BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
iPads or Textbooks

As the iPads update, the schools will want to get the new iPads, so the families will have to pay even more for the iPad. Also, when they change schools, even if it's just graduating from elementary to middle school or from middle to high school, they will need to purchase a new one. But, even if it's not purchasing, there will be a renting fee and taxes will go up. Also, in elementary school, young kids (Kinder-3rd about) can't be trusted with an iPad because they are too young to understand how to do schoolwork on it. Schools are already writing things on Google Drive with their school accounts, and kids are forced to stay after school because they don't have internet at home. That means that most assignments will need internet connection (that kids might not have at home) therefore making it impossible to do their homework. Also, they can't just download everything because they don't have enough space on the iPad, and once the student leaves, they will have to reprogram the iPad for the next student. What if the student forgets to charge it? Wouldn't that mean that the iPad would die and that they would lose their homework and not be able to work on classwork creating more worry, homework, and lower grades. iPads may cause a danger to small children, and will make grades go down. They would also put more stress on the students to take care of, not lose, keep in good shape, and charge the iPad. Also they have homework and after school activities. Most kids don't even have time to do regular homework, let alone take care of an iPad.
Haiku Battle

Rules: You will post 3 haiku for each round. They will not be traditional haiku, they will be entertaining, funny, or bashing the other person. Though they will ot be traditional haiku, they will follow the 5-7-5 format. Spelling and Grammar are irrelevant seeing as you can use poetic license with haiku. Friday nights alone Your right arm is so tired From playing your wii Find me in the club Gettin' down on the dance floor Your mom's a cougar I would be your dad But the dog beat me upstairs Is that possible
Do we really require school.

"This is because first of all, statistics show that 60% of middle-aged Americans that have a job work in the food industry in one way or another." I request a source for this information. "FOOD DOES NOT REQUIRE A DEGREE IN SCIENCE AND ONLY BASIC MATH (if there's no cash register)" I'm a little confused as to what exactly you mean by this. There are many other degrees outside of the science field. I agree, however, that before being consumed, food such as hamburgers and french fries do not need to have a degree. Overall, I completely disagree with your position. First of all, if education is not required, then not many (if any) people would take it upon themselves to be educated. As a result, the economy would crumple quickly as the nation would not have any professionals to create new technology or advance business. Secondly, by "education", are you referring to all pre-college education? K-12?
Should Apple make an IPhone that can charge itself with sunlight.

I will make my arguments and rebut my opponents case. But, please, don't make one round debates. The person who makes it loses because they cannot rebut the opponents arguments, and lose. So I recommend don't make one round debates. FrameworkBoP is on Pro. My opponent obviously could not fill his BoP, and tell why we should make an IPhone that can charge itself with sunlight. So, I win this debate. Argument 1: CostThe cost is just too much if we do this. One watt is 4.70$. However, we need a few thousand watts. This means there is too much cost. Also many people use IPhones. The cost is too much. The cost if more than how they sell it. Rebuttal 1: ChargingMy opponent says that he is tired for it dying. There are 2 ways. First, charge it. Second of all, you can have those chargers you can bring around.
Dance Is A Sport

I didn't say dance competitions are impossible or unheard of. However, dance competitions are not the general "idea" of dance - by that logic, looking at things would be a sport because people have staring competitions. I gave you several reasons why it doesn't fit the definition of a sport. However, you refuted one, and then insisted that it still is? Look at all my arguments for round one. You can't say you're right until you refute all of them. As an aside, you clearly copy-pasted "Agility, balance, determination, flexibility, and strength helped us to grow and develop into physically and mentally strong athletes. We have hard work, determination, and have a passion for dance." Don't even try to pretend you didn't.
Dance Is A Sport

Okay, you say that you don't compete in dance. Well I dare you to look up dance competitions and tell me that you didn't find any. Agility, balance, determination, flexibility, and strength helped us to grow and develop into physically and mentally strong athletes. We have hard work, determination, and have a passion for dance. It fits the definition of a sport, so why shouldn't it be a sport? Dance requires its participants to practice and train as a team. After spending hours each week rehearsing and training, the team"s leader decides which competitions the team will compete in. Also, there is a difference between turning on the tv, and dancing. You should go try a dance class and tell me that it was super easy. Oh yeah, you couldn't.
Dance Is A Sport

It can be argued that it is not accurate to consider dance a sport because: 1. Dance is more of a creative art form than competitive. Even dance a the professional level is rarely competitive. 2. Conventional sports such as Basketball and Soccer have simple, non-subjective winning criteria. Dance has no such criteria that are not affected by opinion. 3. To extend the definition of "sport" to include dance would make it nearly meaningless - Writing, reading, and turning on the TV would then have to be considered sports. 4. Definitions are descriptive, not prescriptive. A definition should be decided by the people, not what an online dictionary states - otherwise, new words would literally be impossible to create, as they must be known to be in the dictionary and to be knows they would have to be generally recognizable. To prescribe definitions such that a dictionary itself decides them and is the final say is to stop the evolution of language. Therefore, dictionary definitions should be irrelevant to any debate regarding the meaning of a word and should rather be the generally known connotation of the word.
Dance Is A Sport

Dance is a sport because it competes against competition and we work as a team. Even football players have used dance to improve their game. It requires hard work, determination and it deserves to be a sport. I don't think that you can go around saying that dance isn't a sport without even trying it. How about someone who has never danced before goes and takes a professional ballet class and then tell us if that was easy. I know a lot of people think that dance is a sport just like gymnastics and we need to get that a fact, not an opinion. So instead of saying that dance isn't a sport, look up the definition of a sport, then try and tell me that it isn't a sport. GO DANCE!!!
Resolved: The United States should prioritize tax increases over spending cuts.

In the future, I advise PRO to place definitions and stipulations in round #1 so that the bulk of the debate can be spent...debating. As of now, nearly half the debate is over and we have yet to agree upon what we are debating. I did not realize PRO had so many conditions for this debate, and unfortunately I do not agree with many of them.1) The resolution calls for PRIORITIES. This means that taxes and spending cuts are dealt with in an "order of importance". Thus, the level of importance must be quantified. PRO needs to argue that net tax increases need to exceed net spending cuts. CON needs to argue that net tax increases do NOT need to exceed net spending cuts. 2) I do not understand PRO's "observation #1" and will wholly ignore it.3) I will interpret PRO's "observation #2" to mean that the only action being considered is at the federal level. The consequences of federal action on other governing bodies (i.e. states), international entities, and the citizenry is still of paramount importance.4) I DO NOT AGREE with PRO's "observation #3," that "implementation of either tax increases or spending cuts is irrelavant." Implementation is of paramount importance to this debate. Without considering implementation, this entire debate becomes a pointless exercise with zero basis in reality. 5) I will agree that "the value to be upheld is quality of life," in that the main goal is to provide the optimal situation for the citizenry of the US via action taken at the federal level. I will wait for PRO to lead with an argument. I DO NOT ACCEPT the stipulations PRO has outlined in round #2 for the above reasons. If PRO chooses to debate with his stipulations intact, I will immediately ask for his forfeiture as his observation #3 is wholly unacceptable.If PRO does NOT accept my stipulations then I will grant him the ability to call a draw on this debate, as his terms in round #2 should have been made clear in round #1. Otherwise, this debate will never get started.
Resolved: The United States should prioritize tax increases over spending cuts.

Thanks for accepting, good luck and have fun!Resolved: The United States should prioritize tax increases over spending cuts.The pro defines the following for clarity and specificity in the round. The following is a brief framework for the round and for how the round should be judged. Any disagreements should be responded to within this round before starting contentional level debate.priotize: v. tr. to arrange or deal in order of importance.The Free Dictionary by Farlexhttp://www.thefreedictionary.com...tax increases:n, often attributive.a charge usually of money imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposesMerriam-Webster Onlinehttp://www.merriam-webster.com...The audience should prefer all of my definitions because they are taken from the first page of Google and from online sources encompassing the most intuitive understanding of the resolution. Democratic interpretations must be prefered because definitions with a single author are subject to author bias.Observation 1:The con observes that the debate is not regarding location but rather preference. For example, making a list and putting the entry "tax increases" over the entry "spending cuts" is not upholding the resolution.Observation 2: The United States is interpreted as the USFG. In terms of a body or organization that is actually able to change the levels tax increases or spending cuts for the United States, the United States Federal Government is the only option. The pro doesn't specify the branch of the government to implement anything.Observation 3: Implementation of either tax increases or spending cuts is irrelavant. In a pro-con scenario, whether or not the USFG can increase taxes or cut spending is not topical.The value to be upheld is quality of life. The United States government's key and only role is to assure the health, happiness, and the pursuit of health and happiness. Abraham Lincoln said it best in his Gettysburg Address "that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." The role of the government is to ensure the enhanced quality of life for its citizens and the pro or con, under this value, shall succeed only when he or she can prove that his or her respective side better ensures quality of life by government actions.
Hirsch's Method of Pedagogy Trumps Freire's

Although one does need to know basic knowledge of words to develop their thinking it is essentially their knowledge that they try to retain that is oppressing themselves. They are not asking questions, and developing a consciousness to develop. Verbalistic lessons, reading requirements, the methods for evaluating "knowledge," the distance between the teacher and the taught, the criteria for promotion: everything in this ready-to-wear approach serves to obviate thinking. (page 3 paragraph 5). Hirshe states that his students are not ignorant when one asked about Latin America and the latin culture. But if they weren"t ignorant in knowing cultural knowledge then why are they not realizing that these two do not connect. The teacher is obviously only teaching them things they need to know but nothing else. In conclusion can one really learn. "Some basis of commonly shared information is necessary to fully extract meaning from" like you say?
Hirsch's Method of Pedagogy Trumps Freire's

Yeah but you still have to learn to read and write. Then you can establish a foundation of linguuistic, cultural, historical knowledge to which you can compare and contrast all your future experiences to. One has to learn to read before he or she can read to learn, and even in the problem-posing method of education there are reading materials. In order to study any subject, background information is required. Hirsch said, "To grasp the words on a page we have to know a lot of information that isn't set down on the page." (2.3) Some basis of commonly shared information is necessary to fully extract meaning from, or convey meaning through, words. Hirsch also states "the explicit words are just surface pointers to textual meaning in reading and writing. The comprehending reader must bring to the text appropriate background information that includes knowledge not only about the topic but also the shared attitudes and conventions that color a piece of writing." (6.2)
The United States Federal Government Should Significantly Decrease Military Funding to Israel

I would hope we both remain topical, but if there is a violation, it is just as valid to argue definition as it is to argue case. INTERPRETATION: The USFG should pass legislation or give executive orders to decrease the amount of transactions involving military equipment, monetary funding, property or personnel, to the state of Israel. BACKGROUND: Israel is given 3.5 Billion of its 14.6 Billion dollar military budget by the USFG. Israel is hot zone of military conflict as it holds ground imperative to stability of region. Israel currently governs land shared by Palestinians and Israelis. Israel is geographically close to Iran. The Iranian population is predominately Muslim. Palestinians, also predominately Muslim. PLAN: The United States Federal Government will pass legislation that cuts funding to Israel's military by 1.3 billion dollars, or one third. Contention. Dehumanized Israeli Civilian Population. A. The U.S. is seen as main Israeli supporter by world B. Israeli Gov. 4% of population abuses 96%-Unlawful imprisonment-Unlawful property confiscation-Torture-Abuse- discrimination by police C. Iran sees this abuse-Ayatollah is livid D. U.S. passive behavior seen as acceptance. E. Iran, Syria, both allies with Russia F. Palestinians feel Gov. does not represent them SOLVENCY. Pass Plan Decrease funding World perception of U.S. condoning of Israeli dehumanization shifts. IMPACTS. A. Israeli's see cost of abusing citizens, are shamed by world community and look for humanitarian and diplomatic solutions to accommodate Palestinian population, historical inset conflict between ethno group takes a shift towards less hostility. B. Prisoners released. C. If gov. still continues, they've less funding from U.S. D. Iranian perception of Israel and U.S. improves, brings Iran to talk at U.N. about issues and involved in international trade E. Iranian and Syrian perception of U.S. change, diplomacy now becomes route F. Regional instability decreases
The United States Federal Government Should Significantly Decrease Military Funding to Israel

Round one is simply acceptance so this is me accepting. I need a debate to "validate" my account (so I can vote, etc.) and this seems like an interesting topic. The last one I started didn't go so well and I had to forfeit every round due to technical difficulties. I'll be debating in a simplistic Public Forum Contention 1/2/3/so on format to keep things nice and clear. The resolution seems fairly clear and as such I interpret myself, as the opposition, to be arguing that the United States should NOT significantly decrease military funding to Israel; I certainly hope we don't get into a definition war because this topic seems like the definitions are pretty superficial (as in there's not a whole bunch of wiggle room). Hope this will be a smooth and friendly debate. Looking forward to it. All due respect, Nate
The United States Federal Government Should Significantly Decrease Military Funding to Israel

Seeing that my opponent has forfeited this round, my answers to his case therefore defeat his case in its entirety and my counter-arguments flow through. I will now go over my case one last time to refute his answers. Contention 1 A. Palestinians are represented equally under the Israeli government seeing as how 75.3% of Israel's population is Jewish. B. Palestinians are invited to live side-by-side with the Israeli Jews and be represented fairly in the government, but rather than accept that they would rather declare war on the Jews; it is not the fault of the Israeli Jews that this conflict is occurring, rather the greediness of Palestinians (and I use both those terms as generalizations). C. The resolution may have, up to this point, failed but that is not due to an over-abundance of funding rather, if we are to blame any of the issue on funding, it is the lack of it. Summary: Rather than have a debate about word usage and definitions, I propose that we do the best we can to uphold international law and treaties and support our closest ally. Contention 2: The Israeli people merely want to keep their country united; to compare to something more familiar, was the Civil War the fault of the Union or the South? In Israel, we see something similar where the "Israeli Jew" is the Union and the "Palestinian" is the South. We need to stand with the Israelis. Contention 3: My opponent calls Israeli Jews a "small portion of them [Israeli citizens]" and, as stated previously, the fact of the matter is that Israeli Jews are a grand majority of the population and the portion, in general, that merely wishes to cohabitate in peace and keep their country together. If we have learned anything through our own civil war, it is that the unionists are the most reasonable. Due to my opponent's forfeiture and my refutations of his case (which flow through due to his lack of a response) and my counter-claims to his answers, my case now flows through as well. Vote con. Thank you. -Nate
The United States Federal Government Should Significantly Decrease Military Funding to Israel

ANSWERS TO OPPONENT'S CASE Contention: As of 2013, Israel is 16th highest on list of countries as sorted by the Human Development Index--ahead of nations such as Spain, Finland and France; meaning that Israeli population is not just very humanized, but among the most so in the world. A. Yes it is & as such, we should keep our relationship as such with Israel to keep as strong a grasp as possible on the Middle East. B. The Israeli people (gov't) are not doing anything unethical or unjustified. They are in the middle of trying to keep the country functioning and secure with tyrants & terrorists doing everything they can to halt its progress. C. Going by opponent's argument, not only should we start cutting ties with Israel, but we should also start pandering to Iran and its radical theocratic government! D. The U.S. is passive about what the Israeli government in large part is doing because we have no reason to reprimand them for any of their actions. When we do feel a wrongdoing has occurred, we do say something. E. The affirmation is proposing in this point that we choose and pander to the beliefs of Iran and Syria because they are allies with RUSSIA over supporting our interests & that of our closest ally Israel! F. Luckily for Palestinians, Israel has very stable & fair electoral system where they are more than able to express their views on gov't. They suspend their right to complain about misrepresentation if they take no part in the democratic voting process--same as here in US. Impacts. A. With Israel in charge of its boarders and with our support, peace would occur as evidenced in my case. B. How? Not specified in case or logistics. C. Which would make gov. unstable and even worse off for all parties involved. D. Iran is an unstable country; we should focus on protecting the more stable Israel for stability in the Middle East. E. Diplomacy will occur through Israeli help and support. F. Not without Israel--the stablest country in the region. Cita. in comnts.
The United States Federal Government Should Significantly Decrease Military Funding to Israel

ANSWERS Contention 1 A. They should have allowed Palestinians that same right, this point supports the unequal representation of the Israeli citizens by the Israeli government. B. UNSC cannot enforce resolutions without breaking the laws of their own charter, also, if this resolution had solved, the oppression of Palestinians, Israeli citizens, would have ceased 47 years ago. C. As previously stated, the resolution failed, dehumanization continues, as does U.S. support. Summary: We are not loyal members of the UN we haven't ratified the roman statute of the ICC and continue to break resolutions, and meddling with foreign affairs. Cutting 1/3 of military aid is diplomatic intervention, not to mention it doesn't break resolution 242, we still fund them, and they still have billions in defense. Also, international community sees U.S. as supporters of dehumanization, russia points to israel like dirty laundry. Plan upholds unity of nations, and ideals of U.N. Contention 2. The Israeli military has made it clear they want land, and that they do not mind neglecting a large percentage of Israeli's rights to get it. Two state is not solution, the problem still exists, but now with borders to justify military oppression. Dominance and compromise, fight for peace? These things negate one another. The U.S. supports Israel fully, but shouldn't. Contention 3 Because we support "Jews" (israeli gov.) with billions of dollars in high tech weaponry, and with that weaponry they oppress "Muslims" (Israeli citizens) who might have AK-47's, or sticks. As I said, we are aiding them, but we are aiding a small portion of them, in their quest to NOT aid the majority of them, this is foolish, is seen as a clear discrimination of Palestinian Israelis, and U.S. acceptance of dehumanization by the international community. We are not passively condoning these acts, we are funding them. Israel relies on our support, we could make them think twice about using our guns to shoot themselves.