BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Schools should always try to mimic the challenges adults face in daily life.

Although I agree that schools should try to mimic the challenge that adults face in daily life, the problem is the word "ALWAYS." Furthermore, since school is not the only thing one can learn from, it is unnecessary to make it ALWAYS mimic the challenges adult face in daily life. One main problem for people in school is "burn out" or lack of interest. If school has nothing interesting, e.g. art for an art student, gym for fun, etc., then a student will be more likely to burn out. It is important that there are fun activities in school as well that do not mimic daily life problems in order to keep a kid interested.
should a gender neutral pronoun be instigated in the English language

I would like to begin by thanking Pro for challenging me to this debate. I look forward to an interesting discussion.Argument #1 - The size of the LGBTQ community does not justify a change in the language of our nationThe best statistics on the percentage of LGBTQ Americans suggest that they make up only 2%(1) to 3.4%(2) of the population. Of this small minority, only a small fraction would fall into the Q category, denoting themselves as gender-queer or gender-fluid.According to scholars, pronouns are the most conservative and the least malleable aspect of the English language.(3) One must question, then, whether it is worth changing one of the basic elements of the English language in order to avoid the moment of awkwardness that my opponent claims occurs when gender-queer people are asked what they like to be called. Argument #2 - Such a change may not be in the best interest of those in the LGBTQ communitySuch a massive change, which would have to be accomplished through changes in the education system, could only serve to help the claims of those who believe in a "gay agenda."Also, referring to gender-queer people with a queer-specific pronoun would most likely not have the effect of making them feel accepted, but rather of making them feel like they belong to an outsider group. My opponent presented no evidence to show that gender-queer people want to avoid being asked what gender they are. Such questions give those in the Q community a chance to share their story and a way for their friends and family members to show that their feelings are valued.I do not understand how having a gender-queer box on applications for schools and jobs would give anonymity to applicants. If anything, it would simply allow school administrators andemployers to know exactly which applicants are gender-queer, thus increasing the likelihood of discrimination.Sources1. http://www.theatlantic.com...2. http://www.slate.com...3. http://www.slate.com...
Why Ron Paul is gay.

I admit that the definition of "WE" that was previously used was not accurate, I was confused by website and it was wrong. According to www.dictionary.com "Gay" is defined as 1. having or showing a merry, lively mood: So if you are to debate that Ron Paul is not a merry person you can take your shot but I will come back forever with proof that Dr. Paul currently has and will continue to present the illusion of happiness. -SlimRusek
Why Ron Paul is gay.

First of all, be more careful with your debate titles. Your title is..."Why Ron Paul is gay." which isn't debatable. You can't be pro or con to why someone is gay. The proper title for this would have been "Ron Paul is Gay." and then labeling yourself as Pro. Aside from that, I would gladly be willing to debate this... I don't dispute that Ron Paul would say something like that, in fact, it sounds entirely like him to do so. Still, you should provide a source so that I can check the qoute. 1. The REAL definition for "We" is "2.(used to denote oneself and another or others): We have two children. In this block we all own our own houses." - www.dictionary.com 2. The definition you gave for "We" at www.dictionary.com does not match up, however, it does match the exact definition for I, which is... 1. "The nominative singular pronoun, used by a speaker in referring to himself or herself." So either you were purposely giving the wrong definition, or you misread the website. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Besides, it is obvious to anyone reading that quote the Dr. Paul was referring to gay people not himself. And in essence, he couldn't have been referring to himself because "gay" is used for men, so he would have contradicted himself when saying gay, and woman. -R.J.-
Why Ron Paul is gay.

Well this one will be fun. To begin with, Ron Paul must be gay because according to http://www.charlotteconservative.com... Ron Paul fully supports the rights of a gay individual. To quote Dr. Paul- "WE don't get our rights because WE are "gay or women or minorities", WE get our rights as individuals" And according to www.dictionary.com the definition of "WE" is : "The nominative singular pronoun, used by a speaker in referring to himself or herself." sincerely -SlimRusek
Impromptu Debate

Greetings all, This is an Impromptu Debate. Each participant has ten minutes to post, so please keep that in mind when judging for errors or discrepancies in spelling. There are three rounds in this debate, but only the third round will be utilized for the actual debate. In the first round, my opponent will join and merely post formalities. In the second round, I will post three different topics that my opponent can debate. My opponent will do the same. In the third round, each will select one topic and argue for or against it. Do not attempt to refute the opponent, as this is based upon who is the most professional when under time restrictions. Good luck and have fun!
Legalize Gay Marriage

Funny, I imagined gay porn with 1 gay behind the camera and another or 2 gays doing something, thought they were amateur vids, since gay porn is disgustingly disgusting, I haven't watch some, never had, never will. You need to specify which corporation, because tobacco, sex toys, magaindustries comes to mind.But really, vote pro because deep inside, we hate gays, and that arguments on R1 were nice, but who cares.No, let's tie this up.
Legalize Gay Marriage

Obviously the hairsylist from example 1 was not homosexual, since if he was it wouldn't have been so bad. That makes for a completely circular logic, and complete circles are completely correct (I call it the CC rule). My opponent says that gays get their ideas of marriage from gay porn, not some cheap fat corporation. I should remind my opponent that the porn industry is a $60 billion (back in 2005) [1]. And we all know that gay porn is the biggest single section of the pron industry (specifically lesbian porn). So they've got my opponent thinking that they aren't some big business, when in fact they are. Though I was thinking that the worse possible answer was that you were on the brink of a breakthrough in creating a virus that would spread through the Gay community and kill them all off slowly, but sherly. And in a way that would make it look like they died from other diseases, by killing off their immune system and allowing a simple flu to do them in... wait, that was already done back in the 80's, but this time, redoing it so it only effected the homosexuals and not everyone else. But I suppose religion is a pretty bad one too. Anyway, the reasons for why we cannot let the enemies of the homosexual community trick them into wanting marriage have been shown for the world to see. Please, save the gays from the DOOM of marriage! [1] http://www.time.com...
Legalize Gay Marriage

Your joking right? [1]The gays get their marriage ideas from the internet (prolly gay porn), not some cheap fat corporation. As to the question I actually dodged, yes, the worst possible answer indeed, I hate gays because God hates gays [2]. That's why 9/11 happened, the terrorrists were gays, I think. Oh, and marriage is a sacred thing according to my religion, it has very strict rules that's why you say it's hell. KK. :)[1] http://allweirdnews.com...[2] http://cache.gawker.com...
Legalize Gay Marriage

I should remind everyone that making something illegal doesn't mean we have to enforce it. Just look at most of our non-violent laws. Like smoking pot. It's illegal, but we still have tens of millions of people that do it every month, and we're not arresting all of them. Or rich white men raping poor girls at bars or after work. That's "technically" against the law, but we don't really do anything about it, other than make the occasional high profile case to remind everyone that this is serious business that should really turn them on. Besides, criminals give the best haircuts. Going back to all the reasons that Homosexuals don't really want to get married, and that they have only been tricked into wanting that by the big anti-homo corporations (or something like that...it's big businesses fault, that's all I know), we can see that my opponent dodge the question of why he hates homosexuals so much as to want them to have to endure such horrible tortures as marriage. And if watching FOX news has tought me anything, it is that not answering a question is the absolute equivilent of giving the worse possible answer, and he can never take it back, or else be deemed a flip flopper (which I'm sure is some kind of gay slang) that was violently for gay marriage before he was violently against gay marriage, and he could relapse at any time and be violently for gay marriage again, and we don't want to listen to a violent person, do we?
Legalize Gay Marriage

Sowwy if my arguments are non-comical, as you say.But let's not forget without mommy and daddy being legally slaved, then they won't have legal sex which means we won't be here debating gays. And no, illegalizing homosexuality? No way, then that means my favorite barber down the street won't fix my hair again (the best hairstylist), Do you propose a sexist Hitler? Also, illegal sex may be hot, but we all do it, what's the point of pointing that out? Kbye.(Still, my arguments are hotter than yours).
Legalize Gay Marriage

Sorry for the delay.Gay Marriage should be legalized. Why?1) Gays would be happier. Main reason why. Like family leave. They can be entitled to unpaid leave from their jobs to care for an ill spouse but who's kidding who, they just love having intercourse.2) When they're old and sill gay. If husband1 is sick/injured, then husband2 can automatically have visiting rights and make medical decisions. Some occasions gays are being denied these rights. Aww, the humanity. Not to mention nursing homes, too, when they're old.3) Death and Money. 'Coz let's face it, some (or most) people who have no shot to score a hot and rich person of opposite sex have gay marriage just to get their wealth. Taxes, sociserity, pension plans, etc. 4) My favorite: Immigration. Who wants to live in an anti-Gay country anyway?Done for now.
Kobe Bryant is better than LeBron James.

I do not agree with you. Kobe Bryant is the best NBA player right now but I don't think he can emulate Michael Jordan. Michael Jordan was a team player and his presence was an inspiration to his team. This man changed the way his team played when he stepped his foot on the court. Kobe on the other hand plays for himself only and he likes it when people depend on him that is why he became a "buzzer specialist." When Kobe is in the game- he lurks around the paint to score before the buzzer. I bet you have seen it many times this season. Lebron James is not the next Michael Jordan but he is Lebron James. He is in the league of his own and just like you cannot compare aircrafts like F-15e Strike Eagle and B-2 Spirit- its the same way with Lebron and Jordan. They are specialists in their own territory. (Did I spelled it correctly ?) I am coming back to the point now. I cannot understand how easily you have typed those words, "Kobe Bryant is better than Lebron James." If you are judging these two player's performance on the basis of how many rings they have won then Kobe clearly wins the argument but it's not about the past glory but the present that matters. And I believe that King Lebron will surpass Kobe Bryant someday. Let's admit it that Kobe is the old resident male lion who has been ruling the basketball court for many years but there is a young nomadic lion named Lebron James who is out to get him. It's just a matter of time when old Kobe has to give way for King James= "The choice of the new generation."
Kobe Bryant is better than LeBron James.

Since Michael Jordan left the game of basketball, the league has tried to fill his place with the 'next Jordan'. The two most likely candidates to date have been Kobe Bryant and LeBron James. The debate is altered as seasons pass and more stats are accumulated, though this debate will take place in the April 2010, not the future. To date, I propose that Kobe Bryant is the player next in line to take Jordan's crown until someone else supersedes him. While LeBron may have better rankings in some statistical categories, one cannot ignore one of the most important categories; championship rings. I submit, until LeBron has had a chance to earn at least one ring, this debate is nothing more than a way for Cleveland fans to cheer for their 'king' rather than truly find the player to take the place of the great Michael Jordan.
Kobe Bryant is better than LeBron James.

You called Kobe the best player in the world- A name he never deserves. Kobe Bryant did not make himself but the Lakers made him the player he is. He has won NBA titles for the Lakers but that does not make him the best player in the NBA history. Even Duncan led Spurs to 4 NBA Championships but he did not get compared to greats like Michael Jordan- It is because he played for Spurs and not Lakers. You will agree with me that Duncan is more of a team player than Kobe.The media make the Lakers and the Lakers made Kobe. Tim Duncan has won 4 NBA titles and it is equal with Kobe so why is Kobe hyped so much. You see people have this mindset, Lakers are great and they sometimes forget that some of the greatest players who have played in the history of NBA history have not played for the LA Lakers. Talking about Cleveland Cavaliers, I admit to have missed out Williams, Jamison and West probably due to ignorance of this game. (I am joking) Some players are not born leaders and they have to learn things slowly. James is learning but that has not affected his style of play. James is the only player that comes at par with Kobe Bryant and who is that other player named Anthony well he will retire winning nothing if he does not leave the Nuggets. Hahaha I agree that Kobe has had more successful career than James but is NBA all about the past or the present. Kobe has matured over this years. Kobe Bryant does not look for excuses after loosing- I agree with that but it is not about the off- field drama but what goes on inside the court. Lebron James is better at dunking than Kobe, I think you will agree with that. In some departments Lebron James is better than Kobe while Kobe seems to excel in other departments. James is a very good defensive player but he focuses on offense more. Same can be said for Kobe who likes to score everything by himself than let his team mates score. It is not that Kobe is selfish but he does not trust his team mates around him and if someone has to score it has to be him. That is what made him the "buzzer specialist." Does winning the NBA Championship make any difference ? I don't think so. Look at players like Steve Nash, Deron Williams, Dirk Nowitzki and Chris Paul. They have never won the NBA Championship but that does not make them ordinary players. Coming back to the point players like Lebron James are still young and they have time. I believe Lebron James will win the NBA title someday in the future but the question is when. I am going to end my argument using your own words against you. NBA is like a High School, where Kobe is a nerd and James is a guy who likes to party hard but they are equally good in studies. I leave everything in the hands of the people to see who the best player is "in their opinion." But as for me I believe that James is the better player than Kobe. The same goes out for you.
Kobe Bryant is better than LeBron James.

THE SUN RISES FROM THE EAST People can compare Kobe Bryant with Michael Jordan because Kobe is comparable but King James is incomparable. A player's personality has nothing to do with the Basketball and that is where King James shines- Let the ball do the talking. King James did not shake hands with the Magic players because he is still immature. King James has a lot to learn and I would like to see King James vs. Kobe somewhere in the future. Remember Kobe was jealous of Officer Shaq after they did a 3peat. Comparing Jordan and Kobe- Michael Jordan would have won the NBA championship with any team because he is the kind of player who can change everyone around him. I have talked about the "power of his presence" earlier. I do not mean to say that Jordan was not a team player but if you could trade Michael Jordan into Phoenix Suns in 1992 season then Suns would have surely won the championship. That is the kind of player Jordan is. Now, lets look at Kobe. If he was traded to a team like lets say Jazz then he would not have won all those championships. Kobe needs Lakers and it's not the other way round. Coming back to the point If you compared the Lakers squad and Cavaliers squad - You will find a huge difference. Lakers have superstars in their starting line up. Gasol & Artest are no ordinary players. Cavaliers have only 2 recognised stars in their lineup – King James & Shaq. I am not saying that Cavs don't have world class players but other players are average. Cavs still dominates the Eastern Conference and don't think that the Eastern Conference is weak. They have the greatest team in the NBA History- the Mighty Boston Celtics . If another Michael Jordan is to come then look to East not West. The bottomline- Kobe needs Lakers more than Lakers need him.
Kobe Bryant is better than LeBron James.

You talked 'emulating' Michael Jordan in the last round. Anyone who watches basketball knows Kobe plays the game and surely shoots the ball in a way which emulates Jordan like no other. Jordan was known for his 'buzzer beater' shots for his team win basketball games and I agree, Kobe is known for the same thing. Jordan wins championship rings and so does Kobe. It is almost as though you are making my case for me in this last post, talking about all the great points that relate Kobe so well to Jordan. One point you make which I cannot agree with is the 'team player' comment. Teammates and surely leaders of teams do not act as LeBron has in the past. In 2006 against Atlanta, LeBron actually walked off the court before the final buzzer sounded. And then more recently, in the 2009 playoffs vs Orlando, LeBron just put his head down and walked directly to the locker room without shaking hands with the Orlando Magic. I agree, LeBron is is own player; a player who is not a leader in a way that Jordan and Kobe are. A person who tried passing the ball with seconds left on the clock rather than taking a game winning shot as a team leader should do (both Jordan and Kobe do this). LeBron is a much more flashy player, he can dunk the ball a lot stronger and surely he can play the game to fill the stat sheet a ton. But LeBron is not a leader, he is not a champion and he is not yet on Kobe's level...let alone Jordan's. Unless you have a crystal ball, Kobe, as you admit, is the best player in the NBA, and you cannot simply 'guess' about the future and somehow make that a valid point to prove James is better. As Joe Friday would request of you, "just the facts" please.
Atheism

Time to take the Devil's advocate. Good luck Pro. Definition of Atheist: A person who lacks a belief in god Definition of Agnostic: A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God. Basically, the definition of Agnostic is, that he/she does not believe in god yet he/she cannot prove or disprove god. Both people lack a true belief, however one person claims that god cannot be proven or disproven. Therefore, the Atheist implies that god can be disproven. Which is obviously false, since it is impossible to disprove anything that cannot be observed. You cannot even disprove things that are false. Example: Assume there really is not a flying unicorn in the room Person 1: There is a flying unicorn in the room Person 2: No there is not. I can not see it Person 1: It is invisible Person 2: Well, I cannot feel it Person 1: The unicorn cannot be sensed by any of your senses Person 2: I cannot detect the unicorn by any heat sigs, x-ray, or any other form of artificial vision Person 1: It cannot be detected by any of the instruments Even if the unicorn is not there, you cannot disprove the the unicorn is not there. Because Person 2 is going to keep throwing claims that is beyond person 2's capability of disproving.
That Mario Shouldn't be in any more Video Games

People that have been with Mario since the beginning are glad he is still around so they have something to relate with their children( and even grandchildren!). The fact that smash is only 1 game and so many people are Mario fans means that Nintendo just can't ditch him. He even helped in the creation of( my favorite game character) Sonic the Hedgehog ( Sega was looking for a mascot to compete against Mario's fame and when there old mascot, Alex Kidd, wasn't working, they looked at new ideas, hence Sonic was born). Mario is not just a game to some people, he's part of there childhood and fun, and if you take away someone that's touched so many gamers and people, your taking away there past and part of there life.
That Mario Shouldn't be in any more Video Games

Mario is a popular franchise, and earns a lot of money but if nintendo manages to make a character -maybe not little mac- to be as awesome as Mario is now then it would earn much more money as it would be a new game with new characters in it. Sorry to say but people who don't want things to change, as in Mario can only hope that Mario will still be around when they are old or when there kids are old as Mario will be, well old. Mario has had its time and even in smash, Mario is not that powerful and not that strategic and thats why professionals don't use him in tournaments. People don't use him much anyway in my opinion. Again Mario has had its time and i think that its time to have something new! not something old. What more can they do with Mario anyway? they did a game where he can turn into a Racoon?! people are running out of good ideas for games with Mario so to answer that problem, just get a new chapter to get peoples attention that is as good as Mario.
That Mario Shouldn't be in any more Video Games

Mario is a very popular game franchise( and Nintendo's mascot) which in the past few years has earned Nintendo millions in dollars, and so many people grew up around this character that if Nintendo announced that Mario would never be used again, they would probably be very mad and upset, and maybe even riot! Long story short, Mario is one of the best known video game characters out there. So many people out there have been a gamer since they were little, and for most people, Mario was one of there first games they played. That is why Mario should remain in games( and people normally don't use him in smash because they think so many other people use him, such as my brother, that they want someone people probably won't choose, such as Ike or Little Mac).
That Mario Shouldn't be in any more Video Games

Well good luck. Mario is an over rated character. he has had his time in countless games and doesn't need any more games just for him. Even in Smash Bros, nobody plays him and he's basically useless. Everyone wants someone new, not old characters from the 50s or something. Mario is old, and we need something new. Thats why we should do more with maybe Luigi not just with ghost mansion but something more with him as he is normally a side character.