BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Schools should start later.

Good Afternoon My name is John. Based on the topic, I strongly believe that schools(not including university) should start later. According to the statistics, the National Sleep Foundation found that 60% of teenagers under the age of 18 complained of being tired during the day, and 15% said they fell asleep at school during the year. Thus, I strongly support the notion that schools should start later because of more sleep time at night and more study time in the evening. First of all, schools should start later for more rest. Teenagers need an average of 9.5 hours of sleep per night. Yet studies show that teenagers generally get an average of 7.4 hours a night. This difference is huge and disastrous. According to the Congresswoman, sleep deprivation leads to serious consequences for academic achievement, social behavior of our nation's youth. If schools start later, students will be able to get enough sleep in order to keep themselves healthy and, more importantly, stay focused during school time. What"s more, it is not only beneficial to students, but to teachers and staff as well because teachers also desire enough sleep. If schools start later., isn"t that good to everyone? Lastly, teenagers will have more study time in the evening. "The teenage body is nocturnal, their circadian rhythms are different from adults", said Dr. Denise Pope of Stanford University"s Graduate School of Education. Teenagers are more likely to focus at evening times, the later, the better (but not too late). Though psychology teacher Alice McCraley does not recommend studying too late into the night, she does say that going to bed after studying gives the student the ability to better process and absorb the material they just learned. If schools start later it will probably finish later. The biological feature of teenagers makes it clear that most of them can concentrate the best in the evening, thus studying more efficiently. Thus, I strongly believe that schools should start later.
Resolved: Prostitution should be legolized

Ok im on my computer now so I dont have to worry about misspelling any words. Reasons why Prostitution should be legolized1) Lego's are awesomeJust about any teenager who is at least 20 years old now has at one point played with legos, in fact lego's are the one thing from the 90's that havent changed to a horrible new form when everything else has (tv, music, etc). The reason why older teenagers dont play with lego's as much anymore though is because theyre not as appealing as they used to be. Prostitution though is something that has NEVER lost its appeal to teenagers, and combining one awesome thing (Lego's) with another awesome thing (Prostitutes) can only lead to something good happening. 2) Meth and slavery has been legolized, why not prostitution?Breaking Bad + Meth manufacturing has been legolized:http://www.incrediblethings.com...http://www.incrediblethings.com...http://www.gadgetreview.com...Slavery has been legolized:http://glasstire.com...http://27.media.tumblr.com...Slavery and meth are way worse then prostitution and controversial, yet theyve been legolized, so why not prostitution?
Clash of Clans is better than Candy Crush

"only the very best and people who pay the most money get the most out of it." As stated above, the very best is so addicted to the game that they sacrifice their social life, work life, everything to play. Eg. Jorge Yao spent over $3000 and has multiple accounts to keep his rank in the 4000; the first ever to break the record. http://www.businessinsider.com...
Clash of Clans is better than Candy Crush

To become better in COC, you have to spend money. Otherwise, your rank will be stuck among crystals. Clash of clan does not help you develop a strategy when most people watch youtube and copy and their strategy; only the very best and people who pay the most money get the most out of it. They have an addiction that drives them to find more about the game, to research about strategies. If you want to find a game that develops more strategies, go play chess. The point of candy crush is for amusement, it's just a pastime. Each game lasts only a few minutes, but you have limited time like blitz in chess. So, you have to make the best of each moment; by analyzing every move.
Clash of Clans is better than Candy Crush

I don't think everyone pays and buys gems in Clash of Clans. If u see it from another angle, you will see that Clash of Clans helps you to develop a strategy while attacking, and while changing your base layout, it helps to think and teaches you to prioritise your buildings according to importance. In Candy crush, you just have to swipe the candies and i find that game way to babyish. I don't even know why people playing. Its pointless. In Clash of Clans, you know exactly what you have to do and it helps your brain to develop. So, if you see it from a learning point of view, It is better. Clash of Clans is thought provoking and Candy Crush is not. Thus, Candy crush is worse than Clash of Clans
Clash of Clans is better than Candy Crush

Clash of Clans make you pay more money than candy crush long term. And I've seen it. Eg. a box gems cost somewhere from $4.99 to $99.99 whereas in Candy crush, extra moves, extra lives, 10X gold bar packages cost around $0.99 Candy Crush is more cost effective. Top ranking players in COC pay around $2000+ to reach at least master league.
The NSA, in its current form, is justified

Thank you con! Now unfortunately, I"ve been incredibly busy these past few days, and I must ask you to forgive me on my short response. With that being said, let us continue. While yes, the NSA has come under a lot of scrutiny these past few years, it is important to understand the reason"s we have it. The NSA is responsible for coordinating the CIA and FBI, Dealing with national security threats, and handling Sensitive material. And yes, I"m going to debate about whether or not the NSA is controversial. They most definitely are. But I plan to argue, on why the NSA as a whole is justified. The NSA most attacked tactics, and it reality, the only thing that people worry about, are data mining and phone taps. Yet, in a modern world, we must understand the undeniable benefit of these tactics. Consider 9/11, a national disaster, yet search after, revealed, that there was a lot of communication between those that committed the event, if we had the NSA in place, we would have been able to detect and prevent the event. Also, if we have nothing dangerous to hide, we should fear the NSA, because in reality, the NSA doesn"t care about your personal, it cares about the possible terror threats it aims to thwart. Again I"d like to apologize for my short response, I"ve been really busy. Sources: http://techcrunch.com... http://www.nationalreview.com... Back to you Con!
I can post better music

same to you haha hope your ready for this level of awesomeness that's about to be delivered to your ears via me the one the only the song is called: what i got by sublime (the original when they had their original singer aka before rose) give it a listen it embodies acceptance its about being happy with what you got so give it alisten and just let the chill vibes roll through you so enjoy! http://www.youtube.com... also here's the unedited version http://www.youtube.com...
anything

Courage the Cowardly Dog is an American animated horror comedy television series created by John R. Dilworth for Cartoon Network as part of the network's Cartoon Cartoons block. It follows a pink anthropomorphic beagle who lives with a married elderly couple in the middle of Nowhere. The trio are frequently thrown into bizarre misadventures, often involving the paranormal/supernatural. The series is known for its dark, surreal humor and atmosphere. Dilworth pitched the series to Hanna-Barbera's animated shorts showcase What a Cartoon!, and a pilot (entitled "The Chicken from Outer Space") aired on Cartoon Network in early 1996.[1] The segment was nominated for an Academy Award, but lost to Wallace and Gromit's A Close Shave. Cartoon Network greenlit a series from the short, which premiered on November 12, 1999 and ended on November 22, 2002, with four seasons of 13 episodes each produced. During its run, the series was nominated for 3 Golden Reel Awards and 1 Annie Award. Spin-off media include comic books, home video releases and collectible toys.
Secular Morality is more moral than Christian Morality

--This debate was created as a means to get my "feet wet" with Debate.Org. So please don't be afraid to accept. We'll go the three rounds and have some fun. I don't mind losing. And any help would be appreciated! -- Secular Morality is based on our own human experiences, where life itself is the arbiter of knowledge that grants us the reasons to determine right from wrong. Secular Moralists can not only account for right and wrong through their own personal experiences, but can map previously determined moral judgments on to new situations. Christian Morality per-supposes that God (and therefore) the bible is morally valid, and can't account for the reasons behind right and wrong without being circular. Without these reasons, one could not determine moral behavior outside of the bible. Let alone, the bible's already immoral pronouncements that do not reflect the morality of modernity. Therefore, a Secular Moralist will behave more morally throughout the course of their lifetime than a Christian Moralist.
The Drinking Age Should Be Lowered To 18.

First point is none of my points where attacked, no defense against responsiblity attack, no defense against the fact that we can smoke and kill ourselves but not drink. No defense against why we can join the military and not drink or vote. second, is his case says its saves more lives. .. .. his statistics say they decrease accidents, my argument to that is of course they have fewer accidents because more people would be allowed to drink. That has no bearing on the actual reason why its limited to 18 year olds. Why you might ask is because we as adults should have that right, the idea that we can drink but smoke our lives away is idiotic, as well as hypocritical. also seeing how the 18 year olds in your statistics for "saved lives" will probably just die when they are 21. Your really only slowing it down. third. To your entire point 2 , yes and smoking kills and hinders me too but I can buy those right now Im 18 whats your point? forth: Dude of course they declined its kinda hard to drink when its illegal for you to buy it. They surveyed graduating seniors some of them probably weren't old enough to even smoke. Plus thats kinda out of date since it stops on the year I WAS BORN. 1993. Just like really? you call that proof? conclusion: there is no real reason to stop 18 year olds from drinking, it doesn't save lives because when they turn 21 they will drink then and get in an accident it only delays the problem. His point 2 makes no sense seeing how we can smoke at 18 and smoking stunts growth and development as well. Also it doesn't stop drinkers as you can see in my arguement the graph is a survey, from seniors who were graduating high school. If its illegal to buy them Im sure seniors will drink less cause its hard to obtain also some people lie in surveys.
The Drinking Age Should Be Lowered To 18.

1. The idea a person at the age of 18 can smoke cancer sticks, vote, join the military, and become legally there own person, but can't drink is idiotic. Why must we limit alcohol? Why because we have an obligation to discourage drug use? then why is smoking legal? So the question still remains why? Is it because they are not responsible enough? Then why do they have the right to vote and change the future of a country, why do they have the right to join the military and put there life on the line for there country? So why? I'll tell you why, because people have it in there heads that its alcohol's fault for wrecks and bad behavior. Id argue that happens with 21 year olds, Id also argue that responsibility does not come with age is comes with the person. 21 year olds can be idiots just like 18 year olds , even 40 year olds and so on. The national fear of "underage drinking" is paranoia at best. There is no logical reason 18 year olds can't drink, none.
Roblox is superior to every game in every way

I think that robox is better than minecraft because it is good. People who play minecraft have never tasted the pure milk of roblox and they shall be damned. Minecraft is an old dumb game that is dead. However roblox still has millions of active players and tns of original games. I believe that minecrafts time is over and roblox is still shining. Roblox is better than COD, RDR2, Minecraft, Terraria, GoW, And every other game you can think of. Roblox will go down as the best thing to every grace humanity. Minecraft is inferior and roblox is superior. Roblox has the best graphics, Interface, Items, Player customization, And everything else. If you disagree you are wrong and a fuking bich
Vietnamese women are the most beautiful women in the world!

I just reread your arguments and I feel like you're verging into stereotypes. Actually you've head-dived into them. Being petite should not be how you decide whether a woman is beautiful or not. Also, petiteness is a stereotype about Asian women and it's not true. There are millions of Asian women who are not petite but they are still beautiful. "...take care of their man..." Well, you can find women who love their men ANYWHERE. Literally, there are loving women all over the world, this is not a characteristic that is somehow inherently Vietnamese. This is just a characteristic of caring people... "They are very elegant and speak like a lady should. If you don't like them, i wonder if you are gay". I don't like this because this is coming from the view that women should speak or act a certain way. I don't care how amazing your date went. 1. That girl doesn't represent all Vietnamese women 2. You should not base your definition of beauty on her 3. Who are you to decide what makes a lady? And what do you mean by "speak like a lady should"? Also, that "gay" part is stupid. If a guy who met your date saw her and said he wasn't attracted to her, does that make him gay? No, it doesn't. I hope you were joking (though that is not a good joke). "they bodies are really cute and petite" This stereotype about Asian women is very harmful actually. It perpetuates the idea that: 1. You have to be petite to be cute 2. All Asian women are petite thus if there is an Asian woman who is not petite she is either ugly or probably not Asian On 2, you might say "Um, that's ridiculous." But trust me, this sort of chronic stereotyping makes people say ridiculous things. I'm black and the stereotypes about us range from being uneducated or uninterested in school or poor. Since I am none of those things, my own FRIENDS have come up to me and said I was white because I didn't fit into their box of what a black person "should be". Don't allow stereotypes like this continue. They're awful.
It's perfectly acceptable and normal for 4 year-old girls to date adult men

As there isn't much you wrote, So there is very limited amount to rebuttal it back for you. "You seem to be suffering from brain failure and cannot understand what I wrote. " explain anything. Explain how would I be a braindead at the next round. If you cannot do it and you forfeit, That's your fault. Time to go back to my debate. This is my floor as you're reading it here. You posted 4 debates about how partial sexual education is necessary and I received 2. I won the last one just to focus on this one. If you want to lick some children, Do it. I dare you. We would rather see a pervert on the street than on the one single best debate program, Polluting. I wrote this much and what you responded is just one single quote that is far from important. If you cannot read or write, That's your responsibility to improve. But this isn't Pre-K. This is an adult that have 1800 Elo Ranking. Who would anyone expect an adult like this would be as pervert like this that he want to lick any children on the street? The reason I responded with a single quote is because you wrote nothing else that I can use. Back to the main reasons. What you said is basically girls should receive sexual educations when she was kindergarten age. I agree that we can receive sexual education, But that's way too early. You see them in kindergarten? Or even in elementary school? No. That is too early. Also, Dating? That was the sole right for adults! Why would you let a 4-year-old to date a 60-year-old-man, And why would she do that? If it is forced to be that, I am welcome, Not you, Some parents who forces their children to date with other people, No matter gay or straight, Is immoral. Kids can do what they want. I knew what you're gonna say. "they have the rights to date 60-year-old too! ". Not wrong. Completely. But do you see anyone not virgin in high school that got A+ on every subject? Almost none. They can date 60-year-old. Yet not perfectly fine. Some people rob banks, Never got good, Knowing that robbing is wrong. This is like that example. You can date 60-year-old when you're 4, It's just not fine, As against the common sense of the people, On any topic.
It's perfectly acceptable and normal for 4 year-old girls to date adult men

Girls of age 4 should be encouraged to make their own choices about life and be encouraged to spend time with people they like. " So you want your daughter to be spoiled like she spend $1000000 every second? I am not sure if you spoil your little daughter like this, But if the entire USA have girls like this, Then it would be a threat to the real economy. Parents need discipline over their daughters. Their brains are not developed to make mature choices. They need examples to be guided. Did your mom date a 60 years old when she was little? The answer should be no. "What if a 4 year-old girl wants to play with a 60 year-old man, But her family disapproves and forbids such a relationship? That family is clearly toxic and bad influence on the 4 year-old girl. " Again you want your daughter to be 100% spoiled? If a random girl did something silly in the public, Why should you blame her perfectly fine parents? Dating a 60yro when she was 4 would be also be seemingly impossible, Like he is talking about the Vietnam war and she is talking about cartoons. Also does her parents force her to date adult men? That would be illegal and unwanted. "The way in benefits both her and the adults she is spending time with. " As a person who never likes dating I am offended. It benefits her and the man? Am I living in mars right now? The man is clearly thinking the girl is too immature, Or further her parents. Do you want your girl to be a stripper or an entrepreneur? Anyone in their right mind would choose an entrepreneur. If you choose your girl to be a stripper then your brain must be left on mars. Suppose an entrepreneur is your choice, Why should your daughter be influenced in partial sex education when she is supposed to learn 2+2-1=3? As the opposite a virgin for a lot of years would considered a wizard. Why? Because without the sex part many of the time left can be utilized "properly". Why does a virgin still being something people laugh with? Because they're too ignorant to understand. I should stop assuming, But as what is shown on the first paragraph, You would be one of those.
It is Possible to Prove God Exists

My argument is fairly short and easy to understand (no, this isn't going to be one of those rounds you have to scroll down for five minutes to read half of what I typed). In order for us to understand God, we must understand that he's a being that transcends our senses. We cannot see him, hear him, touch him, taste him (get out of the gutter), or smell him. We have no way to perceive his immediate existence around us (unless you're one of those people who claimed to have a vision from him, but JUST BEAR WITH ME HERE). Because it's impossible for us to sense him in the traditional sense, we have to reply on reasoning to deduce his existence. Much like I can deduce the fact that there should still be chocolate milk in the fridge (because I am the only person in my house who drinks it and that I have yet to finish off the jug), there are different acclaimed ways to deduce the existence of god being probable (KCA, TA, MA, etc etc). But this is the problem with trying to deduce something: we only describe the situation as PROBABLE. While I can certainly believe that there still should be chocolate milk left for me in the fridge, there is nothing stopping the other members of my family from having finished it off before I realized it was happening. Much like the KCA or MA can say that it's probable for God to exist, there's nothing stopping one of the premises to be incorrect or flawed in some way. So if our five normal senses aren't enough, and deducing doesn't do it all the way, how can we prove for absolute certainty that God exists? Trick question; we can't. In order to prove that God exists, which is a being that transcends all lmethods of discovery, we'd have to be omniscient and all-knowing of all things in order to say for certain whether or not he existed. To put it simply, we'd have to be God to say that God existed with 100% certainty. And, sadly, since we are not God, we cannot say such.
It is Possible to Prove God Exists

I accepted this debate because sweetbreeze requested it and this debate looked fun.I thank my opponent for starting this debate, and I thank sweetbreeze for bringing it to my attention.It is worth mentioning that, just ten minutes ago, I subscribed to the theory that Con is supporting. I admit, I believed that belief in a God was based completely on faith.Then, the philosophical question was asked. As soon as philosophy gets involved, my mind starts firing on at least four different levels. This intense session of overanalyzation has caused me to change my beliefs about whether or not it is possible to provide proof of a diety ("god").So, to me, this is proving a philosophy about the possibility and conceivabliity of relating the metaphysical and spiritual to the physical and observable universe.
It is Possible to Prove God Exists

Pretty simple for my first debate back. I'm not going to be trying too hard so if you want an easy win against me go ahead and accept.The resolution is pretty simple. I'm saying that it's not possible to prove that god (whatever god you want to prove, it's kinda irrelevant to the point but y'know...), exists with 100% certainty. My opponent, whomever they may be, will be arguing that it is possible to prove that God exists with 100% certainty. Let me be clear about one thing real fast. In no way, shape, or form am I at all asking the question of "Does God Exist". Please do not take this debate arguing for God's existence. Rather, I am asking the meta-question of before we even ask if God exists, that is it even possible to prove that he does (because if we can't prove he exists why even bother asking if he does in the first place). Standard rules apply. I shouldn't have to go into this.GL HF
Argument magician: Gayness

WhooOOOooo I am the argument magician, by the end of this argument i will have proven, for your delectation, by logic and evidence that: [drum roll] - Gays appeal to apathy - Gays are confused about weather gayness is mental or biological - Gays hinder the economy, not help it - Gays hinder governmental change - Gayness cannot be explained by genetics - Gayness is likly a mental illness And for my last trick; - Everyone who supports gays is incredibly biased. Things you thought impossible right? Well, watch and be amazed!