BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Students should have to wear school uniforms

As per your statement about students being more intelligent and efficient if they have uniforms, that is a common misconception. I point to Memphis City Schools as my evidence. Cordova High School has a very strict uniform policy, yet a very high fail rate. I know because I attended that school for two years. Out of the 500 people in my class, only half were passing. At my new school, we have no uniform policy, yet, it is praised as one of the top 5 schools in the State of Kentucky. You are also wrong when you say, "When schools have uniforms kids focus more on they're studies not on they're clothes or how they look." Once again, I use MCS as my evidence. Every single day, girls would come into class and put on their makeup and guys would comb their hair with their hair picks, in total disregard for what the policy states. At my new school, everyone does their work and they don't really care about what other people are wearing. Kids are not friendlier when there is a uniform policy in place. In fact, students are more hostile. In the minds of students, they are being forced wear something that they do not want to. Because they feel like they are being forced to do something, tensions can escalate quickly. At Cordova High, fights were almost an everyday thing.
Students should have to wear school uniforms

School that have uniforms have more intelligent and efficient students, because they have uniforms. When schools have uniforms kids focus more on they're studies not on they're clothes or how they look. If everyone wore the same clothes no one can say theirs is better and no one will be teased of what they wear. When everybody wears the same thing their will be less prejudicism and more nationalism. Kids will get along better and create more social groups. Students spend less time deciding what to wear, because no one will judge what they choose because they're all wearing the same thing. Nobody likes to be mocked when you choose the best clothing you had and then the other laugh and bully him for trying. When theirs the uniform policy kids will be friendlier and smarter because of the intelligent decision the school made for the kids own good.
Students should have to wear school uniforms

You say that wearing uniforms makes you smarter. Based on that logic, now that I am in a school without a uniform policy, I am nothing more than a blathering idiot, as well as ever other student in attendance, which is not the case. Everyone in Memphis City Schools would be a genius, which is not the case. Everyone in Memphis would be on time, which is not the case. There would be almost no crime in Memphis, which is not the case. There would be no fights, which is not the case. Do you see the pattern? Clothing does not change anyone's character. You also say that parents save money by not buying clothes for school, if they wear school uniforms. I say, yet again, that if I buy schools uniforms, which cost more that the eight dollar pair of jeans and the seven dollar t-shirt that I can get from Walmart, I will not be able to buy clothes for use outside of school. But, if I go to a school that has no uniform policy, I can wear the clothes that I already have, instead of having to go and buy clothes specifically for school. I have never known anybody that tries on every piece of clothing that they have before school. I miraculously arrive EARLY to school despite the fact that it does not have a dress policy. (He said sarcastically) In conclusion, clothing has no effect on your character. School uniforms does not save money, because you have to buy twice as many clothes, the uniforms, and clothes for after school. Nobody tries on all of their clothes before school. And oh, by the way, the last time that I pulled a dress out of my closet was never, because my sister prefers to keep her clothes in her own closet.
Students should have to wear school uniforms

Okay so now your bragging about your academic accomplishments, not proving your point. Just so you know I'm 12 years not 21 in the profile description. I'm only twelve and still winning this debate. My school has a uniform policy and all the students are smart and intelligent. In my last school there was no such thing as an uniform and I couldn't spell us. I was that dumb back then and now with my new school and uniform policy, I'm smarter than you. With no uniform i only cared on what people wore, with uniforms I can study on my work. You're lying when you say you wear the first thing you grab out of the closet. What if you pull out a dress that your sister put in there. Having uniforms make it an easier playing field for poorer students that can't buy fashionable clothing, to wear to school. They end up being teased, bullied or starting fights because there was no school uniform. If there was a uniform policy the other kids wouldn't even know that they were at all. With the money the parents saved not buying clothes for school they can buy their kids some really fashionable clothing to wear on the weekdays or on breaks. In Long Beach, CA, after two years of a district-wide K-8 mandatory uniform policy, reports of assault and battery in the district's schools decreased by 34%, assault with a deadly weapon dropped by 50%, fighting incidents went down by 51%, sex offenses were cut by 74%, robbery dropped by 65%, possession of weapons (or weapon "look-alikes") decreased by 52%, possession of drugs went down by 69%, and vandalism was lowered by 18%. http://school-uniforms.procon.org... In my new school with the uniforms nobody is ever late, why? Uniforms help the students get ready faster in the mornings and improve attendance, which helps their over all grade. Instead of trying on each and every clothing in your wardrobe wear the one you wear everyday. Vote smartly.
Students should have to wear school uniforms

Maybe I should have been more specific. The schools do exist. Look up "http://www.mcsk12.net... " My current school, Eminence High, also has a website. Look up "http://www.eminence.kyschools.us...; they exist. When I said 500 people per class, I meant in my graduating class, not every classroom. There is anywhere from 7 to 30 students per classroom, depending on what class it was. Also, there were 2 or 3 teachers per subject because there were so many students. The school does have a dress policy. If you want to see what it is, go to this website: http://www.mcsk12.net... I find your accusations very offensive. For your information, I am the smartest person in my GRADUATING CLASS. I am taking college courses at Bellarmine University. I focus on my school work. In fact, I take pride in my academic accomplishments. You have no idea what I do. I do not obsess about my clothes. I throw on what I pull out of my dresser. The truth is, I DO NOT CARE about my clothes. You would have to know me personally to know why. So you can assume all you want. But the reality is, you do not know me at all. The kids Cordova High had a total disregard for policy. You are under the misconception that all kids like to follow the rules. Let me make a suggestion, go visit Memphis. Maybe that will open your eyes to the truth about students' feelings for policy. The fact is that students hate being told what to do. That is why tension rise. Not because everybody is wearing the same thing, but because they are being forced to wear clothes that are uncomfortable. Your argument about why uniforms are good for parents is not very logical. Parents still have to BUY the uniforms, in addition to clothes that their kids wear outside of school. With no uniform policy, the students can wear what clothes they already have. I think that I will list all of my academic accomplishments next round if you want me to.
Intervene of Syria from the united nations.

I accept your challenge. There are many contentions as to why an intervention is not a viable option. 1. Syria is not Libya. Syria has a larger population than Libya. Syria's population is also a sectarian time bomb with Sunni, Shiite (Alawite, Druze), Christians, and others. Intervening in Syria militarily may cause sectarian cleansing resulting in an escalation of the conflict. (1) The Syrian regime's armed forces are trained with modern weapons supplied by Russia before the conflict, whereas Gadhafi's troops were armed were armed with soviet era weaponry. (2) (3) Lets not forget that the Syrians have an adequate air defense force that is capable of shooting down allied planes purchased from Russia. (4) I will leave the rest of my argument in the second round due to the fact that my opponent has given me only an hour to search for adequate arguments which is difficult when trying to summarize a complex conflict that is filled with differing factions. (1) http://www.businessinsider.com... (2) http://en.wikipedia.org... (3) http://en.wikipedia.org... (3) http://en.wikipedia.org... (3) http://en.wikipedia.org... (4) http://en.wikipedia.org...
Intervene of Syria from the united nations.

Hey, my first debate. The topic, i'd like to introduce today to anyone who will choose to accept it is, Intervene in Syria, Which is current in a civil war. (Free syrian army and the government [President Bashar]) Thank you, and have a great debate. Civil war = War within the country Intervene = invading, for good or bad purposes. (for this debate, it is for the attempt to cease-fre
The Big Bang Theory (Cosmology)

This debate is about the Big Bang Theory. Anyone who accepts this debate agrees to the following: 1. No trolling 2. No semantics, other than in the case of clarifying technical terms with credible sources 3. The BoP will be shared 4. The debate will not sidetrack off-topic 6. Arguments will be intelligent, logical, and data-based. 7. All arguments will be text-based 8. All arguments will cite reference first-hand. Shrinking links, sources, etc. by any means, such as tinyurl, creating a file with links within is not accepted. 9. Forfeiting equals a 7 point to the opponent. 10. No plagiarism. Any arguments must be properly cited or be original Base definitions: Big Bang Theory The widely held belief that the Universe began in a fiery explosion, 10-15 billion years ago. The cosmic microwave background, big bang nucleosynthesis, and the observed Hubble expansion of the Universe are considered proof of the big bang theory. [1] I expect the acceptor to be literate in science and its definition, hence I will not define it here. I have made the debate generally unacceptable for now. Comment or pm me to let me know if you want to debate. (For Stephan_Hawkins) 1. http://cfpa.berkeley.edu...; http://cfpa.berkeley.edu... (This is for more information)
The Big Bang Theory (Cosmology)

I will advocate no other model. Once I have referenced something, I will not do so again. I will not go too much into technicality first, instead I will set out a general case. Dark Matter: Not only has this hypothetical entity not been observed, when compared with other models, it fails [1]. It has failed to validate each and every one of its testable predictions. It makes predictions contradictory to the available data on mass surface density, rotation curve shape, rotation rate of rise, CMB geometry and peak ratio, etc which I will expand on in the third round. The Big Bang relies heavily on fudge factors such as this. [2] Without these fudges, the Big Bang has no ability to make retroactive predictions consistent with the data. The big bang theory has no observably verified quantitative predictions. Its ability to retrospectively fit data to large numbers of adjustable parameters supersedes all other models. Cosmological Principle: This principle states, "Since the universe looks to us the same in all directions, and we are not in a special position, then the distribution of matter across very large distances is the same everywhere in the universe." [3] This is one of the basic assumptions of the Big Bang. Observational data, however, contradicts this assumption. Quantized redshifts show that galaxies are quantized at certain distances [4]. This is a clear indication that the Universe is not homogeneous, although it is isotropic. The fact that we are able to see distinct regions of redshifts show that statistical noise has not yet made an impact on the data. This indicates that the galaxy shells do not overlap, from our point of view. For such to occur, we have to be near the center. CMBR: The background radiation data show a uniform radiation temperature of around 2.7260K +-0.0013K[5]. This provides a problem for the theory that is not solved. The BR could have been the same before the expansion, but not after. There is not enough time for radiation to have dispersed in such a manner. The WMAP [6] data uses a priori assumptions that cannot be experimentally confirmed. The assumption is that foreground contamination is frequency dependent, while the anisotropy is independent of frequency. Superstructures: The fact that there is superstructures such as the Sloan Great Wall [7] shows that the Universe is not homogenous and cannot be. Lack of Population III stars: There is an absolute lack of population III stars [8]. This hypothetical entity is required for the Big Bang to work. Galaxies and quasars: The fact that time dilation is not observed in quasars [9] opposes the prediction of the Big Bang. I will wait here and turn over the debate to my opponent. 1. http://www.astro.umd.edu... 2. http://www.cosmologystatement.org... 3. http://www.cpepweb.org... 4. http://adsabs.harvard.edu...; www.ias.ac.in/jarch/jaa/18/455-463.pdf 5. http://iopscience.iop.org... 6. www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2007/PP-08-01.PDF 7. http://arxiv.org... 8. http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu... 9. http://arxiv.org...
Life itself is a paradox

I'd like to apologize for being unable to post my argument, I did not have access to a computer with the capabilities to post my argument. Anyways, I was mistaken, being that life is a fallacy, rather than a paradox, so my apologies there as well. Anyways, back to the argument: The choices you make are determined by the choices you've made in the past, that is a general fact of life. But what about the choices you've made before you made any other choices? These are the choices that have been determined by your parents, your surroundings, your environment. But what if we took you out of your environment, into new surroundings, without your parents to help determine the choices for you to make? Is there anything? What about the altruism gene? The altruism gene is the theory that states that if any ancestor of yours did a selfless act that your are more likely to do something selfless as well, even if you never knew them. So, are any choices really yours, rather than choices you were genetically coded with? It is to my understanding that the majority of the choices you will ever make as a person are based on how you were raised (as I had said before), which even though it is you making said choices, it is your guardians' influence that determine how you make the choice. And this trend goes back generation after generation: Your parents had their choices influenced by your grandparents; your grandparents with their parents, and so on. Despite your individuality as a person, you will still be a product of choice as your ancestors before you.
The Bible Does Not Make Being Gay wrong

Well then your argument is irrelevant because we are talking about the bible and it's references to homosexuality not how different people interpret and follow the bible. Also: "Here is another argument for your "Christian" viewpoint argument. Do Christians need to obey the Old Testament Law?" No, because Christianity is defined as: A religion that follows Jesus Christ's teachings: the religion based on the life, teachings, and example of Jesus Christ. Can you find the teachings of Jesus Christ in the Old Testament? No. Why is that? Because he wasn't born before then. His teachings come in the New Testament which documents life during and after Jesus. Anyway back to the argument: The bible clearly states: "If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense." Leviticus 20:13(NLT) Which clearly shows that the bible does perceive homosexuality as wrong. Also please stop citing sources for the bible. You just need the verse not bible gateway.
The Bible Does Not Make Being Gay wrong

Christians don't neglect to follow certain verses, they simply prioritise them in a way which is easier to follow. It's also against Christianity to force someone to do or change something. In his entire life Jesus never forced anyone to do or change anything and a true Christian follows the same principle. Back on topic now: Homosexuality is the act of intercourse between people of the same sex. When the Bible speaks of homosexuality, its emphasis is on behaviour, not condition. God loves sinners, but condemns sin. And the Bible's verdict on homosexual behaviour, as with all sexual immorality, is that it is sinful. "Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin." Leviticus 18:22(NLT) Does the bible not constantly place homosexuality amongst else sinful? But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who suppress the truth by their wickedness.... Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn't worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. As a result, their minds became dark and confused. Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools. And instead of worshiping the glorious, ever-living God, they worshiped idols made to look like mere people and birds and animals and reptiles. So God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other's bodies. They traded the truth about God for a lie. So they worshiped and served the things God created instead of the Creator himself, who is worthy of eternal praise! Amen. That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved. Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let them do things that should never be done. Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, quarrelling, deception, malicious behaviour, and gossip. They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They invent new ways of sinning, and they disobey their parents. They refuse to understand, break their promises, are heartless, and have no mercy. They know God's justice requires that those who do these things deserve to die, yet they do them anyway. Worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too. (NLT) Romans 1:18-32 Does it not repeatedly put homosexuality amongst all of the aforementioned wrong doings?
The Bible Does Not Make Being Gay wrong

Now the most common reason and explanation Catholics use for why being Gay isn't okay is the famous verse of Leviticus which states, Lev. 18:22 "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." (NASB) "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." (ESV, NKJV) But if Catholics follow this through and through why are other "abominations" allow to slide. Now most "Catholics" do not do much research about what is an abomination besides that quote about gays. I am going to give you other information on Abominations that the Bible says. "Unclean things (Lev. 7:21). Leviticus 11:7 And the pig, because it parts the hoof and is cloven-footed but does not chew the cud, is unclean to you. A proud look (Pro. 6:16-17). The proud of heart (Pro. 16:5). Wearing clothes of the opposite sex (Dt. 22:5). Eating unclean things (Isa. 66:17). Violence (Ezek. 18: 6-13). Breaking vows (Ezek. 18: 6-13). Things highly esteemed by man (Lk. 16:15). The general meaning of the word "abomination" or abominable" in the Bible is: Something detestable, unlawful or repulsive." It is quite interesting I go to a Catholic school and I had hot dogs on thursday the same day we had mass. Which clearly states in lev. 7:21 is an abomination but yet it was allowed interesting. Do you have a girlfriend or wife or have you ever seen a female wear any of a males clothing because I know I have which is also clearly stated as an abomination. Would you like me to continue? Should I list more problems in the bible? How can Catholics follow one verse so strongly but continue to neglect so many other verses? You cannot say one thing is wrong and let other things the bible says is wrong let slide. I am sorry but the bible cannot be used against gays. I will state other problems in the bible in the next round. I would like to take this time to thank my opponent and anyone taking the time to read this debate. Thank you. http://richardwaynegarganta.com... http://infidels.org... http://www.biblegateway.com... http://www.biblegateway.com... http://www.openbible.info... http://carm.org...
The Bible Does Not Make Being Gay wrong

I would further like to point out that due to my strong personal convictions, I respect all people regardless of their choices, I don't want to forcibly change peoples mind nor make them feel guilty about their choices. I'm not here to judge I am simply engaging in a debate. Once again I would like to stress, exactly how I have done before, I am debating for the heck of it and tend to debate random topics. My stance in the debate may not always represent my real stance. Feel free to PM me if you would like to discuss my beliefs.
Whoever accepts this is a better debater than Manatee.

I hearby accept your challenge for debate. I will be arguing the position that I am in fact an inferior debater to a Manatee. I shall base my prospective arguments on the premise that your Debate. org profile is indicative of your species, and that you are in fact an Atlantic Manatee, possessing the normative characteristics and attributes typical of your kind. My evidence to your oratory and argumentative skill shall crush you beneath its wake like the majestic manatee crushes those who oppose it beneath its pure unrestrained fury.
Capitalism is responsible for the detrimental effects to human life

This last round is devided into two parts. One is a comment on Child Labor. Second is a conclusion. About Child Labor. : Since the Tiananmen democracy movement, Chinese Government established a free-economic zone in the wave of Global Capitalism on the coast areas, in which many Western companies built factories. They offered job opportunities for the younger people. However, we must pay attention to the illegal child labor. ``Child Labor is a crime that has been practiced within China. .... They work day in and day out in conditions that put their lives in danger.``( http://clchina. wetpaint. com/) Their long-labor hours destroy their health and lead to the loss of many future work-force. Conclusion: The striking disadvantage of Capitalism is that the benefits of Capitalism are not equitably distributed. This contributes to producing the economic disparity between the rich and the poor. And political instability, social conflict, crimes and the homelessness are caused. It seems that capitalists and business managers lack in the mind of compromising with the working class. They will continue exerting an enourmous influence on society by keeping their economic and social power.