BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
School Uniforms

Con, I don't go to a private school. I go to a magnet school. Also, our uniforms are a polo and khakis. The shirts are able to just be washed in a washing machine, and khakis don't have to be ironed if you don't want to. And I've been around a lot of kids at private/prep schools, and they don't care about the uniform. Just wanted to clarify. I just think we shouldn't have to care about what we wear. crunched on time aswell, justwanted to get this one out.
School Uniforms

I don't have much time so I need to make this argument quick, and I hope that you and the voters understand that. First off, Pro states in his opening argument that his school uses the uniforms and then goes on to list the prices for them. This isn't backed up with any evidence, and Pro states that kids blow money on these designer jeans and such. Remember, no one is forcing them to spend this money on those jeans, unlike school systems. A student can get a nice pair of jeans and t-shirts from walmart for about 10-15 dollars, whereas khakis, (stated in pros arguments) are the cheapest at 20, double the price. You must also remember that the student attending private school will need to buy 2-3 pairs of the uniforms for a week, and the money they happen to save on clothes will go into washing the uniforms. The other issue with the money argument is the fact that dress codes are used exclusively in private or religious schools, both of which cost money to attend. So is it really cheaper to pay for a tuition to private school and pay for fancy clothes? This is all the time I have for this round, I apologize for keeping it so short, and I promise to come back with stronger and more extensive arguments next round.
School Uniforms

My argument for school uniforms is that there is absolutley no reason why people hate them. Every argument I hear is so contradictory in that the say they want people to express the selves, and that they think uniforms cost too much. As an example, my school uniforms cost about $20 for the shirt, and khakis can be anywhere from $15-100 but those "ber expensive ones are designer, and you can find them much cheaper at an economy store like Marshalls. And you only need 3-5 shirts and 3 pants. That's just about $2-300 for clothes. As a note, my school has dressdown days about once every two weeks, and most of the kids who dress down usually wear a lot. Dresses that cost tons, designer jeans that cost tons, and sometimes it's inappropriate. When you let kids dress down, normally when it's warm enough out they reveal a lot of skin. It's a school not a fashion show. I figure that's good enough for an opening statement, it would be nice to have someone point out things that I miss.
Christian Theological Debate: Human beings accept the Holy Spirit

My opponent refuses to address any of my points except for the issue of faith. Also, my opponent has not given us any scriptural or logical reasons to conclude that faith is given to us by The Holy Spirit. I shall not add any new arguments this round, for the purpose of Con making an actual case based on Biblical evidence that the Holy Spirit is required for one to have faith. However, I shall shortly address my opponent's claim about the verse in Ephesians. The verse makes it clear that when we believed, we were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit. Faith is, in fact, our belief in God. Therefore, one must have faith before receiving the Holy Spirit. Therefore, The Holy Spirit does not enter our hearts before we have faith. Therefore, we recieve the Holy Spirit by faith.Therefore, we choose The Holy Spirit. Thank You.
Christian Theological Debate: Human beings accept the Holy Spirit

"My opponent says, 'How could a sinner make a motion towards his own salvation?' Well, with their faith of course!" But where did that faith come from? How can we, before we were one with Christ, come to accept something for the good of our salvation? The answer is clear: we cannot unless the Holy Spirit has already entered our hearts. The voters can read my previous verses as citations in context and decide for themselves whether or not they provide a case for decision theology. My opponent's citation of Ephesians 1:13 does not make it "very clear". 'Believed in him' refers to faith, and DOES NOT mean that we are responsible for our faith. My opponent has only cited one bible verse, and this verse has proven absolutely nothing. He has made some weak rebuttals to my arguments, but has not disproved my cause, and has far from proven his own cause.
Christian Theological Debate: Human beings accept the Holy Spirit

Thank you for making the debate. I shall respond to both of my opponent's claims, and then make a case for my position. 1. Can we make ourselves righteous? We both agree on this position. We are but broken sinners, literally at the mercy of God. However, this does not mean that we do not accept the Holy Spirit.My opponent says "How could a sinner make a motion towards his own salvation?" Well, with their faith of course! For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God. -Ephesians 2:8Grace is the gift of God, however our own faith is our motion to accept the gift which God freely gives to us. 2. Can we accept God's gift by our own choosing? This may sound like the same question, but it is not. The verses that my opponent gives for his reasoning that God commands our faith is lacking. I shall refer to each verse. Romans 8:2...This verse only shows us that when Jesus dwells within us, we are set free from the law of sin and death. It does not show that we do not accept the payment of Christ to dwell within us. Acts 2:4...We see in this verse that those who were in the house on Pentecost were filled with The Holy Spirit. However, these people were already believers. This is why later on in the text, Jews were perplexed that these people were declaring the glory of God in their own language. That is also why others thought they had drank too much. If this was where one became saved, then it would stand to reason that the Jews who were amazed would have also been saved. Luke 24:45... This verse is being taken out of context. Jesus is opening their minds to the scriptures, because they were ignorant that Jesus had to rise from the dead. This is why Thomas would not believe until he actually saw Jesus, since he was ignorant that Jesus actually needed to be resurrected. (They still did not understand from Scripture that Jesus had to rise from the dead.) -John 20:9My opponent has not given any good reasons to think that we do not freely choose The Holy Spirit. I shall now make a case for why we do indeed accept the Holy Spirit. I won't go into too much detail, but Ephesians 1:13 makes it very clear: In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit. When we believe, we are sealed with The Holy Spirit. We must accept the Holy Spirit through belief. At the moment of salvation, The Holy Spirit enters us, and we are sealed by it to a relationship with God. Therefore, we choose the Holy Spirit. Thank You.
Christian Theological Debate: Human beings accept the Holy Spirit

One of the biggest debates among Christians today is this: How does the Holy Spirit enter the hearts of those who believe? Most agree that faith comes to us through God's word and the Sacrament, but the question is, do we make a conscious acceptance of the Holy Spirit, or does the Holy Spirit come to us without our choosing? Proponents of decision theology would argue that God wants all men to be saved, so he would give then equal opportunity. After all, it's not really love if you don't choose to love God right? Wrong. The Holy Spirit enters the heart of a Christian without that person's thought or effort. Contention #1: Condemned sinners cannot make themselves righteous. Most Christians agree that without faith in our savior, we are condemned sinners before God. How, then, could a condemned sinner make any motion towards his own salvation or secure his own eternal life? As Romans 3:23 says, all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy spirit" (Titus 3:5). God makes it clear that the action of salvation comes from God's grace and the Holy Spirit's washing, not by human intervention. Contention #2: "I cannot by my own thinking or choosing. .. " These words, taken from Martin Luther's explanation to the third article of the Apostles Creed, are certainly true and are backed up by scripture. Romans chapter 8 verse 2 tells us, "because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. " Scripture makes it clear. We were trapped by our sin, unable to help ourselves, but the Spirit set us free from that prison. From the Pentecost story as told in Acts 2, "All of them were filled with the holy Spirit and began to speak in different languages. " And in Luke 24, "And he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures" All of these passages tell us one thing. God, specifically the Spirit, commands our faith. We do not choose to believe or accept it. In the interest of keeping a brief debate, I will turn it over to my opponent to see what he has to say. God's Blessings! Sources are Scripture as cited.
Capital Punishment is Moral

Con, Thank you for your acceptance, THE PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT "We the people of the United States, In order to form a more perfect union, Establish justice, Insure domestic tranquility, Provide for the common defense, Promote the general welfare, And secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, Do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. ". . . Preamble to the U. S. Constitution THE AUTHORITY OF GOVERNMENT "For there is no authority except from God. . . Those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, But too bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, And you will receive his approval, For he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, Be afraid, For he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, An avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer". . . Romans 13:1-4 My point is not to bring the Bible into the arena for debate, But rather to show from a resource with which I am familiar that it an ideal which THE SANCTITY OF LIFE Human Beings I think are self-evidently Beings of intrinsic value, None lesser than the next and all equally possessing the right to live in a society without having their life taken devoid of due process. Due process establishes or negates the justification of a governing body to fulfill it's duty to society by punishing a law breaker in equal measure to the effect of the violation. The primary crime being the purposeful unjustified taking of an human life, And the secondary effect it has on everyone related to that person, Establishes the guilt of the murderer, And justifies equal and reciprocal action, Not by the individual, But by the government. THE LAW, REASON AND MAN'S IMPLIED CONSENT P1) It is true that man is rational P2) It is common knowledge that the death penalty is a punishment of 1st degree murder (or punitively equivalent crime) P3) Residence or citizenship in a country implies an agreement between individual and government in the form of an unspoken "social contract", Or promise to obey the laws. Con) If a human chooses to kill another human, He is in effect stating that even knowing the consequences, He counts the immediate benefit derived from murder as more desirable than punishment to be undesirable. In so doing he is forfeiting his/her life to the.
Debate org should not store passwords in plain text but as a salted hash!

"Storing passwords in plain text is a stupid idea, " well if it is, Then why did it used for years and decades? In plain text? I thought going from lights to characters is a great improvement, And you just want another combo of characters. Surely it is going to be confusing. "If anyone with malicious intent gets access to the database they will be able to read out all the passwords and the associated email addresses. " Well computer hacking is prohibited at some point. If you hack you will be alerted with the government. And second who wants to hack everybody? That is just a waste of time. And also email addresses? That is most likely not going to happen. "Since many people use the same password for all their accounts this means that everything is at risk. " Well how do you know that this girl uses the same password with this guy? Since we don't know who is with who or who's being lazy. Most people uses different passwords, Making it hard to decode with the head itself. Also if this is a good idea then why only Debate. Org uses it? You could just say that all softwares should use salt hash. For example Google. It is more popular and have more users, So more similarities would occur. "If you ever get a password emailed to you it means that the password is not stored securely and you might want to change it. " People have the freedom to keep and not change the password. I understand what you are saying, But even if this is what they are supposed to do, Not all people will obey it. Salt hash is stupid. You expect everybody is a nerd like you? No. Don't even bother thinking those complicated passwords will be understand by all people. Those people choose a specific password because convenience. Being complicated isn't always good. Those faceless, Feelless machines will have random markings first, And it would take more time to decode some actual words. Because salt hash have a same chance of being decoded within real words, So there isn't really any reasonings why they should remember this much letters in seconds. I understand that you can convert normal text with salt hash, But since hashes are random, So what even is the point to hack? And how would you log in with random hashes? See you at votes.
Debate org should not store passwords in plain text but as a salted hash!

Storing passwords in plain text is a stupid idea, If anyone with malicious intent gets access to the database they will be able to read out all the passwords and the associated email addresses. Since many people use the same password for all their accounts this means that everything is at risk. If you ever get a password emailed to you it means that the password is not stored securely and you might want to change it.
Penis circumference is more important then length.

I would like to quote Con:Of course the penis has to be able to ejaculate far enough into the vagina but I still point out that the average penis is enough for that.In other words, Con is stating that as long as the length is primarily covered, the secondary aspect of the penis to be concerned with is its circumference as pleasing a woman wiht a thin cock is harder than a thin one.Con is literally arguing for Pro without realizing it. They are arguing that if the length (which is more important) is already sufficient, the thickness then must be large enough too.I do not disagree with this and am glad Con sees it the way that I do.
Penis circumference is more important then length.

Lesbianism is not a valid argument since they use dildos and other objects to stimulate themselves. I am talking about a real penis. Procreation is not the main point to focus on, I am talking about sexual pleasure. Of course the penis has to be able to ejaculate far enough into the vagina but I still point out that the average penis is enough for that. As for the sexual pleasure, I never said you should 'rip her apart', I said that the larger it is the more pleasure the girl will have. My main point is to show out that women should not look for men with long penises for pleasure but rather ones that have a big circumference. I am not talking about procreation, I am still talking about pleasure. The inside of the vagina can be stretched so even if the penis is very large it won't 'rip her'. Men that have a large penis should be proud, because they will pleasure women more then those who have long but slim ones.
Penis circumference is more important then length.

Pleasing a woman is important and can be done even from one woman to another (lesbianism). If a woman can sexually stimulate another woman then clealry the penis is totally irrelevant to their pleasuer eand to sonclude such a thing is ingorant in and of itself.As for the lubrication argument, I never said you couldn't please her firs tiwht foreplay so she self-lubricates, I merely pointed out that more circumference requires more lubrication.The procreation argument is actually the only, single, thing that one could argue is a way to determine which is more 'important' for humanity and fundamentally beign long enough to shoot your cum in far enough up her vaginal canal is more important than being so big you could rip her apart and make her moan except you can't fit far enough up her to get inside.
Penis circumference is more important then length.

We are not talking about procreation or tuna cans. I clearly stated that the average penis of 14 cm is enough as a length. If a penis is for example 18 cm but the circumference is only 5 inches it won't please the women at all. While a 14 cm long penis which has a 10 inch circumference will please the girl since it will go deep and also rub more of the inside of the vagina. Lubrication is not a problem since vaginal glands secrete a substance which makes it easier to penetrate even if the penis is very large.
Penis circumference is more important then length.

The circumference plays an important role in determining whether or not your woman is going to be pleased easier or not and how lubed her p***y has to be before you enter her (the thicker the more lubed). On the other hand, there is the fundamental issue of the pencil vs the tuna can.The tuna can d*** could not impregnate a girl but the pencil cock could. So for procreation's sake, the length is fundamentally a greater concern than circumference.
Online voting should replace traditional voting.

Rules: No word play on semantics. No specific format. If you accept, please present a case and don't just forfeit. Thanks in advance! I affirm the resolution. C-1: Many entities use various forms of online voting with success. Examples include Major League Baseball All Stars, and Debate.org (Sources www.mlb.com & www.debate.org) The basic premise requires a person to log in and vote. Failsafe measures to prevent fraud would be 1 vote per SSN. The Social Security Administration has dates of birth on file. Thus, it stands to reason that persons 18 and older could vote one time. C-2: Numerous elections have had questionable results and recounts, most notably that of Florida or Iran. Such a system would likely alleviate inaccurate vote counting as it would be done electronically, and tallied as the votes occur. C-3: Absentee voting has it's share of potential debacles as well. Online voting alleviates the process of mailing ballots, having them marked, mailed back, opened and counted. C-4: Elderly and shut in voters may not get the opportunity to vote traditionally. Having access online would enable them to have a better opportunity to vote. CONCLUSION: Given the unreliability & inaccessibility of traditional voting, it passes the common sense test to switch to online voting. It is possible to create a reliable program that would be protected against hackers and pirates, that would not only simplify, but also uncomplicate the entire voting process. Further, greater accessibility suggests that more registered voters would actually vote, which is the very essence of what a democracy is intended to be. Many people fought for the rigth to vote, thus we have the 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th amendmentst o our national constitution. Thank you!
Online voting should replace traditional voting.

My opponent has failed to provide reasoning as to why hacking, viral infections, and cheating would be impossible in his perfect little system, beyond saying something akin to "nuh-uh". The truth of the matter is is any computer system can be hacked into. All one needs are the time, money, and resources to do it, none of which would be impossible to get [http://articles.latimes.com...], especially with such high stakes. It is likely that converting to an online voting system would bring on a new wave of internet terrorism, and would even make it possible for other countries to decide the course of our nation. Because this one problem WILL exist, and is such a serious threat that it outweighs any good online voting could do because of the amount of damage it could cause to us as a country. Therefore, online voting should not replace traditional voting.
Online voting should replace traditional voting.

It appears that my opponent's only true objection is the possibility of hacking. In the first round, I stated that such a system could be created and regularly updated to prevent intrusion from pirates and hackers, thereby dismantling my opponent's only objection. As such, no new evidence is admissible. The benefits clearly outweigh the cons. My opponent agreed on several points, at least in theory, that this is indeed a good concept. With the sole objection addressed and countered, and concurrence with my ideals, I respectfully request an Affirmative ballot. Thanks.
The tree in front of me is not there

The tree you say was formed by your imagination and appears to be realistic is knows as a "Tulpa" a being or object that is materilzed through sheer being alone. A thought that has take physical form [1]A Tulpa is formed when a individual spends 100+ hours [2] "Talking and fleshing out something to your own subconscious for so long, you start to get answers from it. The answers align themselves with all these preconceived traits you've given them (for the most part). When you talk to your own mind for long enough, it will answer back: this is an accepted fact. The answers you get will show independent sentience. The rest of the time is just building a form in your mind, allowing for deviation of that form, and finally trying to visualize the form and experience it in sensory detail in your own environment until this becomes completely natural" [3] In order for this tree to be there you would of had to spend 100+ hours mapping out and visilizing the Tulpa Tree without breaking concentration or sleeping, and according to Huffington Post a human can stay away to 5-11 days wide awake without fatal effects [4] 11 x 24 is 264 [5] Although that gives more then enough time to form a Tulpa, it would be near impossible to form this Tulpa tree without losing concentration, you can experince severe headaches, lightheadness, sore eyes, aliens feelings, and many other things. [6] and if you have ADHD it can be even harder to talk to your Tulpa, even if it is an object, for 1-3 hours a day.I do believe that is enough proof to show that the tree you are imagining is real due to the fact that you could not imagine that tree in under 5 minutes. But I will lay one last nail in this coffin, I too can see this tree in front of you, but it has been scientifically proven that two minds cannot precieve same things in the same ways. So if this was a figment then I would not see the tree, yet I can touch it and see it. Therefore the tree it there.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://tulpa.info...;[3] http://tulpa.info...[4] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...[5] https://www.google.com... [6] http://tulpa.info...