BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should students be made to go to school till the end of high school

Pro needs to counter each of the six reasons I gave and say either why the point is not valid, or why something else is so much more important. This is best done by using the numbers to index the replies. Otherwise, the arguments stand as unrefuted, and it is difficult to win a debate with so many unanswered arguments. Pro, why do you think that a student who leaves high school could complete it in two years? The students who leave are usually way behind in their studies, so it might take many years for them to earn a diploma. Schargel, et al, http://www.focusas.com... have identified as risk factors for dropping out: *Absent 20 or more times during the previous school year *Retained in at least one grade *Low grades (Cs and Ds or below) *Disciplinary problems or disruptive behavior *Has attended five or more schools during a lifetime Note that low grades and repeated grades are among the factors, and they indicate that these students are unlikely to finish high school on the normal schedule. Moreover, requiring attendance does not treat any of these problems, nor any of the psychological risk factors associated with dropping out. Students are frequently absent despite existing requirements that they attend school. The high rate of drop outs is a serious problem, but requiring attendance won't accomplish the goal of getting students to learn the material. The correct approach includes increased counseling of students and of parents, education of parents on the importance of education for their children, and increased emphasis by community leaders on the importance of education. Schargel op cit calls for "educational leaders who firmly believe that all children can succeed, schools that effectively meet the needs of nontraditional learners, and educational communities that don't give up on students who are at risk of dropping out." The experience in Japan, for example, shows that success derives from family and community motivating students, not from requiring more years of attendance. Previous arguments stand unrefuted.
Should students be made to go to school till the end of high school

I believe that students should be made to go to school untill the end of year twelve for the folowing reasons The subjects from year 7-10 do not cover a specific topic in depth its only till year 11-12 that the topics really go into depth it would give the students more learning and help to better prepare them for whats going to happen in real life. Why should they be alloud to leave if theres only two more years left it makes no sense its only two years its not going to kill them and at the end of year 12 they get the choice whether too go to university or not so make them get the most of there education while its there.
A Hurricane is the worst storm

Four Resources. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... Inside these resources, you will see hurricanes, typhoons, and cyclones that happened this year. There will be another storm across Florida named Bret. You are trying to prove that tornadoes are worse than hurricanes. Wrong. If you look at the wave of typhoons in the west pacific. The 11 typhoons that happened killed 103 people. And this year, and 1149 tornadoes (means that a tornado kills less than 1 person in average) just killing only 546 people (it said it on your resources). Total damage from the 11 hurricanes: $301 mil (Average of $27363637 per hurricane); Total damage from 1149 tornadoes: $20-$25 billion (Average of $17406440-$21758050 per tornado).
A Hurricane is the worst storm

All hes done is explain the attributes of a hurricane, but he still hasn't explained how they're worse than the rest of the storms. A tornado is the wort storm. For proof just look at the recent wave of tornadoes that have killed 559 people world-wid this year so far alone, and 20-25 billion in damage. This is clearly worse than a hurricane as my Opponent has described it.Source:http://en.wikipedia.org...;
A Hurricane is the worst storm

Hurricanes injure more people than killing people. There is two hurricanes happening right now. One is over California, and one is over the Caribbean. The one over California is named Adrian, and the one over the Caribbean is named Bret. I said the eye WALL contains tornadoes. One book about hurricanes say that it is the worst storm (not kidding). Plus, hurricanes usually appear in storm seasons like today. In the Northern Hemisphere, May to November. In the Southern Hemisphere, November to May. Hurricanes got rainfall of 6-12 inches with wind speed over 74mph. The eye is only 15mph with a clear sky. Right now, meteorologists predict hurricane Bret will be worse than Andrew (not kidding). Hurricanes are lower wind speed but produce a lot of heavy rain depends on how big it is, so hurricanes are worse than tornadoes.
U.S. presidential primaries should be held on the same day in every state.

Unfortunately, my opponent never provided us with any original arguments, so I am without anything to refute. Having said that, I am still able to make my own argument: Argument: Having the primaries in every state is something we should employ. We should do this because it would increase voter turnout. As it stands now, as it becomes obvious as to whom is going to win each party's respective nomination, people in states that vote later will be less likely to vote because they see it as a waste of time. On the other hand, if each state were to vote on the same day, the future of the nomination would be more in doubt, making it more likely for turnout being higher. Higher turnout ensures that our system of government remains strong, keeping us out of chaos.
U.S. presidential primaries should be held on the same day in every state.

Argument 1: Underfunded Campaigns of Small Candidates A national primary would give a huge advantage to better-known, better-funded candidates since only they would be able to finance the expensive advertising and large campaign operation needed to run a national "get out the vote" effort in all states. Lesser-known candidates without extensive campaign operations would not have an opportunity to reach out to voters in retail-style fashion and build support. Moreover, densely populated states with higher delegate counts would become the dominant focus of the campaigns and the media. In addition, political parties would have little control over the selection of their eventual nominee, and state party leaders would no longer have the flexibility to set their primary or caucus dates according to state-specific considerations, such as redistricting issues, state holidays, or other state and local elections. In 2008, at least 24 states held a primary on February 5, resulting in what was essentially a de facto national primary. Super Tuesday became Tsunami Tuesday. The situation was so bad for overwhelmed campaigns, party leaders, and election officials that the two parties worked together to ensure their rules for 2012 would help avoid a repeat.
global warming

I would not say that global warming is the BIGGEST threat to our planet. There are other issues in our world that pose larger threats. Terrorism is something that every country fears simply because of the impact it has had on societies in recent years. Global warming has not had as major an effect on countries and though a slight problem, will not have any major effect on our planet for hundreds of years. For now, we do not have the technology eliminate global warming, and we will not have the technology to do so for many years, so it is pointless to worry about something we cannot control now when there are much larger threats to our world now that we can deal with.
global warming

Okay... In regards to how we should improve our living conditions, we SHOULD be trying to use less greenhouse gasses and moving towards more reusable energy. We are currently in a stage of moving towards more reusable energy but it is expensive, and when we are faced with potential nuclear warfare, reusable energy is not the priority. If nuclear warfare were to break out, there would not be a human race left for global warming to effect. That being said, we cannot consider global warming to be the biggest threat to the world.
Jesus Christ never existed.

The evidence of Pliny and Tacitus has been called into question. As for the livescience, it says the Bible is the most reliable source. In fact, your own livescience link shows the problem with the wood chips. "In brief, if all the pieces that could be found were collected together, they would make a big shipload. Yet the Gospel testifies that a single man was able to carry it. "" My problem with the Bible, is that there is so many extraordinary stories, that it makes it hard to figure out if there is any credibility at all. Jonah and the whale, turning water into wine, walking on water, parting the red sea, a virgin birth, resurrection, and so forth. To boot, the bible has been translated a bunch of times. It took 1,600 years to write the Bible. [2]I just can't see the Bible as a historically accurate piece of literature. Then, some of the historical facts of the bible have been disproved, like the exodus from Egypt. "Similarly, although some of the events in both the Old and New Testaments are recorded in history, the Biblical writers make a hash of it. Historians generally believe that there was no exodus of Jewish slaves out of Egypt as described in the Bible, " [3]Impact, the Bible credibility seems questionable at best. Sources.0. . http://www.truthbeknown.com...1. . http://www.deism.com...2. . http://www.statisticbrain.com...3. . https://evaluatingchristianity.wordpress.com...
Jesus Christ never existed.

Thank you for making this argument.DocumentationI will argue that Jesus has existed! Jesus existed because there was many documents from the Roman government that showed his existence (http://www.bethinking.org...) and pieces of his crucifix were recovered (http://www.livescience.com...). There is a lot of evidence that shows he did exist, but I will say, not documented evidence he was the son of god (But I am a Christian myself, and I will admit).
Jesus Christ never existed.

Documentation You did not refute the Roman documents that was in the sources. I also did admit in the last round that some stories of the Bible aren't very credible (but I believe they are fables for learning). I think the problem with your argument is that you kept tackling the Bible too much because there was other pieces of evidence in the other sources. I won't make statements for the next arguments you made because they only repreat what I admitted. Thank you for your arguments!
Deism

Greetings! I will be taking the position that Deism is more reasonable than any religion or irreligion. My opponent will contest my Deistic beliefs and support his own. He or she can be either religious or non-religious. Deism will be defined as this: The belief in an inpersonal creator of the universe. The debate will be 5 rounds, with an 8000 character limit. The standard DDO rules apply. I only wish for someone who has done more than a few debates to accept the challenge. If you can't currently accept, then comment and I'll change it so you can. The reason I want a more experienced debater is because I'm tired of debating people that get off DDO mid-debate and don't return. I look forward to a great debate!
Deism

As i said earlier, i accepted you definition as long as what you meant by everything was everything observable. For example, here is the Merriam Webster definition of universe: the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated: cosmos. (1) Going by this definition, it then makes perfect sense that something unobservable could have started our observable universe. It also makes sense that things could exist outside of before of our universe, as they may simply be unobservable to us. I hope this clears up the misunderstanding. 1. http://i.word.com...
I'm a better debater than lol101

Proportions, my dear friend. Proportions. Your ratio of winning to losing is 1:5. His win/lose ratio is 28:12, or 7:4. Therefore, he has technically lost less debates than you. Forfeits are part of conduct, or rather, a lack of it. Many times, when someone forfeits in a debate, someone will just vote on conduct because of the forfeit. If you want to accuse lol101 of being impolite, by all means do so. By the way, lol101, I don't personally think you are a impolite. It's just easier to win by saying you are.
PETA has done more harm then good (Read full res. below)

"Resolved: On balance, PETA (the US non-profit organization known as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) has done more desruction to the well being of all living things than positive impacts" I negate. I promise NOT to get banned during this debate. And SOMEONE take the challenge, I've never lost a PETA debate (IRL and DDO and NFL) without conditional forfeit, so whoever can do it will be a record holder. Rules: -My opponent cannot be InfraRedEd -Stick to the resolution -Address both sides of the resolution -Place arguments in Contention format (Claim, Warrant, Impact) -I'll let the Aff propose framework (definitions & observations) but if it is abusive I will decline it and propose my own (aka, don't present biased or B.S. defintions) I will spare my initial arguments for the time being, the affirmative will present its constructive at this time. Good luck and thanks to accepting this debate. Don't forfeit any rounds so we can keep this debate popular! As for everyone else, click "like" on this debate!
PETA has done more harm then good (Read full res. below)

Mmkay. He said Animals = Meat. This is not true because: 1) Though animals can be turned into meat, they are not meat. Think of it as a circle inside a circle: All meat are animals but not all animals are meat. 2) EVEN if he were correct, this makes no correlation or even point in the debate whatsoever, since we are debating about PETA 3) This is a new argument, if you can even call it an argument 4) He does not provide any tangible or implied warrant or impact. In fact, his claim is also false, meaning that the AFF basically just submitted a blank text block Please vote for me, since my opponent made no argument. And opponent, please stop accepting debates.
PETA has done more harm then good (Read full res. below)

At this point in the round, the Negative is winning. My opponent has not made any arguments whatsoever, in fact, he has said absolutely nothing that is correlated with the resolution. My opponent lists a link to a strange animal, which, again, has nothing to do with this debate. As interesting as this animal may be, it doesn't explain your constructive for you, so I'll wait one more round for you to (hopefully) post a real one.
God Does exist!

Earth is the only place where there is life as far as we know, so we've been observing the universe quite enough to assume we're alone.So now you go to " Only place where life is" to Only place we know.". Life has been found in metoarites. So that is false.http://en.wikipedia.org...http://upload.wikimedia.org...Well I didn't claim water came from nowhere, but that we don't know where it came from, that's why I put the question mark. It still had to come from somewhere at least outside our galaxy , to make life even possible in the right place!What? There is multiple theories on how water got on Earth. Most of them take place on Earth.http://en.wikipedia.org...Evolution (if true at all) depended on a serie of accidents to occur before it -if you assume there is no God- and evolution, too ,opens a lot of whys: Why have the inteligent responsible being was possible only through one kind ?! And evolution or ( Common Descent specifically) isn't a verifiable truth so far - and this is off-topic anyway. Yes. It is off topic.Still evolution , dear CON depends on an important point: Life. How did life come from no life? don't we still have all the ingredients to eventually be able to generate it? or, better, for it to be natural to occur with no help?! and incredibly we try to CAUSE it, just as much as we try to CAUSE the big Bang, because it just seems that this is what we need to do in order to believe there is no CAUSER!!Can you prove your case and just say random stuff?Because we aren't able to claim that : Big bang , universe rules , Water , life, evolution (eventually), and other phenomenons happened spontaneously , without causer , we are obliged to assume there is a Knowledgeable causer behind all this, and let me call him ? oh yeah GOD or Creator if you prefer. Can you prove god did this?That's what I was trying to tell when I came up with the worst police officer joke, there is a causer, until you prove these are just a series of happy accidents (by chance !) . You accuse me of making fallacies, you're invited to point them out. First off, you didn't prove you case. Alsohttp://www.nizkor.org...;
God Does exist!

Con :Earth is the only place where there is no life? That's news to me. Water also did not "come from nowhere.". Earth is the only place where there is life as far as we know, so we've been observing the universe quite enough to assume we're alone. Well I didn't claim water came from nowhere, but that we don't know where it came from, that's why I put the question mark. It still had to come from somewhere at least outside our galaxy , to make life even possible in the right place!Con! : Yes. But Evolution isn't random So the only thing you believe isn't an accident is evolution ?! Evolution (if true at all) depended on a serie of accidents to occur before it -if you assume there is no God- and evolution, too ,opens a lot of whys: Why have the inteligent responsible being was possible only through one kind ?! And evolution or ( Common Descent specifically) isn't a verifiable truth so far - and this is off-topic anyway. Still evolution , dear CON depends on an important point: Life. How did life come from no life? don't we still have all the ingredients to eventually be able to generate it? or, better, for it to be natural to occur with no help?! and incredibly we try to CAUSE it, just as much as we try to CAUSE the big Bang, because it just seems that this is what we need to do in order to believe there is no CAUSER!! CON: There a good chance there is . Why you say this? I don't believe in chance, who or what is it? Is there also a good chance there is a God ?! CON: Pro failed to prove her case. She had the BOP and just made fallaices. Because we aren't able to claim that : Big bang , universe rules , Water , life, evolution (eventually), and other phenomenons happened spontaneously , without causer , we are obliged to assume there is a Knowledgeable causer behind all this, and let me call him ? oh yeah GOD or Creator if you prefer. So I basically proved that it is a legitimate assumption.And this assumption is to be an axiom , that can be proven wrong the day we'll see BigBangs , well set multiverse rules, life ingredients, poping into life all the time spontaneously with no help, like grown ups ! That's what I was trying to tell when I came up with the worst police officer joke, there is a causer, until you prove these are just a series of happy accidents (by chance !) . You accuse me of making fallacies, you're invited to point them out. http://en.wikipedia.org...; http://www.livescience.com...; http://www.nbcnews.com...
God Does exist!

everything in it has a beginning and an end and an explanation. This can be debated. Let us go to the most exciting part of the universe : Earth , the planet of life , that happens to be the only place where life is , and enough oxygen is , and life needs water , and water came from nowhere ?! Earth is the only place where there is no life? That's news to me. Water also did not "come from nowhere.". But let me think a moment , all this is just a serie of accidents ? one after the other ?Yes. But Evolution isn't random. so perfectly set ? there in no causer ? no creator? Yes. There really is nothing I can say. then why aren't there earths with other lives ? There a good chance there is.why aren't there other accidents that we can witness ? even the worst police officer would assume there is a causer. What?Pro failed to prove her case. She had the BOP and just made fallaices.
God Does exist!

Thank you Con!I start with a description of the universe we're talking about here:The universe is this place where everything works according to well set rules , the stars and planets have set orbits , the gravity helps holding everything together, everything in it has a beginning and an end and an explanation.Let us go to the most exciting part of the universe : Earth , the planet of life , that happens to be the only place where life is , and enough oxygen is , and life needs water , and water came from nowhere ?! With water we had all these creatures and plants, whether we beleive in comon decent or multi descent , there still are countless kinds ,all made of water, but only one of them is responsible ?!The human being , a special being , that dominated earth , that have been given inteligence , speach , and abilities that were not given to any other animal.This being is the only one that have been able to study some of the rules pre-set in the universe with his given intelligence. But let me think a moment , all this is just a serie of accidents ? one after the other ? so perfectly set ? there in no causer ? no creator? then why aren't there earths with other lives ? why aren't there other accidents that we can witness ? even the worst police officer would assume there is a causer.Some atheists argue that if something has a natural explanation than it doesn't need a causer !! I don't know if I have to answer this although it is so ridiculous? but If Con insists I would. http://www.scientificamerican.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org...; http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com...; http://curious.astro.cornell.edu...
God Does exist!

Under the terms of the Religious Debate Tournament , my opponent and I will debate "God does exist" . I will be the one proving you this truth, and Con will prove the opposite or refute my arguments.Definition : God is the entity responsible for the existence of the universe, and has the following attributes at least: free will , ability to do anythig including starting or ending a universe, all knowledgeable, All wise. So this round my opponent accepts the challenge, and I start my arguments in round 2.
LGBTQA Rights

I would also like to apologize for the late response, I do not go on this site over the weekend. I do believe in the existence of the Christian God. Although I believe in the Christian God, I do not believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. I read the Bible more openly and take it more as a guideline for life rather than a literal account of the past. As for Homosexuality in the Bible. It says that "The sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality". is contrary to sound doctrine. "(1 Timothy 1:10). This is showing that Homosexuality is not something that should be partaken in. However, the punishment that were given in Leviticus 20:13 was made void when Jesus gave his life on the cross, along with the other things banned in Leviticus (Seafood, touching dead pigs, etc. ). These things, as show in these verses, were made null, John 1:16-17, Acts 13:39, Romans 2:25-29, 8:1-4, 1 Corinthians 9:19-21, Galatians 2:15-16, Ephesians 2:15. We shouldn't persecute Homosexuals. Jesus did not teach bigotry and hatred. Jesus taught us to show compassion regardless of sin. "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. " (John 6:37)