BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should Drug Testing be Required for Extracurricular Activities at School

Are steroids commonly misused in sports to become bigger, better, and stronger? Yes. But in what sports? My argument is the amount of steroid use is not out of control across the board of all sports. When you think steroid abuse what comes to mind? I would assume the answer of most would be baseball and football. Other viable answers may be hockey and/or fighting. But the amount of sports that are one can participate in school present day is a laundry list. You have got baseball, football, tennis, swimming, wrestling, track and/or field, soccer, cross country, indoor track, volleyball, and the list goes on. I feel that by saying in ALL schools ALL sports should require a drug test is extremely broad and unfair to those that dont use steroids. More so, unfair to those that dont use steroids but maybe marijuana etc. which would throw up a red flag and void them from joining the schools team. Truly, how many KIDS do you think are willing and able to take steroids to play girls/guys tennis, girls/guys volleyball, cross country, indoor track, etc? First of all, statistics show that girls are less likely to take any kind of drugs compared to boys. Males are much more competitive, hence the steroids. Second, not many KIDS are able or willing to take steroids for these types of sports. Not only is it unfair to some and way too broad of a debate, it would also cost a tremendous amount of funding which, in the current state of the economy, would not be easy to receive. Why spend an outrageous amount of funding to get this done when the results would surely turn up more non-steroid-abusing (which still does not put them in the clear if the test shows positive for traces of THC or other drugs) kids than steroid-abusing? Your claim needs to be much more specific in order for it to be fathomable.
abortion should be illegalized

Reponses to your arguments, and using articles as research is not bad.1. It might be illegal according to you, but our government still promotes the death penalty which means that under our countries standards, it is legal for people to kill under certain conditions.2. Scientists have developed artificial hearts, and although the heart develops first in a fetus, if it doesn't have a mind of its own then it doesn't have a conscious, which means that it's not alive as it cannot think on itself.3. Thousands of children are in orphanages and adoption agencies, the chances of every child ever being adopted by a good family are extremely low, and the chances are diminished further when you put in the fact that more children are created than are adults to take care of them.4. Using your resources is promoted in the classroom, and the website doesn't make it clear that you're not suppose to use anything but your mind.My arguments:1. I have the burden of presumption, which is too assume that the status quo right now is working, and I believe that giving soon to be mothers the choice of an abortion is good, it is a free country after and the separation of state and church prevents you from placing your religion based opinion on a matter that affects an entire nation.2. The system that is in place solves for mothers that don't want their children, and for those that do. They have the choice to do as they please.You should have the option to do whatever you like, and other than the fact that the affirmative is clinging on the fact that I "plagiarised", he loses on all other arguments and therefore if he cannot prove his case, the vote should go to the negative in this debate.
abortion should be illegalized

Leo here are my arguements. 1. am I not right when I say something has to have a heart beat for it to be alive 2. two is same as #1 3. that is because the people have been menipulated, imagain this where would we be today if IKE or Washington had been aborted. We'd be a monarchy or a communist country. what would happen if you had been aborted 4, 5, 6. you can get an abortion if it isn't 2 mounths/ heart beat age 8. There you said it yourself we could do other things if abortion is illegal. 9. 9 goes with 4-6 10. I have burdon of persumtion so untill you proove there is no evidensce for PAS then there is
abortion should be illegalized

1.Nearly all abortions take place in the first trimester, when a fetus cannot exist independent of the mother. As it is attached by the placenta and umbilical cord, its health is dependent on her health, and cannot be regarded as a separate entity as it cannot exist outside her womb. 2.The concept of personhood is different from the concept of human life. Human life occurs at conception, but fertilized eggs used for in vitro fertilization are also human lives and those not implanted are routinely thrown away. Is this murder, and if not, then how is abortion murder? 3.Adoption is not an alternative to abortion, because it remains the woman's choice whether or not to give her child up for adoption. Statistics show that very few women who give birth choose to give up their babies - less than 3% of white unmarried women and less than 2% of black unmarried women. 4.Abortion is a safe medical procedure. The vast majority of women - 88% - who have an abortion do so in their first trimester. Medical abortions have less than 0.5% risk of serious complications and do not affect a woman's health or future ability to become pregnant or give birth. 5.In the case of rape or incest, forcing a woman made pregnant by this violent act would cause further psychological harm to the victim. Often a woman is too afraid to speak up or is unaware she is pregnant, thus the morning after pill is ineffective in these situations. 6.Abortion is not used as a form of contraception. Pregnancy can occur even with responsible contraceptive use. Only 8% of women who have abortions do not use any form of birth control, and that is due more to individual carelessness than to the availability of abortion. 7.The ability of a woman to have control of her body is critical to civil rights. Take away her reproductive choice and you step onto a slippery slope. If the government can force a woman to continue a pregnancy, what about forcing a woman to use contraception or undergo sterilization? 8.Taxpayer dollars are used to enable poor women to access the same medical services as rich women, and abortion is one of these services. Funding abortion is no different from funding a war in the Mideast. For those who are opposed, the place to express outrage is in the voting booth. 9.Teenagers who become mothers have grim prospects for the future. They are much more likely to leave of school; receive inadequate prenatal care; rely on public assistance to raise a child; develop health problems; or end up divorced. 10.Like any other difficult situation, abortion creates stress. Yet the American Psychological Association found that stress was greatest prior to an abortion, and that there was no evidence of post-abortion syndrome. [mod note, assertion of plagiarism has been made here]
One of these four statements must be true...

Why must one be true? If you truly created your position to DEBATE, and put me in a paradox where I have to argue which one is true, why create the debate in the first place? As stated above, I was able to argue all 4 statements being false AT THE SAME TIME without contradicting any of the other statements. If I truly messed up and it is evident within my previous argument, then it is purely your job to state where my logic was not sound. 1) God does not exist 2) God's rules are wicked 3) The Bible is not representative of God's rules 4) Owning people isn't wicked. I had stated my position in a way where none had contradicted each other. Therefore your argument in this debate has to do one of two things. 1) You need to reference exactly where my reasoning was off, or 2) You have to argue my position on one of the four statements. IT is not my problem to find exactly where my logic was not sound, because then I would be making this debate easier for you. Another thing to consider is the fact that the Bible is not only a story of God, but also John, Joseph, Moses, Adam, Joshua, etc. So not only are there different stories, but different perceptions, different circumstances, different CULTURE. Following the law of the land is one of God's rules, and that is yet ANOTHER way to deny your position of 2) and 4). So I would like for you to argue my position and not have me do all of the dirty work.
One of these four statements must be true...

I think that you're making it somewhat easy for me so far, to be honest, starting the way that you did:"The Bible is not written by God himself. Keep in mind the Bible was written by scholars and is based on the word of God. So, by default, there are going to be many different interpretations as to what the text means as well as what God was meaning in certain verses and chapters. "It seems to me that your position fits very neatly into category 3:3 The bible is sometimes not representative of God's rulesOr am I wrong? Would you mind, if I'm wrong, plainly stating the logical alternative please? i. e. "The bible is always representative of God's rules". It appears to me from what you've said that you can't agree with the latter statement and therefore must believe the first. ---It strikes me that what you must do to win this debate is one of two things:1. Show that this statement is false: "God's rules, as recorded in the bible, sanction owning and beating people. "2. Demonstrate that there can be any position that doesn't fall into one of my four statements. So far, it seems to me, you have attempted to do neither.
One of these four statements must be true...

The Bible is not written by God himself. Keep in mind the Bible was written by scholars and is based on the word of God. So, by default, there are going to be many different interpretations as to what the text means as well as what God was meaning in certain verses and chapters. There is absolutely no way to describe the word of God within these four statements, because not only is the presence of God only presented in the Bible, but he is also present within churches, temples, priests, and teachers. The Bible is the representation of God, however one had to understand that cultural ideals and situations are not applicable to God and his laws. For example, Joseph in Egypt was sold as a slave . Does that mean God was accepting of slavery? Absolutely not. God does not deny nor affirm the acceptance of slavery. One key portion of this debate is that there are many different versions of the Bible. Also what about the Qu'ran? King James I? There are many different versions of God, you cannot judge one version of God and deny the presence of him altogether. And you cannot compartmentalize him into four different statements where only one is true.
Talent vs Motivation

This debate is about the conflict between talent and motivation. I will be arguing for the importance of talent over motivation, while my opponent will be arguing for vice versa. Round 1: Opening Statement Round 2: Body and Opinions with Sources Round 3: Rebuttals Sometimes people have a skill that just comes to them. Magnus Carlsen's chess skills? Miguel Cabrera's prowess with a baseball bat in his hand? Think about a talent you have. Though both talent and motivation are key to a great future, let's compare them on a one-to-one scale. Talent is natural; the fact that some people can do things that others can't is strongly embedded in society. Talent doesn't equal success per se, but raw talent can be refined by practice for cutting-edge expertise. No matter where you go or what you do, talent is the constant element that cannot be changed in the formula for success.
Talent vs Motivation

I accept the side on con. I will argue motivation is more important than talent. Talent is important, many people throughout history have simply had a gift for doing great things. However that talent could never have manifested itself without motivation to do something with it. Magnus Carlsen's chess skills? Pointless without the motivation to win. Beethoven's skill as a composer? Nothing without the drive to create art. Napoleon? A skill full leader that would've been just another French general had he not been ambitious. Talent is just the tool some possess to help them with their motivations. However talentless people are still capable of great things that rival even the most talented of rivals. It's the desire to succeed that determines who comes out on top rather than the tools they possess.
Rachael Carson was an eco-terriorist who has killed millions of people so far

My opponent clearly has no idea about how to properly conduct a debate. He has ignored all my statements and carried on ranting and raving endlessly. There are many colourful and negative adjectives to describe such a person. I think I will just punch a few holes through the wall instead. BANG! BANG!! BANG!!! There........... that's better. I feel better now! If you are intending to vote on this issue, consider my opponents lack of response to my statements first.
Rachael Carson was an eco-terriorist who has killed millions of people so far

Bah, that approach didn't work. Its always good to try new things right? The FBI defines eco-terrorism "as the use or threatened use of violence of a criminal nature against innocent victims or property by an environmentally oriented, subnational group for environmental-political reasons, or aimed at an audience beyond the target, often of a symbolic nature." Foxnews.com "Examples of tactics There are a wide variety of tactics that have been used by eco-terrorists and groups associated with eco-terrorism. Examples include: Tree spiking is a common tactic that was first used by members of EarthFirst! in 1984. Tree spiking involves hammering a small spike into the trunk of a tree that may be logged with the intention of damaging the chainsaw or mill blades and may seriously injure the logger. Only one case of serious injury has been widely reported.[10] Arson is a tactic most associated with recent activity in the Earth Liberation Front (ELF). The ELF has been attributed with arsons of sites such as housing developments, SUV dealerships, and chain stores.[10]" wikipedia Okay, I should have looked up what eco-terrorism is before using my keyboard to post this. I don't think Rachael Carson used arson or anything like that so she isn't an eco-terrorist. Yet, I still think she was responsible for millions of deaths. "Rachel Carson was The Queen of Junk Science and was the FIRST Environmental-Terrorist." pesticidetruths.com Since the website makes a blatantly false claim, the validity of the information on the website is in question. Still its common knowledge that pathogens cause diseases like malaria. Malaria is carried by mosquitoes. DDT kills mosquitoes. Therefore, by banning DDT more people have died from malaria. "DDT"the very substance that had made it possible to vanquish malaria from vast portions of the globe. By means of that ban, environmentalists effectively ensured that, over the course of the ensuing 30+ years, more than 50 million people would die needlessly of a disease that was entirely preventable." discoverthenetworks.org "In 2006, after 25 years and 50 million preventable deaths, the World Health Organization reversed course and endorsed widespread use of the insecticide DDT to combat malaria. So much for that. Earlier this month, the U.N. agency quietly reverted to promoting less effective methods for attacking the disease. The result is a victory for politics over public health, and millions of the world's poor will suffer as a result." wsj.com Looks like the information about malaria and preventable deaths is correct. Even if violence isn't used and the label eco-terrorism is incorrect. The potential for harm is great. Rachael Carson and her DDT banning minions are identical to the anti-vaxxer movement. This proves misinformation and propaganda can be more dangerous than fire and bullets. Reminds me of the climate change deniers. http://www.foxnews.com... https://en.wikipedia.org... http://pesticidetruths.com... http://www.discoverthenetworks.org... http://www.wsj.com...
Rachael Carson was an eco-terriorist who has killed millions of people so far

My opponent is getting desperate now. He has run out of logical solutions, so he must use Ad Hominem insults to win the debate. He has contradicted himself many times. One minute to loves animals and talks about cruelty to animals and that all humans should become vegetarians. Then, the next minute , he is talking about blasting nature with toxic chemicals which completely decimate all wild life. There doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to his thinking. When DDT is applied to nature it kills all animals, not just mosquitoes. Frogs, birds, fish, tadpoles, bats and other insects are all killed when DDT and other pesticides are used in nature. Did my opponent ever bother to read the book 'Silent Spring'? I think not! He is just a know-it-all who supports whatever the establishment says. There are other repercussions in using pesticides. Did he consider that pesticides are what cause Ebola and Polio? No he didn't! Pesticides attack the nervous system. That's how they kill insects. That's why both Ebola and Polio are both neurological problems which cause death by suffocation. Halogen chemicals such as bromine, fluorine and chlorine have that effect on all living organisms. The real eco-terrorists are the pharmacy companies, that produce these dangerous chemicals. Rachael Carson is trying to save nature from human greed and stupidity. Its humans that pollute their environment and over-populate an area which causes the mosquito infestation in the first place. If you eat all the fish, frogs, bats, birds and lizards in a certain area, then, the mosquitoes have no predators, thus, they over-breed and become a problem. Also, if humans don't get enough protein and vitamins, they will become susceptible to parasites which may be called 'malaria'. I hope that by using logic and common sense that you can see that what I am saying is true and that the medical system and pharmacy companies work as one to deceive the public on this issue.
Rachael Carson was an eco-terriorist who has killed millions of people so far

There is no reasoning with this person. Ad Hominem is my last resort to knock some sense into my opponent. My opponent is an anti-vaxxer. He/she thinks germ theory is a fraud, by Louis Pasteur. Everyone knows that anti-vaxxers are inferior and all sorts of other colorful names. I should win because my opponent is inferior. Seriously isn't there a Darwin award or something for removing yourself from the gene pool? Of course people want proof, here's the proof my opponent is an anti-vaxxer. http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... Not only that but my opponent is a fan of low-carb. Everyone knows low-carb people are sadistic and delusional. Thinking they are wolves or tigers. Sorry about the Ad Hominem but I can't think of any other avenue. Rachael Carson will be known by history as a villain like Jenny McCarthy. Sure there is a few bad reactions here and there to vaccines or DDT, but the good far outweighs the bad. Did you know that water is toxic in high enough quantities? The poison is in the dose. http://www.darwinawards.com... http://jennymccarthybodycount.com...
Rachael Carson was an eco-terriorist who has killed millions of people so far

All disease is a consequence of vitamin deficiency and or chemical poisoning. If a parasite invades a human host, it is because the individual is undernourished and vitamin deficient. Mosquitoes will only breed if the natural predictors are eliminated from the environment. Thus, if you over hunt bats, fish and small birds and insects which prey on mosquitoes then you will have a plague of mosquitoes as a result. Using pesticide to eradicate mosquitoes is a barbaric and stupid method of reducing mosquito populations. It would be far more sensible to monitor over hunting and over population of humans which is the real cause of the mosquito infestations. A good diet of protein and vitamins would be enough to combat any micro-organism that invades the human body. The pharmaceutical industry publishes propaganda to trick people into believing that not using pesticides will result in malaria. This so that they can make lots of money from pesticide sales and not because they care about the welfare of humans.
Rachael Carson was an eco-terriorist who has killed millions of people so far

"Since 1972, Carson"s followers implemented policies that influenced world-wide prohibitions on the use of DDT, resulting in millions of deaths by malaria. Carson"s subversions served as an example and inspiration for aspiring environmental-terrorists. 30 to 50 MILLION DEAD !" pesticidetruths.com http://pesticidetruths.com...
The Anglo-Saxon education model should be radically reformed

I agree with you it should be , but its not going to happen. This country's education system does not need reformed the peoples attitude does , in order for kids to do well academically and not be ashamed off this , the government should use financial incentive I think. The better you do on tests you could receive a higher weekly payment. This country ( UK) has an attitude towards education , they believe that children from these eastern countries will come in and take lower paying jobs for a better job , while children here will take higher payments for being under qualified.
The Anglo-Saxon education model should be radically reformed

With many thanks and with utmost respect to my opponent, I'm afraid I must disagree with his analysis of the problem. Essentially, girls (and boys) who perform well academically at school are denounced by their peers as "swots". They are ostracised from the "cool" gangs and are forced to take refuge with the "lickers" and are branded as "teachers pets". Conversely, in Eastern countries, academically gifted kids are admired, rather than despised, by their classmates and soon become the most popular members of the class. This encourages them to take a leading role in school, not just in studies, but in social activities too. This sort of attitude towards academic success should be fostered in Western schools to the end benefit of the pupils and , also, society as a whole. Thank you.
The Anglo-Saxon education model should be radically reformed

This should not be to hard , I have seen it all before in school however I am arguing against it , oh boy . Right I think you have the right idea but you are going the wrong way about it , Girls should not be judged on appearance , personally sometimes I would rather go out with a girl who has a more interesting personality , than one who is just very attractive , but as the saying goes for me ... beggars cant be choosers :) anyway I think that your debate is actually promoting the way these girls are treated . Girls shouldn't have to be attractive etc . The only way to go around this is not by having an overhaul of the education system , that's just to radical and unnecessary. The reason why these girls from a country in the east can be glamorous there and smart is that for many reasons , the main one being to an extent they are still developing countries , not economically but socially , they are not as exposed to the media or " teenage propaganda " seen in so many Hollywood films about cheerleaders etc. Personally I think the education in the west is better than that of the east , just in the east you need to work hard for a living in most areas however here , you still do but not as hard. Peoples attitudes need to be changed by not changing the way that they learn , its fine. Just changing they way the think of others , which I think is impossible to be honest. I have no ideas how that could be done except having same sex schools as that's the only way people could be who they truly are. However I am opposed to same sex schools so any ideas ?