BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Jon snows parentage (SPOILER)

Now to address my opponent's arguments.1. Ned Stark and honor My alternate scenario (R+L=D, and A+B=J) also preserves Ned's honor. 2. Neds care for Daenerys and his disgust for Roberts hate for them. This actually supports my theory (That Lyanna is Daenerys's mother) more strongly than it does R+L=J. 3. Rhanegar Targayrns personality My alternate scenario (R+L=D) also preserve's Rhaegar's integrity. 4. The tournament My alternate scenario (R+L=D) also preserve's Rhaegar's integrity. 5. Lyannas death and Ned's promise to her However, when we look at the timing of these dreams and feelings of regret, they don't jive with R+L=J. They happen and intensify when Ned is serving as the hand of the King, and dealing with the attempted assasination of Daenerys, not when he is deciding Jon's future. Also, in he King's Landing brothel, Ned has the following thought:"For the first time in years, he found himself remembering Rhaegar Targaryen. "Why would Ned have not thought of Rhaegar in years if he had been raising Rhaegar's bastard child? That makes MUCH more sense if he had not raised the bastard, but had secretted it away, as Daenerys was secretted away from Westeros. 6. Lady Melisandres role. King's blood is relative. Mance Rayder apparently has it, despite not being highborn. Robert seized the throne by force, yet he and his bastards, and even his brother have king's blood. It appears to be the faith of followers which gives kings blood it's potency, not just ancesrtry, and John is commander of the Knight's Watch. Also, if John is the son of Ashara and Brandon, he would be the rightful lord of both Starfall and Winterfell. He clearly has noble blood in spades, as this gives him even more lawful claims than, for example, Robert would have possessed had not taken the throne by force. 7. The song of ice and fire. Yes, but the world which we live in is dualistic. Would it not be equally interesting if one child represented the powers of fire (Daenerys) and another represented the powers of the Old Gods? Jon Snow is tied into them, and Howland Reed was the only survivor of those who accompanied Ned to the Tower of Joy/baby swap. He was also present at the Tourney at Harrenhal, where, if A+B=J is true, the entire romance began. Not only that, but he had specifically expressed interest in Ashara Dayne while there, watching her from afar and bringing her to the attention of the Starks. While Rhaegar was attempting to fulfill the prophecies of a fire savior (Danaerys), berhaps Howland Reed was subtly manipulating events to bring abour the birth of a champion of the Old Gods? This point could go either way, as prophecy is extremely fickle in the world of ASOIAF:"Gorghan of Old Ghis once wrote that a prophecy is like a treacherous woman. She takes your member in her mouth, and you moan with the pleasure of it and think, how sweet, how fine, how good this is. .. and then her teeth snap shut and your moans turn to screams. That is the nature of prophecy, said Gorghan.
Jon snows parentage (SPOILER)

Thank you :) Hmmmm. The A+B=J theory does make a lot of sense. It also would be a good twist. But I think that the R+L=J plot would be more..meaningful, and it would be more likely that George Martin would write the R+L=J theory instead of the A+B=J theory. For john to have grown up a bastard living with the stigma that comes with that title, to realize that he is king ( if rhaegar and lyanna married he would be the rightful king) would be a great twist. If he married daenerys (they would be related but targaryens often intermarried) than that would just add on. If all this time the rightful heir was the "bastard" who worked as a man of the nights watch (with his great uncle aemos unknowingly) than the story would have a perfect ending. That's just my opinion. I think it's more likely that mr martin would make john the son of lyanna and rhaegar for those reasons. I don't know much about Brandon stark, accept that he was strangled by the mad king. If he was a womanizer I don't think he would to for the sister of a kings guard for the king he hated. You make good points about Danny being raegars and lyannas daughter. But she could have those memories from Essos since she left dragon stone as a baby and wouldn't remember it. I don't think Viserys would know either considering that he was young and probably for around for her birth. Thanks!
Atheism Should be defined only as the belief that God doesn't exist!

Too highlight some terminology here, this topic is whether atheism should be redefined, because i assume he means in order to be more accurate. He says that the definition should be "all atheists who belief in the non-existence of God is a true atheist." However, neither atheism nor agnosticism denies the possibility that God exists, and so agnosticism is what actually should be redefined. No atheist, such as Richard Dawkins, worth his or her salt can claim that God cannot exist or denies the possibility that God exists, regardless of how low they consider that chance to be. The atheist is in fact equivalent to the scientist; no conclusions are drawn until evidence or proof exists for a proposition. They only believe in the evidence. It is impossible, scientifically, to prove that God does not exist. A true atheist does not have to believe in God, but he or she doesn't reject the possibility of the existence of a higher power. Agnosticism refers to, on the other hand, the belief in a higher power, but with a lower certainty of which religion is the correct religion. So essentially agnosticism is saying the same thing as atheism, except that they reject the notion that there is a possibility that there is NO higher power. Therefore, it should really be agnosticism, which should be redefined to improve the accuracy of the definition, specifically: " Unsure of which religion is correct, but denies that there is no higher power" Your argument reflects a major misunderstanding of athiesm, which is the false assumption, namely that atheism believes in the non existence of God.
The US should Ensure Access to Quality Education For Everyone

You are all straight A students, I'm sure. You may or may not work hard to achieve this; that's irrelevant. The fact is that no matter how hard you work, education levels are almost always determined only by how rich you are. Suppose your had little money. You are very smart, but due to your family's financial situation, you are forced to attend a public school. Enter the Fool, as we will call him. His family is rich, and can afford to send him places you yourself can't go. Instead of going to a public school, he is sent to a private boarding school in Switzerland. He promptly starts bullying, abusing his rights, and not learning a bit; he can do this with little consequences, because his parents are major benefactors to the school board. After all, if we see what the board is thinking, we would simply see... ka-ching! -Criteria) Equal potential for learning for everyone Equal consequences for everyone Equal rewards for everyone -Thesis Pro) The US ought to ensure student access to a quality education. A) Those who are rich and fools can pay for a private school, whereas some genius born to a poor family may not have such privileges. This is unfair because genius' abilities should be nurtured, not the rich fool's. The fool needs to get through lower classes before going to higher. B) There is significant racial segregation in many public schools at lunch etc; according to a teenager's experiences summarized at http://thisibelieve.org... 2011, segregation will be decreased because everyone has the same knowledge. C) Your education depends on your knowledge. Edu should follow CDC (Credit by Demonstrated Competence.) http://www.cod.edu... 2011 This is equal education... when the same knowledge related system determines placement. Clearly, the US ought to ensure student access to a quality education, because those who are rich can afford better edu. than poor otherwise, because this would ultimately eliminate racial segregation, and finally, because advancement in a certain subject should depend solely on individual knowledge of it. If you were poor and smart, would you like some theoretical rich idiot to take your education?
Don't circumcise a baby boy, Lick him instead

Don't circumcise a baby boy, Lick him instead. Circumcising baby boys is a terrible crime, But licking them brings happiness and joy. Treating a child as a precious jewel, To give him up I would be a fool. Circumcised boys are not happy boys. They cry in pain. They are sad boys who felt so much pain just because their mommy and daddy couldn't tolerate that extra skin. So they cut his penis, And that hurts a lot. But what hurts just as long is the knowledge that your parents betrayed you. I have decided to lick boys as well as girls, They both deserved some licking. Revenge is impossible, But licking is not. And they may put me in prison, But I have already licked a lot of children, And they will never change that. They cannot stop what already happened, Nor undo it. I have licked children on their cheeks, And I liked that a lot. Some of them may liked it, Some of them cried, But they were all equally licked, And will carry that memory as they live.
Gay Marriage

My argument against same sex marriage does not hinge on the inequities between heterosexual and homosexual couples. Rather, I oppose the resolution that same sex marriage should be legal for three reasons: 1) it is a sexist and patriarchical institutional that chains partners into traditional roles that are inadequate for our modern society; and 2) allowing gays to marry will strengthen an institution that has been on the decline for several years. Marriage has been an enduring institution throughout our Judaeo-Christian heritage. While the United States was founded on Judaeo-Christian principles, the founders have always thought that the United States would become a pluralistic society filled with various religious and cultural traditions. And it has. Marriage is the hallmark of a Judaeo-Christian tradition, and it has historically been a patriarchical and sexist institution. Men, in particular, have benefited from the privileges of marriage by subjecting women to a domestic lifestyle where they were responsible for childrearing and chores. Men continued to justify their power over the family through Christian passages, such as "wives submit to your husbands." This persists even today with some parts of the population. As a result of this historic structure, modern society has casted traditional roles on gays and lesbians. They continue to search for gender roles in homosexual relationships and ask, "who is the man?," and "who is the woman?" This kind of gender displacement in homosexual relationships hurts gays and lesbians, especially as they rear children. Secondly, the institution of marriage has been declining. Nearly 50% of the population today gets married. Of that percentage, only 50% get divorced. This means that there are two emerging trends: increased domestic cohabitation and divorce. As a result of these trends, this means that only 25% of our population gets married and stays married. This is a low number and a sign that the hallmarks of traditional marriage are out the window. By instituting gay marriage, we are asking gays and lesbians to enter into an institution that is weakening. This continued decline in the course of marriage will hopefully prompt the government to restructure the way that it gives benefits to people who enter into relationship together and live together. Straight and gay people are finding meaningful relationships outside of the constructs of marriage, which also means that some Christian sects, who have long been outspoken opponents of gay marriage, will find it more difficult to oppose gays and lesbians since we are not fitting GLBT relationships within the construct of a Christian--and outdated--construct.
The Internet should be helpful

As you've stated in round one, users should not be forced to use the Internet for educational purposes and personal convenience as you said it should. Firstly, I would like to say that the people using the Internet aren't the people who has the permission to change any of that. Secondly, there's ways to post your website on Google, so that's my concern in this debate. Many people use Google and I'm sure there's no way of forcing the community to remove their website.
Mandatory art/music education in high-school is good!!

--- Response to C1 --- "Why? Leaving teenagers - who are undoubtedly in a state of growth marked by a headstrong, brash personality - to decide what is best for them in their path to adulthood is a foolhardy thing to do. They are emotionally and physically stressed - it is manifest that they are unsuited to make decisions of such significance. " --> And choosing for them is a better option? Indeed, for someone to make such a decision for someone else, they would have to prove it would be best for every student in their path to adulthood. Indeed, thee si evidence to suggest even 14 year olds are capable of making decisions: "By and large an average teen, given clear information and sufficient time to think about it, acts in their own best interest reasonably well. " [1] Clearly, if teenagers can do this, they are capable of choosing what they wish to study in school based on their own interests. -- Response to C2 --- "Now, music is confirmed to facilitate brain growth (augmentation in concentration, intelligence, self-control, etc. ), an essential factor for these high-school students. In fact, it has been proven that music is a key factor that can raise grades, test scores, SAT scores, etc. It is also very universal and encompasses multifarious genres to satisfy the mercurial interests of students - jazz, classical, rock, music theory, etc. It is also a great way for students to release their endorphins while extirpating stress they have gained, whether from homework or social life. There are, as of now, hundreds of psychiatrists who promote "music therapy" - a form of healing using music. " --> Firstly, if music is beneficial to the student, they should partake in it after school or in their own time, not during school hours which could be better used studying. School is for learning, not releasing stress. As for brain growth, none of my opponents sources reference brain growth, except one which mentions it "continues for many years after birth". We're talking about 15 year olds, not 5 year olds. Further mention of language processing is unnecessary for the vast Majority of 15 year olds. And if students need music therapy, they should be going to a psychiatrist. Thus far my opponent has not affirmed how music education is beneficial to every student, nor why it should be mandatory. I await her response. [1] = . http://www.cafety.org...
Mandatory art/music education in high-school is good!!

Good luck to both of us! (C1) My opponent argues that it is best that students pursue subjects which they are interested in. The opposition must then answer the problematic question: "Do students, whose brains have not even fully developed yet, know what is best for their education? " A scrutiny of an average teenager's attributes would lead one to respond with a firm shake of the head. Why? Leaving teenagers - who are undoubtedly in a state of growth marked by a headstrong, brash personality - to decide what is best for them in their path to adulthood is a foolhardy thing to do. They are emotionally and physically stressed - it is manifest that they are unsuited to make decisions of such significance. (C2) Now, music is confirmed to facilitate brain growth (augmentation in concentration, intelligence, self-control, etc. ), an essential factor for these high-school students. In fact, it has been proven that music is a key factor that can raise grades, test scores, SAT scores, etc. It is also very universal and encompasses multifarious genres to satisfy the mercurial interests of students - jazz, classical, rock, music theory, etc. It is also a great way for students to release their endorphins while extirpating stress they have gained, whether from homework or social life. There are, as of now, hundreds of psychiatrists who promote "music therapy" - a form of healing using music. These are two contentions which I shall lay out in this round. I eagerly wait my adversary's response. Sources: . http://www.childrensmusicworkshop.com... . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://stress.about.com...
Mandatory art/music education in high-school is good!!

First, some definitions: High School: In the United States a high school is an upper secondary school which educates children from grade nine through grade twelve, in other words, from the age of 15 to 17 or 18. [1] Mandatory: Authoritatively ordered; obligatory; compulsory [2] Good: healthful; beneficial [3] In this debate Pro has to prove two things: 1) That Art\ Music education is beneficial, or "good", for a student. 2) That it should be mandatory for all students. Failure to prove both of these means the resolution has not been affirmed. Indeed, I shall now show why Art\ Music shouldn't be compulsory in high school. == As a Mandatory Subject == Students should be free while in school to choose subjects which they enjoy and should not be forced to take any subjects by force. If the students does not desire to be learning that subjects it ll hinder their overall education. As discussed here, "Many learning theorists believe learning is most profound, satisfying, and thorough when students engage in it for intrinsic reasons. " [4] It's logical that a student would be far more interested in learning a subject of their choice than one forced upon them. To do otherwise would be detrimental to their education, as well as beg a misuse of their time while in school. The aim of a schools are to teach students, as per the definition of school, "A school is an institution designed for the teaching of students (or "pupils") under the supervision of teachers. " [5]. If schools do not teach a student as deficiently as possible than it is contradictory to the idea of a school. == Mandatory Education == Indeed, there is no reason why high school education should be compulsory at all. If a student opts to not do high school that is completley their choice. They will have to bear the consequences of not completing high school, which effects them and only them. There is no necessity to send some to learn with the threat of force, as this would mean student is in a school in which he does not want to learn, becoming a problem for their teacher and their fellow students. I await my opponents response. [1] = . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] = . http://dictionary.reference.com... [3] = . http://dictionary.reference.com... [4] = . http://www.publicschoolrenewal.org... [5] = . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Gay's should be able to marry

I would like to firstly say that I am happy to see PRO posting again. "Firstly the idea of gay marriage being condemned practically all stems from religion. If it wasn't for religions that condemn homosexuality, it would be almost fully accepted in society. How do I know this? Australia is a very Christian nation. Christianity condemns homosexuality. Most Australian "law-makers", if you will, are religious (Christian in some form). Religion and government should never mix. It cannot possibly be fair. Forcing your view upon someone else, but not only this; condemning and discriminating against someone else because of your view is disgracefully immoral thing to do." PRO (again) fails to support the resolution 'Gays should be able to marry'. PRO argues that gay marriage should be allowed, but does not argue that 'Gays should be able to marry'. "Coincidence? As you said it is now legal in 1 states. Eventually if this decline continues we can assume that all states will eventually legalize gay marriage which just proves my point that it is all religious based" I never said that gay marriage is now legal in one state of Australia and we aren't arguing whether or not gay marriage should be legalized in Australia, we are arguing whether 'Gays should be able to marry' or not. "Now I propose the question to you, how can being against gay marriage be justified by saying "well it condemns it in the bible so therefore it must be a bad thing, and therefore we should make a law that bans two men or two women from being able to marry because they are inferior to the rest of us, because the bible says so". Its a ridiculous notion" I will state again that we are not arguing whether or not gay marriage should be legalized in Australia, but whether 'Gays should be able to marry' or not, therefore your question is irrelevant. As we are arguing by the definitions I posted in the first and second round, since PRO hasn't stated otherwise (even if PRO had, they would still have to argue by my definitions since I posted the first definitions), your arguments do not support the resolution. To conclude PRO thinks (upon inference from what he has posted) : -- We are debating whether or not gay marriage should be legalized -- I said that gay marriage is now legal in one state of Australia I have enjoyed this debate and hope that I may debate with PRO another time, soon. Thank you for reading this debate. Vote CON!!!!!
Gay's should be able to marry

Firstly the idea of gay marriage being condemned practically all stems from religion. If it wasn't for religions that condemn homosexuality, it would be almost fully accepted in society. How do I know this? Australia is a very Christian nation. Christianity condemns homosexuality. Most Australian "law-makers", if you will, are religious (Christian in some form). Religion and government should never mix. It cannot possibly be fair. Forcing your view upon someone else, but not only this; condemning and discriminating against someone else because of your view is disgracefully immoral thing to do. I could give you a big lecture on how homosexuals should have equal rights because we are all the same however the argument is much more simple than that. Don't force your beliefs into law so that thousands suffer because of it. Like I said it all stems down to the fact that Australia is a very Christian nation. There is no other argument for being against gay marriage apart from religion. Religion is on a decline in Australia anyway With this decline in religion, the more states are accepting gay marriage. Coincidence? As you said it is now legal in 1 states. Eventually if this decline continues we can assume that all states will eventually legalize gay marriage which just proves my point that it is all religious based. A person can attempt to use excuses such as polygamous however the simple fact is that they would not have these anti-gay marriage ideas anyway without some influence initially stating that gay marriage is a bad thing. The only influence of course, being religion. Now I propose the question to you, how can being against gay marriage be justified by saying "well it condemns it in the bible so therefore it must be a bad thing, and therefore we should make a law that bans two men or two women from being able to marry because they are inferior to the rest of us, because the bible says so". Its a ridiculous notion