BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Hands Off Economics Does Not Work

"If a company were to gain a monopoly, competition would still exist and still be legal, anybody could come in so long as the monopoly slipped up" If this quote were true you would be correct in assuming hands off economics does work, however, I believe this is quite untrue. While competition may still remain legal within the economy there is no incentive for other companies to enter the market. For example you have a monopolistic company and a company that is about to enter the market. The new company considers entering the market, however, they know that the monopoly will lower its prices to below what the new company can produce for because the monopoly is so much more efficient and has already made such a large amount of money they can take a small loss to beat out a competitor. Realizing this the company does not enter the market because they would surely lose a large sum of money. So in fact there is no incentive to enter the market and at this point your argument fails. "Most monopolies today are government owned, or endorsed- the only way for them to exist is government regulation which requires them to exist, an example of this would be the school system." This is interesting point because the government also has regulations in place to prevent monopolies, it is no wonder monopolies do not exist anymore when the government is actively preventing it. I will look forward to your next arguments.
Hands Off Economics Does Not Work

I agree that people do infact compete to win, however, it is impossible for a single winner to come out unless that person provides the absolute best service. Furthermore, this is usually only possible in a limited sense, EG: It's far easier to attract a small scet of your people than it is a large one (Luxury autos vs regular ones). Most monopolies today are government owned, or endorsed- the only way for them to exist is government regulation which requires them to exist, an example of this would be the school system. If a company were to gain a monopoly, competition would still exist and still be legal, anybody could come in so long as the monopoly slipped up and started producing products in way that was unfavorable to the consumer, it would fall. I will elaborate much farther on these arguments depending on how pro elaborates on his in round 2.
Hands Off Economics Does Not Work

My argument is a very simple, competition drives the free market. Here is the problem in order for something to be a competition you must be competing to win. What happens when there is a winner in the free market, there is a monopoly which kills the free market system, there is no longer any choice in what you buy. If you take away the competition that drives the market there is no longer any reason to produce and again the free market fails. So if you choose to leave the market alone it is bound to fail.
Oneness Doctrine ver Trinity Doctrine

There is no such thing as the Trinity Doctrine. From Genesis to Revelations, the Bible simply states that God is one, and not two or three. Subject and verb agreements must agree in number, and if you study the Bible carefully, the subject " God, " is always followed by the singular verb " is ". Deuteronomy 6:4 reads, HEAR, O ISREAL: THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD: Though the Bible is written in what is known as both literal and figurative speech, we must have the desire to understand. Question now, who is this great God from the Bible? Jesus said in John 4:24, that God is a Spirit, and they that worship him, must worship him in Spirit and in truth. 2 Corinthians 3:17 simply sums this up; Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. Who is Lord? Jesus Christ is Lord, and God over all. Acts 4:12, Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name given among men, whereby we must be save. That's why Baptism according to Acts 2:38 is the way to go. It's like a marriage; when you are Baptised in his name, you then take on his name. Second Timothy 2:15, study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. Remember, the key word here is to " study " to show thyself approved unto God, and not unto man. God bless..
The onus of developing academic competencies and life skills in students lies with the school.

A child is like a clean slate. An impressionable mind which absorbs everything like a sponge and reflects everything like a mirror. A life in the nascent stage which is susceptible to be moulded in the right manner. It is my firm belief that parents develop life skills in children. Schools, however, are only a medium to sustain and promote them. Nothing more, my friends, and certainly nothing less.
The onus of developing academic competencies and life skills in students lies with the school.

Society and life skills are intricately interwoven entities, and they can"t be separated from each other. Even before we become a part of the educational system, we start learning from our surroundings. Our interactions with our fellow beings, our observations about their social behavior and our understanding of their social norms provide a great impetus to the way we live our lives. This effectively ensures that, by the time children join school, their moral compasses are fixed. What have schools become today? They've become a realm where teachers are pitched into a desperate race against time to complete their portions. I agree, schools play an important role in imparting knowledge. However, the onus of developing the right attitude and ability towards achieving academic competency lies solely with the coherent synergy of family, peers, society and surroundings.
Glass bottles should replace plastic bottles

You can't say use aluminium, you have chosen to use glass to replace plastic bottles. Cans and bottles are nearly same. Plastic can be recycled and reused, glass once broken isn't reusable. Plastic is more durable than glass. Tap water needs to be boiled in certain areas to be drinkable, which would increase fuel consumption. Plus, plastic bottles can't be used as a weapon, but glass bottles can shed blood. Glass can reflect light and cause distraction, plastic can't.
Glass bottles should replace plastic bottles

First, I think you don't know that price of bottled water is 1000 times more than tap water, and you can boil the tap water and pour it into glass cups. Second, aluminium cans are also a choice to replace plastic and many drinks are packed with aluminium cans. They are large amount produced. Lastly, plastic can't smelt so they exist in this world for more than 1000 years at least. But glass and aluminium can be smelted down and change into something new. THE END
Glass bottles should replace plastic bottles

You will be the death of us all. If water was sold in plastic bottles, people would be forced to drink tap water and use other containers. You just can't produce enough glass to meet the demand. What's more, glass is extremely fragile and will break if I drop it, but plastic bottles won't. I know plastic bottles harm the environment, but glass bottles would take up even more energy and resources, which would do equal or more damage to the environment. Plastic bottles for life!
Glass bottles should replace plastic bottles

Plastic bottles are not hygiene enough. If the plastic bottles have a tiny gap, bacteria & viruses can hide in there and get into our body. Also,plastic is not biodegradable, but photodegradable. And in reality, most plastic does not ever disappear, but becomes long-lasting "plastic dust". When items like plastic bottles break down, they readily soak up (and release) toxins that then contaminate soil and water, as well as harming animals that ingest plastic fragments.
Glass bottles should replace plastic bottles

Here are my reasons 1. Glass bottles are easier to clean and will not be thrown away easily. People will throw away plastic bottles after using, that's a waste. 2. Some of the plastic bottles are made with polycarbonate plastic. Polycarbonate plastic is now known to leach a compound called bisphenol A, or BPA, a chemical that mimics estrogen in the body and thus may cause developmental hormonal disruptions in young children.
Golf is a sport

Once again, thank you for taking the time to make this debate happen. I would like to start off by asking a question to Con. If you think Golf isn't a sport, then why do sports agents, manufacturers, and sponsors consider golf to be a sport? Second, Golf is now returning to the Summer Olympics in 2016 and if golf wasn't a sport, it wouldn't be in the Olympics. While playing golf, you burn about 800 calories for every nine holes you play.
Golf is a sport

For my point, I look at the definition of sport: An activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment. You have yours but this one is also correct so I will use this one from Google Dictionary. Exertion refers to vigorous activity which golfing is not. Your definition calls golf a game, not a sport. And based upon my definition of sport, (which is also correct) golf is not a sport. This is stated by both you and I.
Golf is a sport

Now, what is a sport? and what is golf? Golf, is a "game in which a player using special clubs attempts to sink a ball with as few strokes as possible into each of the 9 or 18. " [1]Sport, is a "physical activity engaged in for pleasure: a particular activity (as an athletic game). " [2]Looking at the definition of sport, provided by Merrian-Webster, Golf fits the definition of the word "sport. " Lastly, Sports require coordinated muscle use, and the golf swing uses at least 17 muscle groups in the coordinated movement of the hands, wrists, arms, abdomen, and legs. [3]Thank you and good luck [1] Merrian-Webster[2] Meriian-Webster[3] British Medical Journal
Golf is a sport

Hello this is a debate about golf. Some people on DDO think that golf is not a sport.I believe that statement is false. So I will be challenging someone to a debate about this topic.DEBATE FORMAT;3 roundsThe voting period is 6 months.You get 72 hours to argueUp to 8000 characters. The First round shall be only acceptance.The second round, own arguments.and third round, countering the opponent. Good luck and remember, PLEASE HAVE FUN!
All children from the 4-12 should not choose the school they want to go to

Well this is a pain. It seems my opponent has no intention of responding in this debate (if her other debate is a sign of anything, that is) and I'm leaving for vacation later today. I didn't intend on going on-line at all during my vacation, but now it seems I'll have to periodically check up on this debate to extend my arguments/ respond to Pro counter points (if any are ever made).No matter, I'll continue developing my argument here and, unless Pro decides to jump back in the game, I'll simply be extending my arguments and/or continuing to develop them until the end of this debate.Arguments1. BullyingIt has been shown that bullied children tend to do worse in school [1]. On top of that, 10% of kids who are bullied eventually drop out of school as a result [2]. Given this, it is clear that when it comes to bullying it is advantageous and in some cases even vital to allow the child to chose a different school.2. Classes Consider that not all public schools offer the same courses due to funding or simply the school's priorities. For example, if a young student shows advanced proficiency in a particular art and therefore wants to attend a school of the arts, it is clear that, all else being equal, the student should be granted his/her wish in order to better take advantage of the student's skill early on. 3. DisabilityIn the case of a student's disability, be it physical or mental, the student may desire to attend a school that meets his or her specific needs, instead of a regular public school. While I can't imagine a loving parent not agreeing with their child on this, the point remains that in this scenario the child's choice should be respected and adhered to, which fulfills my BOP.ConclusionI have now provided both general and specific reasons for why there's no need to say all children from the ages of 4-12 should not choose their own schools, while my opponent has done nothing to counter my arguments. Because of this, at this point in the debate my BOP is fulfilled and stands to remain that way unless my opponent returns and refutes all six of my currently uncontested arguments. I extend my argument from round one.Note to VotersAs I've already said, I'm going on vacation later today. I can't guarantee that I will have constant Internet access if any access at all and for that reason I cannot guarantee that I will be able to post next round. If Pro fails to post an argument next round and I can't log on to extend my arguments in time, please consider this my in-advance extension. If my opponent does post counter arguments in the next round but I still am unable to log on, then take it as you will. I'm merely letting you know in advance what is going on right now and that I have every intention of refuting my opponent's counter arguments should they ever be made and I also have every intention of continuing to develop my argument once I return.Thank you. 1. http://www.connectwithkids.com...2. http://www.dosomething.org...
All children from the 4-12 should not choose the school they want to go to

Please note that my opponents resolution is that all children from the ages of 4-12 should not choose the school they want to go to. Not 'some", not "the majority", but ALL. This means to win this debate all I have to do is find one occasion where a child ages 4-12 should get to choose which school they go to. Burden of ProofI will have the BOP of showing at least one scenario where the child's choice is what should be done. Since the BOP rests with me, Pro will have nothing to do next round unless I post an argument, so let's just get this party started. Arguments1. HappinessAs a study done by Canterbury University has shown, happy children learn better [1]. Allowing your child to go to their choice school will increase their levels of happiness and therefore allow them to learn more at a faster rate. 2. TrustBy allowing your child to choose the school they wish to go to (assuming they have a preference), your child sees that you have trust in them and so the bond between the parent and child is strengthened. After all, trust is the foundation of every good relationship -- according to Doctor Laura Markham, owner of AHA! Parenting. com [2]3. ResponsibilityBy granting your child more say in their own education, you teach your child to be more responsible and therefore more self-reliant. This builds self-confidence in children, which carries over into higher self-esteem as teenagers -- which is when they'll really need it [3]. That's enough for now. I have more (much more), but there's still 4 more rounds, so no need to rush. ConclusionGiven the benefits I've pointed out in allowing your child to choose which school they attend, it's clear that when such a thing is a viable option, it's what should be done -- and if there is at least one occasion where it is a viable option (which is a statistical certainty beyond contention), then my BOP has been fulfilled. I look forward to your response. 1. . http://www.stuff.co.nz...2. . http://www.ahaparenting.com...3. . http://www.professorshouse.com...
Mandatory Vaccinations

"Polio was once America's most-feared disease, causing death and paralysis across the country, but today, thanks to vaccination, there are no reports of polio in the United States." In recent years people have been becoming "anti-vaxxers" These people do not vaccinate their children, but getting back on topic, vaccines can save lives, and they are completely safe. According To most anti vaccine sites I have visited most people just want vaccines to be their choice. Vaccines don't just stop you from getting sick, it helps those who don't vaccinate. There is a thing called herd immunity, if enough people get vaccinated, it can stop a disease from spreading to people who do not vaccinate. But if more people do not vaccinate, it can get though, and sicken the people who do not vaccinate. Causing unnecessary sickness and disease. Vaccines are safe and effective. The only danger is an allergic reaction. There is no mercury or toxic substances in vaccines. Vaccines are safe, and effective.
A capella music is the correct form of worship

No! I do not conceed! All eyes on my argument! The Bible does not tell you to not play musical instruments. If it does then I would like to see those scriptures. Other than that you have no evidence that the Bible is against musical instruments, neither does it say that you can in the new testament. The reality is, Ben, is that GOD DOES NOT CARE! ALL he cares about is that you: 1. Attend a proper Christian church no matter if they play instruments or not 2. Receive the Holy Spirit 3. Are baptized 4. HAVE EVIDENCE THAT YOU HAVE RECEIVED THE HOLY SPIRIT! This means SPEAKING IN TONGUES or speaking in an unknown language!!! This is a rushed post and I wish I could explain to you and everyone else what it means to speak in tongues and etc. The bottom line Ben is that if you don't have or done all of these 4 things then YOU HAVE NO POINT IN ARGUING OVER THIS DEBATE!!! Get these things right and I'll listen!!! These are the important things that God cares about and if you don't have the holy spirit or if you don't speak in tongues then you have been misleaded. It doesn't hurt to have musical instruments at church. I really don't see how it isn't correct or how it has become such a problem! All the pastors of my church have never heard of capella music at churches ever! It's this sudden thing that you have come up with! I wish to continue this properly in another debate and I've probably already raised even more debates. Please people see that there is ABSOULTLY no problem in having musical instruments at churches! Pro has not come up with enough evidence to cover his debate and neither have I, sadly. But there is no reason why we shouldn't have musical instruments! I mean what better way to rejoice the Lord! Please Vote for Con!!!
A capella music is the correct form of worship

An excellent debating topic. I did forget to mention to you that according to the bible it is appropriate to have musical instruments in churches, in fact it encourages it! Let me point out some bible verses to you (New Living Translation): Psalm 81:1-3 1. Sing praises to God, our strength. Sing to the God of Jacob. >>>>>2. Sing! Beat the tambourine. Play the sweet lyre and the harp.<<<<< >>>>>3. Blow the ram's horn at new moon, and again at full moon to call a festival!<<<<< I know there are more bible verses but I am unable to find them. It does repeat the same thing as it normally does repeat things but I'm telling you that it is completely normal to be accompanied by musical instruments. I will notify you if I have any more verses. There is no reason why we shouldn't bring musical instruments into churches. It helps our voices to stay in time and keep a good rhythm. I cannot imagine wait no...I find it impossible to imagine a church that has people only singing with no instruments. It would sound really awkward, for me. I'm interested to know what you and other people think...
Purushadasa is not a human.

The Pro makes the argument that failed reptilians come to earth to have faster internet speeds. If that were true, Purushadasa would be in South Korea, where internet is fastest, and speak Korean. Reptilians come to America because most people think with their hearts, not minds. However, Purushadasa would not even come to Earth if he failed his shapeshifting tests, because to attain any kind of resources, he needs to go in public, where people would see him. This means he must be a shapeshifter inept at governing, Purushadasa's worldview isn't dictated by reptilian technology; if they are able to come to Earth, they're too smart to attempt to push this worldview. This means he likely stumbled upon some news sites like the Onion, Infowars, and the Beaverton where he developed his worldview. He doesn't only debate about God; he also claims abortionists should be put to death in another debate. If he argued about religion, he wouldn't use phrases not even the extreme and satirical right use like "atheist dogma". To sum up this debate, Purushadasa, a reptilian alien who can shape-shift to become human, has a worldview based on the Onion, etc., and most importantly, is human.
Purushadasa is not a human.

Con claims that Purushadasa has passed his shapeshifting test. However, this is clearly not true. Everyone knows that Reptilians that fail their shapeshifting tests are still brought to Earth so they can have faster internet speeds. However, they are simply given basement dweller status so they may only work from basements. This is clearly what Purushadasa has been assigned to. When Purushadasa talks about his worldview, he is referring to his worldview device on his Reptilian computer than allows him to see the events of the world at any time. Except Purushadasa only uses his worldview device to view religious topics. This is why we only see him making debates about God. It is clear that Purushadasa is a Reptilian alien, but he has failed both his shapeshifting and governing tests, so he has the simple job of basement dweller.
Purushadasa is not a human.

The Pro's rebuttal consists of the main argument that Purushadasa is a reptilian alien. First, he uses this to explain why he hates two-legged animals, but in not responding to my claim he concedes that humans are four-legged. First, we must note that the Pro provides no proof that Purushadasa is a fixed reptilian. However, the biological definition of "human" is based entirely on morphology (eukaryotic, multicellular, heterotrophic, lacking a cell wall, vertebrate, mammal, etc.). Thus, Purushadasa has shifted his morphology so that he is human. This makes him human. The Pro writes that Purushadasa failed his shapeshifting test, this is not true. If it were, Purushadasa would be kept on his home planet. However, it is possible he also failed his governing exams, thus relegating him to "internet troll". Therefore, we can see here that despite the claims of the Pro, Purushadasa is not a fixed reptilian alien, but rather a shape-shifter currently in a human state.
Purushadasa is not a human.

The Con's argument is that humans are the only animals capable of typing and understanding complex language. But there are clearly multiple species that are capable of understanding complex language. Purushadasa is clearly a Reptilian alien sent to Earth to taint the minds of the users of debate.org. In their natural habitats, the shapeshifting Reptilian aliens walk on all fours, which explains why he hated two-legged animals like humans. It explains why he has so much time to write and post debates every day to this website. No other 49 year old man has enough time to write out so many things in such a short amount of time. While most Reptilian aliens that are sent to Earth normally have responsibilities of gaining political power, Purushadasa failed his Reptilian spy exams and shapeshifting test, so he has been assigned to merely tainting the minds of the users of debate.org.