BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Some Ron Paul supporters are too out of touch with reality.

I could debate and argue for years with a Ron Paul supporter. But the thing is, unlike most of the gullible youth, I will never be convinced about Global Warming, 9/11 being an inside job, the Federal Bank is a scam, or any other conspiracy theory. Sure the government lies to us. Sure there are sometimes rigged elections. Maybe even one of those theories indicated above is true. However, Ron Paul supporters tend to believe incredible (as in unbelievable, not credible) "stories".
Schools should have classes with a max of 15 kids.

There has been studies done that have proven people can learn and teach anywhere, so in conclusion to that people wouldn't need good class rooms. Confidence wise, some people are born with troubles in confidence, they can not help it. Some people are born with big confidence and that is why it doesn't matter what classes they are in. But studies have shown smaller environments build confidence 76.53% of the time.A renalysis of the Tennessee star experiment found that smaller class 15-17 pupils have both more short term and long term benefits then bigger. There has been improved test scores, school engagement and less drop outs.Nber has also found that reducing class size highers attendance rates mainly with poor or black people. They also found smaller classes increases the chance of a college degree.Governments have found that increased class sizes put more strain on teachers and increase their unemployment rate.Ontario institute also conducted tests for a year with many schools and year levels and found smaller classes make teachers more engaged and students.Another study has shown that smaller classes have benefits for all types of achievers high, low or medium.I think i have given enough evidence.
Schools should have classes with a max of 15 kids.

Your saying the same thing but extended it a little. "THIS WILL MEAN LESS LAZY PEOPLE ON THE DOLE AND MORE MONEY TO BE GIVEN TO SCHOOLS."Lets define "lazy" "unwilling to work or use energy" https://www.google.com.au...If these lazy asses are unwilling to work then why would they want to teach. Teaching sucks unless your some enthusiest or you have to. "MOST PEOPLE GO OUT SIZE AND MEET OTHER PEOPLE SO THAT SOCIAL LIFE.""Students will still have A GREAT SOCIAL life like, they play outside at "recess" and "lunch"Social life has 2 definitions now."PEOPLE ON THE DOLE AND MORE MONEY TO BE GIVEN TO SCHOOLS."Now find those lazy asses like you said about lazy people doing jobs."STUDIES HAVE SHOWN THEY WORK AND ARE MORE LIKELY TO GO TO SCHOOL IF THEY ARE IN A SMALL CLASS WITH THEIR OWN" What bulls^$t, show me the cr&p."TEACHERS WON'T WORK THAT MUCH HARDER"Teaching take loads of effort according froms my sister and teachers. "AND IT BUILDS MY CONFIDENCE TO INTERACT WITH MORE PEOPLE."I've been in classes with more than 20 students my whole life and i have great confidence. So if it builds your confidence it will build everyones confidence?"IF 15 PEOPLE IN A CLASS WAS TO HAPPEN THE EDUCATION QUALITY WOULD GO UP AND PEOPLE CONSIDERED DELINQUENTS WILL GO TO SCHOOL MORE"That is your opinion.Most of your crappy suggestions have no evidence at all.What 15 students will do1) More happy classes2) Builds confidence (suck it up wuss)If this was achived:1) low income from all the buildings unless if your planning to make people pay over price which will suck hardcore2) Government crapNow go and say more about how friendship is magic and how it builds confidence.
Schools should have classes with a max of 15 kids.

MOST PEOPLE GO OUT SIZE AND MEET OTHER PEOPLE SO THAT SOCIAL LIFE.THERE ARE 1.500 PEOPLE IN MY SCHOOL. IT MIGHT COST MORE, BUT IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU HAVE TO INCORPORATE IT IN STRAIGHT AWAY, JUST SLOWLY MAKE 15 CLASSES. IM MORE CONFIDENT IN SMALLER CLASSES AND IT BUILDS MY CONFIDENCE TO INTERACT WITH MORE PEOPLE. WHERE WE HAVE MANY SCHOOLS WITCH ON HAVE 10 IN A YEAR LEVEL AND THOSE SCHOOLS HAVE SHOWED HIGHER MARKS. TEACHERS WON'T WORK THAT MUCH HARDER IT JUST MEANS MORE PEOPLE WILL HAVE JOBS.IF 15 PEOPLE IN A CLASS WAS TO HAPPEN THE EDUCATION QUALITY WOULD GO UP AND PEOPLE CONSIDERED DELINQUENTS WILL GO TO SCHOOL MORE. STUDIES HAVE SHOWN THEY WORK AND ARE MORE LIKELY TO GO TO SCHOOL IF THEY ARE IN A SMALL CLASS WITH THEIR OWN. THIS WILL MEAN LESS LAZY PEOPLE ON THE DOLE AND MORE MONEY TO BE GIVEN TO SCHOOLS.
Schools should have classes with a max of 15 kids.

What you say is true but then again, your only explicit on social life. "I disagree completely with you" Did you not read all of the points i made? if there is a poll for 15 kids max and they are succesfull, how busy would the teachers, staff ect. would be.A social life with 15 students is less learning, you learn from others as well don't you. With more student, you'll get a wider education range from everyone. Empircally, what your saying is that friendship is a big factor. It is of course.How does 15 kids max make a great social life. Why can't i just hang out with my friends closest or your wanting kids to be friends with everyone together or something. At what age do you think "Kid" is. I've been in small classes and it feels great but having schools with 15 kids per class is little.How much students are in your school? In my school, more than 350 but i'll round it off to 300.300/15= 20. 20 class rooms bro. If your looking for a nomal size room then it should cost about 8000. 8000x20= $160,000 and you need furnitures possibly carpets, lights, cables everywhere and all these things. Now when most schools should have 15 kids, that is unlikely.
Schools should have classes with a max of 15 kids.

I disagree completely with you. Students will still have A GREAT SOCIAL life like, they play outside at recess and lunch, as if your not goner make lots of friends. It might cost a lot but look at what it can create. I higher level of academics and social improvement. It will convince kids that have given up on school to come because learning will be easier. Less people on the dole and more people in jobs =more money and tax won't be wasted on stupid people who are to lazy to get a job. It will be a step in the right direction.
Schools should have classes with a max of 15 kids.

If you have a maximum of 15 students then it means that you'll have to create more class rooms, hire more teachers and make more buildings which will all cost a heavy price. You could say by making only 15 kids in one class will decrease the stress of teachers but most of them just handle it simply. Principles must arrange and sort a mass amount of work if theres only 15 kids because of changes in roll calls, offices, and files unless if someone plans to create a new school.Socialism is important between kids and kids is important too.
The hegemonic practices of soft power and hard power are immoral

Since a second opponent has forfieted on this topic, I'd like to try this debate again. Please do not accept if you do not have formal debate experience or at least a few political debates under your belt here.To limit the debate to a reasonable scope, I am hoping we can discuss this in the context of Western actors and Western philosophy - unless my challenger feels there significant issues that we need to touch on by non-Western actors and moral paradigms. If so, please mention which issues from outside of the "Western World" you wish to discuss so that I may do some background research.Rules:1. Citations & clarifications should be made in the Comments section2. Semantic arguments past the R2 will be discounted, they're just a detrment to the discussion.3. Independant moral frameworks for analysis are allowed (e.g. Pro uses Utilitarianism, Con uses Kantian Morality), both debaters should engage with the different frameworks if new ones are proposed. Limit 1 per debater.Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Constructive ArgumentsRound 3: Constructive RebuttalsRound 4: Final Rebuttals (no new arguments)Definitions from Merrian-Webster:Hegemony (n) - "Leadership or dominance displayed by a group over another group."Soft power (n) - "A non violent approach to international relations, typically involving economic or cultural influence."Hard power (n) - "An approach to international relations that involves the use of force or intimidation."Western players (n, pl) - "The collection of specific nations located in Western Europe and North America, generally supporting UN and NATO resolutions such as democracy, global stability, and human rights, among other things."
The hegemonic practices of soft power and hard power are immoral

Many thanks to my opponent for his offering this debate. I will begin by offering an analysis of the resolution only in Round 1, that any questions regarding each of our burdens of proof may be clarified before proceeding to debate Round 2. Analysis of the Resolution: The resolution states that "The hegemonic practices of hard and soft power are immoral." My opponent must first offer a moral framework by which to evaluate the practices he posits are immoral, and then offer arguments that demonstrate both the immorality of soft and hard power on the basis of whatever moral system he provides. My burden as CON is to demonstrate that the hegemonic practices of soft and hard power are NOT immoral. This could mean that the hegemonic practices of hard and soft power are either morally neutral, morally permissible, morally justified or not evaluable on a moral basis. I look forward to my opponent's case. Peace out, YYW
Guantanamo Bay Detention Center should remain open.

Well, I am glad to see I have a formidible opponent, or at least I hope so based upon your introduction. And I hope that following this debate we may find rise for other debates in the future. Now on to it. I have a feeling you may be surprised as to the angles I approach this from. Not only do I possess my researched and media and academic evidence but my father and a friend of mine were both stationed on the Guantanamo Naval Base. This of course is not a debate over the closer of the base as a whole but of the detention center only. But this unique insight does shed some light. I also look forward to hearing the views from someone not from the US as I spend a lot of time debating this issue with Americans. The detention center of Guantanamo Bay (henceforth referred to as GTMO) houses some of the most high value detainees and war criminals that the United States has captured. Detainees that have been found with ties to terrorist organizations, enemy combatants, and other prisoners that are threats to national security. These prisoners are kept in prisons modeled after maximum security US prisons and Federal Penitentiaries. Many of the detainees are uncooperative and threaten and attack guards, many have stated that they plan to return to war against the US, and others are the opposite and are very cooperative and as such receive treatment that is warranted of that, just like prisoners within the continental US receive privileges for good behavior. This prison is utilized for prisoners of war and threats to peace. This is a common practice that has been used for centuries. The Geneva conventions were enacted to ensure fair treatment of these prisoners but that doesn't eliminate the need for it. The major question to be asked is, if the prison was to be closed down, where would these prisoners go? GTMO is a safe location for potentially dangerous detainees that pose threats to civilians and have actively participated in violent acts against multiple sovereign nations and actively conspire and threaten further acts of violence. To house these people in a location that would allow them access to gang involvement, interaction with Gen. Pop in a standard prison, it would be dangerous. The only other option would be the ADX Supermax but that is limited in space, and as such GTMO is the best alternative to that. That is my opening argument. I will incorporate much more in the ways of evidence and other statistical figures, facts, and data in rebuttals.
Guantanamo Bay Detention Center should remain open.

While I've never formally studied politics or IR I've been reasonably politically active for some time and IR debates have always been my strongest in formal debating competitions. I also share a particular interest in US foreign policy as well as military strategy with my opponent, and by coincidence, we both also work for software companies. I'm really looking forward to this debate, where unsurprisingly I will argue that Guantanamo Bay Detention Center should be closed, which as it so happens is actually a personal belief of mine. I hope my opponent doesn't mind if I start responding to their case immediately in round two, because I'm anticipating rejecting a number of the premises on which it will be built (assuming I am correctly predicting what line my opponent is going to take). It should help the debate move along quicker and get some more meaningful clash in round three. Don't worry, I should be able to do my opening argument as well. As this is the acceptance round, I'll obviously wait for the next one before I begin presenting any arguments. I say this in every serious debate I do, but I really mean it: bad voters, go away.
Guantanamo Bay Detention Center should remain open.

I have started this as a 5 round debate for the reason to allow an acceptance of the debate round as well. The topic is the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center and whether or not it should remain open and operating as a detainment center. All arguments for or against are allowed as long as they are relevant to the topic. Round 1 - Accepting the debate and introducing yourself Round 2 - Stating your opening argument Round 3 - Rebutting your opponents opening argument and issuing responsive arguments Round 4 - Final response to opponent Round 5 - Closing statements All arguments should remain respectful and refrain from personal attacks and irrelevant statements. I am a political science/international relations student with focusing in international security as well as studying military history, strategy and policies.
The Care Bears had an ethnic cleansing

That's not a Care Bear, that's a 14 year old Puerto Rican Boy, and you've never made love to a Car Bear. I have made passionate, sweet, bloody, against the wall, hold onto the nearest fence post for dear life, love with the Snuggle Bear multiple times and he told me it was like the Holocaust mixed with 9/11 with a side of Columbine, except you know, it wasn't as funny. Snuggle Muffin barely made it out alive, you don't see a "Johnson Braught" on him because they took it off! Sunshine bare used a pair of safety scissors and did it in one fell swoop!
The Care Bears had an ethnic cleansing

That doesn't prove anything! First of all, that's horrible art, I've seen a violated toddler draw better! And none of it proves an ethnic cleansing. It's just a collection of hate, and care bears don't hate! I have one trapped in a secret compartment under my stairs. i make love to it everyday and he hasn't made a single peep. Then again, he could be dead. I never check for a pulse, just do my thing and leave.
God and the bible

First off, I'd like to point out that you're arguing for the existence of a great flood, not the existence of God. But that's fine, we'll argue that. There are so many stories about Santa Claus, vampires, alien invaders. That doesn't make them real, it just makes them popular. I'm not familiar with the Indian and Chinese cultural stories you are referring to, but it wouldn't be too hard to imagine how people afflicted by monsoon's and devastating floods could make up a story about a great flood. Nobody has found any fossils to indicate a great flood. If there is such evidence, you really should cite your sources. In fact, it's quite the opposite. As Bill Nye pointed out in his debate with Ken Ham, There has been no kangaroo remnants/fossils found anywhere outside of Australia. If all animals in the entire globe were to emerge from a single vessel after a flood, there would be huge swathes of evidence of their migrations to their current positions. Not to mention, if there was something as apocalyptic as a worldwide flood, destroying all terrestrial life on earth save for that on a single boat, there would be clear markings in Earth's sediment. Nearly all plant life would be under salt-water for at least a half a year and die out, yet we have a wide variety of plants today. Also, I really wish you would've cited your claim that Noah's ark has been found because there are many such claims, and none have been substantiated. One such example turned out to be a natural rock structure [1]. Also, skeptics have demonstrated how eager some creationists are to accept false evidence, such as the case with George Jammal playing the center role in a documentary by David Balsiger on discovering the ark [2]. There is no reliable evidence of a flood covering the whole globe, and if there was it'd be obvious. There might be stories about the flood, but that's all they are: stories. [1]http://www.csun.edu... [2]http://swallowingthecamel.blogspot.com...
God and the bible

There is a lot of evidence that shows proof of God and the bible. First off Noah's ark was found in the valley of the mountain they landed on. They pulled up beams , rope, and rock used to build the boat. Scientists even tested the wood and it turn out to be gofer wood, the wood used to build the boat. Scientists also have found fossils in the places where they should be if there was a huge flood. Many country's such as china, and India have stories about a flood that covered the earth and only a man and his family with animals survived in a big boat. So if there are so many stories about a flood then there probably was a flood!!!
Why filthy Christians should be impaled

You should change your title to, "Why filthy Americans should be impaled because most American's have no clue what is going on in their own goverment. I took the red pill a long time ago. I believe that 9/11 was an inside job, so America could go into Iraq. I don't support any of these wars because most wars are started by the Big banks and wallstreet. Most American's believe everything the media tells them. America is controlled by the global elite. Its not just Christians, but most of America including athiests. Most people can't think for themselves or just don't want to know the truth, so they took the blue pill.
Why filthy Christians should be impaled

Greetings, my name is albur jazeem nazar. I am here to explain the severe dangers of Christians in our society. It is common knowledge that Christians have orchestrated several terrorist attacks against us peaceful Muslims. Therefore to eradicate this unholy behavior from our society, we must impale every single person who believes in Jesus Christ and his father. These beliefs are utterly Neanderthal, if any one of you try to disagree, you will also receive punishment. For the impalement we are hiring "get the Christians impaled.com" service, for only 7,99$ you can have your own Christian slave impaled with a default wood chain, for an additional 20$ you can add custom designs to the crucifix they Weill be impaled in. And remember kids "die for Christ, die for a lie".
Flash would beat Arrow in a fight

Number 1, lack of awareness of his surroundings that is incorrect because he was in a berserk rage therefore he would not be that aware of his surroundings.To also add on yes Flash might have been trying to kill the Arrow, but that would also make him over confident of his power's more then he regularly is, which would lead to more mistakes. Number two, if someone's really hyper that doesn't make them super fast. The Flash is super fast, has some technique and is super strong.Plus he can run faster then the human can see with proof here Number three to highlight the Flashes superior fighting ability, here is some of his training and the next video skip to the Flash part of the show and they will talk about Barry blowing up a drone. Which was shooting rapid fire bullet's at him and missal's. Number four , yes his healing factor is not instant but it does give him a edge over the Arrow who has no healing factor at all. Number five, Arrow die's twice in their fight. At 1: 57 Arrow fell from the building backwards their for his arrow's would have fell out of his pack and he would of fell to his death. If some how he still has his arrow's in his pack and he get's the right one he would still die from the almost instant stop, shown in the Amazing Spider-man 2 it would break his neck . But finally he would have probably would have at lest been paralyzed when he grappled to the top of the building because of how fast he was going expanded in this video .
Flash would beat Arrow in a fight

I have also have seen the T.V fight,but you forget that flash has healing factor. Which will render mostly every attack the Arrow can do pretty much useless.Now you say the best thing said for the Flash was Cisco Ramon saying ' it's a tie ' your wrong, because it the Arrow episode of the crossover they basically agreed no one won that fight.You also said that they had to make the Flash 'look good' on the show Flash,because it was his show. Well also again in the Arrow episode of the crossover, the Flash looked way better then the Arrow and saved Arrow's but to. Lex Fridman quote does not say in it that skill beat's speed, their for it is invalid. Finally Arrow got beat by ra's al gaul and in the start ra's start to win with dodging with speed which Flash can easily do and in the end ra's one will pure strength.
Flash would beat Arrow in a fight

Wow I can't believe some one actually accepted this debate. Well any way's yes Arrow might have skill with a bow, but flash has speed.Flash can run up to about 7 times faster then a blink of a eye and arrow's only travail at 200 to 300 feet per second. Which is a lot slower then something going 7 times faster then a blink of a eye. So I dought that Arrow will even land a arrow on the flash.