BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The officials need the voice of their people

Two heads are better that one,,,,, Not all the time the government can handle the situation on their own.. there will gonna be a time that the Government will be needing its members.In fact a Government is useless with out members.... Its like " the teacher of the class is useless with out the students"...In fact the project of the government is mostly for the people,,then they must get some idea to the people so that the project that they are thinking are going to fit the need of the people.. For example the kid ask her mother to buy him some shoes but the mother brought him slipper.. do you think the kid will appreciate what her mother did?
The officials need the voice of their people

People are not necessarily correct, in fact, democracy is based around a fallacious argument, 'argument from popularity', sometimes known as the bandwagon fallacy. While I am too against oppressive government and wasteful government, the 'people' might not be the best experts on how to avoid an oppressive or wasteful government. The 'people' in the US generally support the way we are going- into a more and more oppressive, more and more wasteful form of government, many people in the USSR were strongly in favor of their evil socialist totalitarian dictatorship. The people are not flawless, they do make errors, and are not the best judges of how the government should run.
NFL Scheduling is unfair

I'll be argueing that NFL scheduling is fair, for now lets look at the 2012 NFL strength of schedule chart on ESPN.go.com (http://espn.go.com...)Contention 1 HistoryArcording to the way that the schedule is set up it is based on how well the team has done in history, so you have the terrible teams getting the easy schedule while the good teams get the harder schedule. Not only that but you'll see that the playoff teams inballanced from top 16 and bottom 16 in the NFL, but the imballance goes to the upper half, (http://espn.go.com...) so therefore half the teams in the NFL have to go through Hell just to get to where they are today.
NFL Scheduling is unfair

NFL scheduling is completely unfair, teams that have the highest records in the NFL have the weakest schedules, The New York Giants came into this NFL season with the highest strength of schedule, which is fair considering they just won the super bowl. But when you look at the teams that finished around them such as the 49ers, Patriots, Texans, Falcons etc....they have the weakest schedules this year...is this fair by any means?
There is no such thing as gay "marriage!"

Great. You're the fastest one to accept my one of my debates. First of all I would like to inform you that I do not hate gays. Gays are just as human as straights and deserve the same rights as straights, but I draw the line at marriage. This is not because I hate gays, but I just don't regard a gay union as a marriage. For decades, centuries, milennia, marriage has always been defined as a union between one man and one woman. Only recently has a gay union been considered a valid marriage.I am a Christian and because of that, I believe God created marriage- not man. Man maything they created marriage but since the beginning it has always been a creation of God, but since man thinks they created it that they have the right to redefine it. Well they don't. Only God has the ability to redefine marriage which he will never will.Now just in case you're not religious and before you shout "boo! you can't bring religion into this. that's invalid!," I will give you some secular reason why gay marriage is not really marriage at all.Scientific studies have constantly discovered that men and women are designed to complement each other. They are designed to relate to one another and their bodies are perfect for each other. Only heterosexual couples can procreate on their own (well at least most heterosexual couples- unless you're infertile of course). However homosexual couples cannot. Even if a heterosexual couple is infertile, they still have the possibility of conceiving. It may be highly unlikley but highly unlikley is not the same as impossibe. However, a homosexual couple will never EVER be able to proecreate without help from a third party and even then, they need someone of the OPPOSITE sex to help them. Also, I see in a lot of same sex couples that there is always one that acts more masculine and the other more feminine. This just goes to show that in a marriage, a husband and wife complement one another. Two men or two women CANNOT compete with this. Anyway. I wish you good luck in this round!
football

I will try to render what my opponent just said. My opponent argues that women should be allowed to play football too, but they should not be half naked during the process. Pro is stating that women shouldn't be judged and we should all be equal. First of all, my opponent says "when it comes to wrestling no (as in we aren't equal) cause that's ok" What sort of reasoning is that? No because that's ok? What is so "ok" about wrestling? Please specify. Pro continues on: "nevermind bout wrestling guys could really get hurt but ya I think genders should play professionally together" What's the "nevermind" here for? Since it was right after your claim about wrestling, I assume you say "nevermind" because that point was worthless... well, not that it meant much in the first place. You don't give any concrete reasoning for why both genders should play football together. The "because they should be equal" argument isn't enough. I need to know WHY they should be equal. Yes, women shouldn't be judged, but I negate the resolution that they should play football with guys. Arguments: 1) Sexual actions: Of course, you will always have perverts, creeps, etc. that just cannot help but touch or comment on someone's genitals or other parts that need to be hidden. Even if women aren't half naked, there will still be guys and girls that will want to touch each other, and might even have sex. Yes, the latter is unlikely, but sexual actions will increase if we let the to genders play together. Unwanted flirtation will occur as well. You might have some cases of rape, or a guy touching a girl's butt or breasts. This can also distract the players from focusing on the game, thus, lowering the rankings of players. Also, are you talking about football in general? Or the NFL? It cannot be both. Either way, some idiot is going to want to be sexual if both genders play at the same time. 2) Physical Strength: The average male weight is about 180 lbs. The average female weight is around 166.2 lbs. Men are bigger and stronger than women are. I don't think NFL is interested in putting in women having most of them getting injured. Injuries happen all the time for men, so I think it would be immoral to have tons of women getting broken bones or fracturing bones. Not to mention any NFL team that was more women than men wouldn't stand a chance. Of course you could divide them up into equal men to women ratios, but then people would get less interested in watching NFL. NFL will lose a large amount of profit and people will freak out. Let them play in separate leagues. I have no problem with women playing football, just as long as they're not put in with men. http://halls.md... http://www.washingtonpost.com...
School uniforms should be required

For this debate a "school uniform" is a specific design for clothing designated to be worn while attending academic classes at a school. The school context comprises grades one through twelve of public and private schools in the United States. Different schools and different grades within schools may have different uniforms, as determined by parents and school administration. The paradigm is that of Japanese schools, as shown in anime (http://answers.yahoo.com...). The reasons for requiring uniforms are: 1) It promotes identity with the school and class, which emphasizes the common educational purpose. It puts everyone in the same boat so they are more likely to help each other succeed. This is a reason why players on sports teams wear identical uniforms. It would suffice to identify the team players if, say, one team wore predominantly red and the other predominantly blue, or even just predominantly dark and light. Yet there is widespread agreement that having identical uniforms is important for the team psychology. 2) It removes the distractions of fashion trends and fashion competition from school hours, thereby reinforcing the educational purpose of the enterprise. It helps students focus. 3) It teaches boys to be neat and girls to be attractive. 4) It encourages students to evaluate people by their behavior and personality rather than by their manner of dress. 5) It allows individuals to express themselves in fashion outside of school, which reinforces the distinct nature of the educational environment. School uniforms in Japan coexist with cosplay outside of school. There are many factors that go into overall academic performance, so certainly school uniforms are not the only thing that counts. Nonetheless, the countries that score best on international tests (Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan) are those that have the tradition of school uniforms. We may therefore reasonably conclude that it makes a positive contribution to having a serious attitude towards education. Uniforms contribute to the educational process.
School uniforms should be required

Due to personal reasons, I will be having to leave debate.org for the time being. That being said, I will be unable to complete any sort of argument. My opponent has made a great argument. I do believe that school uniforms should not be implemented for the reasons I listed above. It's up to you the reader to decide whether you agree with Roy or myself. However you decide though, I'm sure it will be the best choice. I apologize to Roy for having to do this. Thank you
I will not contradict myself

I contest this point. The rules specifically state "Yes, No, or an explanation as to why neither answer would be completely correct.", not Yes, No, or an explanation as to why one answer would be completely correct.The argument is that i provided why "yes" wouldnt be completely correct but not "no". I'm sorry I did not explain this to you. I felt it was implied because I didnt answer no in the first place. If I had a shot at anything then the answer would be yes, but if you were talking about a specific activity then i would have answered no. Because your questions were so broad neither answer was completely correct. I simply clarified to be able to accurately answer the question. Lets look to an example by using his new question 29.29. Do you respond to questions?Not all of the time. (See, yes would be incorrect because there have been times when I havnt, And No would be incorrect because their have been times when i have. By asking such a broad question you imply an absolute, which leaves me to clarify because niether answer would be completely correct. In his argument for question 19 hes saying no rule implies he is violating the sanctity of debate, But you'll find that if you look to logic i am right. If I wasnt able to ask for clarification there would be no point to even asking normal questions. I didnt understand and am able to ask for clarification. Their doesnt need to be a rule, it is simple logic.Now on to ACTUAL claims of contradictionsHe states that i cant place my judgments in the real world and rationality. Infact every judgment i make weighs tested results and rationality. I am allowed to pick rationality some of the time and the real world some of the time without be contradictory. His questions rely on him asking absolutes, but being so broad they are not absolute questions.my opponent answered that he does not answer rhetorical questions (A28) and said he can read (A26). Q26 was a rhetorical queston. How is a question with a mandatory answer a rhetorical question? The purpose of rhetorical questions is to prove a point furthermore they are not supposed to be answered. He did not ask the question to directly prove a point about me knowing how to read, and there was no way of knowing he was being sarcastic. As mandated by rule 1 and 2 questions are meant to be answered so their would be no way of him being able to ask a rhetorical question within the debate. I also claim that Q29 was a Yes/No question. 29. What are the days of the week?This is in no way a yes/no question. I do not understand your logic. The correct answer is Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday/. Neither a yes or no would be correct because the answer is an absolute and provides no room for opinion. You are not asking me if I know the days of the week, You are asking me what they are.
I will not contradict myself

Rule number 2 states that " ...PRO will answer all of CON's questions with Yes, No, or an explanation as to why neither answer would be completely correct"The answers in question are:7 - Have you ever had a shot? At anything, Yes12. Have you ever served?In tennis, Yes.I simply sated "at anything" and "in tennis" for clarification. You see, a straight yes wouldnt be completely correct because the question didnt directly state what it was referring to. In question 12 you could have been referring to volleyball, or food, So i was forced to clarify because your question was so broad. The same happened in question 7 because you could have been referring just to the debate. The rule states i have the right to explain if the answer wouldnt be completely true.19. Will you defend any truthful claims of contradiction?I do not undersstand the question, Could you please rephraise.In this question i was forced to ask for clarification because the question was worded strange. Precedent set in almost every previous debate of this kind allows for this.[1][2] If I wernt allowed to ask for clarification to questions I didnt understand, the sanctity of this debate would be destroyed. The Con could ask completely contorted questions with, for example, quadruple negatives making it near inpossible to understand the true question.==================================================================================Question 19:If you mean that I will concede when I have truly contradicted myself, Then Yes.21. Do you believe that 'there's time and a place'?Yes22. Will you admit defeat?If I am truly defeated, Yes23. Do you base your judgements on the real world? Yes24. Are you a 'rationalist' person?Yes25. Will you do another one of these debates?Yes26. Do you even read?Yes27. Can you spot rhetorical questions, and know what rhetorical questions are?Yes28. Do you answer rhetorical questions?No29. What are the days of the week?This is not a Yes or no question as mandated by the first rule, Please ask a different question in Yes/No form or forfiet.30. Do you know the Capital of Mexico?Yes[1] http://www.debate.org...[2] http://www.debate.org...
I will not contradict myself

Regarding question 19, the meaning was along the lines of will you concede any claims of contradiction even if you have knowingly contradicted yourself?I also call contradictions:Rule number 2 states that " ...PRO will answer all of CON's questions with Yes, No, or an explanation as to why neither answer would be completely correct" He has broken that rule regarding the following Referring to answer to question 7, my opponent did not answer with "Yes", "No", or an explanation as to why neither answer would be completely correct. Neither is his answer synonymous with the word "Yes".Also, he does this in answer 12. The answer "At this moment, No. Otherwise I have already served." Means the same thing as "No" but he does not use the phrase: he justifies no, which would fall into the category of an explanation. This is not either of the three agreed upon legistation.He also breaks rule number 2 in answer 19, as he admits that there is a correct answer to this question, but simply fails to grasp its meaning. He does not provide "Yes, No, or an explanation as to why neither answer would be completely correct" either, and I fail to see any implication of an answer, or possibility of an answer via this answer.Therefore, I conclude that my opponent has failed to follow the rules of the debate, and as per rule number ten, I propose that my opponent has lost the debate.==================================================================================21. Do you believe that 'there's time and a place'?22. Will you admit defeat?23. Do you base your judgements on the real world? 24. Are you a 'rationalist' person?25. Will you do another one of these debates?26. Do you even read?27. Can you spot rhetorical questions, and know what rhetorical questions are?28. Do you answer rhetorical questions?29. What are the days of the week?30. Do you know the Capital of Mexico?http://www.merriam-webster.com...http://www.merriam-webster.com...;
I will not contradict myself

11. Do you play tennis?Regularly, No. Have i ever, Yes.12. Have you ever served?In tennis, Yes.13. Would you like to serve?At this moment, No. Otherwise I have already served. 14. Are you familiar with knowing how to serve?Yes.15. Do you want to dance?At this moment, Yes.16. Can you contradict yourself?Is it possible, Yes.17. Will you contradict yourself?In this debate, I hope not to.18. Have you contradicted yourself?Not to my knowlege.19. Will you defend any truthful claims of contradiction?I do not undersstand the question, Could you please rephraise.20. Do you drink alcoholic beverages? Yes
I will not contradict myself

1 - Have you ever mugged or been mugging, or plan on doing so?Yes2 - Have you ever brooded on a problem?Yes3 - Would you place friends above money?No4 - Have you ever woke up knowing you had an exam, and crammed for some last minute revision?No5 - Have you ever done an exam, feeling dread that you've done badly? Yes6 - Have you ever felt like you're going to do badly on an exam, and got upset or depressed because of it?Yes7 - Have you ever had a shot? At anything, Yes8 - Will you sing for a billion dollars?Yes9 - Do you enjoy the music of Charlie Sheen?No10 - Did you sing when that video was playing?I didnt watch the video.
I will not contradict myself

I agree to the terms of the debate.1 - Have you ever mugged or been mugging, or plan on doing so?2 - Have you ever brooded on a problem?3 - Would you place friends above money?4 - Have you ever woke up knowing you had an exam, and crammed for some last minute revision?5 - Have you ever done an exam, feeling dread that you've done badly? 6 - Have you ever felt like you're going to do badly on an exam, and got upset or depressed because of it?7 - Have you ever had a shot? 8 - Will you sing for a billion dollars?9 - Do you enjoy the music of Charlie Sheen?10 - Did you sing when that video was playing?http://www.youtube.com...;
I will not contradict myself

Rules:1. In Rounds 1-3, CON will ask PRO ten Yes/No questions per round.2. In Rounds 2-4, PRO will answer all of CON's questions with Yes, No, or an explanation as to why neither answer would be completely correct.3. In Rounds 2-4, CON can point out any contradictions that he or she believes to be present in PRO's answers, citing all questions and answers involved in the contradiction. No new contradictions may be pointed out in Round 5.4. When CON points out a contradiction, PRO may use all of the following rounds to defend the accused contradiction until either CON drops the accusation or PRO admits defeat, or when the debate is over.5. If PRO is never found to have contradicted himself in this debate, PRO wins.6. If PRO is ever found to have contradicted himself in this debate, PRO loses.7. Because sources are largely irrelevant, and can really only be used by CON most of the time, the two points associated with sources will be given to the victor of the debate. However, it is still important that debaters back up their arguments with sources when appropriate.8. A contradiction may only be pointed out if both parts of the contradiction are brought up in this debate.9. For any questions involved in a contradiction, PRO may define any words in the question or the answer using the online Merriam-Webster dictionary at his own discretion, unless the words were already defined by CON IN THE SAME ROUND the question was asked.http://www.merriam-webster.com.........10. If PRO ever fails to abide by any rule, PRO automatically loses.11. If CON ever fails to abide by any rule, CON automatically loses.
I will not contradict myself

Contesting point 1 : Ambiguity of rulesI failed to see the implication of the rules, nor do I see any rules stating strictly what i should do. Nor do I see any rules saying precedence is important. Nor do I see any rule saying that ambiguity is favourable to the rulesetter. Regarding A29: your response is correct. "Not all of the time. (See, yes would be incorrect because there have been times when I havnt, And No would be incorrect because their have been times when i have. .. niether answer would be completely correct. " This explains why both answers yes or no are unfulfilled, therefore an explanation was needed why neither were valid. The explanation was necessary, lacking in many points, therefore I claim you have failed to abide by the rules of the debate on these grounds. ContradictionsQ26 was rhetorical, therefore neither yes nor no was a valid answer. However, the question is still theoretically answerable. Therefore question was valid, yet the answer was invalid. Point stands. Counterclaim:All this is a moot point, as I was met with a response saying " Please ask a different question in Yes/No form or forfiet.
A square is the best quadrilateral

I'm no engineer, but I believe that if an arch were made of squares rather than trapezoids, the stress between stones would be concentrated on the innermost portions of the stones and not evenly distributed, which would make the arch unstable. Game designers chose squares because they only had three options -- triangles, squares and rectangles -- of which only the square offers the possibility of a two-dimensional grid, which simplifies game play. A game of checkers or chess played on a board of tessellating triangles would require three players; a game of go on hexagonal intersections would increase the complexity of an otherwise very complex game by orders of magnitude. This might suggest that the square offers advantages, but these advantages are of simplicity, which is desirable for a simple species but which our minds are now capable of transcending. I note that my other arguments have gone unaddressed. Thanks to my opponent for this stimulating debate.
A square is the best quadrilateral

As I have pointed out, it is the trapezoid cross-section, not the square, that is used in arches. This is most obviously the case with the keystone, the most important piece of the arch.The square's utility in architecture and games cannot be denied -- however, this is again due to the fact that the square tessellates. A pattern of interlocking squares can repeat forever. As I have indicated, this is rather boring. Moreover, it is not the squares themselves that give such games as my opponent listed their value; it is the rules that we humans have constructed, and the pieces we have built such as chess or Scrabble pieces (or, in the case of Sudoku, the numbers we write inside the squares).Squares have been used in art, but I submit that rectangles, when used in art, are more memorable. Consider, for instance, the abstract works of Piet Mondrian. Not to mention the aforementioned 2001: A Space Odyssey.And seriously: how can anyone not find the rhombus kind of funny?