BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
School bands are essential for successful students

My Opponent's BoP I assume is that to be successful, you must be in a marching band, jazz band, or some form of band in school.My BoP is to prove that someone can be successful without the need of band. Let's get started...Rebuttal" I have found that students feel socially welcome in band, which allows them to be more confident in many things they never thought they could really do because of all of the peer pressure and bullying in middle and high schools in this day and age. Because they are in band, and because they are confident and feel safe in this social group, band kids are also more likely to get better grades in school"Without sources, you can't prove that kids in band don't get bullied, get higher grades, and are more confident. On top of that, it's a fallacy."Students in band learn life lessons about fairness, disciplining yourself, patience, how to treat others with respect, to never give up, to love yourself no matter what anyone else says, that you have rights and have a say in your choices, and that you are unique in every way."I don't see how. What about depressed, rude, selfish, hating, impatient band players. Yet again, another fallacy. I knew people in band that were complete jerks.Now my argument.Argumenti. My claim is one does not need to be in band to be successful.At most if not all high schools, you do not need to be in band to graduate and to be successful. Anyone has the potential to be successful without the need of band in their life.Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard and is still successful. If someone can drop out of a prestigious private university and still make billions, they can live without band.
School bands are essential for successful students

I say that school bands, such as marching, jazz, and concert bands are essential for students to succeed. I have found that students feel socially welcome in band, which allows them to be more confident in many things they never thought they could really do because of all of the peer pressure and bullying in middle and high schools in this day and age. Because they are in band, and because they are confident and feel safe in this social group, band kids are also more likely to get better grades in school. Students in band learn life lessons about fairness, disciplining yourself, patience, how to treat others with respect, to never give up, to love yourself no matter what anyone else says, that you have rights and have a say in your choices, and that you are unique in every way.
College students should have the freedom to choose their own courses.

College students should have the freedom to choose their own courses because they are forced to spend years on subjects that are not helpful or needed in their career. This is very wrong because students are wasting their money and time on these forced subjects. Students are always interested in studying different subjects that have there interest, and they love courses they choose to study. The motivation of the individual is the most important criteria in order to have the dedication to succeed and move forward towards their career path. Moreover, if students are allowed to study the courses they choose, it will be easy for them to concentrate and work hard so as to excel in this subjects. https://www.coursehero.com... https://www.exquisite-minds.com...
College students should have the freedom to choose their own courses.

My opponent stated that college students have options and don't have to pay for college alone as well as students who do get scholarships or grants should be responsible to manage their money and make arrangements to be able to succeed in their career path. I do not agree with this statement because many of the organizations that offer scholarships and grants are strict with how the money can be spent. In fact according to many colleges, "they deduct automatically the cost of tuition from any financial aid they extend to students. The students never receive a check." Many colleges require that the money students receive to be used only to cover expenses on books, room, board, and tuition. My opponent also stated that students are adults which is why they should be capable of managing the money they receive from scholarships, grants, and loans. The evidence I provided before proves that although students may be legally adults, they still are restricted to what they can spend the money they receive on. This validates my claim that since students are restricted to what they spend their money on, they should be careful when selecting courses for the expenses may be high and that will deprive money from other areas. Therefore, students should not have the freedom to choose their courses. https://money.howstuffworks.com...
College students should have the freedom to choose their own courses.

My opponent stated that college students should already be motivated and dedicated to succeed and move forward in their career path and I strongly disagree, life happens and some students may have problems going on at home and with the stress of the course that they didn't choose it makes their motivation go down and can lead to other things such as anxiety, depression, and negative thoughts. According to Times Higher Education, your course is one of the most important parts of your university experience; arguably it should be one of your main motivations for applying to, and accepting the offer of, that university.According to the 2015 National College Health Assessment, 30% of students reported that stress had negatively affected their academic performance within the past year, and over 85% had felt overwhelmed by everything they had to do at some point within the past year.Students cannot necessarily compare themselves to their peers, as someone who may appear calm and collected may actually be struggling with stress. At Stanford University, students call it "Duck Syndrome" because while a student may appear to be gliding effortlessly, their "duck feet" are paddling frantically.According to the Vaden Health Center at Stanford University, if stress levels remain high for an extended amount of time, consequences can include stomach ulcers, worsened asthma and lowered immunity. Cardiovascular health can also suffer because of an increase in blood pressure and heart rate. With this being said, students should be able to choose their courses because it will take some pressure off of them. http://college.usatoday.com... https://www.timeshighereducation.com....
College students should have the freedom to choose their own courses.

My opponent stated that students should have the freedom to select their own courses because they are forced into courses that are not helpful or needed for their career. I believe that this is incorrect because these courses are known as basic core courses that are intended to help students prepare for their majors. Although students may not enjoy these core courses such as English 1-4, American Literature, Algebra 1-3, biology, chemistry, and many more, they are intended to help students effectively analyze, think critically and communicate information in diverse disciplines. Additionally, my opponent argued that if students were allowed to choose their courses they would be more motivated and dedicated to succeed and move forwards their career path. This is invalid because college students should already be motivated to succeed and move forward with their career due to the fact that they are the ones paying and working hard to receive their education. Therefore, this proves that college students should not be given the freedom to choose their own courses. http://education.seattlepi.com... http://www.ncaa.org...
College students should have the freedom to choose their own courses.

Though my opponent stated that college students should not have freedom to choose their own classes I still believe college students should be able to, due to the student being legally an adult by some definitions and in the end they are the ones who will have to do the work in the classes and live with there choices. It is the students job to commit to a field or fields of study early so they will have time to take all the required courses. According to the college board,scholarships are awarded based on achievement, need or both. Many scholarships have other requirements for example, they may only be offered to students who live in a certain state, are interested in a certain major or have a disability.In 2014-15, about two-thirds of full-time students paid for college with the help of financial aid in the form of grants and scholarships. Approximately 57 percent of financial aid dollars awarded to undergraduates was in the form of grants, and 34 percent took the form of federal loans. Also, there may be programs at the students college that can help them and inform them on the courses before they make the decision to take the course or courses. This information proves that college students have options and don't have to pay for college all alone as well as students who do get scholarships or grants should be responsible to manage their money and make arrangements to be able to succeed in their career path. https://bigfuture.collegeboard.org...
College students should have the freedom to choose their own courses.

College students should not have the freedom to choose their own courses because they will choose the wrong classes and therefore, will not meet the requirements for their major. When students select the wrong classes, not only are they wasting their own money but they are risking not graduating on time. According to the college board, in-district students at a public two- year university pay about $3,440 yearly, in-state students at a public four-year college pay $9,410/yr, out of state students pay $23,890/yr, and students at private four-year college pay $32,410/year."Besides tuition and fees, students have to pay for housing, food, books, and supplies. They also have to cover any additional college fees and other living expenses, such as transportation costs"(College Board). This information proves that since college students already are required to pay thousands of dollars, they could not afford to waste their money and time in choosing the wrong classes, proving that they in fact should not be given the freedom to choose their own courses. https://bigfuture.collegeboard.org...
"Ladies first" implies sexism

First, what people know as "Chivalry" today is completely wrong ( http://www.usna.edu..., http://www.ancientfortresses.org..., http://www.lordsandladies.org... ) and it isn't sexist at all. The sex of a person isn't even mentioned and it is not mentioned alone and it's not even a concrete list of behaviors or conduct but instead a general guideline of ethics. Moving beyond that "Ladies First" and various rules about "Women and Children" are actually survival based versus being sexist in the sense of conformity. The reason women and children were to leave first is because women and children are the future, the offspring and the one that bears offspring, which makes a lot of sense when you actually think about it. Generally speaking people propose this as a negative thing under the guise that the male's life is "worth less" but in reality it's for the continuation of the entire species and does not promote the idea of worthlessness but instead pragmaticism. General conduct of Gentlemanly Behavior (an equivocal term often mixed up with Chivalry) is a social normative that has nothing to do with sexism and more to do with gender roles; there is actually a Womanly Etiquette (http://www.etiquetteinternational.com...) system so it isn't sexist in that there is only "one side" at all. It is for everyone, and though the behaviors differ based on sex the actual standard of courtesy in question does not differ based on sex. One could only say that Etiquette is sexist but not that courtesy or the standard behind courtesy and care are.
Mike Huckabee is Radical, Dangerous, and bad for America

He's not evil, but I do see where you're going with you're statement. You are right about the thing about totalitarianism. Anyway, I see that you copied this from your last debate on this subject (good for consistency in your argument, but bad for people who think that this is a "chain" thing). He might and probably will raise taxes, but he's not evil.
Mike Huckabee is Radical, Dangerous, and bad for America

Thanks for joining this debate, but I was kinda going for Mike Huckabee supporters rather than a argument of what is and isn't crasy and dangerous. Well I guess to when this I'm going to have to explain what I consider Radical and Dangerous. I consider expanding government power, dangerous. I consider imposing beliefs, Radical I consider the totalitarian elements in his political believes, VERY dangerous. Tax Hike Mike is socially conservative and fiscally liberal. I'm a Libertarian, which means I'm a social liberal, and a fiscal conservative. Republicans are normaly socially and fiscally conservative And Totalitarians are socially conservative and fiscally liberal. Politically, Mike is a big government totalitarian, radical and dangerous to liberty in America.
Mike Huckabee is Radical, Dangerous, and bad for America

"Violence only spreads more violence. Peace isn't the absence of conflict, it is the ability to handle conflict through peaceful means. That doesn't apply here. In this case, it's the U.S. government creating conflict." -Ron Paul supporter "So why is this a bad thing? There has to be conflict in order to bring about the End Times. You do want to hasten the coming of the End Times, don't you? I guess if you aren't supporting the Huckster, you'll have a lot to lose when that happens." - Mike Huckabee supporter Huckabee's supporters want to: Impose Christianity on Americans. Bring about the "end times" Attack Middle Eastern nations to hasten the "end times" The Mike Huckabee Forums posts a set of pictures that show Chuck Norris kicking our Constitution and being upheld by God's Hands for it! Everyone I know calls him Tax Hike Mike in Arkansas, I just call him dangerous and insane.
Mike Huckabee is Radical, Dangerous, and bad for America

Sure I did... If no one can prove a statement wrong, why not say it again... I've got plenty more to dish out... I'm just looking for a strong Huckabee supporter give a strong debate. Huckabee has a both Dangerous and Radical political standing. If I was to say what an evil person was... I would best describe him as a person who STEALS other people's Life, Liberty, and Property. Huckabee is a Big-government, Pro-War, Anti-personal liberty, Serial Taxer. So, evil... The evil people are those who inflict totalitarianism on other people. Think of a single bad thing one person can do to another without being able to use the word STEAL in the description.
Vampires vs. werewolves

RefutationArg. 1. Vampires are better because they don't need to eat food. They must survive on blood, which is essentially food to them. Therefore, they still need sustenance. Thus, they can live wherever they want so long as there are animals and humans. This is a contradiction. The second half of the statement: "as long as there are animals and humans. " contradicts the first, proving that they cannot live as long as they want. This being said, I rest my case that vampires are better because they have unlimited range of habitat. Not true. Vampires must live near cities or animals in order to get the blood they need to survive. Therefore, PRO is unable to prove anything. ArgumentsContention 1: Not a serial killerVampires must kill animals or humans ro survive, in essence, drinking their blood. This is inhumane and puts the vampire in a monstrous light. Werewolves are able to survive with humans and eat normally, so that they will not endanger animals or humans. As a result, Werewolves are better than vampires.
Vampires vs. werewolves

I would like to present the argument "Vampires vs. werewolves." I personally, vote vampires, Con has to say werewolves. Arg. 1. Vampires are better because they don't need to eat food. Thus, they can live wherever they want so long as there are animals and humans. This being said, I rest my case that vampires are better because they have unlimited range of habitat.
Christians and Atheists should be friends.

Sorry I accidentally clicked to debate for pro. oops ;P Just some reference notes for the future Christians - The Christians ill be referring to are those who passionately go to church each Sunday and hold a firm personal belief that god is real. (Basically this is excluding the 80% of Christians who attend church) Atheists - Someone who actively beliefs there is no god and is constantly rejecting any theory of a higher being than humans) Anyway I agree that that atheists and Christians should be friends but it would not be possible because of the differences between the two religions. (if you count atheism as a religion) because their habitus (view on the world) would collide and cause conflict and disagreement between both parties. What makes matters worse is that neither Christians or Atheists would admit that their "friend's" religion makes more sense than their own. An example we can compare this to is politics far-right hand members can not agree about certain topics with far-left hand members because they simply won't back down as a matter of pride. If Christians and Atheists can finally respect each other religions they may be associates but definitely not friends because they can not talk about something both parties have a passion in. Wishing for an awesome debate ;D
Christians and Atheists should be friends.

Christians and atheist should stop fighting. I mean all you guys fight about is religion compared to evolution, Science compared to the bible, How God is fake, How Atheists will burn in hell, Why God lets bad happens to good people, stuff like that. I respect Atheists as who they are. Same with us Christians. It's just tiring to see the same people fight about the same thing over and over again. Can't we just all agree in one subject? As a pro, I will make this debate friendly to all readers. I will not insult/attack anyone nor any belief he or she is committed to. It is up to the Con/Against if he or she would choose to accept this in the first round (Acceptance) or not. As long as he would open up his mind and his heart to the debate. I'll respect him or her.
Organ Donation Should Be Made Mandatory

Regarding religion, as I have shown in R3, no religion forbids donation. In Veda Vijnana, the organ can be used in accordance with the donors wishes. With Jehovah's witnesses, the bible doesn't say that the sin is punishable by death and is interpreted differently by different people, as I demonstrated in before rounds. NO religion says that it is a sin and you will burn for it, yet religions just discourage it. I have already addressed the "bandwagon fallacy". Religion will not stop you from donating an organ, NO RELIGION express forbids donation of organs, as I showed in above rounds. The black market will not make any money because my opponent has provided no source for how many wierdo's there are. Most people go to the black market because they NEED an organ, this mandate would greatly curb that activity. As I have said, after death your body isn't yours any more, it isn't your property as I stated in R2. My opponent has made no refutation to this statement, SO DUE PROCESS DOESN'T EFFECT ORGANS AFTER DEATH. Regarding family members, if they needed an organ donation in 7 days with this mandate they would without a doubt receive an organ. With the priority of strangers or family members, other strangers are giving their organs to your family, the least you can do is return that favour. My opponent has failed to point out any contradictions. The legal flaws I have all addressed already. I have shown how this would save lives (which is the ethically correct thing to do), it would benefit science, and it would curb illegal activity.
Organ Donation Should Be Made Mandatory

On regards to saving another person’s life, my opponent brings up a situation where he is having an allergic reaction while trying to save someone. He says that he would call 911. That is effectively helping out in a genuine manner by getting the person medical attention. Just because you don’t have the training doesn’t mean you can’t do basic things to help like calling 911. In this case, donating an organ that you won’t even use to try to save someone’s life is clearly the ethically and morally correct choice. With regards to religion, as I stated in R2 the Bible doesn’t say that organ donation is “a big no-no. ” Technically, people wouldn’t suffer eternal damnation because of an organ donation. Though they may believe that it is cannibalism, they wouldn’t suffer any religious punishment from God because the Bible doesn’t specify. This isn’t the bandwagon fallacy as every religion doesn’t SPECIFICALLY FORBID ANY FORM OF ORGAN DONATION [1]. Organ donation may be discouraged, but not forbidden. Of course you are not obligated if something is stopping you, but nothing is stopping you from donating its organs as I have shown with religion. Thus, this mandate should still stand. It doesn’t matter if the average is 1%, every person saved is worth it. As I said in R1 “Donating organs (OR whole body donations). The key word in that sentence is OR. Even though there is a huge need for medical donations, we cannot put a diseased or sick organ into a person. As I said in R1, those organs can go to science. My opponent fails to understand what I mean in my third point. I will specify. We aren’t making the illegal removal of organs to be sold on the black market legal. Furthermore, I have provided a source as I showed in R1 with a fake skin donation reaching hundreds of people. The black market will NOT exist because people are no longer motivated to buy organs. Why buy one from a shady dealer when you can get one from a trained professional? We are NOT MAKING THE CURRENT ACTIVITY ON THE BLACK MARKET LEGAL. The government can’t force us to give up our houses because according to the Constitution no person should be deprived of property without due process of law. ” This mandate doesn’t conflict with the right to practice religion because as I stated above no religion forbids organ donation. Organ donation upon death is not flawed as I have shown above. Vote Pro. SOURCES1. . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Organ Donation Should Be Made Mandatory

I am very pleased to be debating the instigator. I have'nt been on this site in like 8 months so this will be a good refresher. Since this round is only the acceptance round i will leave my questions for next round. I understand that my opponent wants this to happen upon death witch will develop into a flaw but i will get to that later, but i will post the definition below. Mandatory- 1. authoritatively ordered; obligatory; compulsory 2. Law . permitting no option; not to be disregarded or modified 3. Required or commanded by authority; obligatory: Sources http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Organ Donation Should Be Made Mandatory

Hi, I debate this topic before with another DDO member, but he unfortunately had to forfeit every round due to time constraints. Thus, I would like to debate this topic again. Definitions: Organ Donation - giving up any part of your body for scientific research or to another human for a transplant (this will be specified in their will which organ, any preferences with the organ etc.) Mandatory - this must occur upon death R1 is acceptance. R2 are arguments and refutations R3 are refutations R4 are refutations R5 are conclusions I look forward to having a fruitful and entertaining debate with my opponent!