BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
should they have a class that is REQUIRED to take in high school about sexual education

1. That is in round 1 he said that sex education has many benefits and now he is doing the exact same thing. I can simply copy and paste what I wrote in the previous round. 2. Arguments Like I said none of my arguments were addressed. I ask my opponent " would a child go if he wanted to listen and would a child not listen if he didn't want to go? ". Why force a child go if he doesn't want to ? You do realize that the best scenario is the child wont listen and the worst scenario is he causes mayhem hence others are distracted. I elaborated on this in the previous round. 3. Clarification I am not against sex education however forcing freshmen to go is a big mistake.
should they have a class that is REQUIRED to take in high school about sexual education

Put it like this if young people would know the effects of having sex there would be less teen pregnancy less abortions less STD's and less suicide now you ask me suicide where in the world did that come from I have known teenage girls that have had sex and got pregnant and got an STD and people made fun of her and she was looked down upon and she could not take it no more so she committed suicide and she did not know she could get that STD and not just that they also drop out of school be cause people make fun of them rumors get started and sometimes it is actually true the drop out rate is so high in America just think how many teens would not drop out so if they actually know about the effects of having sex there would be a much more benefits in the school system
should they have a class that is REQUIRED to take in high school about sexual education

This is a rather interesting topic and without further ado lets begin. Content: Definitions Observations Arguments 1.Definitions Required: "to have need of; need: He requires Medical care." "to place under an obligation or necessity: The situation requires me to take immediate action." Dictionary.com Freshman: "a student in the first year of the course at a university, college, or high school." Dictionary.com 2. Observations The title says "should they" now who is they? Then my opponent proceeds to say "a class that is required to take in high school when you are a freshman". This seems to solve it all however that ain't true. You see my opponent is unspecific. This shall be elaborated in the "Arguments" section. The word required is in all capital letters. This is done to emphasize the word. Hence my opponent is arguing that this must be done at all costs. Again this shall be expanded on the next section. 3. Arguments Scenario 1: The parents don't want their children to attend this lecture. They might think their children are too young or perhaps they want to talk about this to their children themselves. There might be many other reasons which can come from many different things for example religion, family, they know what is better for their child. Now according to you they must in other words they're forced. The child will learn nothing for he will focus on his parents and if they'll act different from now on. In short the child will go through useless anxiety. Now the parents likewise will feel bitter and discontent. Nothing is learned and many things are lost. Scenario 2: The child for some reason doesn't want to go. He is forced and his negative attitude grows. Scenario 3: The child finds the whole talk too unorthodox and gross to bear. He distracts the entire class. The child is unwell and the class is too jolly to listen at this point. Final Argument: I suggest compromise and exceptions which as I have shown at the very begining your stance does not support. Furthermore I've shown the errors of your stance and all these errors can be avoided with compromise. I have a question to my opponent, would a child go if he wanted to listen and would a child not listen if he didn't want to go? Thank you, V0Antras
should they have a class that is REQUIRED to take in high school about sexual education

I think this round would be best used if I simply respond to everything you just said. Readers please notice that not all of my arguments have been addressed for example in round one, section 3 I have showed that there must be compromise since not all freshmen can take the unorthodox talk without vomiting and etcetera. "Ok if you talk about forcing young people to take classes" That is what you stand for in this debate. "then why do freshman have to take world history or they have to take earth science" Both of them are not effected by parents religion and furthermore sex education is in a whole different category. No child will find the date of first world war gross but there are many children who go pale from the subject of sex. Furthermore sex is by far the most sensitive and controversial subject that is thought in high schools. "they don't want to take that" There's a difference between one not wanting to go to school or take those subjects and one not wanting to talk about sex. Again I must remind you that I have shown that not only do children don't ant to go but also some parents don't want their children to go. "think of less pregnancy and std and drop out in america" Like I said before its impossible to teach distracted children and children who don't want to be there, get unwell from the subject, have parents who don't want to be there and children who are distracted by the ones I have mentioned will not learn. On the other hands children who will attend due to their own curiosity or their parents advice will learn. "young people just knew more about what can happan to them if they decide to have sex" "happan" spelling mistake plus my previous points. I think that covers it all. Thank you, V0Antras
should they have a class that is REQUIRED to take in high school about sexual education

Ok if you talk about forcing young people to take classes they don't want to take then why do freshman have to take world history or they have to take earth science they don't want to take that so why do they have to its like you say you should not force them to take a class if they dont want to then why do they do it all i'm saying is just think of less pregnancy and std and drop out in america if young people just knew more about what can happan to them if they decide to have sex at a very young age America would be a very different country
Fedor Emelianenko is the greatest pound for pound fighter in MMA history

Silva has gotten better with age As you stated Silva is older and started fighting earlier yet became Pride heavyweight and became considered the world's best heavyweight in March 2003, age 27 with a record of 13-1(the loss being a cut in the first minute of a fight). Anderson silva became Middlweight champion age 31 with a record of 18-4 in 2006. Why does Anderson Silva get credit for having a weaker start to his career? It could be argued Fedor picked up the game quicker due to being more naturally talented and simply after winning 26 straight fights lost the motivation to be a top level fighter. Fedor was considered the top heavyweight in the world for over 7 years, Anderson Silva has been considered the top middleweight now for 5 years. When the first pound for pound list was released in 2007 Fedor came top and would hold the position until July 2010. Anderson Silva has been top of the pound for pound list for only just over 1 year. Anderson Silva's run between 2006 and present day has been impressive and has the potential to make him the greatest fighter of all time, yet it still has not surpassed that of Fedor between 2001-2010. Summary 1. You can't judge on the potential of what might hapen for a fighter, you have to look at what they've achieved. Anderson has not yet surpassed Fedor in total greatness. 2. Anderson has not faced the range of high level fighters than Fedor has. Fedor has beaten the best in striking and grappling. Even in terms of pure MMA fighters beating Nog twice and Cro Cop is more impressive than beating Hendo or Sonnen. 3. Anderson's becoming successful later in age in no more impressive than how young fedor was when he became the best in the world. 4. No other fighter has gone 31-1 with one loss as a cut being undefeated for 10 years against the best in the world including 5 former UFC heavyweight champions. 5. Fedor was the best in a stronger division. Anderson never fought top middleweights such as Lindland, Filho or Shields. Fedor was also undersized for his division and fought people larger than him.
Fedor Emelianenko is the greatest pound for pound fighter in MMA history

I will be arguing that. Fedor Emelianenko is the greatest fighter in MMA history. Simply put no man in history has gone on a streak beating the level of competition that Fedor was able to achieve. The man went 31-1 over a ten year period with the sole loss being a TKO loss due to a cut after 17 seconds of which he avenged later on. He was able to beat almost every reputable heavyweight of the period. He fought people over a foot taller and others over 160 pounds heavier. He fought a large variety of his opponents, many of which at their own game. Whether submitting silver medallists at judo or knocking out Arlovski on the feet or beating Nogueria in his own guard for 15 minutes. Fedor proved he possessed ridiculous knockout power coupled with vicious ground and pound as well as sick take downs and also proved to have a great submission game. The man was able to beat 2 k-1 champions, 2 Olympic medalists in judo, a silver medalist in wrestling, an ADCC champion and 5 UFC heavyweight champions. Whilst racking up 12 top 10 wins in the process. To achieve what he did as an undersized heavyweight often choosing to fight rather game plan shows him as being the greatest fighter of all time in any weight class.
Microtransactions Should Be Banned in Video Games

Yes, Microtransactions did originate in free-to-play games such as Candy Crush Saga, and in the past, it was a source of secondary income. Not anymore. These days, companies with free-to-play games are always looking for ways to get the consumer to spend more money. Take the tutorials in these games. They provide you with a premium currency, then makes you spend it to speed things up/buy premium items/open land etc. . This ingrains a habit within your mind that when you are faced with the same situation, you'll make the same purchase. But oops, turns out you don't have enough of that premium currency to do the action, so 8 times out of 10, people will buy more premium currency. Other games also lure you in with its microtransactions. "Final Fantasy All The Bravest", a mobile iteration of the popular "Final Fantasy" series, has a system of progression that is gambling in everything but name. Players pay a dollar a pop to unlock one of 35 characters, doled out randomly. If there's one you especially want, or need to progress in the game, you could be looking at spending $35 or more. (1) We shouldn't have companies try to deceive our way of thinking just in the purpose of making a quick dollar. What companies should be doing is keeping its players around by its exciting gameplay, not by forcing them to pay money just to have fun in their games. Thank you for arguing in this debate. My very first debate has been really eye-opening to the ways that I can improve my overall debating skills. I thank you AdmiralSn4ckb4r for being a worthy opponent and I can't wait to see your final response :).
Microtransactions Should Be Banned in Video Games

I agree with you on star wars battlefront 2 and your other examples. I believe if they are regulated and only cosmetic only they should be allowed in the game. Candy crush as you said is another example that is ok. All it does is gain a life. There is no competitive advantage. It is only $1.49 which is why I think people bought them. Star wars as you said is a horrible use of micro transactions. people can buy items to give them an advantage and it was so wrong. I want to add that micro transactions originated in free to play games as a source of secondary income. If the game is already $60 it shouldn't have them in their game.
Microtransactions Should Be Banned in Video Games

Firstly, thank you for accepting my challenge. I agree to also have a civil debate about this. In your argument, you talked about Overwatch as an example of loot boxes. Yes, Overwatch is the perfect example of companies implementing loot boxes without affecting the consumer. As you said, the boxes are only cosmetic and offer no advantage to the player. However, many games aren't as nice as this. Take the most recent scandal to hit the media: Star Wars Battlefront 2 by EA. In Star Wars Battlefront 2, being able to play as Darth Vader requires 60,000 credits to unlock, the equivalent of a minimum 39 hours of straight play. To get everything in this game without paying, you need to spend 4528 hours playing, or nearly 6 months. If you don't want to wait this outrageous time, its loot boxes contain these credits. They also offer Star Cards, special items and powerups for use in online play. You are disadvantaged if you don't purchase these loot boxes, as players will be more likely to win with these boxes. This is a problem with the gaming industry, and other companies are taking advantage of this waiting/collecting time to capitalise on our play styles. Pok"mon Go, a hit mobile game where you catch creatures called Pok"mon in the real world, has examples of this. In the game, you can purchase Pok"coins, the in-game currency. The prices for these starts at $1.49 and goes up to $159. (1) Now while most people would say that spending $160 is crazy and no one will ever buy it, they are only partly true. Some buy it. These big spenders are known as "whales" - yet another term taken from the casino industry - and companies will do anything to attract them. Another example of companies who want to attract whales in King, who created Candy Crush Saga, among other games. Candy Crush has a life system, in which you lose a life if you fail a level. Three lives gone, and you cannot do another level until you have at least one. You can either wait up to three hours for a life, or pay $1.49. Some people do wait, but considering King made $2 billion in 2017, people decided to pay. (2) This marketing companies behind this are clearly only invested in making money off the customer. The only reason why most of these games are engaging is that they want the consumer to get so invested in the game that they will pay money for the most mundane things. :)
Microtransactions Should Be Banned in Video Games

I am glad that you have posted this debate as it is a big topic right now. I gladly accept you challenge and hope to have a civil debate on this topic. As you stated, they are not actually considered gambling in the U.S. and in New Zealand even though they probably should be. If you look at Overwatch, one of the biggest games right now have micro-transactions in the form of loot boxes. There are 3 ways in the game to gain loot boxes; leveling up, playing the arcade mode which can give you from 3 to 7 boxes depending on the event that is up and finally of course buying them. These are like playing a slot machine but the thing is all of the items are cosmetic only and offer no competitive advantage at all. Overwatch, also every couple of months releases new game modes, maps and especially heroes, all given to each player for free with no extra cost. Overwatch should have them because they aren't asking for players to buy a season pass to unlock skins, maps, game modes and heroes. It allows the developers to get money to continually bring more free content for us gamers. Again, thank you for bringing this topic out and lets be fair.
Microtransactions Should Be Banned in Video Games

Note: The author and debator resides in New Zealand, so mostly uses sources from New Zealand news and other websites. Occasionally the author may use sources from other websites. In all cases, the author endeavors to link the original articles at the end of each argument or say the name of the website to show that work has been referenced (but not plagiarised). The author hopes you understand and remember this for this debate. They go by many names. In-app purchases, DLC, booster packs and loot boxes. All are only different by name, and can be summarised in one word. Microtransactions. From Angry Birds to Candy Crush and Poke"mon Go to Puzzlerama, all have microtransactions in one shape or form. These "very small financial transactions online", according to Oxford Dictionary, ruins minds and promotes an unhealthy lifestyle. These should not be in our lives, and as such should be banned. One of the reasons why microtransactions should be banned is that they encourage bad habits such as gambling. Imagine you have a chess set, and because you love Star Wars, it is a Star Wars chess set. Now imagine playing with a friend who spent $200 to have the chance that his pawns act like queens. What would you do? Would you play with the disadvantage, or pay money to be equal?(1) This is the premise behind loot boxes and booster packs. Both have random chances of giving you a certain item such as a new costume, and both do not always contain the items that you paid for. Sound familiar? Casinos use a similar premise with their slot machines. So are these loot boxes and booster packs a form of gambling? The gambling authorities of Belgium, China, Japan and Australia do, with South Korea and Germany already having regulations on them. However, the United States and New Zealand"s authorities say there is no gambling involved. The New Zealand Department of Internal Affairs says that loot boxes are "a marketing tactic by companies to get the consumer to pay more money".(2) As such, it is not considered gambling and does not have any restrictions. Normally, this would be good for some people, but we have to consider the fact that children play these games too. Without any restrictions, young innocent minds can gamble freely with no repercussions, just as long as there is money they can spend. This behaviour is not good for children who do not know better. Microtransactions should be banned so that children do not develop the tendencies of a gambler, who wastes all their money on a virtual game trying to win something. (1)(2) A Beginners Guide to Loot boxes: Harmless Fun or Gambling? (Stuff.co.nz, 2017) https://www.stuff.co.nz...
MS Paint battle for PROs

Color isn't everything. For this round I present the finest monochromatic picture ever drawn in MS Paint. That's right, this is 100% drawn on MS Paint. For added difficulty, I decided to draw this using only the pencil tool. The eraser was not even touched. The painting depicts a dogfight on the slopes of the Matterhorn, between the chicken of the day (shown here skiing up the mountain) and several Sopwith Camels. From a distant cloud, you might just be able to see Jesus and God laughing and pointing. The only letdown is that Odlaw decided to hide behind the Matterhorn as I was drawing. On the mountaintop, you will be able to see Dr Martin Luther King arguing with a suspiciously white angel. Notice the extreme detail and symbolism in this piece. Even a photo would not have been able to portray this level of realism. In fact, people should just hire me instead of taking photos.
MS Paint battle for PROs

Hello, and welcome. This is a serious debate using MS paint. Rules: 1. Please take this seriously. 2. Do as best as you can. 3. Be as realistic as you can. For my first picture, I made a portrait of a man I saw at the park. The detail of his face are so amazingly portrayed, and I would like for someone to try and challenge me. My first picture: http://oi42.tinypic.com...
should female athletes get paid the same as male counterparts

Female athletes certainly do have the same privileges (and it's spelt privileged instead of privaledge), by privileges I mean they are fully entitled to play sports professionally, and everything is almost similar, accept for the amount they are currently earning in general. However, a majority of professional sports have always been male dominated, but this is no excuse for females being ostracized. The reason male athletes earn more money is because male sports generate a greater annual revenue,therefore, teams can afford to pay male athletes a greater amount. By greater revenue, I am referring to people in attendance in a stadium, sales of merchandise, media attention, and the fan base of the particular team. Professional female sports in general do not generate as great of attention as professional male sports, thus, the franchise, team, or association can only pay their athletes a sum of money that is earned (same goes for male sports). If professional female hockey generated the same amount of publicity as professional male hockey, without a doubt they would earn the same amount as men; but if the money is not there, it is not possible. Let us use the National Basketball Association for example. You say everyone is equal, but simply, this is not the case. I am not strictly referring to women, but men too. Take a look at Kobe Bryant, he is paid a great amount because of his excellent talent; referring to his skill set, he is superior than say, a rookie who has just joined the team and does not have the same skill set or level of popularity. Kobe Bryant can be paid a great sum because he is on a popular team that generates a leading annual revenue and can afford to do so, and because he is an eminent player. If we take a look at the WNBA, none of the professional female athletes are equally paid because (just like male sports) their skill set and team revenue determines their salary. The top professional female basketball players' salary is based off of how much her team can afford and her level of popularity as a player (but this goes for all sports). If you think that there "should not (be) more important players as it is unfair to everyone else", perhaps the nature of sports is not for you. The indispensable factor in professional sports, regardless of whether it's female or male, is to win. The best way to win games is to have good players, and the best players make more because their talent excels beyond their contemporaries. "(M)en think they are the best at everything", I feel no need to comment on the bias absurdity of this comment. You have not backed this up, and cannot reassure this comment with facts. In conclusion, male sports generate a greater amount of money, which in turn, allows that certain associations, leagues, and etc. to pay their players more than professional female sports. If female professional sports generated as much income as some male sports, females would be paid the same amount, however, if the money is not there it cannot happen.
should female athletes get paid the same as male counterparts

female athletes should get the same privaledge as males to recieve the same amount of pay because everyone is equal and should not have more important players as it is unfair to everyone else. men think they are the best at everything and that doesnt mean that they should get more money than females because they are pretty amazing and girls spend just as much time and effort in their sport and training as males do so they should not be underestimated on their skill so it shouldnt affect their prize money.
Abortion is wrong

My contentions are simple: that abortion is a form of murder and is morally, spiritually,and physically wrong. I hope that the designated opponent will accept this instigation and debate to his full capacity of arguing!! :D I can be a fierce debater but I also have a soft heart for those who oppose me. This should be interesting. Round 1 acceptance, meaning do not post arguments in round 1. No rules for conclusions and whatnot. Let's just debate!