nowadays, but educators have a responsibility to grab and hold onto people's attention. Education and entertainment have practically always been mixed. Nowadays societies are pushing back against entertainment and in doing so are pushing against education. I've been called out by teachers many times when searching for informaion about the current subject. One could argue education wasn't ready for the age of information that new technology brings, but at the same time it must be. Perhaps one of the most beloved conservation educators of my generation is Steve Irwin, and my personal favorite is Steve Irwin. I feel the need to give mention to Jane Goodall as the possible favorite. Although he died without knowing the University of Queensland had decided to make him a professor, he still managed to make himself the australian poster boy, while being a great educator, and entertainer. It's little-known that he was very serious away from the public eye and involved in alot of conservation work, hard to imagine considering the over-the-top enthusiasm he shared for conservation, but the reason for the enthusiasm was essential. In his own words and brought via grunge:"When they asked him what kind of impact his attitude had on his audience, he said, "It excites them, which helps me to educate. I believe that education is all about being excited about something. Seeing passion and enthusiasm helps push an educational message. That's the main aim in our entire lives. … So if we can get people excited about animals, then by crikey, it makes it a heck of a lot easier to save them." Irwin said he knew people were a lot more likely to become invested in a conservation project when they were emotionally invested in the animals they were supposed to be saving, so he made it a point to share his own crazy, zany enthusiasm. And it worked." [3]Sources: [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com...[2] https://www.kqed.org...[3] http://www.grunge.com...
Euthanasia should be banned.

My opponent has not adequately dismissed my contention regarding the potential to revise/dismiss the Hippocratic oath. It is not simply enough to acknowledge that the oath is commonly used. We must question whether it is ethically ideal. With the advances in medical technology today, it has become very easy to preserve life- but often in a way that is not ideal to the doctors, the families of the patients and the patients themselves. At this point, is it really necessary to preserve an oath that was created in 400 BC at the cost of mass suffering? I suggest that it is not. My opponent has offered no justification for her claims. She has merely argued that the Hippocratic oath supports not advocating euthanasia. This in no way addresses why the Hippocratic oath is ideal or ethical and so leaves my main contention completely unaddressed.
Euthanasia should be banned.

In rebuttal, Passive euthanasia: Mode of ending life in which a physician is given an option not to prescribe futile treatments for the hopelessly ill patient. Following this, anything that a doctor does- including what he doesn't do which in this case would be not administering any active euthanasia meds, but rather being passive--- that is still breaking both the oath as they are not preserving life to the best of their ability. The Hippocratic oath is sworn in virtually all medical schools, institutions and then business. This counters my opponents points regarding the oath and passive euthanasia.
Euthanasia should be banned.

Thanks for the topic, Pro. My opponent case is easily countered by either a.) dismissing or revising the Hippocratic oath (as this sole justification seems rather arbitrary when considering the quality of life of millions) or still less controversially b.) that doctors need not administer active euthanasia. Passive euthanasia does not violated the Hippocratic oath or Canada's criminal code, so my opponent's resolution has already been adequately countered. I will still further this by suggesting the legitimate option of providing non-physicians whose sole responsibility would oversee and participate in active euthanasia. This successfully counters my opponents sole contention regarding the role of the doctor in euthanasia. I remind my opponent that no new evidence or contentions can be ethically introduced in the final round.
Euthanasia should be banned.

I quote the Hippocratic oath (400 BC); the oath necessary for physicians and doctors to consent to to follow their profession: ""I shall give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest any such counsel [...] I shall try to preserve life to the best of my ability." Since Euthanasia is legal in some parts of the world, it massacres this oath, and the doctor-patient relationship. I quote Canada"s Criminal code: "241. Anyone who counsels a person [...] or aids [...] a person to commit suicide [...] is guilty of an indictable offence." A dying patient may not be able to make a rational decision. (mental state) (Imagine) A patient may have said they want euthanasia when they were nowhere near death; however, when faced with death they may change their mind but be incapable of telling anyone. If there were better care for dying people, they might not demand Euthanasia. People might be pushed into saying they wanted to be Euthanized by family that does not want to care for them. The ending of a life is NEVER a doctor"s to take. Kill the pain. Not the patient. Murder.
Abortion Is Wrong

I am taking the stance that abortion is wrong in all cases, including rape and incest, but excluding instances when the mother's life is in danger. This debate is acceptable only for people who have 10 debates or more, because I'm tired of debating people who don't care about their ranking and will forfeit. Let's tackle the issue and try to find out if it's right or wrong. Thanks in advance, and feel free to post your first argument. Good luck.
Abortion Is Wrong

Unfortunately, my opponent has forfeited the last round of our debate. Thus, I will spend this last round explaining why the voters should not for Pro. I think it's safe to say that Pro did not meet his burden of proof. He didn't put forth a successful argument demonstrating the immorality of abortion. So, even if one was not convinced by my arguments I defended in this debate, one is still committed to vote for me since Pro failed to meet his burden of proof. With that said, I would like to thank Pro for allowing me to take part in this debate. I admire his passion and willfulness to defend the lives of unborn children. (:
Affirmative Action is Justifiable and Constitutional

Now, I would like to break down my opponents arguments piece by piece. "While it is wrong to unjustly and indiscriminately favor one race, culture, and ethnicity over another," The very beginning of the pro argument is undermined by its first sentence. My opponent has just freely admitted that it is unjust and discriminatory to favor one race over another. This is exactly what Affirmative Action does. Affirmative Action discriminates by favoring one race or sex over the rest of the population. That policy is blatant discrimination, and frankly racist and sexist because it is making a judgement on the basis of race or sex and not merit. "when taking into account historical factors that have influenced current socioeconomic dynamics," Pro must be more specific as to which historical factors have influenced socioeconomic dynamics because the con cannot contend incredibly broad topics. This is because the con argument does not know what the pro argument is specifically claiming for the justification of Affirmative Action. "it should be permitted for public policy to aid affected groups to create an equality of opportunity and make social mobility more probable. " The pro argument proposes no evidence of inequality of opportunity. To be noted, there is not one law in the United States which actively discriminates against citizens of a certain race or gender. If there is, the burden of presenting a discriminatory law falls upon the pro side. This is because the pro side claims there is inequality of opportunity. The pro argument also claims that social mobility needs to be "more probable. " Social mobility, if defined by income, is greatest in the United States. The Brookings Institute states that it only takes three things to rise into the middle class. The three things are, "don"t have children outside of marriage, finish high school, and get a job. " (1) "This is assuming that the policies are constructed and executed in a fair manner meaning that any individual or group must be qualified for whatever position they are wanting to fill (be it in educational institutions or in the workforce). " The final pro argument can be defeated by one sentence. If the individuals are assumed to be qualified, I see no reason for Affirmative Action. The problem is that Affirmative Action usually lowers the standards for certain races and sexes. Affirmative Action is a damaging because it lowers the standards of a product or service. The lowering of standards then hurts the consumer using that product or service. Affirmative Action disrespects the actual races and sexes it wishes to help. Affirmative Action believes that these races and sexes cannot reach the standards the free market sets for every other race and sex. For that reason, Affirmative Action must be terminated. (1). https://www.brookings.edu...
Affirmative Action is Justifiable and Constitutional

While it is wrong to unjustly and indiscriminately favor one race, culture, and ethnicity over another, when taking into account historical factors that have influenced current socioeconomic dynamics, it should be permitted for public policy to aid affected groups to create an equality of opportunity and make social mobility more probable. This is assuming that the policies are constructed and executed in a fair manner meaning that any individual or group must be qualified for whatever position they are wanting to fill (be it in educational institutions or in the workforce)
Affirmative Action is Justifiable and Constitutional

If society kept its lens on race in the past, why would modern day society want to continue focusing on that factor? This is what programs, such as Affirmative Action, which decide based on race, color, or sex and not merit, do. They enhance the societal lens which focuses solely on race, color or sex. This eventually forces individuals into groups based on their race, color, or sex instead of every person having their own individual identities. Once those groups are formed, the groups will eventually begin a hierarchical ranking system which places their one particular group on top. Other races, colors, or sexes become inferior to a specific race, sex, or color which justifies the inhumane treatment of these other, inferior races. Identity politics is a fast-acting disease on society, and the roots of it must be ripped out of the ground when they are weak. The sins of our fathers cannot be mended. They will always plague the history of the United States. That does not mean this generation should commit new sins to reconcile the old. Remember when histroy focused on race. Then, remember the consequences of such thinking. “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” - Martin Luther King Jr. Thank you for this debate. Good Luck, The con
Banning Gay Marriage is Unconstitutional

My argument is not that it's technically impossible for them to pass a gay marriage ban, only that a close examination and -given the current arguments- a law against gay marriage is unconstitutional. The reasoning behind a law is crucial, obviously that determines if a law should or should not be passed. The Scopes Monkey Trial, and the later case of Epperson v. Arkansas (1968) were both concerned about the teaching of evolution in schools. The theory of evolution had been banned because of religious reasons by local authorities. But the Supreme Court, in the Epperson v. Arkansas, overturned those laws, saying they violated the separation of church and state. Bans on teaching evolution were made solely because they contradicted with the church, and it is unconstitutional to make a law based only on that. The constitution doesn't say anything about restricting marriage, but if the only reason it is being banned is because the church says so than it doesn't pass. There needs to be secular evidence against gay marriage otherwise a ban is a violation of separation of church and state.
Banning Gay Marriage is Unconstitutional

Very well Miserlou, I am up to the challenge. I see where you are coming from in that many a person uses theological claims as factual supports for a certain position regarding gay marriage. First, however, I find it imperative to set up the question so we can all further our understanding. We, I assume, are debating marriage in its legal form: it wold be frivolous to argue banning gay marriage in the religious paradigm. Why is it frivolous? Because when people talk of banning gay marriage it means that as a [gay] couple you would not be legally recognized as married entity under the law despite what the churches say. In the United States, after you have your religious marriage ceremony, generally you would obtain a marriage certificate. Churches can LEGALLY marry a gay couple today, just remember that it would be pointless since they would not be married under the law (which is of course what matters). Thus, if you wish to argue the constitutionality, or rather, the legality (so as to not limit our discussion to one specific document) of gay marriage, it is imperative we do so in a secular, legal paradigm. It is an impalpable idea that a government such as the one we are discussing (the United States of course) should not be allowed to enact SECULAR legislation governing the civil unity of its citizens. There is no single place in the Constitution (including any assorted amendments you wish to toss in) that says that the institution of marriage cannot be restricted to only monogamous heterosexual couples. Neither is it true that there is legal precedent (in the United States of course) to indicate that such would be illegal. So alas, I challenge YOU to prove that the banning of gay marriage is illegal.
Banning Gay Marriage is Unconstitutional

First, let me clear up a few definitions. I'm using "Gay marriage" as an umbrella term for all rights pertaining to homosexuals, such as civil unions, and the abolition of discriminatory laws. The argument is, regardless of whether you believe in gay marriage, it would be unconstitutional for the United States to ban it. Almost all of the arguments against gay marriage are religious; people claim that it is immoral and against the Bible. But the Constitution forbids passing laws that favor a certain religion, and if all of the evidence against gay marriage is religious, it would be illegal for them to ban it since people not necessarily of those beliefs would be effected. My challenge to you is whether you can show me evidence against gay marriage that isn't strictly religious, or possibly refute my claim entirely.
Banning Gay Marriage is Unconstitutional

The Government will never be able to ban the religious ceremony called "marriage" for homosexual couples. What they can do is ban legal marriage, such that homosexual couples will not be married under the law. This is not religious in any way (how do you think atheists marry?) and thus is perfectly protected under the constitution. Several laws already refer to marriage under the law as the legal recognition that a man and a woman are married: thus making laws that reinforce these words is perfectly legal. Providing that the ban you speak of is in regards to the legal aspect of marriage and not the ceremonies themselves then it is perfectly permissible under the constitution that the government ban gay marriage.
Mac is better then PC

"You make no sense if you have no idea what a windows computer is then how are you in this debate?" The Internet is accessed through something called an Android phone; you still have not even proven the existence of this "windows computer" using any sources and you keep talking about an apple like it has these magic abilities. "i have no argument because i had a spelling mistake in "measn" when i tried to put "means"" This is a straw-man. The fact that he had a word spelled "measn" was only one thing I pointed out, there were many problems with my opponent's argument. Conclusion: I rebutted my opponent's arguments by showing them incoherent and unsupported. He did not rebut my argument showing that choosing Protective Custody over a Macintosh apple was the better choice. Thus it stands. The resolution has been negated.
Mac is better then PC

You said a Macintosh apple was way faster than Protective Custody and you do not need anything to delete it to make it faster. Then you started talking about how windows suck (when in reality, they help to not feel caged in your house), and mentioned playing games on a Macintosh apple. A completely incoherent first round. Then you claim:"I measn the windows computer PC not Protective custody"Not only is "measn" not even a word in the English language, but now you are trying to get specific in a weird fashion. You are not talking about Protective Custody, but windows computer PC you say. However, that makes even less sense. .. What is a windows computer Protective Custody? I have never heard of that type of PC before. "The Microsoft computer is stolen from Apple too and copied which makes it worsealso windows has those Microsoft publisher and that and there Realy slow" You cannot describe toughness or softness in measurements of size. The term "Microsoft" is incoherent. Also, how can you steal from an apple? Anyway, my opponent's argument does not make any sense in the slightest. My argument is coherent, as we know that it is better to choose Protective Custody than to choose an apple and get robbed for your food in General Population.
Fat is not beautiful !

Definitons. Fat: the presence of excess fat in a person or animal Beautiful: pleasing the senses or mind aesthetically Links:http: . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... The premise of this debatte is wrong : Fat is not beautiful! What my opponent meant was fat people are not beautifull. So are fat people beautifull? Let's remember the premise fat people are not beautifull If I can proof that at least one fat people is beautifull I win. definiton of beautifull being pleasing the senses or mind aesthetically I only have to proof that there are people interested in fat people and I win ! there are people interested in fat people go lock up porn pages if you don't belief me!
Fat is not beautiful !

All this talk about being happy with your 'fat' self is not right. Wikihow says " "Fat" is a word that has a negative connotation, and it shouldn't! It should be a descriptive term, like "blonde," "cute," "short," et cetera. I don't believe this message is correct nor should it be given. Fatness is naturally stigmatized and stopping that will be almost impossible, also all this effort should be put towards fighting fatness. For we should aim for a nation of slim people, and not encourage or accept without acceptation, people who are overweight.
Public bathrooms

You said in your second round that you are "against PDP, or public displays of poop. If public bathrooms conceal said pooping from view, than I am in favor of such stalls." This is a false dichotomy. I don't believe that if public bathrooms were completely removed from society, then we would be overrun by raw sewage in our streets. I'm not sure in which part of D.C. you live, but I can't imagine that the 'PDP' problem is particularly bad there. There are several reasons why you don't see alot of 'PDP' in this day and age, and none of them have to do with the fact that public toilets are available. The reasons why I personally don't 'go' in the middle of the streets range from health issues and the smell, to social respectability and the fact that, well, it's disgusting. If all public toilets were banned tomorrow, I'd either go home for my business, or hold it in. And so would everyone else. You have said that you are "STRONGLY opposed to the sights, sounds, and smells of all things poopy." I can imagine that alot of people are, although maybe not as STRONGLY as yourself. And yet you are in favour of what are essentially giant rooms made specifically for the public display of the "sights, sounds and smells of all things poopy." In fact, the only place I EVER encounter these sights, sounds and smells you are so fervently against, is in the public bathrooms you are so fervently for. Once again, it appears as though you are arguing against your own stance.