BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should teachers be allowed to have a weapon at school in case of an emergency

Hi. I believe that teachers should be allowed to have a weapon at school in case of an emergency. I will begin by stating 2 facts: The average number of people killed in mass shootings when stopped by police is 14.29 The average number of people killed in a mass shooting when stopped by a civilian is 2.33 Lets apply this to school shootings as I assume that is the "emergency" that this debate is mainly pertaining too. That's roughly 12 children and/or faculty killed where if teachers had a weapon, be it a gun or taser, could potentially save in the event of a school shooting if not more. Now lets look at your statement. "If there is an emergency, there are procedures in place to help protect students as much as possible." There are procedures in place yes, but if these procedures truly worked as they should, then these shooting would produce fewer causalities. These plans are simply not efficient enough to prevent the death of students and staff. "If a student gets hold of the weapon the teacher has by some means, then problems could arise and the teacher would be blames" The teacher would only be to blame if he or she did not follow the safety precautions that would have to be set up in order to keep students away from these weapons. And if a student is that potentially dangerous he or she will almost undoubtedly find away to acquire a weapon of some sort and wouldn't need to steal it from a teacher. "however I do believe the school should pay for self defense classes for staff, and training, such as training that cops undergo, to deal with hostage and gun situations." This I agree with, but it still does not go far enough. The most efficient way to end a shooting rampage is to end the shooter. Teachers regardless of training will still be teachers, and I personally know several teachers at my high school that could not possibly either talk down or wrestle a gun away from a shooter. These teachers however do have the capability to aim and pull a trigger.
Should teachers be allowed to have a weapon at school in case of an emergency

No teachers should not be allowed to have a weapon on school property. If there is an emergency, there are procedures in place to help protect students as much as possible. If a student gets hold of the weapon the teacher has by some means, then problems could arise and the teacher would be blames. Therefore teachers shouldn't be allowed to have weapons, however I do believe the school should pay for self defense classes for staff, and training, such as training that cops undergo, to deal with hostage and gun situations.
The Wii has better games than the PS3

By PS3 game, in this debate, I mean exclusives. Games only on the PS3/Wii. Thanks for asking for clarification 2. PS3 doesn't even have close to the variety the Wii has. Its mainly shooters, action games, and a few sports. The Wii isn't built off kids, its made for everyone. Especially in the name Wii, where the 2 I's represent people! Also, Wii has games for the college kids too. Metroid Prime Corruption, Red Steel, No More Heroes, and many more examples are out. The Wii also has many sports games, such as Wii Sports. Even games like Madden are on the Wii, and made exclusive because of the controls. Because of the new controls, more people try Wii, and more people get turned on to the charm. Also, the Wii has this little game called Super Smash Bros Brawl, which is a game also for the hardcore people! And old loners, well, thats what games like Wii play, My Word coach, and Wii fit are for. Does my MOM want to play Turok, or Wii Fit? That's variety. Next, Mario isn't just for kids, its a platforming masterpiece. Mario games have some of the most creative puzzles of all time,and are a challenge. 3. PS3 games may have better graphics, but that doesn't help the playablility, fun, and replay value of a game. The Wii is also not ment for graphics, Nintendo wanted to keep it cheap, so the VARIETY of people could buy it. Why play a game with great graphics, that isn't fun? Gameplay is more important than graphics, think of Pac-man! Also, the Wii can produce some pretty good graphics. 4. NOT ALL Wii games are built for kids, some are! (Linking to my VARIETY argument! ) Some games, such as Rayman Raving Rabbids, have short campaign(Around 4 hours) But its still fun, and appeals to kids. BUT, for the older people, there are games like Zelda:Twilight Princess. Is 70+ hours of gameplay a short story? Is 150 stars on Super Mario Galaxy a kids quest? There is a game for everyone on Wii. And if you want to talk about REPLAY VALUE, Wii Sports, and Wii play never get old at parties. Also, SUPER SMASH BROS BRAWL possibly is one of the greatest party games of all time, and has very high replay value. Smash is considered one of the games that never gets old at parties, and it has a campaign, map maker, and etc! And Wii offers WAY more game modes(links to variety) Campaign, Multiplayer, Minigames, Sports, and etc. Wii is for everyone, and there is a bit of everyone in Wii. The PS3 is appealing to teens, and doesn't have the games for my younger sister, or my grandmother. THAT'S variety.
The Wii has better games than the PS3

With that said, let's take a look at this: First, I'd like for my opponent to define what a 'PS3 game' is. Are we talking exclusives or just games? Second, PS3 has a bigger variety of games, contrary to what my opponent says. The PS3 has great shooters, some of the best exclusive sports games, as well as great action games like Final Fantasy. Those games can be enjoyed by a multitude of people, while Nintendo is built off kids games. College kids, MLG'ers and old loners alike don't want to play games like mario. Third, PS3 games have MUCH better graphics. The blu-ray format allows for extremly high quality picture and sound, while the Wii remains last, for graphics, in the console war. Fourth, PS3 games have MUCH more replay value than Wii games. Wii games are built for kids, so their campaigns are short and they feature little game modes. Sony recognizes that people want variety, and they offer games with longer campaigns as well as different game modes and mods.
A good president would have us RECOVERED by now!

I think it is plain to see that with 47 recessions in our countries history and 22 since 1900, the only 2 that were brought out on a slow recovery were by FDR and obama. Being a likable guy is not a good requirement for a president. We need people in the white house who understand the economy and the way world trade works. In 25 days the liar and thief of the United States of America will have been seated in the oval office for 48 months and still has not helped bring us out of the recession. The American people have given us some hope by spending their saved money and some businesses are taking advantage of the low start up costs in a recession but obama has done nothing but pad the pockets of campaign contributors like solyndra. On January 21st 2013 the liar and thief of the USA will leave his legacy that I believe will only take 10 years to show him as the worst president ever in this great country. If a supposedly mad man such as Adolph Hitler can bring his country out of a worse depression in 2 years, than why couldn't a president with a super majority do it???
A good president would have us RECOVERED by now!

Even a supposed "mad man" did a better job than wilson, roosevelt and obama combined. To deal with the massive unemployment and economic paralysis of the Great Depression, both the US and German governments launched innovative and ambitious programs. Although President Franklin Roosevelt"s "New Deal" measures helped only marginally, the Third Reich"s much more focused and comprehensive policies proved remarkably effective. Within three years unemployment was banished and Germany"s economy was flourishing. And while Roosevelt"s record in dealing with the Depression is pretty well known, the remarkable story of how Hitler tackled the crisis is not widely understood or appreciated. Adolf Hitler became Chancellor of Germany on January 30, 1933. A few weeks later, on March 4, Franklin Roosevelt took office as President of the United States. Each man remained his country"s chief executive for the next twelve years -- until April 1945, shortly before the end of World War II in Europe. In early 1933 industrial production in each country had fallen to about half of what it had been in 1929. Each leader quickly launched bold new initiatives to tackle the terrible economic crisis, above all the scourge of mass unemployment. And although there are some striking similarities between the efforts of the two governments, the results were very different. One of the most influential and widely read American economists of the twentieth century was John Kenneth Galbraith. He was an adviser to several presidents, and for a time served as US ambassador to India. He was the author of several dozen books, and for years taught economics at Harvard University. With regard to Germany"s record, Galbraith wrote: "" The elimination of unemployment in Germany during the Great Depression without inflation -- and with initial reliance on essential civilian activities -- was a signal accomplishment. It has rarely been praised and not much remarked. The notion that Hitler could do no good extends to his economics as it does, more plausibly, to all else."
A good president would have us RECOVERED by now!

Now, I do side partly with you (the Instigator of this debate). A good president would have been more productive than Barack Obama has been; I hope his second term is more appealing. However, for the purpose of boosting debate skills and putting myself in the Democrats' shoes, I will be attempting to find reasoning on why Barack Obama has not lived up to our expectations as of yet. Truly, I believe he is failing, but I'm challenging myself to discuss the opposite.
Politicians should be interrogated using truth serum regarding their actions

I would like to first thank funny007 for this debate and I hope this debate can go all the way through.From reading the comments I have come up with this full topic to argue, The instigator has every right to change the topic or definitions.Full Topic Politicians with higher functions within the government should be interrogated with a hypothetical perfect truth serum.DefinitionsPoliticiana person who is professionally involved in politics, especially as a holder of or a candidate for an elected office.Governmentthe governing body of a nation, state, or community.Interrogatedask questions of (someone, especially a suspect or a prisoner) closely, aggressively, or formally.Hypotheticalof, based on, or serving as a hypothesis.Perfecthaving all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be.Truth SerumA "truth serum" is a colloquial name for any of a range of psychoactive medications used to obtain information from subjects who are unable or unwilling to provide it otherwise.For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debateI will be arguing against the interrogation of politiciansOver to pro.
Politicians should be interrogated using truth serum regarding their actions

I support the idea that politicians with higher functions (president, congress etc) should be interrogated using truth serum regarding their actions when they choose to run for that function and after their term ended. I believe this would be beneficial to everybody. After discussion in comments, I would like to mention oxytocin as the truth serum. This is my first debate so I copied the structure from other ones. Feel free to post in comments anything you find wrong. DEBATE STRUCTURE Round 1. Acceptance, No Arguments Round 2. Opening statements (no rebuttals) Round 3. Rebuttals Round 4. Final Rebuttals and closing arguments RULES 1. The burden of proof is shared 2. Forfeiting will results in a full 7-point loss 3. No images or videos are permitted. Links to videos or Images may be used as sources, but the media itself may not be posted in the debate. 4. The character limit is 10,000 5. All arguments must be made in the debate. Any arguments that are mentioned in the comments should be ignored. If there are technical difficulties, sources may be posted in the comments. 6. No Kritiks 7. No Semantics 8. No Trolling 9. All sources must be accessible online and all links must be posted to the debate. 10. Violations of any of these rules should be noted by voters in their scores for conduct. Thank you
Politicians should be interrogated using truth serum regarding their actions

ConclusionA forced interrogation by a truth serum would infringe on our 5th amendment rights. The truth does help, but forcing out of someone would infringe on our rights. We cannot start to change our rights, because if we do, it will never end. Pro's views are too extreme. We cannot interrogate someone because of their job. Corruption can be solved without bending laws.
Politicians should be interrogated using truth serum regarding their actions

(You are right, thank you for noticing. Round 4 will be "Support of argument and closing statements") I would like to thank Con for his professionalism in this debate. The topic of this debate is if politicians with higher rankings should be interrogated using truth serum. Like I said in Round 1, corruption is everywhere around us. I have provided 3 examples, one is admission of guilt by the president elect, one is an email leak and one is a very large case of proven corruption. The first 2 of these cases make me, the usual voter, feel like the bad guys won. I have to admit, Con's contentions about rights are important issues that must be considered closely if and when truth serum interrogations will be implemented. How far these interrogations go must be strictly set to handle only the circumstances of their political carreers and nothing else. But I believe the truth will set us free. Conclusion The Pro point of view is radical and Con makes good points about the human rights, but when a group of people has extreme power they should have not only special privilegies, but special obligations to make us look at the country's future with hope. Before you vote I would like you to repeat in your head "I have honest politicians".
Politicians should be interrogated using truth serum regarding their actions

(I just realised that R4 in your structure may not be ideal for this debate. It isn't really smart to end a debate on rebuttals. If we rebut in round 4 then I will have an unfair advantage. I would be able to rebut your arguments in the final round and you would have no chance to defend your claims because the debate is over. I think it would be better to make round 4 "Support of argument and closing statements""Summery:Cases of Corruption1. Pro introduces a quote from Donald trump where he says he paid of politicians. On this point I would like to note that Donald Trump is not president of the united states, he takes his oath of office January 21st(1). Other than this Pro doesn't do anything else besides saying that with a truth serum we could find out who he payed off.2. Here Pro introduces a controversy surrounding the Clinton organization, and says that we we could find out. He really just gives another example of corruption.3. Here pro goes into a case of proved corruption. This was a case of real estate fraud and bribery, and was Spain's biggest corruption trial, with the judge taking over 40 minutes to read out the sentences. Going into this was really arbitrary for Pro, this case of corruption was discovered without the help of a truth serum. What is "Higher"? A. In pros third case of corruption was a incident where a mayor was convicted of fraud(2). Are mayor's the definition of higher up in this debate? B. There are 19,429 mayors in the united states(3), from mayors of big cities to massive ones. Would we question all these people with a truth serum, where a majority for them have done nothing wrong? This massive scale would be completely unrealistic. C. If mayors are not considered a "Politician with Higher Functions" when Pro's 3rd argument is arbitrary in this debate. ConclusionPro doesn't do anything except throw out some cases of scandal, one of which may not be relevant in the context of this debate. Pro's entire argument centers around trying to figure out some things but he does not go into the legality of the serum. Citations1. . https://en.wikipedia.org...2.http://www.bbc.com...3.http://www.citymayors.com...
Politicians should be interrogated using truth serum regarding their actions

(It's ok with not posting earlier. That's why I set the timer for 3 days)(I apologize for the funky formatting)I thank my opponent for making his arguments.RebuttalC1: Rights.A. My opponent starts by citing Miranda rights and I agree with him. The right to remain silent is designed to protect a person who is undergoing police questioning or trial. However, I still have yet to see a silent politician during his campaign to be elected.B. He also says "if we start to undermine rights, where will this lead?" What my opponent calls rights very often in history turn out to be privileges. I would like to remind him of the internment of the Japanese american in 1942, when over 100 000 people of Japanese ancestry were incarcerated without any real reason. It was all done by politicians.C. My opponent makes a parallel between the truth serum and a polygraph and a person's right to refuse a polygraph. I would like to remind my opponent that we are operating under the assumption of a hypothetical perfect truth serum, so the comparison is off topic.D. The Con side makes a strong case with the quote from Animal Farm: "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others." I do wonder how the story would've looked if everyone knew the pigs intentions.C2: Lack of grounds.My opponent says that being a politician is not a crime and provides no grounds to be interrogated. Dictators are also politicians and we know they are criminals.C3: Selective justiceThe Con side says we cannot choose some people to be interrogated by some methods. I couldn't agree more with that. We do not choose some people, we choose those with extreme powerC4: Information leaksMy opponent says that secrets may be shared that shouldn't be. No secrets will be shared if we ask the right questions. And soon those questions will reveal only virtuous politicians.ConclusionMy opponent's contentions don't take into account the damages a certain group of people with extreme power can do.Sourceshttps://en.wikipedia.org...
Politicians should be interrogated using truth serum regarding their actions

"The worst disease in the world today is corruption. And there is a cure: transparency. " We all know of cases of corruption, but I will list some here. 1. I will start with the current president of the United States: "I gave to many people, before this, before two months ago, I was a businessman. I give to everybody. When they call, I give. And do you know what? When I need something from them two years later, three years later, I call them, they are there for me. And that’s a broken system. " This is the most important man in the world saying that he paid politicians off. Who? We don't know, but we should find out.2. Wikileaks released an email from Clinton campaign chair that suggests Hillary Clinton uses her foundation to receive money for her campaign illegally. From who? We don't know, but we should find out.3. I will add here a case of proved corruption. In the beach resort Marbella from Spain, 50 people were sent to prison and city planning adviser received 11 years in jail plus a 326 million dollars fine for setting up a generalised corruption system. Conclusion:It's all good when the justice system does it's job and the bad guys get caught, but what do we do with the other cases? Politicians handle our countries future and we don't know how much of their work is in the people's interest or their own. And that is why I support the measure of interrogating them using truth serum. Because we don't know, but we can find out. Sources:1. . https://www.theguardian.com... 2. . http://observer.com...3. . http://www.thelocal.es...
Women tougher than men

Pro again failed to give a rebuttal or even acknowledgement for my first argument. I was rather confused when she stated "There is nothing that can be done about it. It is just the way we are. " Perhaps she is saying that toughness is, in fact, beyond our control and seated more in biology. In that case, I wish she had been more clear about her definition of the word "tough". In summary, I gave an argument as to why men are tougher from a psychological viewpoint. My opponent, ignoring this, quoted a source detailing why women are more resistant to disease. I expressed confusion and questioned her reasoning and definition in the next round. She declined to answer. I was perplexed because Pro's definition was unclear for most of the debate. But, in summary, I conclude that being "tough" is centered around mental rigidity and a more controlled reaction to dangerous situations, which applies to more males than females on average. Pro gave evidence that women are more resistant to disease, which they are, but I think that has more to do with the genetic lottery and random chance than toughness.
Women tougher than men

Pro presented no rebuttal to me for this round. While I took my opponent's vague Google search definition of "tough" to refer to the mental faculties of each gender, she went for a more medical approach. I concede that women are certainly more resistant to cancer, unaffected by many diseases, and live longer. However, this is purely biological and is beyond the control of anyone involved, which I will argue has little to do with "toughness".Looking over the dictionary.com definitions of "tough" [1], there is not one that describes increased resistance to disease. One could argue that this is implied by endurance and sturdiness, but these are personality traits, while what Pro brought up is merely genetic coincidence. My argument for men being tougher fit Pro's original definition of "strong enough to withstand adverse conditions or rough or careless handling". In Round 2, Pro stated that most men could not "bleed for a week straight every month". This has nothing to do with disease resistance; there is no natural flow in her argument. I also notice that despite her initial sentence of "Some men are tougher than women but on average women are tougher", none of Pro's Round 3 argument was original. Rather than occasionally citing or quoting the source to support her own claims, she copied and pasted the entire thing. Until Pro gives a counter-argument, my points for Round 2 remain unchallenged.SOURCES:1. http://dictionary.reference.com...