BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
(Pro) Spherical vs flat Earth (Con)

Thanks for the invitation do I grow weary proving the Earth is flat on deaf ears. I am currently researching Giants and silicon-based life and our not-so-distant history. But I never turn down a flat earth debate. I would like to offer some definitions on evidence at out start. Evidence should be examined with scrutiny. There are two types of evidence, subjective and objective. Below is an explanation with examples of each type. SUBJECTIVE EVIDENCE is evidence that you cannot evaluate -- you have to simply accept what the person says or reject it. For example, Fred says "My foot hurts a lot." Is he lying? How much is "a lot"? What is Fred's idea of "pain"? ... a sharp, stabbing pain, or just his foot "fell asleep"? Harry says "That was a hard test!" Compared to what? Did he study? Is this just a subject he finds particularly difficult? Bill says "Boy, that was a great football game!" Compared to what? Who was playing? ... his son, the team he coaches, him, two pro teams? OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE is evidence you can examine and evaluate for yourself. If Fred walks in with a cane, and a knife stuck in his foot, you can make a decision without hearing Fred's opinion! If you read the test Harry talked about, you can decide for yourself whether it's hard. If you see a video of the football game, you might see great plays, high scores, a last-minute win, etc. Subjective evidence can be useful in a dichotomy, especially when there are several subjective points. However subjective evidence should be secondary to objective evidence. We will find that the majority of the ball earth theory is based on subjective material, while just the opposite holds true for flat earth evidence. When the evidence for spherical earth is not subjective, that evidence is often inconclusive, completely unrelated or simply misunderstood phenomena.
(Pro) Spherical vs flat Earth (Con)

R1 Acceptance & definitionsR2 ArgumentsR3 RebuttalsR4 DefenseBurden of proof will be equally shared. Neither side has to prove the Earth is perfectly spherical nor flat, only that the Earth's shape is closer to spherical than flat in my case and in my opponent's case that the Earth's shape is closer to flat than spherical.Use common definitions unless otherwise expressed and agreed upon. R2 Arguments, don't respond directly, each person makes their case.R3 Rebuttals, respond directly to opponent's r2 arguments.R4 Defense, respond directly to opponent's r3 rebuttals.Thanks in advance.
morality=survival truth

This robot, while friendly, is, as you stated, a warrior. That means it has reasonable means to cause significant damage. Even though it is friendly, that may not last. Upon first glance, most things aren't exceptionally menacing, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a possibility that the robot could attack. Another factor to consider is citizens attacking the robot and spooking it. Individual citizens could fear the robot and attack it, cause mass destruction. If the technology is available, what would be the point of not destroying it if it could pose so many risks to society and humans in general.
morality=survival truth

I say we kill it first before someone else attacks it. Honestly, if I had more faith that the humans wouldn't attack the robot, I wouldn't kill it, but I don't have that faith, therefore the robot is a danger. By destroying it, we prevent any possible damage the robot could cause. I would say that it wouldn't be hard to figure out what would destroy the robot after an hour or two of figuring out what its made of and observing its mechanical systems. It wouldn't be exceptionally difficult with that information.
morality=survival truth

I'm not saying those people are in the right, or that the robot is in the wrong, but the robot will protect itself at all costs, making it a danger. I can't blame the robot for defending itself, and the people who riled it up should be punished, but the destruction that a giant robot could cause is great and the amount of defense readily available in most places wouldn't cut it/ I'm thinking about the safety of the innocents. The safety of the people who did nothing but will still have to suffer because of the decisions of a few. I'm thinking about this in a pragmatic sense. Eventually, the robot will get attacked and will then be capable of mass destruction defending itself. I would want to destroy it quickly so there was no time for it to do any real damage.
Gay Marriage

Please, for the love of decency, DROP THE RELIGIOUS SUBJECT. I'm not arguing over religious approval, I'm arguing over the rule of the People. Your contention of religious people "loving" gays is fruitless and without avail, for I have no wish to argue against it, for religion goes far beyond politics. http://abcnews.go.com... 55% opposed gay marriage, 37% for gay marriage. No, gays should not have a choice above the majority. That's like having a bill open to Congress in the Democrats mindset, but Democrats liberals can vote on the bill- most likely resulting in a 100% approval. That kind of ideology is the mentality of a common tyrant, thinking he is above the common man and said tyrant instituting a single-party system. A bill legalizing same-sex marriage affects the entire society. The common straight male does, indeed, feel uncomfortable around homosexuals- not that he would express his uncomfortable status. I'm not stating the male's comfortable status being in jeopardy as my MAIN counter-argument, I'm just clarifying that the law would not ONLY affect the homosexuals. We live in a Democratic Republic, not some Marxist dictatorship or National Socialist skin-head regime. Here in America, the PEOPLE rule. The PEOPLE decide what is allowed and what is not allowed. And if the PEOPLE ruled that gay marriage should not be allowed, that is the GRAND ruling. My opponent concludes that gay marriage should become a Federal law, and that the voice of the People should be ignored. Gay Marriage infringes on the power of the majority of Americans, thus I urge you to vote CON
Gay Marriage

And where are the statistics that show majority is against it? On top of that how does a gay marriage affect these people? If two gay people get married how does it affect your life? Shouldnt the gays have the choice over the majority...it affects the gays not the majority..On top of that gays are currently not receiving the same rights as straight people, because of there sexuality should they really be deprived of Rights? Currently gays can't enlist in the army and gay partners of policemen cant receive the benefits of their significant other strictly because of their sexual choice how is that right?finally god is about loving all people,therefore religions against gays are going against god
Gay Marriage

1) Response to 1s contention Yes, I agree there are cases in which some people are born homosexual, but that doesn't automatically imply that they should be given the right to marry. The right to marry has to be determined by the People, of which the majority do not approve of a Federal law allowing gay marriage abroad the nation. If a law were to be passed without the consent of the People, the law would be infringing on the values set down by our forefathers nearly 230 years ago. In short, it doesn't matter if gay marriage is right or wrong; it's if it is right in the PEOPLE'S eyes is the true matter. 2) I never said anything about religion, nor do I find it relevant. Also, it's not only Christians who disapprove of Homosexuals. Atheist, Muslims, Hindus, and various other beliefs have members of which frown upon homosexuality. As a baptists, my religious society doesn't frown upon homosexuality- but that doesn't change what is right and wrong, it's what the majority rules it as, stated before in my response to the 1st contention. Thus, I conclude referring religious beliefs to homosexuality is irrelevant. In response, I'm going CON because allowing gay marriage goes against the majority of US citizens. In the USA, the majority rules. By the people, for the people.
Gay Marriage

If you are for gay marriage why are you arguing against it.but my argument is this .....people dont choose to be gay, they are born to be gay..choosing to be gay would mean choosing to be ridiculed, laughed at, and disliked by many. its not a choice they make willingly, its a choice they have to make because they were born this way..so why should we ridicule them for it? As for the religion factor dosent god accept all people for who they are and dosent the bible stress loving people for themselves...these people call themselves "good christans" well god is about accepting everybody so how is denying people..a way of religon and or god. and on top of that what happened to the seperation of the church and the state? Religon was seperated from goverment for a reason and has been seperated for this reason...there is no reason why religion should be brought into religion...
Neighbors watching to see if your bin out on the right time.

Honestly, there is nothing wrong with a neighbor watching to see if you place your garbage bin outside at the correct time. The neighbor is merely making sure you're maintaining your garbage obligations, emphasizing the importance of punctuality and cleanliness, and helping you out in regards to keeping up with a neighborhood requirement. Besides, there is nothing really wrong with a neighbor looking outside and checking to see if a garbage bin is in front of another person's house. Last time I checked, there is no law or social norm that prohibits this. The neighbor is just being nice and helping you maintain a healthier lifestyle. Resolution affirmed. Thank you.
Legalization of Marijuana

now when we look at the topic of debate, we can see a couple of things that must be shown before any actual debate begins- First, the burden of proof is on the Pro, in order to win they must prove that marijuana should be legalized; conversely my job as the Con is not to prove it should not be legalized, but that my opponent is wrong. I have no burden of proof to prove. Second, the realm of debate needs to follow whether or not Marijuana should be legalized, meaning that the classification of whether or not it is a drug or an herb is completely and utterly irrelevant. The fact that marijuana is classified as a drug by various people is not the reason it is illegal; If it where then people who took cold medicine, or ibuprofen would be in violation of the law. Now that we have this in mind, I will proceed to disprove my opponent Now currently, marijuana is illegal for the mass of the american society; and there is good reason for this. If there where no logic behind this substance being illegal then it simply would not be illegal. And so for my opponent to win, they need to show us some reason, and reason why the status quo needs to be altered. Thus far my opponent has spoken nothing on marijuana's legality, only on it's substance classification. Therefore there is absolutely no reason to vote for her, and you must default to the Con until she can prove her stance. Thank you, back to Pro :3.
Legalization of Marijuana

Marijuana, otherwise known as Cannabis sativa, is a simple plant that grows from the Earth. This leads to the other names of this government hated plant... Grass, weed. Marijuana is not a drug by any means. It comes from the green element. And if you should so happen to set it on fire [another element] there are some effects. You can't put two natural substances together and say it's a drug. That's no drug, that's nature.
Homework should be cut down in high school.

If a student cannot finish their work, that's on them and that's based on the skill they represent. Some of the points you brought up became irrelevant due to the fact that the only evidence brought up was from your own life, not a general thing. Technically standing, that's an opinion that you think the time you finish your work stands for the actual time it takes most students to finish homework, making that so opinions and personal life in debate don't matter and about a paragraph of what you state will not matter under any circumstances. Like I stated in my last round AND what I stated at the beginning of this round, if students don't finish their homework, that's on them. If they can't get their work done or it's not correct, it's because the grade level for them is a bit too hard, which makes sense because your homework should be doable if you are in the right grade level. When you were saying my point on kids with ADD and ADHD, it depends how bad their disorder is. sometimes the teacher will completely ignore it and give them them normal homework. I just said it's especially hard for them sometimes. I'm not saying them personally. It's scientifically proven that you work best when you are not under pressure with people around you, in a confined space, and barely any time, basically stating that you work best by yourself and on your own time. Going back to your point about how you have almost no time, that's why we have weekends and breaks. The week is for hard learning and the weekend is your reward. It's not like you do nothing in life. On your point about changing it to 1 hour a night, I want to connect it to my first point. If students can't get their work done, it's on them. They should be able to get their work done at a certain time.
Homework should be cut down in high school.

First of all, thank you for joining my debate. Secondly, I agree with somethings you say, but I disagree with what you say about homework being fine now. First of all, as a grade 9 student, I had many nights where I was not able to have any free time to myself, because of sports and homework. I got back from school around 3:00 and finished my homework around 4:30, and then I had to eat supper and then go to sports. The only free time I ever had was during weekends, where I would have to finish my homework on Friday and Saturday. My brother, who was in grade 11, had it much worse. I think that homework should still be a thing, but they should cut it down to 1 hour a night. Furthermore, as for the ADD or ADHD kids, at most schools there are different levels of classes. Most schools have applied and academic, but some school have essential, which is the easiest.Applied doesn't give much homework, and people there get better marks than people in academic. Also, there were kids in my class who had ADHD and they got a IEP, where they got easier homework and more time on tests. Finally, homework is not fine at the rate it is now. 2 hours on homework is 1 hours wasted. Studies show that students should only spend around 1 hour on homework each night. Most students agree with my argument, that homework should be cut down. In conclusion, even though homework is important, students should not spend all of their free time on it. Websites:https://www.theatlantic.com...
Homework should be cut down in high school.

I am representing the con side so I stand for the general statement that homework should be cut down. Homework is fine at the rate it is now. Homework has a great system because it is looked at as another one of your grades. The teacher can get the impression that you either need help with your work or you are at a level where you can be grated to a higher level of some sort. In high school, even though the pressure is on, and you have a lot of homework [so I've heard I'm in seventh grade], you have no idea how much it helps. The school that I go presents with the same amount of homework in high school that the other schools offer. Because of this, my school has had a 100% college acceptance rate for a long time. The affect of a lot of homework seems to not have offered much problems in a student's life besides the fact that they may feel stressed, but if you switch the average student's daily routine from doing homework to the dramatic change of little to no homework, the affects in their grades could change. It's hard to adjust to a new thing pretty easily. The reason why we have homework is mainly for two reasons. The first one is: 1. To catch up on anything you missed in class. Most teenagers are known to have a short attention span and can easily miss things in class. Numerous schools have students learn at the same time and pace even though everyone learns at a different pace. This can be hard on students. With the help of homework, they can easily get things they missed in class, and get clarification on the things they may show weakness on. 2. To remember what they have I know this may sound stupid because it will be less than a day until you get back to school but you can easily forget what you learned. If you're in class and you learn something once and then distract yourself with something like going out with your friends that night, you can simply forget the information and fill it with the joy of hanging out with your friends. Studies also show that if you put a lot of effort into one task, you're sure to be less effective on the next task. If you can fully comprehend the information you processed in a short time by going over it, you're sure to remember it better. For my last point, for some people, it can be hard to focus in a classroom. People with anxiety and ADD and ADHD find it extremely hard to focus. Then, there's the fact that they are surrounded by people in a limited space with pressure on AND limited time. With homework, you can use your free time to let stress go and really go over what was harder for you to focus on in class without stress.
Homework should be cut down in high school.

For most high school students, homework pushes kids far beyond the school day. High school students get a average 17.5 hours of homework a week, which equals ~2 hours of homework each day. (including weekends). That time could be spent doing extra curricular activities, like sports or after school jobs. Even with all of its benefits, it proves that places without much homework do better. For example, Finland, which stopped giving a lot of homework to students in 2009, scored 6th in reading and 12th in math. This proves that cutting down on homework can boost a childs ability to learn. In conclusion, homework hours should and must be lowered if high school students want to get a proper and thorough education.btw, this is my first debate, so please go easy on me.Websites used:https://www.usnews.com...http://motto.time.com...
rugby is a better sport than football

Cout<< "The debater known as "<< variable representing the debaters name << " has forfeited round " << variable for round number in the debate";Cout<< "Post my argument";*clicks post my argument*Cout<< variable for space to type argument;Cin<< "Cout<< "The debater known as "<< variable representing the debaters name << " has forfeited round " << variable for round number in the debate";*clicks post my argument*Cout<< " I EXTEND MY ARGUMENTS";Cout<< "Rich Text";*clicks Rich Text*;Cout<< command to bold the phrase "I EXTEND MY ARGUMENTS";Cout<< "sumbit"*clicks submit*
rugby is a better sport than football

Pro does not define "Football", therefore I define "football" as "The sport Americans refer to as Soccer" (Hijack initiated)What makes one sport better than another?1) Popularity2) Fame3) Familiarity with the game4) Popularity here in America - 1 - How popular is rugby compared to "football"? Well "football" is hands down the most popular sport in the world, the FIFA World Cup in 2010 attracted an audience of 700,000,000 people. The Superbowl meanwhile had an audience of 111,000,000 people. What about the Rugby world Championships?What is the Rugby Championships called?Who Won?When was the last time they even played?Why does the Con keep asking questions nobody knows?(Its because Rugby cant be better than "football" if nobody even knows when the world final happens)The Rugby World Cup has only been around since 1987, (24 years), and is played every four years. The last winner of the Rugby World Cup was New Zealand who won in 2011. How many watched that game?1,900,000....http://rugbyfix.com...So to compare up to this point"football" - FIFA World Cup = 700 MILLION"football" - Superbowl = 111 MILLIONRugby - Rugby World Cup < 2 Million....http://www.hollywoodreporter.com...http://rugbyfix.com...Next point is, 2) Fame,Name 3 Famous "Football" players (Pele, Ronaldo, Zidane)Name 3 Famous American "Football" players (Tom Brady, Tim Tebow, Ben Rothlisberger)Name 3 Famous Rugby Players.................. Enough said.....3) Familiarity of the gameThis is mostly for readers. If a sport is better than other sports, then one quality of it being better is if more people know how to play it. So let me ask the readers these questions - 1 - Do you know how to play "football" soccer? - 2 - Do you know how to play "football" American football? - 3 - Do you know how to play rugby?Thank you for your input. 4) Popularity here in AmericaNext question to voters, Name 3 pro "football" American football teams here in America (Patriots, Cowboys, Jets)Name 3 pro "football" soccer teams here in America (LA Galaxy, DC United, cant think of a third one)Name 3 pro rugby teams here in America........................... Thankyou for your timeI will rest my case that Rugby is NOT more popular than "football" since A) Nobody knows any Rugby Players,B) Nobody knows any Rugby Teams,C) People watch "football" way more than RugbyD) Nobody even knows how to play Rugby
Cats are better than dogs

Well since my contender has failed to back her opinion up, twice and forfeited, I believe I do win. Dogs are better than cats because they are more loyal and loving. Cats fail to offer any sort of love and care and are more agressive. They don't give two f*cks. about people and when they do, it is very rare. But for dogs, they take the time to play with you and enjoy your company. And if you want cute, there are so many cute breeds of dogs. Also, if you haven't see those videos with the dogs going to the funerals of the fallen soilders, you need to watch them.
Cats are better than dogs

In certain scenarios, a dog would be more reliable than most cats. Take a robbery as one, if you were getting robbed and you were at home, I doubt a cat would help you. Most likely run off unlike a dog. In that scenario, the dog would most likely attack the robber or warn you. For this reason, that's why you see more dogs than cats assisting the army, fire fighters, etc. They are more reliable, dedicated, and loving. This is why dogs are better than cats. On a reliability level, and caring level.
Cats are better than dogs

I will be taking the CON side, also known as the dog side. Dogs are a mans best friend. They are loyal and compatible. Unlike cats, they sare empathy with their owner. Dogs can be cuter, softer, and more reliable. Cats are more independant. Whereas dogs are more obident and loyal. Not to mention, the majority of cats are hella creepy with their marble eyes. I'll get into detail in the next rounds. http://www.diffen.com...
Free Speech on Public Colleges

Unfortunately, I am going to have to forfeit this round, which, per the rules, equates to a forfeiting of the debate. Some last things came up last minute which filled the time I thought I'd have to post this debate, and which will occupy my time for the foreseeable future. I had to choose between finishing my nuclear debate, or posting this one. I chose the former, because it was farther along. Sorry, Romanii. I am going to have to largely step back from the site for awhile. Maybe we can re-do this a fortnight or month from now, when I have time.