BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Uniforms should be worn in school

I will take up the challenge. The definition of uniform is: "A distinctive set of clothing intended to identify the members of a specific group." [1] By this definition, I do not think uniforms should be worn in school, from the view point of improving the students' education. Wearing uniforms to school, such as karate club uniforms or basketball uniforms, encourages cliques and groups to form. Cliques lead to all sorts of problems, such as bulling, exclusion, and more. Also, flaunting social status becomes easier with uniforms. Therefore, uniforms should not be worn in school. [1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Uniforms should be worn in school

I think uniforms should be worn in schools. To support my statement I will lay out some points: 1. When all students have to wear the same thing, none of them can brag about wearing the latest, most expensive fashions. 2. Whether they're from the upper, middle or lower class, all students dress the same. 3. Uniforms can increase self-confidence when students don't feel pressured to wear a certain type of clothing. 4. A study by the University of Nevada found the middle school students felt safer and more confident when wearing uniforms. 5. School uniforms lessen distraction in the classroom so no one is sidetracked by someone's T-shirt message or where a friend got new leggings. 6. Studies have shown an increase in academic test scores in schools that have enforced uniform policies. I will now allow the CON to lead out their points and arguments.
Life ends (death) when the heart stops beating. Life starts when your heart begins beating.

Counterpoint 1: There is no contradiction in my sentences, please re-read. No, life does not begin at conception, life was there before the sperm and egg even met. Only when the egg is fertilized, has the "process" of gravidity has begun. They are cells growing within the mother's womb because it cannot pump its' own blood until it develops a heart beat.Counterpoint 2: "Your definition is entirely arbitrary. Scientifically, it is not a woman's body because it has its own unique DNA." Really? Thats it? My testicles have their own DNA. A woman's ovaries, the same. Mitochondrion are in every humans body that *(short definition) converts glucose into energy (ATP). Most Americans are anaware that Mitochondrion contains its own genome and DNA. As we are diverting off topic, you may research for more information.Counterpoint 3: You have went off topic. I am in no way approving abortion. Anytime before the heart first beats it is amputation. Any moment after is cold blood murder.
Life ends (death) when the heart stops beating. Life starts when your heart begins beating.

It'll be interesting. 1. I'd like to point out that your title contradicts your fourth sentence. Are you admitting that life begins at conception? If so, the deliberate ending of that life is murder. ï¿½At fertilization have a human being, who needs air, shelter and nutrition from its mother. 2. "It's not your body anymore if it has its own heartbeat. " Your definition is entirely arbitrary. Scientifically, it is not a woman's body because it has its own unique DNA. ï¿½ 3. ï¿½There is a measurable heart beat 21-24 days after conception. This is only 7-10 days after a women would expect to begin her menses. Since most women have cycles that can vary by this amount, they do not discover they are pregnant until after this point. Therefore, all abortions stop a beating heart, even "early" abortions. However, most abortions do not occur until 4-6 weeks after the fetus begins to form. [1]ï¿½ Sources: [1]ï¿½. http://bit.ly...
Life ends (death) when the heart stops beating. Life starts when your heart begins beating.

Any point after this time is cold blood murder and should be tried in the first degree. Abortion topic? No, I'm running down the middle of what both sides believe. Life begins at conception, but that life belongs to the mother until it begins to pump its' own blood. At that point, it is the duty of the female to nurture and care for the life that she has willingly agreed to protect and allow to grow in her body until it is capable of breathing without the mother (birth). I am for womens' rights, but its not your body anymore if it has its own heartbeat. There are 2 rules to this debate: 1.Voters should vote for who makes the better argument, not out of personal beliefs. 2.No opinions are allowed that were not stated in Round 1. 1000 Limit, because this is pretty straight forward for the most part. You have my opinion, so round one will be opinion on the entire topic. Its time to have some fun on this site. Challenge me to any topic, I will be a worthy opponent
Life ends (death) when the heart stops beating. Life starts when your heart begins beating.

1: If human life does not begin at conception, then when does it? You say when it has a heartbeat, but others say when it has a brain, and others say when it's born... That just begs the question: why should anyone accept your version? I will let you answer that.ï¿½ The fact that people die every day is irrelevant here. 2+3: Functions all biological life requires: •to grow •to metabolize •to reproduce A zygote meets all these. It grows and metabolizes, obviously, and reproduces its cells. It cannot reproduce sexually yet, but neither can a child, so that should not have any bearing. Unlike mitochondria or blood from a dead person, a zygote is an individual whom when properly cared for will reach adulthood.ï¿½ CP1: People can survive cardiac arrest and open-heart surgery. In other words, their lives are not over, even though their hearts stop for a period of time. Also, some people live with artificial hearts. Not only is their real heart stopped, it's totally gone. But aren't they alive?
Life ends (death) when the heart stops beating. Life starts when your heart begins beating.

Counterpoint 1: I entirely understand the concept. The fact of the matter is, I dont agree with it and you can't seem to muster out any hard proofs other than what you believe and what you have heard/been taught. Its funny, you make such a big deal on these chromosones that are not even a being yet, when so many people die every day. Counterpoint 2+3: "The difference there is that even though your different body parts may have different DNA, they will never grow into another person on their own." I like how you use the phrase "grow into another person" and then conclude that its a human being even if it hasn't developed any organs or functions all biological life requires. Point 1: Life ends when the heart stops. A dead body has some of the same functions as a fetus with a undeveloped heart. Blood is still alive, he has his own geneocode, and has 46 chromosones. Only after 72 hours do the cells begin to die etc... You were right btw, there is very little space for points.
Life ends (death) when the heart stops beating. Life starts when your heart begins beating.

1: Let me clarify; *human* life, such as yours or mine, begins at conception.ï¿½Of course the single egg or single sperm is technically a living thing but it is not its own human being. A zygote has all 46 chromosomes present, that are not the same as, say, the 46 chromosomes in any random cell in the mother's body.ï¿½ 2: "Thats it?" I wanted to add more but was running out of characters. The difference there is that even though your different body parts may have different DNA, they will never grow into another person on their own. A zygote is a different person from the mother. Your testicles could be removed and you would remain you; it wouldn't have murdered another human. Killing an embryo is killing a human in its entirety, whether or not it has a heartbeat.ï¿½ 3: I'm just showing there is no point in saying you support women's rights (R1) if these "rights" are causing murder, which you do not support.ï¿½ I think I have addressed the difference between amputation and murder in point 2.ï¿½
Athletes are paid higher salaries than teachers because they serve to maintain the status quo

Professional athletes are paid higher salaries than teachers and doctors because they serve to maintain the status quo. Their roles are considered to be more valuable in that they serve as distractions and offer escapism to the masses. I often hear people complain about professional athletes being paid more than teachers and doctors. It seems to illustrate a dysfunctional and distorted valuation of national priorities. Although the imbalance is usually attributed to free market pricing, I assert that these athletes are paid more because they are deemed by the corporatocracy to be more valuable to the preservation of the capitalistic structure and the promotion of a materialistic way of life.
Athletes are paid higher salaries than teachers because they serve to maintain the status quo

I will give a basic overview of my arguments:Based on my opponent's statement on corporatism, I believe my opponent's definition of status quo necessarily implies some inherent corporate/capitalist normThus, I believe my opponent's stance to ultimately be that athletes are paid higher salaries in order to maintain some exploitative capitalist/corporate norm. I will be taking the opposing stance: that the maintaining some corporate/capitalist status quo is not the cause of athlete's higher salaryI assert that the cause of athletes' salaries most significantly, perhaps even solely, caused by a generic supply and demand relationship. The higher salaries are merely a capitalist manifestation of a demand for professional athletes against a low supply of high quality athletes. I argue that this demand exists independent of corporatism. Athletics and athletic values are not confined to capitalistic societies. To claim that corporate goals cause athletic demand is to ignore humanity's evolutionary and historic value of the athletic. Weighed against its demand (supply divided by demand), the proportion of athletes is far smaller than those of teachers. Thus I argue that the demand for athletes and its subsequent supply-demand relationship, rather than goals of maintaining corporatism, cause athletes' higher wages. Also, my opponent's claim, that athletes are paid higher salaries than teacher because the serve to maintain status quo, necessarily implies that teachers do not serve to maintain status quo. If teachers do serve to maintain the status quo, then the resolution is negated. I assert that teachers do maintain the status quo. In fact, I assert that teachers are the most significant agents to maintaining the status quo. If my opponent's hypothesis is true, then both athletes and teachers maintain the status quo. The athletes' higher salaries cannot then be due to this factor since both athletes and teachers share it. My basic premises:- Athlete's higher salaries, in a system which doles salary, is due to supply & demand than a need to maintain the status quo. - Teachers serve to maintain the status quo, thus the resolution must necessarily be false (by way of logic)What is 'the status quo'?
Resolved: Deficit Spending does more harm than good.

For this round I shall refute my opponent's case from the past two rounds. Contention 1: The economy can recover without deficit spending. My opponent claims what the Stimulas spending lead to the Great Depression, but in my last round I have shown how this is false and how it was used to get us out of the Great Depression. Even though the economy self recovers, stimulas spending speeds up this process. For my opponent's second part of this argument, we can see that he's really looking at the wrong thing. Here we can see that after the TARP package unemployment began to fall. I also extend my arguments showing how Economist Paul Krugman shown how the TARP bill was way to small which was why it didn't work as fast. After the bill we can see that there were several great effects on the economy that my opponent hasn't brought up: US deflation returned to healthy inflation, Housing ownership began to stablize, prices stablized, Products sold increased, and industrial production had risen [1]. These are key indicators of the economy and we can see that they all began to skyrocket in recovery after the bill. Contention 2: Government needs to pay off its debt.My opponent starts to fret that the US can't pay off its debt, but this is simply wrong. Former Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan had stated, "The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that. So there is zero probability of default. [2]” It is also impossible for the US to default since all public debt is paid with by the dollar. We have a zero percent chance of doing so, thus my opponent's contention doesn't really have an impact. Contention 3: Reliance is bad.Next, we can see that my opponent's claim on us owing all these nations trillions in debt is simple false. This is completely as well as mathematically impossible. Debt can be seen as a good thing. Alexander Hamilton had actually endorsed this as it would interconnect the US and other nations would not want to let anything bad to happen to the US as it would harm them [3]. If we would get rid of our debt, many nations wouldn't care as much. Sources1. (http://economistsview.typepad.com...) 2. (http://www.forbes.com...) 3. (http://www.usnews.com...)
Resolved: Deficit Spending does more harm than good.

Additional ArgumentsContention #2: The government needs to pay off its debt or the private sector will lose money.Approximately 32.5% of government debt is owed to individuals and institutions in the private sector, as shown in this chart: This means that over $6 trillion have been borrowed from the private sector. If the government never pays off this debt and continues to borrow, the private sector will continue to lose trillions of dollars.Borrowing from the private sector also defeats the purpose of economic stimulus. Why borrow so much money if you're going to give some of it back without hesitation? It would be much more efficient to let people keep more of their money. The economy is hurt when businesses fail, businesses fail because they don't have enough money, and they lose money when the government takes it. If the government didn't spend so much money, the private sector wouldn't have to give so much away.You can also tell from the chart that 32.7% of debt is owed to foreign countries, which leads me to my next contention.Contention #3: Too much reliance on foreign countries makes the U.S. economy vulnerable.The government has borrowed trillions of dollars from China, Hong Kong, Japan, Belgium, Ireland, Brazil, and the UK. If any of those countries were to have an economic crisis, the government would either lose money or be forced to borrow more from the private sector. If the government wanted to continue deficit spending, they would borrow more from the private sector, which would just make the economy worse as businesses lose money.ConclusionThe economy can heal on its own. Deficit spending doesn't work and it harms the private sector.
Resolved: Deficit Spending does more harm than good.

Contention #1: The economy can recover without deficit spending.Before the creation of the Federal Reserve, the economy was a long series of depressions separated by brief periods of economic growth. After the federal banking system was established, banks often borrowed and spent money (which is what the government does with deficit spending). This led to the Great Depression, but the economy started to heal itself in 1933. In modern times, the economy can't heal itself because of excessive stimulus. [1] As you can see in the graph, the stimulus package didn't allow the economy to heal itself, and it just caused further decline.Sorry for making my argument so short as I have been busy lately, but it's a five round debate, so I might add some in the next round.Sources[1] http://economyandmarkets.com...
Resolved: Deficit Spending does more harm than good.

DefinitionsDeficit Spending- "government spending, in excess of revenue, of funds raised by borrowing rather than from taxation." https://www.google.com...The burden of proof is shared equally.Round Structure1. Acceptance2. Opening Arguments3 & 4. Rubuttals and Defense (No new arguments in R4)5. ConclusionsAdditional RulesNo trolling.
Resolved: Deficit Spending does more harm than good.

To conclude this debate we can see that my opponent has neglected to contest any of my arguments leaving them droped in this debate. We can see that the Stinmuli through deficet spending does more then allowing the economy to recover on it's own. Even under the status quo, we have no choice, but to deficit spend and there is no true way that we as Americans can ballance our budget as we would be destroying our economy through all of these budget cuts. Deficit Spending can lead to great things just as it had helped the economy recover during the Great Depression. The TARP bill was too small and key economists had argued that if it were bigger we could have fixed the economy. Many of these things are really ignored and must be taken into account when we face economic downturn. The only thing we can do is spend to give the economy that spark it so desperately desires in order to save it and keep it from total collapse.
Resolved: Deficit Spending does more harm than good.

When in economic crisis, the economy can heal without excessive government spending. Stimulus spending did help us get out of the Great Depression, but it did not put us in debt, so it was not deficit spending. In addition, the economy ended up healing itself during WW2.Con even admits that the economy can recover on its own, and as my chart showed, deficit spending only creates a temporary solution to economic problems.In conclusion, the economy can heal itself, and though deficit spending creates a temporary solution to economic problems, it isn't necessary, it takes money from the private sector, and it increases our dependence on foreign nations.
Progressive Taxation is Unconstitutional

A progressive taxation system is unconstitutional because it violates the General Welfare clause of the Constitution. The underlying problem with a progressive tax system is that, when combined with a representative governmental construct, it fosters and perpetuates a culture of non-accountability. The majority poor vote for representatives promising government subsidies funded by wealth distribution where "somebody else" will pay. Pandering representatives recognize that even 100% tax rates on the more affluent minority cannot pay for the promised subsidies and then ignore fiscal reality by passing government spending laws unsupportable by the tax base. Instead they are based on ever growing long-term borrowing where "somebody else" will pay later down the road (that's your grandchildren and many generations after; let's hope they are not successful enough to suffer 100% taxation). The current majority poor voting population is satiated for the time being but the Ponzi scheme in the form of a $17 trillion dollar mountain of debt will collapse from its own weight just as all Ponzi schemes do. Progressive taxation combined with a short term focused representative government leads to long-term financial ruin and is therefore decidedly NOT supportive of the General Welfare of The People. If it is NOT supportive of the General Welfare of The People, then it cannot be Constitutional and is therefore unconstitutional.
Progressive Taxation is Unconstitutional

1.Again, in your first point, you were talking only from an economical view. On your first point, you said that a flat taxation is equal, and I assume you were blindly supposing that this is because everyone has the same income as everyone else. If you want to talk about equal or fair, then let me just say that during a flat tax, you are indeed pushing poor citizens to pay what they must struggle to, as the rich citizens just easily toss their share into the offering bag. That doesn"t seem so fair or equal, does it? Progressive taxation however, makes both sides work what they can as well as pay what they can, making it a fairer form of tax. 2.You have said that the government would prioritize on the poor than fight petty wars. Well, the Americans have signed contracts with countries in war. So it would be impossible to simply say, "You know what? I quit." And then proceed to help the poor. No, such an event could cause missiles to start raining on America, because of unaccomplished contracts. Besides, nobody signed any document promising to help the American poor. So which do you think they would prioritize? The promise they must fulfill lest missiles start raining upon them or the charity, which they don"t have to do if they don"t want to do it? 3."All other significant forms of taxation in the U.S. are proportional, they are a flat percentage based on the underlying value"- I"m going to take what you just said to elaboration. Doesn"t this phrase mean that you are only going to make citizens pay what they can handle? Yes, definitely yes. But remember the progressive tax system, where what they can handle is not enough to pay the debts? Using flat tax, you are simply doing the same thing all over again. But what if the government raises the tax so that it becomes sufficient? Ditto. Go back to my point about education.
Progressive Taxation is Unconstitutional

Argument When making a debate about the policies of a country, which is what this debate is, one must consider three aspects. These are: a social aspect, an economical one and a political one (though I"ll only be talking about the first two). The pro has only managed to think about one aspect- an economical one. I cannot disagree that if everything in a country revolves around economy only, your idea would thrive. However, it is not so in real life, for all the three aspects rely on each other. A flat taxation, which you are supporting (whether you are conscious of it or not), would indeed pay of the country"s funds very efficiently. But with the increase in tax, middle and lower class citizens (which are many) will suffer. They will have to make big changes in their life. One of these big changes is that the middle class society will have no choice but to let their children receive a lower education, and the poorer part of the society will not be able to let their children have education at all. Those children with low education will drop out as soon as they finish high school (only a few will be able to go to some crappy universities). The poor will not go for university, let alone not go to school. As a result of all this, many people will not qualify for good jobs, thus the advancement of the U.S. will drop. Now, why cause that nonsense when- wait for it- the U.S. is not going to drop into a debt default in the first place. Why do I say this? They have had a few close encounters at some points but have always managed to overcome the situations. My question is- what makes this one any different? Now my next point, which is the most important one, is that the U.S. is not "borrowing" from China (which is one of the main causes of its huge debt) as such. Basically what it"s doing is buying assets from it in exchange for dollars. So if those selling the assets are disappointed in the interest rates they"re getting, they can just collect back their assets and maybe sell it off to someone else. It really is a mild scenario, and not one that seems as if China will bomb the U.S. if they don"t give back the money. All they"re going to do is withdraw the money back. Yes, it"s really no biggie and therefore should not be good enough a reason to cause the accurate prediction I gave above in my first point, where the economy falls because of lack of education. Source (I hope this comes out as a link) Hope it does :( America is $17 Trillion in Debt " Here's Why You Shouldn't Be ... - Mic