BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Exams should be abolished

Oh. I'm sorry I forfeited. I suppose this won't be a good debate as Pro won't be able to address what I say in any sense but I'll do it anyway Firstly Pro states that in a study shown a majority students and teachers would abolish exams without actually linking to it. But forgetting that for a second what does this have to do with academic achievement? Of course exams cause pressure, but that in and of itself doesn't mean they have to be abolished. A better case would be if you proved that the pressure was needless because exams could be replaced with some better, less stressful method but none has been provided. Plus, the world is a stressful place. Placing students in a hug box where they feel completely comfortable and happy is going to very poorly prepare them for the world. Pro then commits the slippery slope fallacy, asserting that stress felt by students would lead to "a terrible ending" without explain the logical steps to how this could happen or even what such an ending would entail. Finally I will explain why I think exams are a good idea. It seems obvious, but exams are important in order to attain how much knowledge the student has on the topic being tested. Especially in higher learning, in order to hand out qualifications there needs to be evidence that the student deserves it and has all the knowledge necessary to have the title the qualification gives them. Tests are a great way to do this as rather than testing 100% of everything on the syllabus, only some is actually tested on but as the student won't know what is to be tested they have to learn it all if they want that good grade. It also gives students times to plan, the ability to spread out their studying and revision. Exams encourage students to excel. Yes they may feel stress, but that is not a reason to stop them, the end result is worth the weeks or months of apprehension.
Exams should be abolished

thanks for your suggestion and i am happy to accept it. exams should be abolished, according to a survey done by an university it was stated that 94% of students and teachers would like to abolish exams in school and most of the students and teachers explained that exams would not just only bring pressure to students, it will also bring pressure to their own family. exams will harm the children's family life and their hatred between the children and their parents will become deeper and deeper, and finally, cases will happen and this will lead to a very terrible ending.
That the soccer team Chelsea are better than the soccer team Barcelona in the 2011/2012 season

Good Morning the debate.org world/viewers, before I start I would like to give my opponent good luck in this debate. I would like to make a huge point that Chelsea Football Club were much better than Barcelona in the 2011/2012 season as they were Champions League Winners, FA Cup winners and came 4th overall on the Barclay's Premier League table in that season. Therefore they won 2 of the 3 main tournaments in that year. Firstly, Chelsea won the Champions league which is thought to be the "one of the most prestigious tournaments in the world and the most prestigious club competition in European football." The final was Chelsea vs Bayern Munich as Chelsea took out Barcelona 3-2 on Aggregate the round before, making them better than Barcelona once again.The final of the 2011 tournament was also "the most-watched UEFA Champions League final to date, as well as the most watched annual sporting event worldwide that year, drawing 178.7 million television viewers." This shows that both clubs have a high popularity rate throughout the whole world. My second argument is that Chelsea were FA cup winners in that same year as well. Making them the best club in English football. English football is also the hardest football played by clubs all around the world. Many clubs like Manchester United, Liverpool, Tottenham, Arsenal and Manchester City play in these competitions. These clubs are the most dedicated football clubs in the world. I could hardly name any Spanish League teams, I think I can only name two: Real Madrid and Barcelona. Making Chelsea better again in the 2011/2012 season. In conclusion, Chelsea were a better club than Barcelona in the 2011/2012 season because they won the "most prestigious football title in the world," the champions league and they were FA cup champions. Thank you
Flight vs. Invisibility

My Points: 1. You're contradicting yourself! Your saying that you CAN't completely get protected from weather, when you said you can in your last speech, disreguard this argument, since he contradicted himself. And what protection to stay away from a tornado or hurricane? Well, its obvious: STAY AWAY FROM IT! And plus, Hurricanes are in WATER, so if you just fly higher, you are ok! 2. You don't always have to fly down IF you give him this weight restriction argument. You can propell down, or just simpily jump. Also, your power doesn't need, or save anybody? Well, what use is it? For Crime? This shows my power can actually be USEFUL. His points 1)The usual purpose of a power is to save someone, so if you don't save(and just STEAL, as my opponent is saying) its not going to be used for justice, which powers should be used for. 2)A floating can would be seen, and the car would be seen. There you go. There is proof RIGHT THERE. I win this argument. Also, footprints can be seen. 3)The ADVANTAGES OUTWEIGH THE SMALL RISK OF HARM! Tornados, just fly away. Hurricanes, just fly higher. Rain, well, rain doesn't even really affect you THAT much! And also, with flying you could speed up, so you aren't seen on the radar. Flight is NOT a death trap, its the only actual POWER in this debate. Invisibility(AS MY OPPONENT STATED) doesn't save anyone, help anyone, or anything, so if you were a super hero with just invisibility, good luck saving anyone! Vote CON Because: ADVANTAGES OUTWEIGH HARM Flight actually helps people For my last voter, let me put the voters in a situation. If you were in trouble, on the third story of a building, BURNING, which hero would you want to save you? The hero who can become invisible, not get to you, and NOT EVEN HAVE THE ABILITY TO SAVE, or the person who can fly up, and jump/prapell/fly/slide down?
Flight vs. Invisibility

My points: 1. You state that if you ride in the rain, you get better, faster, and more weather resistant, the same could go for flying. You could become more weather resistant(As you state is a problem for flying) 2. How am I going to get to the third story? Well, lets think about how you will first. So a building is burning, and the entrance is SEALED SHUT BY FIRE. There is no way for you to get to the third floor. For a flying hero, they could fly up, smash a window, and save the person. Also, if someone flying can't get through a window, how would a) someone invisible get through, or b) ANYONE get through? His logic makes little sense. Pro Points: 1. You never mentioned SUPER POWERS in specific, but you did mention villians, so my point stands. The logic doesn't make sense. 2. Even if you did spraypaint the plate, or whatever, there are still cameras to see a car being painted, or driven away. Police can gather evidence! 3. What is easier, stowing away a jet pack, car, or anytype of transportation, or having it BUILT INTO YOUR BODY? Even if you could carry a skateboard, wouldn't it be easier to just fly? And, wouldn't it be illegal to get into a country with no passport while invisible? Someone could notice that a BODY LIKE figure is in their seat, and would call security, or an attendant. Vote con for: 1) Flight rewards outweigh the small risks they have 2) Invisibility has very few advantages, and can't completely cover someone 3)Invisibility to can only do so much without harming yourself. ANY POWER can! With great power, comes great responsibility.
Flight vs. Invisibility

FIrst, this is a great topic! And yes, if I get a chance, I may check out that part on This American Life. Thanks for the info! Now, since I'm a debater, I'll give a roadmap(Where I will go) I will first go on my case(Flight advantages) And then to the con case(invisibility advantages) First, on my case: 1. Apply my argument from the first Con Speech. This arugument stated that flight helps get to places faster, easier, and more efficiently. While invisibility may help you get somewhere a bit more easily. My opponent stated that flight can cause you burns, and other types of injury. However, these injuries aren't likely for someone who flies safely. You could say that riding a bike is bad, because you can get sick from riding in the rain, but if you never DO ride in the ran, the argument is not unique, or doesn't apply. Also, you don't HAVE to fly at 1780 mph, it could be any speed. 2. Apply my argument of flight can help you get somewhere easier. While invisibility may get you in somewhere without being seen, you are still on the ground. How is invisibility going to help you get to the third floor of a building? Next, on to my opponents case. 1. His argument of invisibility being a thiefs dream doesn't make sense. First, isn't this debate about superheroes? If it is, than arguing about villians is not relevant. Second of all, if the villian/hero DID have invisibility, he is still human. He still is on the floor. He could cut a few places in line, but he still has to push people out of the way! 2. My opponent used an example of taking a car. However, the car is not invisible, and the police can still find it. With being invisible, you have no transportation, and can't escape anywhere. 3. My opponent also made the argument that "with flight, the world is yours to travel, but with invisibility, the world is yours to take." However. you can't take the world without getting anywhere! So, vote Con on these reasons. 1. Flight helps you TRAVEL, while invisibility only helps you Half-way secretly get in places. 2. Flight helps you do more 3. Invisibility only has one advantage, while flight has many. I will state them in my next speech if my opponent wants me to
Flight vs. Invisibility

Hi, thanks for a great topic! I will argue on the Flight Side Having the power to fly would be way better than Invisibility. The only really good thing about invisibility is possibly getting in somewhere, with no one knowing. While with flght, you can get to places faster, easier, and more efficiently. If you are trying to save someone from the 6th floor of a building, what is invisibility going to do? Nothing. Therefore, flight has more advantages than invisibility, and is the better power!
Flight vs. Invisibility

I am Pro, but that does not mean much right now. This is a four round debate, so I will let my opponent choose the power he/she wishes to defend. Thus, if my opponent wishes to defend flight, I will fight for invisibility, and vice versa. What makes these powers unique is that neither is particularly heroic. Flight is just transportation, and invisibility is just disguise. Neither can do much to save someone from a burning building, or be used to fight crime. Yet, they are some of the most common powers people wish they had. Here are the rules: There are only the two superpowers, flight and invisibility. No strength, not x-ray visions, no invincibility, no talking to fish, just those two by themselves. They are the only person in the world to have this power. Flight: A person can fly. They can reach an altitude of 2400 meters without getting AMS, but can reach 8850 meters progressively, and travel at speeds up to 11-12 G's without blacking out. These are normal proportions for a normal person. They can lift things 1/4 their weigh, so maybe a bit more than a suitcase. However, they can succumb to weather conditions, temperature, and AMS if they are not careful. Invisibility: A person can turn totally invisible. They and their clothes can turn invisible at will, but not things they touch/hold, like a coffee cup, pens, etc. In normal circumstances, they will not give any traces at all that they could be visible (like the Predator cloak, light glances, etc) it will look as though they are honestly not there. However, they are not immune to physics, meaning they can be felt if touched, water will splash on them, lasers can hit them, and their footprints will show up in mud/snow etc. While thinking over which side you want, consider this: Who do you want to be - The person you hope to be or the person you fear you really are ?
Cyber communication is progressive not problematic

Cyber communication is progressive not problematic. Alicia Kozakiewicz was just a normal 13 year old. She went to school, had a big family, and was alittle shy. She just started having a FACE BOOK. She met a girl named Tyra. They both exchanged school pictures. Tyra was a red haired 13 year old living in Virginia. Alicia talked to Tyra about common problems and how to solve them. She spent most of her time with her parents and didn't have a lot of friends. She was smart enough to make the honor roll and pretty enough to do some modeling, but she often felt awkward and self conscious. But online, Alicia was very different. She was confident and in control. She found friends and fit in, and she started communicating with people she didn't even know. "My mom would come in ask me who I was talking to and she wanted me to go outside with friends. But I told her that these people online were my friends." Alicia said, "There's this feeling of being invincible and of being able to control your own world." One day Tyra told Alicia to go outside of her house after dinner. Because of teen curiosty she proceeded out side. There was just 1 problem. The girl that she always wanted to see was really a 38 year old man named Tyree. He grabbed her by her hand and shoved her in the trunk of his car. When they arrived to his condo, he put a collar on her neck and shoved her in a cage that chained to the bed. For the past 4 days she was abused and raped repeatedly. On the 4th day the man gave her food, which she thought would be her last. She heard a bunch of footsteps then a kick on the door. Alicia was very scared then she realized that the FBI came. This is because of Cyber Communication.
Cyber communication is progressive not problematic

My opponent has forfieted her last round, leaving all arguments unrefuted. Here are the reasons your voting Con. 1) Logically speaking, the harms that I have presented for cyber communication far outweigh the first scenario she presents in her case. She goes on to present an abusive new argument in the second round, but not only do my arguments still trump hers, she never extends those arguments. So vote Con because Con had more convincing arguments. 2) Vote Con for conduct, seeing as I attacked everyone of her points, and showed good conduct. She however, drops all my points, brings up new arguments, and forfeits the last round. 3) For spelling and grammer, I will have to say tie. A lot of her arguments look copy and pasted (If you look at her profile you will see that's not her typing style), but never the less, tie the spelling and grammer vote. 4) For sources, vote Con. Instead of citing her sources, she puts "wikipedia". That's like me saying "google". Give Con the sources vote. Thank you for whoever votes on this debate.
Parents should not buy war toys for children.

Detrimental to this debate ?? You having a laugh ?? haha bro just remeber "Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious." Anyways... Sure bring out your statistics , surely since the kids have played with war tooys then that is the cause of the violence. Never mind the hundreds of other things that youth are subjeted to every day, never mind lack of acceptable parenting, just blame it all on the fact that they played with inanimate objects. There is no real research which shows that playing with war toys leads to violence. None. So please whip out your factbook, honestly, I'm interested. . .
Parents should not buy war toys for children.

You said, "You think that after playing with toys that kids believee [sic] people just "pop back up" ? Well that one example represents about 0.000000000001 % of the kids that have played with war toys. So the fun of millions of children the world over should be forfeited because of one individual who was probably going to end up in jail anyways." Well, that one example does not just show one case, as I have many more sources and many more examples that back up the same theme that children with war toys make kids go into their own fantasy world. If you would like them, I will address that in my next speech. Also, the fun of millions of children is not the only thing at stake here. What is at stake here is not only the lives of our future leaders, but also the innocence of our children. Also, you have no proof that this second grade boy even ever went to jail, let alone would have gone there without the aid of a war toy; thus, your assertion is a flawed assumption. Also, that children have been playing with war toys, and that they will continue to do so is not relevant to this topic at all. We are debating whether parents SHOULD buy war toys for children, not whether parents ARE AND WILL CONTINUE TO buy war toys for children. Finally, I am not trying to say that children should be deprived of years of enjoyment; in fact, that's exactly what I am standing for. I am standing for toys that kids can really enjoy, without having to shoot Bob, or kill Joe, or blow up Mrs. Williams. I am standing for for toys that are not violent, and I am standing for the bright futures of our children. And also. Please cut the repeated "buddy" comments. They are detrimental to this debate.
Parents should not buy war toys for children.

Well pretty much your argument is highly flawed .. No offense mate.. :P You think that after playing with toys that kids believee people just "pop back up" ? Well that one example represents about 0.000000000001 % of the kids that have played with war toys. So the fun of millions of children the world over should be forfeited because of one individual who was probably going to end up in jail anyways. Children have been playing with war toys for years and will continue to do so. Now im not saying let your 1 year old kid play with a bb gun .. But as children grow up and begin to understand the world a little better, allow them a little bit of fun while they are young and carefree. Lighten up buddy. Seriously .. I'm sure you probably played with war toys as a kid, and as far as I know you aren't a psycho killer.. Do you really think that what adds up to years of enjoyment and bonding should not occur because of a few individuals ?? Thats like saying don't allow pwople to have cars because once this guy on CNN caused an accident because he was going too fast. Sorry if my argument lacks much structure , i wrote it in about 2 minutes haha :P But honestly ?? come on buddy...
Parents should not buy war toys for children.

Hi, I'm Stephen Yoo and this is my first speech on the proposition side, on the motion that parents should not buy war toys for children. I'd like to start by explaining exactly what a war toy is. From the Swedish Toy Council, "War toys are playthings which are used to solve conflicts, gain power, or win through the use of violence and imagination. Their aim is to destroy and kill." Next, I'd like to go on to my contentions. Contention 1 Toys are for fun, and not for violence. At an early age, children should be exposed to mentally and physically supportive toys, NOT toys that induce violence! Contention 2 Children at a young age are easily influenced. Reasonless violence is nothing but sinful and immoral. It is neither educationally nor physically stimulating, and does not even support the child by instilling respect in any manner! Children with war toys learn violence, and they begin to look at life as a two sided deal: our side, and their side (like in war.) War toys cause children to solve problems with fights and makes them more violent. Contention 3 War toys separate minds from reality~take kids to a fake, fantasy world. A second grade boy killed a girl in his class with his parents' gun which he brought to school from his home. CNN reports that he expected his classmate to just "pop back up" like action figures do. Kids are playing with toys that kill real people. They don't understand that people don't get back up like they do with war toys. They don't understand that the world can be extremely cruel.
We should raise the Minimum wage to 15 dollars an hour

Because there are no rebuttals in round 2 I will just state my argumentsReason 1:Increasing the minimum wage would cause an extreme loss of jobs. Why is this? Many businesses cannot afford to pay workers above the regular 7 dollars an hour. An estimated 500,000 jobs will be lost if we increase the minimum wage just to 10.10 dollars. Imagine the job destruction that would occur if we raised it to 15 dollars an hour.While easing poverty and helping the poor is nice we shouldn't do it at the expense of destroying over a half a million jobs.http://www.npr.org... Prices would increase:While it may sound nice that workers get a boost in income there is a price. Prices for all products go up. Why is this? Businesses wont just give up a majority of their income just like that for workers. They will have to make up for the fact that since they are giving 8 more dollars to workers they need to increase prices to avoid failure.Prices for example restraunts go up .4-.7 percent. You may not think that .4 percent increase is a lot but it is when you calculate it into your living and compare it with your old life without the 15 dollar minimum wage.https://www.epionline.org...If the minimum wage is increase then only a few of the poor benefit:"Research published in 2010 by economists Joseph Sabia and Richard Burkhauser concluded that if the federal minimum wage were increased from $7.25 an hour to $9.50 an hour (remember that the president’s proposal is to increase the minimum wage to $9 per hour), only 11.3% of workers who would gain from the increase belong to poor households.Why?First, many people who live in poverty do not work, and would thus be unaffected by an increase in the minimum wage. In addition, workers who earn the minimum wage are generally not the primary breadwinners in their households. They are secondary earners – an elderly parent earning some retirement income or a spouse with a part-time job. Or they are young people living with their parents. Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that while workers under age 25 make up only about 20% of those who earn hourly wages, they constitute about half of all workers earning the minimum wage or less. Raising the minimum wage is therefore an ineffective anti-poverty proposal."http://www.aei.org...The minimum wage is not intended for a full time job and should be treated as such. Making workers benefit more off minimum wage jobs than regular jobs that required higher education is not the direction we should be heading towards.Thank you Pro for the debateSources:http://www.npr.org...https://www.epionline.org...http://www.aei.org...
We should raise the Minimum wage to 15 dollars an hour

Hello! Welcome to this debate! I am Nathan and if were wondering where I went (Since I have not been on this site for awhile) I have been studying politics and economics for future debates. I don't have a Clear position on this issue so I plan on arguing both sides in the next few weeks. RULES: Round 1: My Opposition agrees to the rules and accepts. ROUND 2: Opening statements No rebuttals ROUND 3 is for Rebuttals No new arguments but you can further support your opinion. ROUND 4: Conclusion Please No trolling or obscene language. Any violation of these rules will result in a automatic Forfeit. Also this debate is a closed debate, so please ask in the comments if you would like to join. Or have any concerns about this debate put them in the comments.